Chilcott where did it go WTF. The memory hole and disappearing narratives.

The Chilcott report WMD´s 2 million dead, Gateway war to the Middle East and North African Mayhem or Article 50 and Brexit, which is mostly considered in Media Narratives? Is there a pattern here? do inconvenient truth´s for Elites get memory-holed or manipulated into the long grass of oblivion?
Do some searches and look at the viewer stats on Wikipedia History pages.

 

MONEY CREATION, MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN ARTICLE 50. THE NATURE OF POWER (FOLLOW THE MONEY.)

I did some google searches the other day. Article 50 versus the Chilcott Report.
Article 50 had something like 500 million hits and the Chilcott report a mere 6 million or so.
Money Sex and debt did very well literally billions of hits but money creation? a mere 8.5 million hits.
The causes of things, follow the money.

https://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/03/money-creation-much-more-important-than.html

Advertisements

EU Propaganda Red Pill. Tony Benn Speaks, Lazarus post.

 
 
 
 
 
 
Roger Lewis
8 mins · 

 · 

Tony Benn – EU Referendum – EU Empire – Democracy – Brexit https://t.co/fVRk5bf4Yc via @YouTube

 

 

Tony Benn on the EU “I can think of no body of men outside the Kremlin who have so much power without a shred of accountability for what they do” On Thursday…
YOUTU.BE/NWNPBEMMSNW

 

Like

Comment

Comments
Roger Lewis

Roger Lewis I tried to share this earlier, I had to go and get it off You Tube and link to it directly. Left or Right, Tony´s arguments against the EU are essentially to do with participation and subsidiarity and accountability of CIvil Servants and politicians to Citizens ( or Subjects if you are British,m Swedish, Dutch . There is another video which I suspect I would have no problem sharing as much as I liked, some chap stood up with Verhofsted at his side at the EU Parliament. I am more than happy to listen to all arguments from all sides of this question but lets get a metric for Democracy and Tony´s are the best I think I have seen.

Tony Benn once said this
“The House will forgive me for quoting five democratic questions that I have developed during my life. If one meets a powerful person–Rupert Murdoch, perhaps, or Joe Stalin or Hitler–one can ask five questions: what power do you have; where did you get it; in whose interests do you exercise it; to whom are you accountable; and, how can we get rid of you? Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system.”
Tony Benn Commons Hansard [16 Nov 1998: Column 685] Volume 319 Debate on: European Parliamentary Elections Bill , from 7.20 pm

So the gentleman in that other video mentions We can not tell people why Europe is ( insert superlative) This is a Blog I did about Geo-Political Real Politik.

Quiggleys words.p.232 tragedy and Hope.
´´but criticism should have been directed rather at the hypocrisy and lack
of realism in the ideals of the wartime propaganda and at the lack of honesty of the chief negotiators in carrying on the pretense that these ideals were still in effect while they violated them daily, and necessarily violated them. The settlements were clearly made by secret negotiations, by the Great Powers exclusively, and by power politics. They had to be. No settlements could ever have been made on any other bases. The failure of the chief negotiators (at least the Anglo-Americans) to admit this is regrettable, but behind their
reluctance to admit it is the even more regrettable fact that the lack of political experience and political education of the American and English electorates made it dangerous for the negotiators to admit the facts of life in international political relationships.”

https://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/…/catch…

Catch Up Democracy! PC

Roger Lewis 27 mins  ·  http://www.ecfr.eu/…/the_world_according_to_europes_insurge… This is well worth…
LETTHEMCONFECTSWEETERLIES.BLOGSPOT.COM

 

 

Memory Hole Series, Brought to you by Lazarus Blog.

The Phoenix Program – Douglas Valentine
The Lords of Creation – Frederick Lewis Allen
Blowback – Christopher Simpson
Underground to Palestine – I.F.Stone
Hidden History of the Korean War – I.F.Stone
DuPont Dynasty, Behind the Nylon Curtain – Gerard Colby


Abby Martin speaks with NYU media studies professor, Mark Crispin Miller, about five historical books that have been actively suppressed and hidden from the American public.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/2338-orwell-rolls-in-his-grave


By Thom HartmannTruthout | Review
As a member in good standing of the media, I watched “Orwell Rolls in His Grave” with a wince and a feeling of intense deja vu.

The essence of this documentary is that our media doesn’t tell us the entire story when that story doesn’t work to the benefit of the folks in power. And it’s true. As Michael Moore points out in the movie, the old Soviet Politburo had more turnover than our Congress does with our bought-and-paid “elections.”
I remember back in 1972 or thereabouts

Get the original DVD of this ground-breaking documentary here – http://www.orwellrollsinhisgrave.com/Category News & Politics License Standard YouTube License

Money Creation, Much more important than Article 50. The Nature of Power (follow the money.)

I did some google searches the other day. Article 50 versus the Chilcott Report.
Article 50 had something like 500 million hits and the Chilcott report a mere 6 million or so.
Money Sex and debt did very well literally billions of hits but money creation? a mere 8.5 million hits.
The causes of things, follow the money.



APHORISM, n. Predigested wisdom.

    The flabby wine-skin of his brain
    Yields to some pathologic strain,
    And voids from its unstored abysm
    The driblet of an aphorism.
                                           "The Mad Philosopher," 1697

 

This definition is from The Devil’s Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce, published in 1911.

 

 

 

Federal Reserve quotes[edit]

   The Rothschilds
   "The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from its profits or so dependant on its favors, 
   that there will be no opposition from that class." -- Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863
 "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws" -- Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
Senators & Congressmen:
    "Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal
    Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United
    States" -- Sen. Barry Goldwater (Rep. AZ)
   "This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President
   [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....
   the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill." 
   -- Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. , 1913
   "From now on, depressions will be scientifically created." -- Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. , 1913
   "The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board asministers the finance system by authority
   of  a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits
   from the use of other people's money" -- Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., 1923
   "The Federal Reserve bank buys government bonds without one penny..." 
   -- Congressman Wright Patman, Congressional Record, Sept 30, 1941
“We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it”. — Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932 (Rep. Pa)
   "The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen.
   There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the
   International bankers -- Congressman Louis T. McFadden (Rep. Pa)
   "Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are the United States government's institutions.
   They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people
   of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign swindlers" -- Congressional
   Record 12595-12603 -- Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency (12 years) June 10, 1932
“I have never seen more Senators express discontent with their jobs….I think the major cause is that, deep down in our hearts, we have been accomplices in doing something terrible and unforgiveable to our wonderful country. Deep down in our heart, we know that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected.” — John Danforth (R-Mo)
“These 12 corporations together cover the whole country and monopolize and use for private gain every dollar of the public currency…” — Mr. Crozier of Cincinnati, before Senate Banking and Currency Committee – 1913
“The [Federal Reserve Act] as it stands seems to me to open the way to a vast inflation of the currency… I do not like to think that any law can be passed that will make it possible to submerge the gold standard in a flood of irredeemable paper currency.” — Henry Cabot Lodge Sr., 1913
From the Federal Reserves Own Admissions: “When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in out account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money.” — Putting it simply, Boston Federal Reserve Bank
“Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities, intrinsically, a ‘dollar’ bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries.” — Modern Money Mechanics Workbook, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1975
“The Federal Reserve system pays the U.S. Treasury 020.60 per thousand notes –a little over 2 cents each– without regard to the face value of the note. Federal Reserve Notes, incidently, are the only type of currency now produced for circulation. They are printed exclusively by the Treasury’s Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and the $20.60 per thousand price reflects the Bureau’s full cost of production. Federal Reserve Notes are printed in 01, 02, 05, 10, 20, 50, and 100 dollar denominations only; notes of 500, 1000, 5000, and 10,000 denominations were last printed in 1945.” –Donald J. Winn, Assistant to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system
“We are completely dependant on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system…. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon.” –Robert H. Hamphill, Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank
From General Law: “The entire taxing and monetary systems are hereby placed under the U.C.C. (Uniform Commercial Code)” — The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966
“There is a distinction between a ‘debt discharged’ and a debt ‘paid’. When discharged, the debt still exists though divested of it’s charter as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge, something of the original vitality of the debt continues to exist, which may be transferred, even though the transferee takes it subject to it’s disability incident to the discharge.” –Stanek vs. White, 172 Minn.390, 215 N.W. 784
“The Federal Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities…” — Lewis vs. United States 9th Circuit 1992
“The regional Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies. …but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.” — Lewis vs. United States, 680 F. 2d 1239 9th Circuit 1982
Past Presidents, not including the Founding Fathers
“Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.” — James A. Garfield, President of the United States
   "A great industrial nation is controlled by it's system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated
   in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely
   controlled and dominated governments in the world--no longer a government of free opinion, no
   longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and
   duress of small groups of dominant men." --President Woodrow Wilson
Founding Father’s Quotes on Banking (May contain some repeats from “Founding Father’s Quotes” / Information tends to converge)
Thomas Jefferson: “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.”–Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President.
Andrew Jackson:
“If Congress has the right [it doesn’t] to issue paper money [currency], it was given to them to be used by…[the government] and not to be delegated to individuals or corporations” — President Andrew Jackson, Vetoed Bank Bill of 1836
James Madison: “History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it’s issuance”. — James Madison Misc. Sources “Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment out of nothing” — Ralph M. Hawtrey, Secretary of the British Treasury
“To expose a 15 Trillion dollar ripoff of the American people by the stockholders of the 1000 largest corporations over the last 100 years will be a tall order of business.” — Buckminster Fuller
“Every Congressman, every Senator knows precisely what causes inflation…but can’t, [won’t] support the drastic reforms to stop it [repeal of the Federal Reserve Act] because it could cost him his job.” — Robert A. Heinlein, Expanded Universe
“It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” — Henry Ford
“[Every circulating FRN] represents a one dollar debt to the Federal Reserve system.” — Money Facts, House Banking and Currency Committee
“…the increase in the assets of the Federal Reserve banks from 143 million dollars in 1913 to 45 billion dollars in 1949 went directly to the private stockholders of the [federal reserve] banks.” — Eustace Mullins
“As soon as Mr. Roosevelt took office, the Federal Reserve began to buy government securities at the rate of ten million dollars a week for 10 weeks, and created one hundred million dollars in new [checkbook] currency, which alleviated the critical famine of money and credit, and the factories started hiring people again.” — Eustace Mullins
“Should government refrain from regulation (taxation), the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent and the fraud can no longer be concealed.” — John Maynard Keynes, “Consequences of Peace.”
   "Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from
    them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough
    deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will
    disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you
    wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create
    deposits".- SIR JOSIAH STAMP,(President of the Bank of England in the 1920's, the second richest man in Britain):
    "The modern Banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process
    is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banks can in fact inflate,
    mint and unmint the modern ledger-entry currency".- MAJOR L .L. B. ANGUS:
 "While boasting of our noble deeds were careful to conceal the ugly fact that by an
    iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not
    less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery. - Horace Greeley
    "People who will not turn a shovel full of dirt on the project (Muscle Shoals Dam)
    nor contribute a pound of material, will collect more money from the United States than will the People
    who supply all the material and do all the work. This is the terrible thing about interest ...But here is the
    point: If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond
    good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money
    broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an addi- tional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest
    sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to
    say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the
    usurer and the other helps the People. If the currency issued by the People were no good, then the bonds
    would be no good, either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to insure the National Wealth,
    must go in debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious value
    of gold. Interest is the invention of Satan". - THOMAS A. EDISON
“By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.”–John Maynard Keynes (the father of ‘Keynesian Economics’ which our nation now endures) in his book “THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE PEACE” (1920).
“Capital must protect itself in every way…Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the central power of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capitalism to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd.”– Taken from the Civil Servants’ Year Book, “The Organizer” January 1934.
“The Federal Reserve banks, while not part of the government,…” — United States budget for 1991 and 1992 part 7, page 10
The Money Power! It is the greatest power on earth; and it is arrayed against Labour. No other power that is or ever was can be named with it…it attacks us through the Press – a monster with a thousand lying tongues, a beast surpassing in foulness any conceived by the mythology that invented dragons, were wolves, harpies, ghouls and vampires. It thunders against us from innumerable platforms and pulpits. The mystic machinery of the churches it turns into an engine of wrath for our destruction. Yes, so far as we are concerned, the headquarters of the Money Power is Britain. But the Money Power is not a British institution; it is cosmopolitan. It is of no nationality, but of all nationalities. It dominates the world. The Money Power has corrupted the faculties of the human soul, and tampered with the sanity of the human intellect… Editorial from 1907 edition of The Brisbane Worker (Australia)
…I am convinced that the agreement [Bretton Woods] will enthrone a world dictatorship of private finance more complete and terrible than and Hitlerite dream. It offers no solution of world problems, but quite blatantly sets up controls which will reduce the smaller nations to vassal states and make every government the mouthpiece and tool of International Finance. It will undermine and destroy the democratic institutions of this country – in fact as effectively as ever the Fascist forces could have done – pervert and paganise our Christian ideals; and will undoubtedly present a new menace, endangering world peace. World collaboration of private financial interests can only mean mass unemployment, slavery, misery, degredation and financial destruction. Therefore, as freedom loving Australians we should reject this infamous proposal. — Labor Minister of Australia, Eddie Ward, during the inception of the World Bank and Bretton Woods, he gave this warning.

For why the whole money question is so important I recommend this Dialogue.

https://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2016/08/neo-liberalism-billy-no-mates-or-just.html

Memory Hole, Project Censored, Free Speech. Communication Management Units. Gagging Prisons.

http://projectcensored.org/21-little-guantanamos-secretive-communication-management-units-us/

https://embed.ted.com/talks/will_potter_the_secret_us_prisons_you_ve_never_heard_of_before

0:12Father Daniel Berrigan once said that “writing about prisoners is a little like writing about the dead.” I think what he meant is that we treat prisoners as ghosts. They’re unseen and unheard. It’s easy to simply ignore them and it’s even easier when the government goes to great lengths to keep them hidden.
0:30As a journalist, I think these stories of what people in power do when no one is watching, are precisely the stories that we need to tell. That’s why I began investigating the most secretive and experimental prison units in the United States, for so-called “second-tier” terrorists. The government calls these units Communications Management Units or CMUs. Prisoners and guards call them “Little Guantanamo.” They are islands unto themselves. But unlike Gitmo they exist right here, at home, floating within larger federal prisons.
1:08There are 2 CMUs. One was opened inside the prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, and the other is inside this prison, in Marion, Illinois. Neither of them underwent the formal review process that is required by law when they were opened. CMU prisoners have all been convicted of crimes. Some of their cases are questionable and some involve threats and violence. I’m not here to argue the guilt or innocence of any prisoner. I’m here because as Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall said, “When the prisons and gates slam shut, prisoners do not lose their human quality.”
1:45Every prisoner I’ve interviewed has said there are three flecks of light in the darkness of prison: phone calls, letters and visits from family. CMUs aren’t solitary confinement, but they radically restrict all of theseto levels that meet or exceed the most extreme prisons in the United States. Their phone calls can be limited to 45 minutes a month, compared to the 300 minutes other prisoners receive. Their letters can be limited to six pieces of paper. Their visits can be limited to four hours per month, compared to the 35 hours that people like Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph receive in the supermax. On top of that, CMU visits are non-contact which means prisoners are not allowed to even hug their family. As one CMU prisoner said, “We’re not being tortured here, except psychologically.”
2:41The government won’t say who is imprisoned here. But through court documents, open records requestsand interviews with current and former prisoners, some small windows into the CMUs have opened.
2:55There’s an estimated 60 to 70 prisoners here, and they’re overwhelmingly Muslim. They include people like Dr. Rafil Dhafir, who violated the economic sanctions on Iraq by sending medical supplies for the children there. They’ve included people like Yassin Aref. Aref and his family fled to New York from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as refugees. He was arrested in 2004 as part of an FBI sting. Aref is an imam and he was asked to bear witness to a loan, which is a tradition in Islamic culture. It turned out that one of the people involved in the loan was trying to enlist someone else in a fake attack. Aref didn’t know. For that, he was convicted of conspiracy to provide material support to a terrorist group.
3:45The CMUs also include some non-Muslim prisoners. The guards call them “balancers,” meaning they help balance out the racial numbers, in hopes of deflecting law suits. These balancers include animal rights and environmental activists like Daniel McGowan.
4:02McGowan was convicted of participating in two arsons in the name of defending the environment as part of the Earth Liberation Front. During his sentencing, he was afraid that he would be sent to a rumored secret prison for terrorists. The judge dismissed all those fears, saying that they weren’t supported by any facts. But that might be because the government hasn’t fully explained why some prisoners end up in a CMU, and who is responsible for these decisions. When McGowan was transferred, he was told it’s because he is a “domestic terrorist,” a term the FBI uses repeatedly when talking about environmental activists. Now, keep in mind there are about 400 prisoners in US prisons who are classified as terrorists,and only a handful of them are in the CMUs. In McGowan’s case, he was previously at a low-security prison and he had no communications violations.
4:58So, why was he moved? Like other CMU prisoners, McGowan repeatedly asked for an answer, a hearing,or some opportunity for an appeal. This example from another prisoner shows how those requests are viewed. “Wants a transfer.” “Told him no.” At one point, the prison warden himself recommended McGowan’s transfer out of the CMU citing his good behavior, but the warden was overruled by the Bureau of Prison’s Counterterrorism Unit, working with the Joint Terrorism Task Force of the FBI.
5:34Later I found out that McGowan was really sent to a CMU not because of what he did, but what he has said. A memo from the Counterterrorism Unit cited McGowan’s “anti-government beliefs.” While imprisoned, he continued writing about environmental issues, saying that activists must reflect on their mistakes and listen to each other. Now, in fairness, if you’ve spent any time at all in Washington, DC, you know this is really a radical concept for the government.
6:03(Laughter)
6:05I actually asked to visit McGowan in the CMU. And I was approved. That came as quite a shock. First, because as I’ve discussed on this stage before, I learned that the FBI has been monitoring my work.Second, because it would make me the first and only journalist to visit a CMU. I had even learnedthrough the Bureau of Prisons Counterterrorism Unit, that they had been monitoring my speeches about CMUs, like this one. So how could I possibly be approved to visit? A few days before I went out to the prison, I got an answer.
6:47I was allowed to visit McGowan as a friend, not a journalist. Journalists are not allowed here. McGowan was told by CMU officials that if I asked any questions or published any story, that he would be punished for my reporting. When I arrived for our visit, the guards reminded me that they knew who I was and knew about my work. And they said that if I attempted to interview McGowan, the visit would be terminated.The Bureau of Prisons describes CMUs as “self-contained housing units.” But I think that’s an Orwellian way of describing black holes. When you visit a CMU, you go through all the security checkpoints that you would expect. But then the walk to the visitation room is silent. When a CMU prisoner has a visit, the rest of the prison is on lockdown. I was ushered into a small room, so small my outstretched arms could touch each wall. There was a grapefruit-sized orb in the ceiling for the visit to be live-monitored by the Counterterrorism Unit in West Virginia. The unit insists that all the visits have to be in English for CMU prisoners, which is an additional hardship for many of the Muslim families. There is a thick sheet of foggy, bulletproof glass and on the other side was Daniel McGowan. We spoke through these handsets attached to the wall and talked about books and movies. We did our best to find reasons to laugh. To fight boredom and amuse himself while in the CMU, McGowan had been spreading a rumor that I was secretly the president of a Twilight fan club in Washington, DC
8:26(Laughter)
8:28For the record, I’m not.
8:31(Laughter) But I kind of the hope the FBI now thinks that Bella and Edward are terrorist code names.
8:38(Laughter)
8:41During our visit, McGowan spoke most and at length about his niece Lily, his wife Jenny and how torturous it feels to never be able to hug them, to never be able to hold their hands. Three months after our visit, McGowan was transferred out of the CMU and then, without warning, he was sent back again. I had published leaked CMU documents on my website and the Counterterrorism Unit said that McGowan had called his wife and asked her to mail them. He wanted to see what the government was saying about him, and for that he was sent back to the CMU. When he was finally released at the end of his sentence,his story got even more Kafkaesque. He wrote an article for the Huffington Post headlined, “Court Documents Prove I was Sent to a CMU for my Political Speech.”
9:33The next day he was thrown back in jail for his political speech. His attorneys quickly secured his release,but the message was very clear: Don’t talk about this place.
9:47Today, nine years after they were opened by the Bush administration, the government is codifying how and why CMUs were created. According to the Bureau of Prisons, they are for prisoners with “inspirational significance.” I think that is very nice way of saying these are political prisons for political prisoners.
10:09Prisoners are sent to a CMU because of their race, their religion or their political beliefs.
10:15Now, if you think that characterization is too strong, just look at some of the government’s own documents. When some of McGowan’s mail was rejected by the CMU, the sender was told it’s because the letters were intended “for political prisoners.” When another prisoner, animal rights activist Andy Stepanian, was sent to a CMU, it was because of his anti-government and anti-corporate views.
10:40Now, I know all of this may be hard to believe, that it’s happening right now, and in the United States. But the unknown reality is that the US has a dark history of disproportionately punishing people because of their political beliefs. In the 1960s, before Marion was home to the CMU, it was home to the notorious Control Unit. Prisoners were locked down in solitary for 22 hours a day. The warden said the unit was to “control revolutionary attitudes.” In the 1980s, another experiment called the Lexington High Security Unitheld women connected to the Weather Underground, Black Liberation and Puerto Rican independent struggles. The prison radically restricted communication and used sleep deprivation, and constant light for so-called “ideological conversion.” Those prisons were eventually shut down, but only through the campaigning of religious groups and human rights advocates, like Amnesty International.
11:47Today, civil rights lawyers with the Center for Constitutional Rights are challenging CMUs in court for depriving prisoners of their due process rights and for retaliating against them for their protected political and religious speech. Many of these documents would have never come to light without this lawsuit.
12:07The message of these groups and my message for you today is that we must bear witness to what is being done to these prisoners. Their treatment is a reflection of the values held beyond prison walls. This story is not just about prisoners. It is about us. It is about our own commitment to human rights. It is about whether we will choose to stop repeating the mistakes of our past. If we don’t listen to what Father Berrigan described as the stories of the dead, they will soon become the stories of ourselves.
12:41Thank you.
12:43(Applause)
12:50(Applause ends)
12:52Tom Rielly: I have a couple questions. When I was in high school, I learned about the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, freedom of speech, due process and about 25 other laws and rights that seem to be violated by this. How could this possibly be happening?
13:11Will Potter: I think that’s the number one question I get throughout all of my work, and the short answer is that people don’t know. I think the solution to any of these types of situations, any rights abuses, are really dependent on two things. They’re dependent on knowledge that it’s actually happening and then a means and efficacy to actually make a change. And unfortunately with these prisoners, one, people don’t know what’s happening at all and then they’re already disenfranchised populations who don’t have access to attorneys, not native English speakers. In some of these cases, they have great representation that I mentioned, but there’s just not a public awareness of what’s happening.
13:50TR: Isn’t it guaranteed in prison that you have right to council or access to council?
13:55WP: There’s a tendency in our culture to see when people have been convicted of a crime, no matter if that charge was bogus or legitimate, that whatever happens to them after that is warranted. And I think that’s a really damaging and dangerous narrative that we have, that allows these types of things to happen, as the general public just kind of turns a blind eye to it.
14:15TR: All those documents on screen were all real documents, word for word, unchanged at all, right?
14:22WP: Absolutely. I’ve actually uploaded all of them to my website. It’s willpotter.com/CMU and it’s a footnoted version of the talk, so you can see the documents for yourself without the little snippets. You can see the full version. I relied overwhelmingly on primary source documents or on primary interviews with former and current prisoners, with people that are dealing with this situation every day. And like I said, I’ve been there myself, as well.
14:46TR: You’re doing courageous work.
14:48WP: Thank you very much. Thank you all.
14:50(Applause)

Globalisation Un-Entangled. (A FOUND POEM, CIPHER OF GLOBALISM )

Cut-up technique[edit]

Cut-up technique is an extension of collage to words themselves, Tristan Tzara describes this in the Dada Manifesto:[49]

TO MAKE A DADAIST POEM
Take a newspaper.
Take some scissors.
Choose from this paper an article of the length you want to make your poem.
Cut out the article.
Next carefully cut out each of the words that makes up this article and put them all in a bag.
Shake gently.
Next take out each cutting one after the other.
Copy conscientiously in the order in which they left the bag.
The poem will resemble you.
And there you are – an infinitely original author of charming sensibility, even though unappreciated by the vulgar herd.

A TRILOGY IN FOUR PARTS.

USURY HELL´S FUEL MANS OPPRESSOR

BOURGOISE RESOLUTION AND 

GLOBALISATION UN ENTANGLED.

https://members.wetube.io/embed/6d9b6537030a0066558a24dc01ef152b4f8e868c


Show more reactio

 

 “Ages ago,” Urthred continued, “we certainly used to speak
languages.
 
 
 
Globalisation Un-Entangled.


 

”The reader of Pope, as of every author, is advised to begin by letting him say what he has to say, in his own manner to an open mind that seeks only to receive the impressions which the writer wishes to convey. First let the mind and spirit of the writer come into free, full contact with the mind and spirit of the reader, whose attitude at the first reading should be simply receptive. Such reading is the condition precedent to all true judgment of a writer’s work. All criticism that is not so grounded spreads as fog over a poet’s page. Read, reader, for yourself, without once pausing to remember what you have been told to think´´. Henry Morley.

 

 

 

the idea before it was clothed in words
heard in minds, as uttered thought
the communication of arranged ideas
Thoughts lifting mist from the poet´s page.
To set the stage, not in the round
but, to see the scene in the sphere
Which actors will the playwright lay
on the page´s narrative to steer.
Which course to meet
who to set upon the bridge
For strength of Bulls Wall Street
of Bears & onion domes upon our chart
A heroes pride found in Britannia’s isles
Monks ´´sans humilite´´ fane ease
Like Pope we find our actors
´´All, all alike, find reason on their side´´
mais par impatience de souffrir
On the present discontents, Burke opined
Putin ,Trump and Farage set courses un-entangled
Junker , Merkel, Call for straight ahead.
Few are the partisans of departed tyranny
of Globalism or Nationalism which be the tyrant?
Yet passions are deceiving someone,
so near 50 years behindhand a hero fell.
“On this day, the day of March
in my opinion´´, is the end of the
United States of America
as the land of the free
and the home of the brave.”
Eliza with Rogerian inscrutability
hears the confession of the mal-contents
A mirror held up before cosmetic application
Globalisation and Internationalism confused
despotism´s nature is to abhor any say
save that of its own momentary pleasure;
it annihilates all intermediate situations
between boundless strength on its own part,
and total debility on the part of the people.
Our education can be Our? our, government.
Our reason can be our Judge, of the rivals;

Globalism, Authority, coercion and competition.
or Nationalism, Internationalism, Cooperation.
Are we to have free will and democracy
Will we have determined authority
A struggle of ideals an ancient quarrel

Parmenides or Heraclitus navigators both

If centuries be epochs with peculiar discretion

19th, 20th, 21st a behind hand review
19th innate goodness of man, nationalism
20th Fallen man Calvinist rule, Globalism.
For the 21st partisans for patronage
Putin and the bear Nationalism
Trump and the Eagle InterNationalism
Corbyn of the uncommon people interNationalism
Farage of the common people Nationalism
Well May? You ask Globalism, Atlanticism
Within the Elysian bosom suckling Globalism on the right 
and Internationalism on the left restricted by two tits. A binary mammary conundrum, for PIIGS have many teets. On which teet will elites suckle, 
ONLY formula for the masses.
From good men and bad society, to
bad men and good society from optimism
to pessimism and from secularism
to religion. Creative destruction Globalisation?
The Simple see war is simply a football match 
conducted with cannons.wise men look 
not In  Nietzsche's Will to Power,  
but In the custom house.Says Bernard Shaw
shadows cast from secret whispers
taps on streams of digital Imprints
what oppressor does not despise
what oppression will not censor and misdirect
Secretive cabals of liberal political correctness
Self censored fearing the exile of dissent
GCHQ Nsa Kvd , hacking whose democracy
What democracy sings with the voice of explosions?
Tripartite accords of old, a Gold Standard
As Piggs Shit Brics and Lutheran Shards
profer Gaping anuses and Calvinist certainties

Divine providence and eminent domain democracy perverted.

Union now as then in ´38, current quarrels

Mr Streit’s Union and Mr Orwells Niggers
Not counting Niggers, the other´s not like us
six hundred million disenfranchised, is it more today?
Russia is brazenly refusing to learn from the EU’s
mistakes and may walk directly into its trap
How can banking union serve the tributaries of society. Pigs do not fly nor water flow up hill
Real brothers can curse each other, friends.
Someday. Britannia will give Columbia a piece of her mind, Elysium also needs telling and she is
curiously afflicted offering no teet for the eastern bear.
an exasperated Englishman: “I pray to God
they keep out of the end of this war anyhow.
We shall never hear the last of it if they don’t….”
Cabalists, Gnostics, Manichaeans, the Old Man
of the Mountains, Knight Templars, Satanists,
Rosicrucians, Illuminati, Freemasons, Rousseau,
Voltaire, Cagliostro, Madame Blavatsky, Mrs. Besant,
Trade Unions, Anarchists, Socialists, Theosophists,
Communists, Those Bolsheviks, a frightful horde
all plotting and getting hold of power and handing
it on and doing down Christianity and the Christian life

THREE FACTORS IN EVERYONE Sir Arthur Salter,

for example “Shall we never pluck the best from fate

and find the Golden Mean? Must we ever choose freedom without order, or order without freedom? Must justice and mercy bring always weakness in their train, and strength bring tyranny? Not one of the educational co-ordinators in Utopia he, or is Elysisum Bodiccea disguised.

Climate Change, political Change bedfellows both
the world’s biggest polluter, backs the Protocol
is it because they want control of emissions quotas
The imperialist philosophy behind Kyoto?
Not one of the claims contained in the Kyoto Protocol
this “scientific” theory on which they are based
have been confirmed by real facts. Extreme natural
occurrences are not becoming more frequent,
and there has been no increase in infectious diseases.
Unless one sees Globalist imperialism as infectious.

The proposals to change the current state of affairs –

included in the rejected European Constitution or

in the not much different Lisbon Treaty – would

make this defect even worse. Since there is no European demos –

and no European nation – this defect cannot be solved by

strengthening the role of the European Parliament, either

 

In practice, the existence of euro has shown that

forcing an economically disparate Europe into

a homogeneous entity through a political decision

is political engineering par excellence, far from

beneficial for all countries concerned

 

 

“Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences”
along with other “isms” such as communism, feminism, and liberalism.
Klaus said that “environmentalism is a religion” and, answering
questions of U.S. Congressmen, a “modern counterpart of communism”
that seeks to change peoples’ habits and economic systems.
Blue Planet in Green Shackles, Vaclav Klaus

 

Financial Institutions,Environmental groups Fossil fuel companies
Alternative energy companies Nuclear energy companies Traditional retailers and marketers governments might use global warming as a rationale for additional taxes
A central theme , Belief? To coalesce focus
Climate, Liberal democracy, money
Abstractions of devotion Scientism Catechism
each opinion, certain facts codified worshiped
HACKING THE FACTS, PSEUDO SCIENCE
FAKE NEWS, POST TRUTH , HERETICAL
IGNORANCE ALLOWED BLIND FAITH AND DEVOTED
TO THE PROPAGANDA ABSURD BLINDNESS
ESCHATOLOGY END TIMES PROPHESY
PROBLEM REACTION SOLUTION
SCARE THE SHIT OUT OF EM ASND KEEP EM POOR

CALVIN SAID Belloc characterised the reformation as

´´a rising of the rich against the poor´´,

´and indeed Calvin had written the unfortunate statement:

´´The people must always be kept in poverty in order that they remain obedient´´.

CONTINUITY OF GOVERNEMENT COG
COUPS NO LONGER NECESSARY OUT OF TIME ORDER OR SEQUENCE
THE DNA OF GOVENENACE SEEMS ORDAINED

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.´´

THINGS TWICE , I SAID IT ONCE
Replace “Obama” with “Hitler”, and you have the original. It’s from Milton Mayer’s classic They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45, and the words are those of a university colleague of the author, explaining “the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people.”

Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true.

What’s the good of Mercator’s North Poles and Equators,

Tropics, Zones, and Meridian Lines?”

So the Bellman would cry: and the crew would reply

They are merely conventional signs!

 

Monnet and Retinger: liberal establishment tools in the founding of Europe
The Role of Oligarchs in Russian Capitalism
Centralisation Swiss Study, contrast?
It is very rare indeed for men to be wrong in their feelings concerning public misconduct
This retrospective wisdom and historical patriotism are things of wonderful convenience, and serve admirably to reconcile the old quarrel between speculation and practice.
he represented a group which had been planning the Guidestones for 20 years, and which intended to remain anonymous
What are they? Sinister, Elephant of Hindustan.
Tool Hammer and nails Sutherland. Market obsession
most widely agreed-upon interpretation of the stones is that they describe the basic concepts required to rebuild a devastated civilisation.
Multinational companies like Google, Oracle, and Ericsson are already using information technology to help migrants and the communities that host them, and volunteers within the IT sector have founded Techfugees 

Sutherland in 2016.

With Malmstrom 2012

It is ironic – and dangerous – that Europe’s anti-immigrant sentiment is peaking just when global structural changes are fundamentally shifting migration flows.
Consider Sweden, which has transformed its immigration policy by allowing employers to identify the immigrant workers whom they need (the policy has built-in safeguards to give preference to Swedish and EU citizens)
NATo and attack industry. Security ? who´s security. Back to Spinoza? Back to Burke. Seeing a problem when his salary depends upon not seeing it. Unto this last? What is theme. Maimonides, Guide for the perplexed?? so on and so forth.
Micawber is known for asserting his faith that “something will turn up”. His name has become synonymous with someone who lives in hopeful expectation. This has formed the basis for the Micawber Principle, based upon his observation:
“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery.” – (Chapter 12)
POT KETTEL BLACK:

Deutsche Bank lords it over workers

MARCH 10, 2011

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.

I wrote to DB last week (as I am sure many people did). He got fired on Friday. Ha.
Sacco prrrrrrrrrobably doesn’t have a job anymore, though a bad AIDS joke likely won’t keep a good PR person down for too long. Sooner or later

How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

A great deal of the furniture of ancient tyranny is worn to rags; the rest is entirely out of fashion.  Besides, there are few statesmen so very clumsy and awkward in their business as to fall into the identical snare which has proved fatal to their predecessors.  When an arbitrary imposition is attempted upon the subject, undoubtedly it will not bear on its forehead the name of Ship-money
Self awareness, Transcendence, Self honesty. Loving self Donald Neal Walsh.
Today’s liberalism is an anachronism. It has no understanding, really, of what poverty is and how it has to be overcome. It has no grip whatever on what American exceptionalism
´What would love do now?´´.
At all breaking points in life there is one question to ask: what would love do now?
Love is not to retain the best of the other – but the best of your self.
‘I would define the episteme retrospectively as the strategic apparatus which permits of separating out from among all the statements which are possible those that will be acceptable within, I won’t say a scientific theory, but a field of scientificity, and which it is possible to say are true or false. The episteme is the ‘apparatus’ which makes possible the separation, not of the true from the false, but of what may from what may not be characterised as scientific.” Michel Foucault.
Materialism will have the right to proclaim itself as victorious only when the bible of materialism shall have been written,  Tolstoy.
CHARLES SANDERS PEIRCE: ´´In order toreason well …. it is absolutely necessary to possess … such virtuesas intellectual honesty and sincerity and a real love of truth (2.82). The cause [of the success of scientificinquirers] has been that the motive which has carried them to the laboratory and the field has been a craving toknow how things really were … (1-34).[Genuine inquiry consists I in diligent inquiry into truth for truth’s sake(1.44), … in actually drawing the bow upon truth withintentness in the eye, with energy in the arm (1.235). [When] it is no longer the reasoning which determineswhat the conclusion shall be, but … the conclusion which determines what the reasoning shall be … this is sham reasoning…. The effect of this shamming is that men come to look upon reasoning as mainly decorative…´´. http://web.ncf.ca/ag659/308/Peirce-Rorty-Haack.pdfPierces seminal essay How to make our ideas clear
The recent flurry of marches, demonstrations and even riots, along with the Democratic Party’s spiteful reaction to the Trump presidency, exposes what modern liberalism has become: a politics shrouded in pathos. Unlike the civil-rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s, when protesters wore their Sunday best and carried themselves with heroic dignity, today’s liberal marches are marked by incoherence and downright lunacy—hats designed to evoke sexual organs, poems that scream in anger yet have no point to make, and an hysterical anti-Americanism. All this suggests lostness, the end of something rather than the beginning. What is ending?
Convergence, Divergence Wicked problems. ???

The Class-Domination Theory of Power

As argued in Who Rules America?, the owners and top executives of the largest corporations, banks, investment firms, and agri-businesses come together as a corporate community
ITS NOT WHAT? but, Who you Know!

Questions and Answers

Q:  So, who does rule America?
A:  The owners and managers of large income-producing properties; i.e., the owners of corporations, banks, other financial institutions, and agri-businesses. But they have plenty of help from the managers and experts they hire. You can read the essential details of the argument on this site, or read the new seventh edition of Who Rules America?.
Q:  Do the same people rule at the local level that rule at the federal level?
Interlocks and Interactions Among the Power Elite

The Corporate Community, Think Tanks,Policy-Discussion Groups, and Government

by G. William Domhoff, Clifford Staples, & Adam Schneider

Diplomacy and Guns.
Bairns not bombs , Attack not defence industry.
Somebody must trespass on the taboos of modern nationalism, in the interests of human reason. Business can’t. Diplomacy won’t. It has to be people like us.” 
― Robert ByronThe Road to Oxiana

Be a craftsman in speech that thou mayest be strong, for the strength of one is the tongue, and speech is mightier than all fighting.” 
― Ptahhotep
Fake news and inconvenient truths?
Real brothers can curse each other and keep friends. Someday Britannia will give Columbia a piece of her mind, and that may clear the air. Said an exasperated Englishman to me a day or so ago: “I pray to God they keep out of the end of this war anyhow. We shall never hear the last of it if they don’t….”
Mrs. Nesta Webster
She has set herself with the greatest industry to trace and link together the long-drawn succession of Cabalists, Gnostics, Manichaeans, the Old Man of the Mountains, Knight Templars, Satanists, Rosicrucians, Illuminati, Freemasons, Rousseau, Voltaire, Cagliostro, Madame Blavatsky, Mrs. Besant, Trade Unions, Anarchists, Socialists, Theosophists, Communists, Those Bolsheviks, a frightful horde all plotting and getting hold of power and handing it on and doing down Christianity and the Christian life. Her books are written with-conviction enough to make one look under the bed at nights. She has never quite committed herself to those famous forged Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion
words.p.232 tragedy and Hope.
´´but criticism should have been directed rather at the hypocrisy and lack
of realism in the ideals of the wartime propaganda and at the lack of honesty of the chief negotiators in carrying on the pretense that these ideals were still in effect while they violated them daily, and necessarily violated them. The settlements were clearly made by secret negotiations, by the Great Powers exclusively, and by power politics. They had to be. No settlements could ever have been made on any other bases. The failure of the chief negotiators (at least the Anglo-Americans) to admit this iQuiggleyss regrettable, but behind their
reluctance to admit it is the even more regrettable fact that the lack of political experience and political education of the American and English electorates made it dangerous for the negotiators to admit the facts of life in international political relationships.”
 
Bruce Charlton PC and distraction.

Epigraph
This book is intended for normal, mainstream, secular, modern, disaffected and alienated intellectuals; those who are complicit in political correctness (as are all intellectuals) but who are (when not distracted, drugged or dreaming) in a state of despair.
This book will, I hope, help such people to understand their condition, and present the likely choices. It will not help them to save their world (too late for that) but it may help them to save their souls.
*
*

Note: Why I use the term Political Correctness, instead of Liberalism or Socialism?
The reasons include:
1. The confusion over what ‘liberalism’ means – to some a free marketeer, to others a socialist. My definition of political correctness is broad and includes most mainstream conservatives, libertarians and anarchists; who are nowadays all significantly PC.

Thus, the major output of the modern international Mass Media consists of only four categories:
1. Good presented as bad
2. Bad presented as Good
(That is to say simple inversion)
3. Good presented as Good for a bad reason
4. Bad presented as bad for a bad reason
(That is to say explanatory inversion)
These four categories, which can be summarized as either simple or explanatory inversion, account for all sustained and high impact modern major Mass Media stories without any exceptions.
The problem is that Political education and discourse are so poorly communicated. Read Pedagogy of the Oppressed and what will become apparent is Political liberation is a Praxis and not a party. Freedom is something you live and do not something you join.
Political correctness, the intellectual elite and the mass media
PC depends upon at least two necessary (although not sufficient) conditions
Soviet Union in the Brezhnev era and political correctness in the West, is therefore the presence of a mass media.
In the old Soviet Union the media were instruments of state propaganda; they were dull, people didn’t pay much attention to them, and the quantity of media output was anyway kept low (because the media content was controlled and checked, item by item).
In the modern West, by contrast, the mass media are vast, primarily attention-grabbing, and still growing; media content is vivid and varied; and the subject matter is controlled only by self-censorship.
The moral universe of PC subsists on two distinct realities – good causes and good intentions, but never the twain can stay stuck-together.
(Note the lack of reference to good outcomes. Being wholly abstract, PC is indifferent to outcomes. ‘Outcomes’ are regarded as having no autonomous reality, but are merely seen as part of abstract theory.)
When everything is interpretation, action is rendered hazardous, indeed unnecessary.
The bureaucrat and the media communicator (those who do nothing and risk nothing – but who interpret, and re-interpret reality for the masses) are the modern cultural exemplars: certainly not the heroic producer, maker, act-er and do-er (whose positive behaviors might, at any moment, be re-interpreted; and the erstwhile hero exposed as a modern villain.)
So, wretched inert submissiveness oscillates with arrogant but empty moral grandstanding.
Is anybody safe?
Under PC, whatever you do, whatever willing you show, status is contingent.
There is no safety even for members of the ruling elite in a system of Political Correctness; anyone at all is susceptible to denunciation for any reason or no reason at any time.
Since PC is a wave of moral ‘progress’ which leaves-behind all previous moral standards and behaviours – there can be no accumulation of moral capital.
This applies to the ultra-PC just as much as to the openly reactionary.
The insanity of pure abstract altruism
Pure disinterested altruism, imposed on all by abstract systems, is therefore a logical consequence of the moral primacy of pure altruism…
It is also insane, and lacks any test in reality.
PC is good by definition and for no other reason; especially not because PC has been found to be good.
*
*
PC stands or falls by the fact of a secular intellectual ruling elite, and can be imposed widely by this elite only by the recent technologies of modern mass media.
And PC is only possible in a fully materialist and secular society: where this-worldly ‘goods’ and their just (i.e. altruistic) allocation can assume ultimate importance, over-riding all other considerations (such as the saving of souls).
*
It is this idealistic quest for pure impersonal abstract altruism, in a secular context, which has caused the anti-human, alienating, aggressive, patronizing, self-hating and suicidal insanity that is political correctness.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

WHY ARE WE HERE??? BEINGS SEEKING MEANING
WILL TO MEANING, IN MEANING AND EACH OTHER
WE FIND PEACE AND WE FIND DIVINITY ETERNAL
EVERLASTING IMAGINATION CREATIVITY
RANDOM CHAOTIC AND BEAUTIFUL MESS.
Misinformation was a key theme of the recent US election, in which Hillary Clinton was demonised daily – often without any factual basis – in both new and established right-wing outlets.


How sincere is this ?

(1) Establish a correction mechanism

One element of an effective strategy against misreporting and fake news
insurgent parties: Putin, migration and people power


Publication

It concludes that foreign policy is no longer an elite game.

Mark Leonard, Director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, said:
““Many of these insurgent parties have views on foreign policy that are closer to President Putin than President Obama.  They are overturning an elite foreign policy consensus based on Atlanticism and liberal democracy that has dominated for the last fifty years”
13.  The overwhelming majority saw the need for European solutions to specific current challenges. This was least pronounced on the Eurozone crisis where 20 parties opted for European level solutions; scaling up to 24 in favour of European solutions on the refugee crisis, 29 on the Syrian war and 28 on Ukraine; and 34 on terrorism. 
Correction: Due to an incident that happened with a Chrome extension installed on the personal laptop of one of our staff members, for a couple of days the online version of this press release showed a misspelled version of the name of Donald Trump.
An interesting discussion Wesley and John boiling down the technical arguments from the political
seems to have evaded you both it must surely be possible absent moral/political judgements to
discern how the existing system operates in The Uk and The US and elsewhere after all the systems
exist? A favourite dialogue of mine is the one between Proudhon and Bastiat summarised here.
http://praxeology.net/FB-PJP-DOI-Appx.htm I share Proudhons view regarding Interest and see the
charging of Interest as the biggest part of the monetary system. Jeremy Benthams in defence of
Usury is in the Bastiat Camp albeit a dialogue between Bentham and Adam Smith
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bentham/bnthUs.html ( interestingly one sided reminiscent of
Sam Harris engaging Noam Chomsky, Smith did not respond at all though.) The question about
issuing money is surely that when Money is created out of thin air it should be created without
interest and that if Interest is thought to be a good idea then the Interest Component should be
created at the same time. This is the fundamental question ( Bentham misses it completely and so
does Bastiat in my recollection of the debate. I personally have philosophical, moral and religious
objections to the charging of Interest, all Interest charges for me are usurious, My own political
views actually reject Capitalism as well I do not think it works. We do have the system we have
though and as JohnG says MMT is supposed to describe how the system we have works. Steve
Keen is very good on endogenous money creation and bears very close attention I find.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T11PhS6J7Ig . Regardless of Political views it is the interest
element that causes the damage when money is created as debt. This is the insight at the heart of the
social credit movement.
Tradgedy and Hope.
P 24
The export of material elements in a culture, across its peripheral areas and beyond, to
the peoples of totally different societies has strange results. As elements of material
culture move from core to periphery inside a civilization, they tend, in the long run, to
strengthen the periphery at the expense of the core because the core is more hampered in
the use of material innovations by the strength of past vested interests and because the
core devotes a much greater part of its wealth and energy to nonmaterial culture. Thus,
such aspects of the Industrial Revolution as automobiles and radios are European rather
than American inventions, but have been developed and utilized to a far greater extent in
America because this area was not hampered in their use by surviving elements of
feudalism, of church domination, of rigid class distinctions (for example, in education),
p.26
The most important parts of Western technology can be listed under four headings:
1. Ability to kill: development of weapons
2. Ability to preserve life: development of sanitation and medical services
3. Ability to produce both food and industrial goods
4. Improvements in transportation and communications
This shows that there has been a
sequence, at intervals of about fifty years, of four successive population pressures which
might be designated with the following names:
Anglo-French pressure, about 1850
Germanic-Italian pressure, about 1900
Slavic pressure, about 1950
Asiatic pressure, about 2000
p.32
Developments in Western Europe
1. Western ideology
2. Revolution in weapons (especially firearms)
3. Agricultural Revolution
4. Industrial Revolution
5. Revolution in sanitation and medicine
6. Demographic explosion
7. Revolution in transportation and communications
Developments in Asia
1. Revolution in weapons
2. Revolution in transport and communications
3. Revolution in sanitation and medicine
4. Industrial Revolution
5. Demographic explosion
6. Agricultural Revolution
7. And last (if at all), Western ideology
p.34
Chapter 3—Europe’s Shift to the Twentieth Century
While Europe’s traits were diffusing outward to the non-European world, Europe was
also undergoing profound changes and facing difficult choices at home. These choices
were associated with drastic changes, in some cases we might say reversals, of Europe’s
point of view. These changes may be examined under eight headings. The nineteenth
century was marked by (2) belief in the innate goodness of man; (2) secularism; (3) belief
in progress; (4) liberalism; (5) capitalism; (6) faith in science; (7) democracy; (8)
nationalism. In general, these eight factors went along together in the nineteenth century.
They were generally regarded as being compatible with one another; the friends of one
were generally the friends of the others; and the enemies of one were generally the
enemies of the rest. Metternich and De Maistre were generally opposed to all eight;
Thomas Jefferson and John Stuart Mill were generally in favor of all eight..
p.37
”The reader of Pope, as of every author, is advised to begin by letting him say what he has to say, in his own manner to an open mind that seeks only to receive the impressions which the writer wishes to convey. First let the mind and spirit of the writer come into free, full contact with the mind and spirit of the reader, whose attitude at the first reading should be simply receptive. Such reading is the condition precedent to all true judgment of a writer’s work. All criticism that is not so grounded spreads as fog over a poet’s page. Read, reader, for yourself, without once pausing to remember what you have been told to think´´.
Henry Morley.
Image may contain: text

 


Show more reactio

 

 “Ages ago,” Urthred continued, “we certainly used to speak
languages.

THE ABOVE IS AN UNFINISHED COLLAGE A SET OF SPECTACLES THROUGH WHICH,
WITH THE FOLLOWING TWO POEMS (WHICH ARE COMPLETED) WE MAY REGARDEUR LES TABLEAUX,

“THE CONQUEST OF DOUGH´´

 

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, pioneer of the political treatment of the greenhouse effect
  • 1969, on Initiative of US President Richard NixonNATO tried to establish a third civil column and planned to establish itself as a hub of research and initiatives in the civil region, especially on environmental topics.[52] Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Nixons NATO delegate for the topic[52] named acid rain and the greenhouse effect as suitable international challenges to be dealt by NATO
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
– quoted in 
Robert Sobel‘s review of Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies, edited by Mark C. Carnes
Climate emails hacked by spies’
Interception bore hallmarks of foreign intelligence agency, says expert
A highly sophisticated hacking operation that led to the leaking of hundreds of emails from the Climatic Research Unit in East Anglia was probably carried out by a foreign intelligence agency, according to the Government’s former chief scientist. Sir David King, who was Tony Blair’s chief scientific adviser for seven years until 2007, said that the hacking and selective leaking of the unit’s emails, going back 13 years, bore all the hallmarks of a co-ordinated intelligence operation – especially given their release just before the Copenhagen climate conference in December.
I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.
FT.COM
by: Gideon Rachman

A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.´´

Sooner or later mankind must come to one universal peace, unless our race is to be destroyed by the increasing power of its own destructive inventions; and that universal peace must needs take the form of a government, that is to say, a law-sustaining organisation, in the best sense of the word religious—a government ruling men through the educated co-ordination of their minds in a common conception of human history and human destiny.
The Catholic Church was the first clearly conscious attempt to provide such a government in the wor1d. We cannot too earnestly. examine its deficiencies and inadequacies, for every lesson we can draw from them is necessarily of the greatest value in forming our ideas of our own international relationships.
The transformation of the world is a great, complicated and painful process. For this great task a great class is required. Big ships go on long voyages.
Wells: Yes, but for long voyages a captain and a navigator are required.
Stalin: That is true; but what is first required for a long voyage is a big ship. What is a navigator without a ship? An idle man.
Wells: The big ship is humanity, not a class.
Stalin: You, Mr. Wells, evidently start out with the assumption that all men are good. I, however, do not forget that there are many wicked men. I do not believe in the goodness of the bourgeoisie.

 

Wells: There was a case in the history of England, however, of a class voluntarily handing over power to another class. In the period between 1830 and 1870, the aristocracy, whose influence was still very considerable at the end of the eighteenth century, voluntarily, without a severe struggle, surrendered power to the bourgeoisie, which serves as a sentimental support of the monarchy. Subsequently, this transference of power led to the establishment of the rule of the financial oligarchy.
Monnet and Retinger: liberal establishment tools in the founding of Europe
Right before and after World War I, Monnet hooked up with leading figures in the Anglo-American establishment. One of the first was Lord Kindersley, who, over the course of his life, was a partner in Lazard Brothers, a chairman of the Hudson’s Bay Company, and a director of the Bank of England. Kindersley’s son is known to have become an executive of the Pilgrims Society [14], a group researched in great detail by this author as it has been the embodiment of the liberal Anglo-American establishment throughout the 20th and early 21st century.
The Role of Oligarchs in Russian Capitalism
But we are not aware of comparable data sets on nonlisted firms, so we rely on the data on the share of the stock market owned by the top 10 families. By that measure, ownership concentration in modern Russia is higher than in any other country for which the data are available. The top 10 families or ownership groups (a subset of Table 1) owned 60.2 percent of Russia’s stock market in June 2003. This percentage is much higher than in any country in continental Europe, where the share of 10 largest families is below 35 percent in small countries and below 30 percent in all large countries (Faccio and Lang, 2002). In the United States and the United Kingdom, this share The Role of Oligarchs in Russian Capitalism 139 is in single-digit percentages (Faccio and Lang, 2002, Claessens et al., 2002).8 In east Asian countries before 1997 crisis, the highest shares of 10 largest families were in Indonesia (58 percent), Philippines (52 percent), Thailand (43 percent) and Korea (37 percent) (Claessens, Djankov and Lang, 2000). The numbers for Indonesia and Philippines include the holdings of Suharto and Marcos families, each controlling 17 percent of total market capitalization in the respective countries. In Russia, the personal wealth of Yeltsin and Putin is considered to be very modest
Centralisation Swiss Study, contrast?
It is very rare indeed for men to be wrong in their feelings concerning public misconduct; as rare to be right in their speculation upon the cause of it.  I have constantly observed that the generality of people are fifty years, at least, behindhand in their politics.  There are but very few who are capable of comparing and digesting what passes before their eyes at different times and occasions, so as to form the whole into a distinct system.  But in books everything is settled for them, without the exertion of any considerable diligence or sagacity.  For which reason men are wise with but little reflection, and good with little self-denial, in the business of all times except their own.  We are very uncorrupt and tolerably enlightened judges of the transactions of past ages; where no passions deceive, and where the whole train of circumstances, from the trifling cause to the tragical event, is set in an orderly series before us.  Few are the partisans of departed tyranny; and to be a Whig on the business of a hundred years ago is very consistent with every advantage of present servility.  This retrospective wisdom and historical patriotism are things of wonderful convenience, and serve admirably to reconcile the old quarrel between speculation and practice.  Many a stern republican, after gorging himself with a full feast of admiration of the Grecian commonwealths and of our true Saxon constitution, and discharging all the splendid bile of his virtuous indignation on King John and King James, sits down perfectly satisfied to the coarsest work and homeliest job of the day he lives in.  I believe there was no professed admirer of Henry the Eighth among the instruments of the last King James; nor in the court of Henry the Eighth was there, I dare say, to be found a single advocate for the favourites of Richard the Second.
Georgia Guide Stones.
In June 1979, a man using the self-confessed pseudonym Robert C. Christian approached the Elberton Granite Finishing company on behalf of “a small group of loyal Americans”, and commissioned the structure. Christian explained that the stones would function as a compass, calendar and clock, and should be capable of withstanding catastrophic events. Joe Fendley of Elberton Granite assumed that Christian was “a nut” and attempted to discourage him by giving a quote several times higher than any project the company had taken, explaining that the Guidestones would require additional tools and consultants. Christian accepted the quote.[2] When arranging payment, CWhat are they? Sinister, Elephant of hindudtan.
Tool Hammer and nails Sutherland. Market obsessionhristian explained that he represented a group which had been planning the Guidestones for 20 years, and which intended to remain anonymous.[2]
The most widely agreed-upon interpretation of the stones is that they describe the basic concepts required to rebuild a devastated civilization.[14] Author Brad Meltzer notes that the stones were built in 1979 at the height of the Cold War, and thus argues that they may have been intended as a message to the possible survivors of a nuclear World War III. The engraved suggestion to keep humanity’s population below 500 million could have been made under the assumption that war had already reduced humanity below this number.[15]
Multinational companies like Google, Oracle, and Ericsson are already using information technology to help migrants and the communities that host them, and volunteers within the IT sector have founded Techfugees to coordinate the industry’s efforts. Meanwhile, new start-ups have created apps to deliver real-time information to migrants on the move. Migrants can now use a scattering of Internet hotspots to access digital services and correspond with loved ones.

The Concordia Summit also will consider measures to improve migrants’ access to education and employment, and look for new ways to channel private-sector investment to host communities. Through public-private partnerships, local governments can support new immigrants without disrupting services to existing residents. In Canada, for example, private citizens can sponsor migrants for resettlement and help them adapt to their new environment.

Migration is a complex issue that requires a multifaceted public- and private-sector response. But, more generally, we need to change the narrative to correct the many public misperceptions about migrants, while highlighting the numerous economic and social benefits migration brings.

Sutherland in 2016.

With Malmstrom 2012

It is ironic – and dangerous – that Europe’s anti-immigrant sentiment is peaking just when global structural changes are fundamentally shifting migration flows. The most important transformation is the emergence of new poles of attraction. Entrepreneurs, migrants with Ph.Ds, and those simply with a desire to improve their lives are flocking to places like Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Mexico, China, and India. In the coming decade, most of the growth in migration will take place in the global south. The West is no longer the Promised Land, placing at risk Europe’s ability to compete globally.
The aging of Europe’s population is historically unprecedented. The number of workers will decline precipitously, and could shrink by almost one-third by mid-century, with immense consequences for Europe’s social model, the vitality of its cities, its ability to innovate and compete, and for relations among generations as the old become heavily reliant on the young. And, while history suggests that countries that welcome newcomers’ energy and vibrancy compete best internationally, Europe is taking the opposite tack by tightening its borders.
But all is not lost. Europe got itself into this situation through a combination of inaction and short-sighted policymaking. This leaves considerable room for improvement. In fact, there are rays of hope in certain corners of Europe.
Consider Sweden, which has transformed its immigration policy by allowing employers to identify the immigrant workers whom they need (the policy has built-in safeguards to give preference to Swedish and EU citizens). In more rational times, these reforms would be the envy of Europe, especially given the relative resilience of Sweden’s economy. They certainly have caught the attention of Australia and Canada, which aim to emulate them.
NATo and attack industyr. Security ? who´s security. Back to spinoza? Back to Burke. Seeing a problem when his salary depends upon not seeing it. Unto this last? What is theme. Miamonides, Guide for the perpålexed?? so on and so forth.

Micawber is known for asserting his faith that “something will turn up”. His name has become synonymous with someone who lives in hopeful expectation. This has formed the basis for the Micawber Principle, based upon his observation:

“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery.” – (Chapter 12)
POT KETTEL BLACK:

Deutsche Bank lords it over workers

MARCH 10, 2011

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Whoever they are, they are right. There has never been a more eloquent expression of David Cameron’s Big Society, a more annihilating wrecking-ball of Conservative rhetoric, a more profound embarrassment of the shallow motto “we’re all in this together” than this picture from last night’s “save the NHS” rally.

March 22, 2011 8:47 am
I wrote to DB last week (as I am sure many people did). He got fired on Friday. Ha.

 

“We can GET them!” – Jon Ronson’s hilarious & disturbing story about public shaming & mob justice

http://gawker.com/the-saga-of-justine-sacco-twitters-accidental-racist-1487762376

Sacco prrrrrrrrrobably doesn’t have a job anymore, though a bad AIDS joke likely won’t keep a good PR person down for too long. Sooner or later, Sacco will be employed again and potentially back on Twitter, except this time she’ll probably be smart enough to keep her racist jokes amongst friends.

And thus concludes another heartwarming version of “An Internet Story,” just in time for the holidays.
UPDATE: On Saturday afternoon, IAC officially canned Justine Sacco.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html?_r=0

How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life

By JON RONSON
The movement against public shaming had gained momentum in 1787, when Benjamin Rush, a physician in Philadelphia and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote a paper calling for its demise — the stocks, the pillory, the whipping post, the lot. “Ignominy is universally acknowledged to be a worse punishment than death,” he wrote. “It would seem strange that ignominy should ever have been adopted as a milder punishment than death, did we not know that the human mind seldom arrives at truth upon any subject till it has first reached the extremity of error.”
No complaisance to our Court, or to our age, can make me believe nature to be so changed but that public liberty will be among us, as among our ancestors, obnoxious to some person or other, and that opportunities will be furnished for attempting, at least, some alteration to the prejudice of our constitution.  These attempts will naturally vary in their mode, according to times and circumstances.  For ambition, though it has ever the same general views, has not at all times the same means, nor the same particular objects.  A great deal of the furniture of ancient tyranny is worn to rags; the rest is entirely out of fashion.  Besides, there are few statesmen so very clumsy and awkward in their business as to fall into the identical snare which has proved fatal to their predecessors.  When an arbitrary imposition is attempted upon the subject, undoubtedly it will not bear on its forehead the name of Ship-money.  There is no danger that an extension of the Forest laws should be the chosen mode of oppression in this age.  And when we hear any instance of ministerial rapacity to the prejudice of the rights of private life, it will certainly not be the exaction of two hundred pullets, from a woman of fashion, for leave to lie with her own husband.
Burns On seeing a louse, Remove the plank , splinter Jesus.
Self awareness, Transcendence, Self honesty. Loving self Donald Neal Walsh.

Today’s liberalism is an anachronism. It has no understanding, really, of what poverty is and how it has to be overcome. It has no grip whatever on what American exceptionalism is and what it means at home and especially abroad. Instead it remains defined by an America of 1965—an America newly opening itself to its sins, an America of genuine goodwill, yet lacking in self-knowledge.

This liberalism came into being not as an ideology but as an identity. It offered Americans moral esteem against the specter of American shame. This made for a liberalism devoted to the idea of American shamefulness. Without an ugly America to loathe, there is no automatic esteem to receive. Thus liberalism’s unrelenting current of anti-Americanism.
The most profound thing I think I have ever read is a short question posed in Neal Donald Walsh’s, Conversations with God. ´What would love do now?´´.
At all breaking points in life there is one question to ask: what would love do now?
Love is not to retain the best of the other – but the best of your self.
´
‘I would define the episteme retrospectively as the strategic apparatus which permits of separating out from among all the statements which are possible those that will be acceptable within, I won’t say a scientific theory, but a field of scientificity, and which it is possible to say are true or false. The episteme is the ‘apparatus’ which makes possible the separation, not of the true from the false, but of what may from what may not be characterised as scientific.” Michel Foucault.
Materialism will have the right to proclaim itself as victorious only when the bible of materialism shall have been written,  Tolstoy.
CHARLES SANDERS PEIRCE: ´´In order toreason well …. it is absolutely necessary to possess … such virtuesas intellectual honesty and sincerity and a real love of truth (2.82). The cause [of the success of scientificinquirers] has been that the motive which has carried them to the laboratory and the field has been a craving toknow how things really were … (1-34).[Genuine inquiry consists I in diligent inquiry into truth for truth’s sake(1.44), … in actually drawing the bow upon truth withintentness in the eye, with energy in the arm (1.235). [When] it is no longer the reasoning which determineswhat the conclusion shall be, but … the conclusion which determines what the reasoning shall be … this is sham reasoning…. The effect of this shamming is that men come to look upon reasoning as mainly decorative…´´. http://web.ncf.ca/ag659/308/Peirce-Rorty-Haack.pdfPierces seminal essay How to make our ideas clear
The recent flurry of marches, demonstrations and even riots, along with the Democratic Party’s spiteful reaction to the Trump presidency, exposes what modern liberalism has become: a politics shrouded in pathos. Unlike the civil-rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s, when protesters wore their Sunday best and carried themselves with heroic dignity, today’s liberal marches are marked by incoherence and downright lunacy—hats designed to evoke sexual organs, poems that scream in anger yet have no point to make, and an hysterical anti-Americanism. All this suggests lostness, the end of something rather than the beginning. What is ending? America, since the ’60s, has lived through what might be called an age of white guilt. We may still be in this age, but the Trump election suggests an exhaustion with the idea of white guilt, and with the drama of culpability, innocence and correctness in which it mires us. … This liberalism evolved within a society shamed by its past. But that shame has weakened now. Our new conservative president rolls his eyes when he is called a racist, and we all—liberal and conservative alike—know that he isn’t one. The jig is up. …”

 

Convergence, Divergence Wiked poroblems. ???

The Class-Domination Theory of Power

As argued in Who Rules America?, the owners and top executives of the largest corporations, banks, investment firms, and agri-businesses come together as a corporate community. Their enormous economic resources give them the “structural economic power” that is the basis for dominating the federal government through lobbying, campaign finance, appointments to key government positions, and a policy-planning network made up of foundations, think tanks, and policy-discussion groups. The CEOs and owners in the corporate community, along with the top executives at the foundations, think tanks, and policy-discussion groups, work together as a leadership group that I call the power elite. However, they do fight among themselves sometimes, leading to moderate-conservative and ultra-conservative factions in the power elite. This class-domination theory developed out of Power Structure Research, going back to the 1950s.
ITS NOT WHAT? but, Who you Know!

Questions and Answers

Q:  So, who does rule America?
A:  The owners and managers of large income-producing properties; i.e., the owners of corporations, banks, other financial institutions, and agri-businesses. But they have plenty of help from the managers and experts they hire. You can read the essential details of the argument on this site, or read the new seventh edition of Who Rules America?.
Q:  Do the same people rule at the local level that rule at the federal level?
A:  No, not quite. The local level is dominated by the land owners and businesses that own downtown real estate and big shopping malls. They come together as growth coalitions, which turn cities into “growth machines” when they gain control of local government. Everything is about land values for them, and that requires office buildings, stadiums, museums, concert halls, shoppers, conventions, and tourists.
Q:  Do they rule secretly from behind the scenes, as a conspiracy?
A:  No, conspiracy theories are all wrong for many reasons. It’s true that some corporate leaders lie and steal, and that some government officials — including the President — initiate secret actions and then try (and usually fail) to keep them out of the newspapers. But those activities are not what is meant by a conspiracy theory, most of which involve an imagined small group of people secretly plotting to gain or retain control of the government through illegal means.
Q:  Then how do they rule?
A:  That’s a complicated story, but the short answer is through lobbying, open and direct involvement in general policy planning on the big issues, participation (in large part through campaign donations) in political campaigns and elections, and through appointments to key decision-making positions in government.
Q:  Are you saying that elections don’t matter?
A:  No, but they usually matter a lot less than they could, and a lot less in America than they do in other industrialized democracies. That’s because of the nature of the electoral rules and the unique history of the South.
Q:  Does social science research have anything useful to say about making progressive social change more effective?
A:  Yes, it does, but few if any people pay much attention to that research.
Q:  Is WhoRulesAmerica.net connected to the “Who Rules America?” documents on natvan.com or ncoal.com?
A:  No! Those sites (and many others with documents purporting to tell you “who rules America”) are run by white supremacist/neo-Nazi organizations.


Interlocks and Interactions Among the Power Elite

The Corporate Community, Think Tanks,Policy-Discussion Groups, and Government

by G. William Domhoff, Clifford Staples, & Adam Schneider

Diplomacy and Guns.
Bairns not bombs , Attack not defence industry.
Somebody must trespass on the taboos of modern nationalism, in the interests of human reason. Business can’t. Diplomacy won’t. It has to be people like us.” 
― Robert ByronThe Road to Oxiana
Be a craftsman in speech that thou mayest be strong, for the strength of one is the tongue, and speech is mightier than all fighting.” 
― Ptahhotep
Fake news and inconvienient truths?
Real brothers can curse each other and keep friends. Someday Britannia will give Columbia a piece of her mind, and that may clear the air. Said an exasperated Englishman to me a day or so ago: “I pray to God they keep out of the end of this war anyhow. We shall never hear the last of it if they don’t….”
Mrs. Nesta Webster
She has set herself with the greatest industry to trace and link together the long-drawn succession of Cabalists, Gnostics, Manichaeans, the Old Man of the Mountains, Knight Templars, Satanists, Rosicrucians, Illuminati, Freemasons, Rousseau, Voltaire, Cagliostro, Madame Blavatsky, Mrs. Besant, Trade Unions, Anarchists, Socialists, Theosophists, Communists, Those Bolsheviks, a frightful horde all plotting and getting hold of power and handing it on and doing down Christianity and the Christian life. Her books are written with-conviction enough to make one look under the bed at nights. She has never quite committed herself to those famous forged Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion
words.p.232 tragedy and Hope.
´´but criticism should have been directed rather at the hypocrisy and lack
of realism in the ideals of the wartime propaganda and at the lack of honesty of the chief negotiators in carrying on the pretense that these ideals were still in effect while they violated them daily, and necessarily violated them. The settlements were clearly made by secret negotiations, by the Great Powers exclusively, and by power politics. They had to be. No settlements could ever have been made on any other bases. The failure of the chief negotiators (at least the Anglo-Americans) to admit this iQuiggleyss regrettable, but behind their
reluctance to admit it is the even more regrettable fact that the lack of political experience and political education of the American and English electorates made it dangerous for the negotiators to admit the facts of life in international political relationships.”
Bruce Charlton PC and distraction.

Epigraph
This book is intended for normal, mainstream, secular, modern, disaffected and alienated intellectuals; those who are complicit in political correctness (as are all intellectuals) but who are (when not distracted, drugged or dreaming) in a state of despair.
This book will, I hope, help such people to understand their condition, and present the likely choices. It will not help them to save their world (too late for that) but it may help them to save their souls.
*
*

Note: Why I use the term Political Correctness, instead of Liberalism or Socialism?
The reasons include:
1. The confusion over what ‘liberalism’ means – to some a free marketeer, to others a socialist. My definition of political correctness is broad and includes most mainstream conservatives, libertarians and anarchists; who are nowadays all significantly PC.http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.se/
http://addictedtodistraction.blogspot.se/

Thus, the major output of the modern international Mass Media consists of only four categories:
1. Good presented as bad
2. Bad presented as Good
(That is to say simple inversion)
3. Good presented as Good for a bad reason
4. Bad presented as bad for a bad reason
(That is to say explanatory inversion)
These four categories, which can be summarized as either simple or explanatory inversion, account for all sustained and high impact modern major Mass Media stories without any exceptions.

The problem is that Political education and discourse are so poorly communicated. Read Pedagogy of the Oppressed and what will become apparent is Political liberation is a Praxis and not a party. Freedom is something you live and do not something you join.https://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/…/world…
Political correctness, the intellectual elite and the mass media
PC depends upon at least two necessary (although not sufficient) conditions: an intellectual ruling class and a large and effective mass media.
The intellectual ruling elite are necessary because only they have the disposition for abstraction, the preference to regard ideas as realer than experience (because PC ‘reality’ is socially constructed), and the tendency to privilege ideas even (or especially) when they are in conflict with commonsense observation.
The mass media are necessary because the media constitute the discourse – the cognitive process, the mode of thinking – of modern societies.
*
Political correctness is (roughly) a mixture of bureaucratic Old Left and subjective New Left, the interspersion of a system of communist/ Fabian totalitarian central planning with irruptions of counter-cultural hedonism.
*
The main difference between the late Soviet Union in the Brezhnev era and political correctness in the West, is therefore the presence of a mass media.
In the old Soviet Union the media were instruments of state propaganda; they were dull, people didn’t pay much attention to them, and the quantity of media output was anyway kept low (because the media content was controlled and checked, item by item).
In the modern West, by contrast, the mass media are vast, primarily attention-grabbing, and still growing; media content is vivid and varied; and the subject matter is controlled only by self-censorship.
The mass media disciplines intellectuals and organizations who endanger political correctness: disciplines first by exclusion then by demonization – working like an inquisition by choosing and publicizing suitable anti-PC targets for aggression by ‘the secular arm’: organized Leftist direct action, rioting by approved groups, apparently-random acts by lone vigilantes – and so on.
The mass media identifies and locates reactionary targets for ‘legitimate’ aggression of many types, including violence.
And since these reactionary targets are seen as having willfully-provoked violence against themselves, the perpetrators of violence are exonerated from blame.

The moral universe of PC subsists on two distinct realities – good causes and good intentions, but never the twain can stay stuck-together.
(Note the lack of reference to good outcomes. Being wholly abstract, PC is indifferent to outcomes. ‘Outcomes’ are regarded as having no autonomous reality, but are merely seen as part of abstract theory.)
When everything is interpretation, action is rendered hazardous, indeed unnecessary.
The bureaucrat and the media communicator (those who do nothing and risk nothing – but who interpret, and re-interpret reality for the masses) are the modern cultural exemplars: certainly not the heroic producer, maker, act-er and do-er (whose positive behaviors might, at any moment, be re-interpreted; and the erstwhile hero exposed as a modern villain.)
*
So, wretched inert submissiveness oscillates with arrogant but empty moral grandstanding.
Is anybody safe?
Under PC, whatever you do, whatever willing you show, status is contingent.
There is no safety even for members of the ruling elite in a system of Political Correctness; anyone at all is susceptible to denunciation for any reason or no reason at any time.
Since PC is a wave of moral ‘progress’ which leaves-behind all previous moral standards and behaviours – there can be no accumulation of moral capital.
This applies to the ultra-PC just as much as to the openly reactionary.
*
(In this respect PC is more like communist than fascist totalitarianism: under fascism membership-of and courageous loyalty to the in-group usually brings safety from denunciation; but under communism anybody was vulnerable to denunciation – friends and enemies of the government alternated with bewildering rapidity: nobody was safe.)
The insanity of pure abstract altruism
Pure disinterested altruism, imposed on all by abstract systems, is therefore a logical consequence of the moral primacy of pure altruism…
It is also insane, and lacks any test in reality.
PC is good by definition and for no other reason; especially not because PC has been found to be good.
*
What is more, PC is the creation of that minority of humans capable of abstract thought and who regard abstraction as primary, and experience as derived from theory. This perspective is coercively enforced on that majority of other humans who privilege experience above abstraction (e.g. the majority who spontaneously privilege natural law above moral inversion, beauty above shock, truth above subversion and so on…)
The mass majority therefore experience coercive altruism as merely alienating – either as aggressive or patronizing depending on whether they are at that moment givers or receivers. 
*
PC stands or falls by the fact of a secular intellectual ruling elite, and can be imposed widely by this elite only by the recent technologies of modern mass media.
And PC is only possible in a fully materialist and secular society: where this-worldly ‘goods’ and their just (i.e. altruistic) allocation can assume ultimate importance, over-riding all other considerations (such as the saving of souls).
*
It is this idealistic quest for pure impersonal abstract altruism, in a secular context, which has caused the anti-human, alienating, aggressive, patronizing, self-hating and suicidal insanity that is political correctness.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

commentary_scenarios_for_europe_deciphering_junckers_white_paper

What future for Europe does Jean Claude Juncker want?

On 1 March 2017, President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker delivered a White Paper on the future of Europe, which is meant to be discussed by governments and to encourage reflection on the role of the European Union. Later this month the Treaty of Rome’s will turn 60, 
More than anything, the White Paper encourages governments, thinkers, and ordinary citizens, to prepare for change. The best case scenario describes what we already expect from EU institutions, so the real message lies in the other options.
NB Curious Governemetns thinkers and ordinary thinkers? Whieghted IQ and Net worth voting anyone?

It is time to recognize that the integrity of information is part of the critical infrastructure of liberal democracy.

The rise of ‘fake news’ sites, internet filter bubbles, and the ever-increasing polarisation of society has given rise to the idea that we are entering a ‘post-truth’ world. This is a scary prospect. When there is no truth, fear reigns. Disputes become unresolvable, politics become zero sum, and societies become cruel.
NB. Starts from assumption that status quo is right?

While the breaking of the establishment’s stranglehold on the media is to be welcomed, these changes in the information environment have also meant that there are no longer any sources of information that are universally viewed as credible. The problem with this is not just that it allows occasional lies to be accepted by segments of the population as true. It is that, without an accepted reference point for truth, societies degenerate into rival camps screaming ‘liar!’ at each other.

One casualty of this is that it is becoming impossible to achieve political consensus even on fairly technocratic issues such as health care and pension reform. The other is that it has increased the possibility of elections being manipulated by special interests and foreign powers. Misinformation was a key theme of the recent US election, in which Hillary Clinton was demonised daily – often without any factual basis – in both new and established right-wing outlets.


How sincere is this ?

(1) Establish a correction mechanism

One element of an effective strategy against misreporting and fake news would be to make sure that clearly factually wrong news and deliberate misinformation cannot be spread as easily through social networks. This is already happening, with Germany set to be the second country after the US to benefit from Facebook’s new ‘disputed’ model for reducing the power of fake news.

(4) More information education

A final element would be to improve the population’s awareness about misinformation and fake news. Just as its needs to be conveyed to the average internet users that “password” or “12345” are not secure passwords, the users need to learn the difference between high-quality and low-quality information. To this end, education about how to evaluate the quality of information found on the internet should be added to all school curricula.

 

The world according to Europe’s insurgent parties: Putin, migration and people power


Publication

It concludes that foreign policy is no longer an elite game.

Mark Leonard, Director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, said:
““Many of these insurgent parties have views on foreign policy that are closer to President Putin than President Obama.  They are overturning an elite foreign policy consensus based on Atlanticism and liberal democracy that has dominated for the last fifty years”
We can’t dismiss them as fringe parties – they represent a revolution in European foreign policy.  Their chosen weapon is using referenda to whip up popular support on their pet issues.  Even where they don’t win power directly, they are so politically powerful that they are forcing mainstream parties to adopt their positions”
Among the challenger parties:
1. Most, 28 in total, thought that a Brexit vote in the UK referendum would trigger EU disintegration. Most, but not all, believed that this would be a good thing. Most parties believed that it would trigger further referenda in the EU.
2. Most showed a strong suspicion of cooperation with Turkey on the refugee crisis and particular opposition to Turkish accession 36 parties oppose the EU-Turkey deal on the refugee crisis, many of them voicing concern about the EU-Turkey deal because it will lead to closer co-operation between the EU and Turkey.  On other issues, 23 opposed cooperation with Turkey on the war in Syria, and 24 against terrorism. On other issues such as the Ukraine crisis and the eurozone crisis, very few parties could see a case for talking to Turkey at all
3. The challenger parties are contributing to the European Parliament’s increasingly assertive role in foreign policy, as seen in their opposition to elements of the March 2016 EU-Turkey deal. The great majority of the challenger parties have representation in the EP, and many of them are stronger at this level than nationally.  As they grow in influence, they are likely to use the consultation role of the EP on international agreements reached under CFSP to push their agenda.
4. Merkel’s ‘refugees welcome’ policy is not widely blamed as the cause of the migration crisis: only seven parties named it in their top two explanations for the Crisis. US strategy in the Middle East was the most popular answer, with President Assad’s regime sponsored violence in Syria in second place in the responses given.
5. There is no appetite among these parties for intervention in Syria:  On the prospect of collective European involvement in intervention in Syria 32 parties responded that this option should not even be on the table.  This is linked to a general anti-Americanism, and a distaste for the EU towing the US line particularly on foreign policy in the Middle East.  
6. There is widespread opposition to the Ukraine’s path to EU accession. Only 14 parties responded unequivocally that they supported it, and of these two wouldn’t support NATO accession for Ukraine.
7. There is scepticism around future European or US interventionism generally, particularly in the Middle East, from Sinn Fein in Ireland, to UKIP in the UK, to the Front National and the Communist Party in France, to AFD and Die Linke in Germany, to Jobbik in Hungary and the Five Star Movement in Italy.  These parties are likely to bolster the intervention fatigue trend in EU foreign policy over coming years, making it even more difficult for national governments to sell the idea of future military deployment to their populations.
8.  Despite differences between the parties, there was consensus in the external threats faced by the EU.  For 36 out of the 45 parties covered, the refugee crisis or the threat of terrorism and radical Islamism (these issues were inextricably linked in the responses that the majority of parties gave) represented the top or top two priorities for the EU. This response was not the preserve of the right wing: Die Linke in Germany; the French Communist Party, Podemos in Spain, and the Lithuanian Labour Party were also among those who voted in this way.
9. Suspicions among these parties about the transatlantic relationship are partly fuelled by opposition to the Transatlantic Trade Treaty (TTIP), with 26 out of the parties arguing that the EU should not conclude a TTIP with the US at all. But there were some notable exceptions including the Sweden Democrats; Danish People’s Party, the Finns Party, Estonia Party of People’s Unity, ALFA in Germany, Syriza and Independent Greeks who saw the potential for it to be positive under the right conditions.
10. The parties confessed to having little understanding of today’s China and how to work with it. There is no real evidence of more support for engagement with China from parties on the right or left:  15 parties simply had no official position.  
11. The parties are most divided on how to engage with Russia. Although there is a general spread of sympathy for Russian foreign policy (30 parties expressed agreement with at least some recent Russian positions, including particularly for their intervention in Syria in the absence of other actors playing a decisive conflict resolution role) there were more mixed views on whether EU sanctions should be maintained and whether NATO should build up militarily against the Russian threat. These views on Russia policy do not fall naturally along the lines of ‘left’ and ‘right’ groupings.
12.  Many agree with Trump’s argument that Europeans and others need to pay their way more within the NATO alliance and have a vision of a militarily strong Europe that invests more in its own security – largely at national level – and is consequently independent from the US.
13.  The overwhelming majority saw the need for European solutions to specific current challenges. This was least pronounced on the Eurozone crisis where 20 parties opted for European level solutions; scaling up to 24 in favour of European solutions on the refugee crisis, 29 on the Syrian war and 28 on Ukraine; and 34 on terrorism. 
Correction: Due to an incident that happened with a Chrome extension installed on the personal laptop of one of our staff members, for a couple of days the online version of this press release showed a misspelled version of the name of Donald Trump.

http://addictedtodistraction.blogspot.se/

http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.se/

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.se/

https://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/03/catch-up-democracypc-is-indifferent-to.html

An interesting discussion Wesley and John boiling down the technical arguments from the political
seems to have evaded you both it must surely be possible absent moral/political judgements to
discern how the existing system operates in The Uk and The US and elsewhere after all the systems
exist? A favourite dialogue of mine is the one between Proudhon and Bastiat summarised here.
http://praxeology.net/FB-PJP-DOI-Appx.htm I share Proudhons view regarding Interest and see the
charging of Interest as the biggest part of the monetary system. Jeremy Benthams in defence of
Usury is in the Bastiat Camp albeit a dialogue between Bentham and Adam Smith
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bentham/bnthUs.html ( interestingly one sided reminiscent of
Sam Harris engaging Noam Chomsky, Smith did not respond at all though.) The question about
issuing money is surely that when Money is created out of thin air it should be created without
interest and that if Interest is thought to be a good idea then the Interest Component should be
created at the same time. This is the fundamental question ( Bentham misses it completely and so
does Bastiat in my recollection of the debate. I personally have philosophical, moral and religious
objections to the charging of Interest, all Interest charges for me are usurious, My own political
views actually reject Capitalism as well I do not think it works. We do have the system we have
though and as JohnG says MMT is supposed to describe how the system we have works. Steve
Keen is very good on endogenous money creation and bears very close attention I find.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T11PhS6J7Ig . Regardless of Political views it is the interest
element that causes the damage when money is created as debt. This is the insight at the heart of the
social credit movement.
Tradgedy and Hope.
P 24
The export of material elements in a culture, across its peripheral areas and beyond, to
the peoples of totally different societies has strange results. As elements of material
culture move from core to periphery inside a civilization, they tend, in the long run, to
strengthen the periphery at the expense of the core because the core is more hampered in
the use of material innovations by the strength of past vested interests and because the
core devotes a much greater part of its wealth and energy to nonmaterial culture. Thus,
such aspects of the Industrial Revolution as automobiles and radios are European rather
than American inventions, but have been developed and utilized to a far greater extent in
America because this area was not hampered in their use by surviving elements of
feudalism, of church domination, of rigid class distinctions (for example, in education),
p.26
The most important parts of Western technology can be listed under four headings:
1. Ability to kill: development of weapons
2. Ability to preserve life: development of sanitation and medical services
3. Ability to produce both food and industrial goods
4. Improvements in transportation and communications
This shows that there has been a
sequence, at intervals of about fifty years, of four successive population pressures which
might be designated with the following names:
Anglo-French pressure, about 1850
Germanic-Italian pressure, about 1900
Slavic pressure, about 1950
Asiatic pressure, about 2000
p.32
Developments in Western Europe
1. Western ideology
2. Revolution in weapons (especially firearms)
3. Agricultural Revolution
4. Industrial Revolution
5. Revolution in sanitation and medicine
6. Demographic explosion
7. Revolution in transportation and communications
Developments in Asia
1. Revolution in weapons
2. Revolution in transport and communications
3. Revolution in sanitation and medicine
4. Industrial Revolution
5. Demographic explosion
6. Agricultural Revolution
7. And last (if at all), Western ideology
p.34
Chapter 3—Europe’s Shift to the Twentieth Century
While Europe’s traits were diffusing outward to the non-European world, Europe was
also undergoing profound changes and facing difficult choices at home. These choices
were associated with drastic changes, in some cases we might say reversals, of Europe’s
point of view. These changes may be examined under eight headings. The nineteenth
century was marked by (2) belief in the innate goodness of man; (2) secularism; (3) belief
in progress; (4) liberalism; (5) capitalism; (6) faith in science; (7) democracy; (8)
nationalism. In general, these eight factors went along together in the nineteenth century.
They were generally regarded as being compatible with one another; the friends of one
were generally the friends of the others; and the enemies of one were generally the
enemies of the rest. Metternich and De Maistre were generally opposed to all eight;
Thomas Jefferson and John Stuart Mill were generally in favor of all eight..
p.37

 

back of beyond in Sweden. #conquestofdough #letthemeatcake

delighted to find my source noes for this song written bacjk in 2011

Over 1000 listens/views for an original song is actually quite good for an original song by a nobody in the back of beyond in Sweden.



Published on Apr 26, 2011

I’m Happy with the arrangement of this now and the Lyric. I am working on an instrumental break/bridge and introduction but basically I am happy with this now as a song and feel very passionately about the message behind the song itself writing it has helped me deal with a great deal of anger which I am glad I have not had to internalise or express in some of the more destructive ways I have used as crutches in the past.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g…

Hi Roger Nice setting for an acoustic session….the birds in the background…lovely. The songs coming on a treat and lends itself well to an acoustic treatment. Best wishes to you and yours Take care Steve

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000167 EndHTML:0000038704 StartFragment:0000000484 EndFragment:0000038688
Money and Global Warming Links.

Globalism Decoded, Usury Hells Fuel, Bourgoise Resolution #ConquestofDough

INTJ
Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Judging
To outsiders, INTJs may appear to project an aura of “definiteness”, of self-confidence. This self-confidence, sometimes mistaken for simple arrogance by the less decisive, is actually of a very specific rather than a general nature; its source lies in the specialized knowledge systems that most INTJs start building at an early age. When it comes to their own areas of expertise — and INTJs can have several — they will be able to tell you almost immediately whether or not they can help you, and if so, how. INTJs know what they know, and perhaps still more importantly, they know what they don’t know.
INTJs are perfectionists, with a seemingly endless capacity for improving upon anything that takes their interest. What prevents them from becoming chronically bogged down in this pursuit of perfection is the pragmatism so characteristic of the type: INTJs apply (often ruthlessly) the criterion “Does it work?” to everything from their own research efforts to the prevailing social norms. This in turn produces an unusual independence of mind, freeing the INTJ from the constraints of authority, convention, or sentiment for its own sake.
INTJs are known as the “Systems Builders” of the types, perhaps in part because they possess the unusual trait combination of imagination and reliability. Whatever system an INTJ happens to be working on is for them the equivalent of a moral cause to an INFJ; both perfectionism and disregard for authority may come into play, as INTJs can be unsparing of both themselves and the others on the project. Anyone considered to be “slacking,” including superiors, will lose their respect — and will generally be made aware of this; INTJs have also been known to take it upon themselves to implement critical decisions without consulting their supervisors or co-workers. On the other hand, they do tend to be scrupulous and even-handed about recognizing the individual contributions that have gone into a project, and have a gift for seizing opportunities which others might not even notice.
In the broadest terms, what INTJs “do” tends to be what they “know”. Typical INTJ career choices are in the sciences and engineering, but they can be found wherever a combination of intellect and incisiveness are required (e.g., law, some areas of academia). INTJs can rise to management positions when they are willing to invest time in marketing their abilities as well as enhancing them, and (whether for the sake of ambition or the desire for privacy) many also find it useful to learn to simulate some degree of surface conformism in order to mask their inherent unconventionality.
Personal relationships, particularly romantic ones, can be the INTJ’s Achilles heel. While they are capable of caring deeply for others (usually a select few), and are willing to spend a great deal of time and effort on a relationship, the knowledge and self-confidence that make them so successful in other areas can suddenly abandon or mislead them in interpersonal situations.
This happens in part because many INTJs do not readily grasp the social rituals; for instance, they tend to have little patience and less understanding of such things as small talk and flirtation (which most types consider half the fun of a relationship). To complicate matters, INTJs are usually extremely private people, and can often be naturally impassive as well, which makes them easy to misread and misunderstand. Perhaps the most fundamental problem, however, is that INTJs really want people to make sense. 🙂 This sometimes results in a peculiar naivete’, paralleling that of many Fs — only instead of expecting inexhaustible affection and empathy from a romantic relationship, the INTJ will expect inexhaustible reasonability and directness.
Probably the strongest INTJ assets in the interpersonal area are their intuitive abilities and their willingness to “work at” a relationship. Although as Ts they do not always have the kind of natural empathy that many Fs do, the Intuitive function can often act as a good substitute by synthesizing the probable meanings behind such things as tone of voice, turn of phrase, and facial expression. This ability can then be honed and directed by consistent, repeated efforts to understand and support those they care about, and those relationships which ultimately do become established with an INTJ tend to be characterized by their robustness, stability, and good communications.
(INTJ stands for Introvert, iNtuitive, Thinking, Judging and represents individual’s preferences in four dimensions characterising personality type, according to Jung’s and Briggs Myers’ theories of personality type.)

Personality test based on C. Jung and I. Briggs Myers type theory provides your type formula, type description, career choices
HUMANMETRICS.COM

LikeShow more reactions

Comment

Comments
Ruby Iqbal
Ruby Iqbal I think I’m INTP…

Globalisation Un-Entangled. #conquestofdough #regardeur/Tableaux. MEME POETRY IN THE MAKING

Globalisation Un-Entangled. (Work in Progress, Danger Poet at Work)

shadows cast from secret whispers, taps on streams of digital Imprints what oppressor does not despise what oppression will not censor and misdirect
Secretive cabals of liberal political correctness

Self-censored fearing the exile of dissentGchq Nsa Kvd , hacking whos democracyWhat democracy, sings with the voice of explosions

Tripartate accords of old, a Gold Standard. As Piggs Shit Brics and Lutherean Shards profer Gaping anuses and Calvanist certainties Divine providence and eminent domain

Democracy perverted.
Union now as then in ´38, current quarrelsMr Striets Union and Mr Orwells NiggersNot counting Niggers, the other´s not like ussix hundred million disenfranchised, is it more today?

Image may contain: text


Show more reactio

 “Ages ago,” Urthred continued, “we certainly used to speak
languages. We made sounds and we heard sounds. People used to think,
and then chose and arranged words and uttered them. The hearer

heard, noted, and retranslated the sounds into ideas. Then, in some
manner which we still do not understand perfectly, people began to
_get_ the idea before it was clothed in words and uttered in sounds.
They began to hear in their minds, as soon as the speaker had
arranged his ideas and before he put them into word symbols even in
his own mind. They knew what he was going to say before he said it.
This direct transmission presently became common; it was found out
that with a little effort most people could get over to each other
in this fashion to some extent, and the new mode of communication
was developed systematically.

“That is what we do now habitually in this world. We think directly
_to_ each other. We determine to convey the thought and it is
conveyed at once–provided the distance is not too great. We use
sounds in this world now only for poetry and pleasure and in moments
of emotion or to shout at a distance, or with animals, not for
the transmission of ideas from human mind to kindred human mind
any more. When I think to you, the thought, so far as it finds
corresponding ideas and suitable words in your mind, is reflected
in your mind. My thought clothes itself in words in your mind,
which words you seem to hear–and naturally enough in your own
language and your own habitual phrases. Very probably the members
of your party are hearing what I am saying to you, each with his
own individual difference of vocabulary and phrasing.”
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200221.txt


I read this the other day, it forms a stanza in my latest poem.

Globalisation Un-Entangled. (Creative chaos????, WTF?

Our education can be our governmentOur reason can be our Judge of the rivalsGlobalism Authority coercion and competitionor Nationalism, Internationalism Cooperation 


Jsuis a Thought Leader,

 Je Habite La dans la… Ready.-MADES. 

DU-CHAMPS, “LEADERS OF THOUGHT”. 

Found Poetry, ready spoken , ready thought, I will not teach I will remind.

https://www.instagram.com/p/9xt9QeCecQ/
A post shared by lushsux (@lushsux) on Nov 7, 2015 at 12:26am PST

Globalisation Un-Entangled. (Democracy Work In Progress)

Eliza with rogerian inscrutability
hears the confession of the mal-contents
A mirror held up before cosmetic application
Globalisation and Internationalism confused

despotism´s nature is to abhor any say
save that of its own momentary pleasure;
it annihilates all intermediate situations
between boundless strength on its own part,
and total debility on the part of the people.
Our education can be our government
Our reason can be our Judge of the rivals
Globalism Authority coercion and competition
or Nationalism, Internationalism Cooperation
Are we to have free will and democracy
Will we have determined authority
A struggle of ideal´s an ancient quarrel
Parmenides or Heraclitus navigators both

If centuries be epochs with peculiar discretion

19th, 20th, 21st a behind hand review
19th innate goodness of man, nationalism
20th Fallen man Calvinist rule, Globalism

Roger Lewis
http://www.masswerk.at/eliza/ I was delighted to find HG wells Grappling with the same Regardeur tableaux space in Title: Men Like Gods (1923)
Author: H.G. Wells
´´Mr. Barnstaple felt the ground slipping from under his feet. “But
I _hear_ you speaking English,” he said.
“Nevertheless we do not speak it,” said Urthred.
He smiled still more broadly. “We don’t–for ordinary
purposes–speak anything.”
Mr. Barnstaple, with his brain resigning its functions, maintained
his pose of deferential attention.
“Ages ago,” Urthred continued, “we certainly used to speak
languages. We made sounds and we heard sounds. People used to think,
and then chose and arranged words and uttered them. The hearer
heard, noted, and retranslated the sounds into ideas. Then, in some
manner which we still do not understand perfectly, people began to
_get_ the idea before it was clothed in words and uttered in sounds.
They began to hear in their minds, as soon as the speaker had
arranged his ideas and before he put them into word symbols even in
his own mind. They knew what he was going to say before he said it.
This direct transmission presently became common; it was found out
that with a little effort most people could get over to each other
in this fashion to some extent, and the new mode of communication
was developed systematically.
“That is what we do now habitually in this world. We think directly
_to_ each other. We determine to convey the thought and it is
conveyed at once–provided the distance is not too great. We use
sounds in this world now only for poetry and pleasure and in moments
of emotion or to shout at a distance, or with animals, not for
the transmission of ideas from human mind to kindred human mind
any more. When I think to you, the thought, so far as it finds
corresponding ideas and suitable words in your mind, is reflected
in your mind. My thought clothes itself in words in your mind,
which words you seem to hear–and naturally enough in your own
language and your own habitual phrases. Very probably the members
of your party are hearing what I am saying to you, each with his
own individual difference of vocabulary and phrasing.”

E.L.I.Z.A. Talking is a project to explore speech I/O in modern browsers.
MASSWERK.AT

Globalisation Un-Entangled. the idea before it was clothed in words heard in minds, as uttered thought the communication of arranged ideas Thoughts lifting mist from the poets page.

This is my creative process not pretty.

Globalisation Un-Entangled. (first rough draft)
the idea before it was clothed in words
heard in minds, as uttered thought
the communication of arranged ideas
Thoughts lifting mist from the poet´s page.

To set the stage, not in the round
but, to see the scene in the sphere
Which actors will the playwright lay
on the page´s narrative to steer.
Which course to meet
who to set upon the bridge
For strength of Bulls Wall Street
of Bears & onion domes upon our chart
A heroes pride found in Britannia’s isles
Monks ´´sans humilite´´ fane ease
Like Pope, we find our actors
´´All, all alike, find reason on their side´´
´mais par impatience de souffrir´
On the present discontents, Burke opined
Putin, Trump and Farage set courses un-entangled
Junker, Merkel, Call for straight ahead.
Few are the partisans of departed tyranny
of Globalism or Nationalism which be the tyrant?
Yet passions are deceiving someone,
so near 50 years, behindhand a hero fell.
“On this day, the day of March
in my opinion´´, is the end of the
United States of America
as the land of the free
and the home of the brave.”
Eliza with Rogerian inscrutability
hears the confession of the mal-contents
A mirror held up before cosmetic application
Globalisation and Internationalism confused

despotism´s nature is to abhor any say
save that of its own momentary pleasure;
it annihilates all intermediate situations
between boundless strength on its own part,
and total debility on the part of the people.
Our education can be  our government
Our reason can be our Judge of the rivals
Globalism Authority coercion and competition
or Nationalism, Internationalism Cooperation
Are we to have free will and democracy
Will we have determined authority
A struggle of ideals an ancient quarrel
Parmenides or Heraclitus navigators both

If centuries be epochs with peculiar discretion

19th, 20th, 21st a behind hand review
19th innate goodness of man, nationalism
20th Fallen man Calvinist rule, Globalism
For the 21st partisans for patronage
Putin and the bear Nationalism
Trump and the Eagle InterNationalism
Corbyn of the un-common people interNationalism
Farage of the common people Nationalism
Well May? You ask Globalism, Atlanticism
Within the Elysian bosom suckling Globalism on the right
and Internationalism on the left restricted by two tits
A binary mammary conundrum for PIIGS have many teets.
On which teet will elites suckle, formula for the masses.
From good men and bad society to
bad men and good society from optimism
to pessimism and from secularism
to religion. Creative destruction Globalisation?
The Simple see war is simply a football match 
conducted with cannons.wise men look
not In Nietzsche's Will to Power,
but In the custom house.Says Bernard Shaw
shadows cast from secret whispers
taps on streams of digital Imprints
what oppressor does not despise
what oppression will not censor and misdirect
Secretive cabals of liberal political correctness
Self-censored fearing the exile of dissent
GCHQ Nsa Kvd , hacking whos democracy
What democracy, sings with the voice of explosions
Tripartite accords of old, a Gold Standard
As Piggs Shit Brics and Lutheran Shards
profer Gaping anuses and Calvinist certainties
Divine providence and eminent domain democracy perverted.

Union now as then in ´38, current quarrels

Mr Striets Union and Mr Orwells Niggers
Not counting Niggers, the other´s not like us
six hundred million disenfranchised, is it more today?
Russia is brazenly refusing to learn from the EU’s
mistakes and may walk directly into its trap
How can banking union serve the tributaries of society
Pigs do not fly nor water flow up hill
Real brothers can curse each other, friends.
Someday. Britannia will give Columbia a piece of her mind,
Elysium also needs telling and she is
curiously afflicted offering no teet for the eastern bear.
an exasperated Englishman: “I pray to God
they keep out of the end of this war anyhow.
We shall never hear the last of it if they don’t….”
Cabalists, Gnostics, Manichaeans, the Old Man
of the Mountains, Knight Templars, Satanists,
Rosicrucians, Illuminati, Freemasons, Rousseau,
Voltaire, Cagliostro, Madame Blavatsky, Mrs. Besant,
Trade Unions, Anarchists, Socialists, Theosophists,
Communists, Those Bolsheviks, a frightful horde
all plotting and getting hold of power and handing
it on and doing down Christianity and the Christian life

THREE FACTORS IN EVERYONE Sir Arthur Salter,

for example “Shall we never pluck the best from fate

and find the Golden Mean? Must we ever choose freedom

without order, or order without freedom? Must justice

and mercy bring always weakness in their train,

and strength bring tyranny? Not one of the educational

co-ordinators in Utopia he, or is Elysisum Bodiccea disguised.

Climate Change , political Change bedfellows both
the world’s biggest polluter, backs the Protocol
is it because they want control of emissions quotas
The imperialist philosophy behind Kyoto?
Not one of the claims contained in the Kyoto Protocol
this “scientific” theory on which they are based
have been confirmed by real facts. Extreme natural
occurrences are not becoming more frequent,
and there has been no increase in infectious diseases.
Unless one sees Gloabalist imperialism as infectious.

The proposals to change the current state of affairs –

included in the rejected European Constitution or

in the not much different Lisbon Treaty – would

make this defect even worse. Since there is no European demos –

and no European nation – this defect cannot be solved by

strengthening the role of the European Parliament, either

In practice, the existence of euro has shown that

forcing an economically disparate Europe into

a homogeneous entity through a political decision

is political engineering par excellence, far from

beneficial for all countries concerned

“Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences”
along with other “isms” such as communism, feminism, and liberalism.
Klaus said that “environmentalism is a religion” and, answering
questions of U.S. Congressmen, a “modern counterpart of communism”
that seeks to change peoples’ habits and economic systems.
Blue Planet in Green Shackles, Vaclav Klaus

Financial Institutions,Environmental groups Fossil fuel companies
Alternative energy companies Nuclear energy companies Traditional retailers and marketers governments might use global warming as a rationale for additional taxes

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, pioneer of the political treatment of the greenhouse effect
  • 1969, on Initiative of US President Richard NixonNATO tried to establish a third civil column and planned to establish itself as a hub of research and initiatives in the civil region, especially on environmental topics.[52] Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Nixons NATO delegate for the topic[52] named acid rain and the greenhouse effect as suitable international challenges to be dealt by NATO
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
– quoted in 
Robert Sobel‘s review of Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies, edited by Mark C. Carnes
Climate emails hacked by spies’
Interception bore hallmarks of foreign intelligence agency, says expert
A highly sophisticated hacking operation that led to the leaking of hundreds of emails from the Climatic Research Unit in East Anglia was probably carried out by a foreign intelligence agency, according to the Government’s former chief scientist. Sir David King, who was Tony Blair’s chief scientific adviser for seven years until 2007, said that the hacking and selective leaking of the unit’s emails, going back 13 years, bore all the hallmarks of a co-ordinated intelligence operation – especially given their release just before the Copenhagen climate conference in December.
I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.
FT.COM
by: Gideon Rachman

A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.´´

Sooner or later mankind must come to one universal peace, unless our race is to be destroyed by the increasing power of its own destructive inventions; and that universal peace must needs take the form of a government, that is to say, a law-sustaining organisation, in the best sense of the word religious—a government ruling men through the educated co-ordination of their minds in a common conception of human history and human destiny.
The Catholic Church was the first clearly conscious attempt to provide such a government in the wor1d. We cannot too earnestly. examine its deficiencies and inadequacies, for every lesson we can draw from them is necessarily of the greatest value in forming our ideas of our own international relationships.
The transformation of the world is a great, complicated and painful process. For this great task a great class is required. Big ships go on long voyages.
Wells: Yes, but for long voyages a captain and a navigator are required.
Stalin: That is true; but what is first required for a long voyage is a big ship. What is a navigator without a ship? An idle man.
Wells: The big ship is humanity, not a class.
Stalin: You, Mr. Wells, evidently start out with the assumption that all men are good. I, however, do not forget that there are many wicked men. I do not believe in the goodness of the bourgeoisie.

Wells: There was a case in the history of England, however, of a class voluntarily handing over power to another class. In the period between 1830 and 1870, the aristocracy, whose influence was still very considerable at the end of the eighteenth century, voluntarily, without a severe struggle, surrendered power to the bourgeoisie, which serves as a sentimental support of the monarchy. Subsequently, this transference of power led to the establishment of the rule of the financial oligarchy.
Monnet and Retinger: liberal establishment tools in the founding of Europe
Right before and after World War I, Monnet hooked up with leading figures in the Anglo-American establishment. One of the first was Lord Kindersley, who, over the course of his life, was a partner in Lazard Brothers, a chairman of the Hudson’s Bay Company, and a director of the Bank of England. Kindersley’s son is known to have become an executive of the Pilgrims Society [14], a group researched in great detail by this author as it has been the embodiment of the liberal Anglo-American establishment throughout the 20th and early 21st century.
The Role of Oligarchs in Russian Capitalism
But we are not aware of comparable data sets on nonlisted firms, so we rely on the data on the share of the stock market owned by the top 10 families. By that measure, ownership concentration in modern Russia is higher than in any other country for which the data are available. The top 10 families or ownership groups (a subset of Table 1) owned 60.2 percent of Russia’s stock market in June 2003. This percentage is much higher than in any country in continental Europe, where the share of 10 largest families is below 35 percent in small countries and below 30 percent in all large countries (Faccio and Lang, 2002). In the United States and the United Kingdom, this share The Role of Oligarchs in Russian Capitalism 139 is in single-digit percentages (Faccio and Lang, 2002, Claessens et al., 2002).8 In east Asian countries before 1997 crisis, the highest shares of 10 largest families were in Indonesia (58 percent), Philippines (52 percent), Thailand (43 percent) and Korea (37 percent) (Claessens, Djankov and Lang, 2000). The numbers for Indonesia and Philippines include the holdings of Suharto and Marcos families, each controlling 17 percent of total market capitalization in the respective countries. In Russia, the personal wealth of Yeltsin and Putin is considered to be very modest

  • Jan 12 Dr. James Bedford becomes the first person to be cryonically preserved with intent of future resuscitation.
  • Feb 22 25,000 US & South Vietnamese troops launch Operation Junction City against Viet Cong. Largest US airborne assult since WWII
  • Apr 24 Vietnam War: American General William Westmoreland says in a news conference that the enemy had “gained support in the United States that gives him hope that he can win politically that which he cannot win militarily.”
  • Jun 1 Beatles release “Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” in the US, goes on to spend 15 weeks at number one
  • Jun 5 6 day war between Israel & Arab neighbors begins
  • Jun 27 The world’s first ATM is installed in Enfield, London
  • Jul 6 Biafran War erupts as Nigerian forces invade starting Nigerian Civil war
  • Nov 28 1st radio pulsars detected by British postgraduate Jocelyn Burnell and her supervisor Antony Hewish at Cambridge University
  • Dec 3 1st human heart transplant performed by Dr Christian Barnard in South Africa
1977 age of uncertainty
Calvinism shaped society work ethic.
Darendorf,

abandon Calvinsim adopt hedonism.

Queen Mab

Nature! -no!
Kings, priests and statesmen blast the human flower
Even in its tender bud; their influence darts
Like subtle poison through the bloodless veins
Of desolate society. The child,
Ere he can lisp his mother’s sacred name,
Swells with the unnatural pride of crime, and lifts
His baby-sword even in a hero’s mood.
This infant arm becomes the bloodiest scourge
Of devastated earth; whilst specious names,
Learnt in soft childhood’s unsuspecting hour,
Serve as the sophisms with which manhood dims
Bright reason’s ray and sanctifies the sword
Upraised to shed a brother’s innocent blood.
Let priest-led slaves cease to proclaim that man
Inherits vice and misery, when force
And falsehood hang even o’er the cradled babe,
Stifling with rudest grasp all natural good.
Queen Mab Shelly. 44 iv
44 1v
Chilcott
Blair, Bush …. Leader come and go Yeltsin.
the moment when Corbyn as Labour leader stands up in parliament and condemns Blair over Iraq, is going to be as traumatic as it was for the hardliners of the Soviet Communist Party when Khruschev denounced the crimes of Stalin. It would also destroy Blair’s carefully planned post-Chilcot PR strategy. It is essential to the Blairites that when Chilcot is debated in parliament in two weeks time, Jeremy Corbyn is not in place as Labour leader to speak in the debate.
Tragedy and hope, On Man, Hereclitus and paramendes
p.34
Chapter 3—Europe’s Shift to the Twentieth Century
While Europe’s traits were diffusing outward to the non-European world, Europe was
also undergoing profound changes and facing difficult choices at home. These choices
were associated with drastic changes, in some cases we might say reversals, of Europe’s
point of view. These changes may be examined under eight headings. The nineteenth
century was marked by (2) belief in the innate goodness of man; (2) secularism; (3) belief
in progress; (4) liberalism; (5) capitalism; (6) faith in science; (7) democracy; (8)
nationalism. In general, these eight factors went along together in the nineteenth century.
They were generally regarded as being compatible with one another; the friends of one
were generally the friends of the others; and the enemies of one were generally the
enemies of the rest. Metternich and De Maistre were generally opposed to all eight;
Thomas Jefferson and John Stuart Mill were generally in favor of all eight..
p.37
In contrast with the nineteenth-century belief that human nature is innately good and
that society is corrupting, the twentieth century came to believe that human nature is, if
not innately bad, at least capable of being very evil. Left to himself, it seems today, man
falls very easily to the level of the jungle or even lower, and this result can be prevented
only by training and the coercive power of society. Thus, man is capable of great evil, but
society can prevent this. Along with this change from good men and bad society to bad
men and good society has appeared a reaction from optimism to pessimism and from
secularism to religion. At the same time the view that evil is merely the absence of good
has been replaced with the idea that evil is a very positive force which must ‘ne resisted
Rise up this mornin’
Smiled with the risin’ sun
Three little birds
Pitch by my doorstep
Singin’ sweet songs
Of melodies pure and true
Saying’, (this is my message to you)
Babylon’s burning, baby
Can’t you see?
Babylon’s burning
With anxiety
You’ll burn as your work
You’ll burn at your play
Smoldering
With ignorance and hate
And with anxiety
Babylon’s burning
TpHE present war has produced many catch- 
I words, among them,

A War to End War,
An Inconclusive Peace,
The Destruction of
Militarism,
The Establishment of the Rights of
Nationalities on an Unassailable Basis,
Free Nego- tiation by Free Peoples,
and This Must Never Occur Again.
Thus we see that none of the catchwords except 
the last can possibly mean what they say; and
when they are cheered each time they reappear
in the Prime Minister's stock peroration. It Is
evident that he himself offers them as no more than
oratorical orchestration to the patriotic sentiment
of the assembly. They can be taken literally
only by Ignorant and simple persons to whom a



INTRODUCTION xi

European war is simply a football match conducted
with cannons.

Cato's formula for the ending 
of the Punic wars was. Annihilate Carthage.
Carthage was annihilated; but its annihilation
brought no peace to Rome. The Irish are a con-
tentious and troublesome people; and the
proverbial receipt for peace in Ireland is to sink
the island for ten minutes into the Atlantic. Let
us suppose that Ireland is duly sunk, with England
and Prussia moored to it, not for ten minutes, but
for ever. The white and yellow races will still
confront one another across the Pacific. Italy,
France and Spain will still have to divide the heri-
tage of the Moors. Sweden will still watch Russia
with her hand qn her sword-hilt; and Russia will
still bum to protect the Balkans, to wrest Con-


xii INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENT

stantinople from the followers of "the accursed
Mahound," to cling to Poland like a big brother,
and to pick up more of the White Man's Burden
in Asia than the other Powers may think healthy
for her, or than India, for instance, may be dis-
posed to cast on any shoulders but her own. Of
South America I say nothing except that it does
not look convincing as a Temple of Perpetual
Peace.
The
wise man looks for the cause of war not In
Nietzsche's gospel of the Will to Power, or Lord
Roberts's far blunter gospel of the British Will to
Conquer, but In the custom house. The formal
conquest of a territory may loom large as a senti-
mental grievance; but, as the case of Alsace-
Lorraine shows, it does not produce war. But
the appropriation of a market is another matter:
a very small economic grievance will rapidly be-
come the nucleus of an enormous mass of martial
and patriotic emotion. There is no prospect of
the end of this war being the end of International
market-cornering and tariff blockades; and as long
as war remains physically possible, such operations
will produce it as fatally in the future as in the
past.

”The reader of Pope, as of every author, is advised to begin by letting him say what he has to say, in his own manner to an open mind that seeks only to receive the impressions which the writer wishes to convey. First let the mind and spirit of the writer come into free, full contact with the mind and spirit of the reader, whose attitude at the first reading should be simply receptive. Such reading is the condition precedent to all true judgment of a writer’s work. All criticism that is not so grounded spreads as fog over a poet’s page. Read, reader, for yourself, without once pausing to remember what you have been told to think´´.

Henry Morley.

https://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2013/06/reflection.html

Reflection.

Time was, a sober Englishman would knock
His servants up, and rise by five o’clock,
Instruct his family in every rule,
And send his wife to church, his son to school.
To worship like his fathers, was his care;
To teach their frugal virtues to his heir;
To prove, that luxury could never hold;
And place, on good security, his gold.
Now times are changed, and one poetic itch
Has seized the court and city, poor and rich:

Duncan Campbell
  1. The Secret Constitution: Secret Cabinet Committees;
    2. We’re All Data Now: Secret Data Banks;
    3. In Time Of Crisis: Government Emergency Powers;
    4. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO): making up their own law and policy;
    5. A Gap In Our Defences – about bungling defence manufacturers and incompetent military planners who have botched every new radar system that Britain has installed since World War II;
    6. Zircon – about GCHQ with particular reference to a secret 500 million satellite
PATCHING THE WORLD GOLD STANDARD
Progress has been made … in the … establishment of a solid basis for exchange stability…. But that general confidence which is essential to international stability is not present….
Adherence to a common currency system does not mean that individual countries will no longer be able to pursue internal policies of many different patterns. It does mean, however, that in doing so they will have to observe certain general principles … without which no monetary stability can be secured. — J. W. Beyen, President of the Bank for International Settlements, 1938 Report.
CHAPTER IV
Patching Won’t Do
No amendment leaving the states in possession of their sovereignty could possibly answer the purpose. — Hamilton.
The importance of the Federalist papers is that they expose, from experience and with unanswerable argument, why sovereignty is an insuperable obstacle to the organization of peace, and why the federal principle is the only way forward. — Lord Lothian, July 30, 1938.
PLAN OF CHAPTER
Our best post-war machinery for making, enforcing, interpreting and revising world law, the League of Nations, has failed. The trend back to pre-war methods proves this. It proves also how desperately we feel the need of change, for it is only too clear that there is no hope in turning back. Armaments, alliances, the Atlantic ocean, balancing power, proclaiming neutrality, desiring to keep out of war, — all these failed those who trusted in them before. They saved no people from war and between wars they failed to provide even a semblance of world government. The time gained by them costs fearfully in the gaining and risks making the final catastrophe only greater.
Reforming or patching the machinery we have seems to many the only practical thing to do. By reforming or, as I prefer, patching, I mean leaving basic principle intact. In patching I include any change, in law or fact, which however reached and however great, leaves the existing world machinery based on the principle of national sovereignty.
Before considering whether patching the League can suffice, we shall examine the possibility of patching one post-war international mechanism that remains in relatively good repute, the gold standard mechanism for giving the world stable money. The monetary problem has the advantage of being the least difficult of the major ones facing the world, and so, if we find it cannot be solved without sacrificing the principle of national sovereignty, we have gone far toward finding that patching won’t do in any field. We need not then waste time examining other possibilities of patching things outside the League and can concentrate on the problem of patching the League. To find that patching it is not enough is to conclude, as this chapter does, that we must tackle afresh the problem of organizing world government.
PATCHING THE WORLD GOLD STANDARD
Charles Streit,
Orwell Anything but the Niggers.
The unspoken clause is always ‘not counting niggers’. For how can we make a ‘firm stand’ against Hitler if we are simultaneously weakening ourselves at home? In other words, how can we ‘fight Fascism’ except by bolstering up a far vaster injustice?
Deglobalizing Russia
The Russian government, especially the Central Bank, has largely managed to preserve financial stability, a brief outbreak of panic in December 2014 notwithstanding. To offset the loss of access to Western financial markets, the Central Bank has relied on a new instrument—foreign currency repurchase agreements. In effect, the Central Bank has lent dollars to Russian banks that essentially posted their own dollar loans to Russian companies as collateral—and in turn used the dollars to repay their external debt. This has allowed Russia to stave off a run on the ruble as well as major defaults on Russian corporates’ dollar-denominated debt.
The government, for its part, looked into the issue of recapitalizing systemically important banks. This is a critical issue, as isolation is especially costly for the banking system. It is very likely that Russian banks—aside from Sberbank, which is run by Gref—will suffer losses in 2015. The Deposit Insurance Agency has already exhausted its funds and has asked the Central Bank for help.
While government support is indeed needed, the government itself lacks extra funds. Though the 2016 budget draft foresees cutting spending by 8 percent in real terms, it still includes a budget deficit equivalent to 3 percent of GDP.2 That is why the government has chosen to recapitalize the banks with government bonds rather than cash. Doing so solves the problem for the time being, but it increases major risks in the long run. Essentially, it threatens a vicious circle of sovereign debt and bank default. If banks hold sovereign bonds, then the sovereign debt crisis will hit their capital—and to recapitalize banks, the sovereign budget will need to issue new debt. The eurozone faced this problem in recent years and tried hard to break out of this cycle by creating a banking union. It is ironic that Russia is brazenly refusing to learn from the EU’s mistakes and may walk directly into this trap.
This being so it is plain that for the Federal Union a common money means an identical economic life throughout the Union. And this too is implied also in Mr Streit’s “customs-free” economy. It is impossible to have a common money when a dollar or a pound, or whatever it is, can buy this, that or the other advantage in one state and is debarred from anything but bare purchases for consumption in another. So that this Federal Union is bound to be a uniform economic system. There can be only very slight variations in the control of economic life.

Not Counting Niggers”

A dozen years ago anyone who had foretold the political line-up of today would have been looked on as a lunatic. And yet the truth is that the present situation — not in detail, of course, but in its main outlines — ought to have been predictable even in the golden age before Hitler. Something like it was bound to happen as soon as British security was seriously threatened.
The unspoken clause is always ‘not counting niggers’. For how can we make a ‘firm stand’ against Hitler if we are simultaneously weakening ourselves at home? In other words, how can we ‘fight Fascism’ except by bolstering up a far vaster injustice?
For of course it is vaster. What we always forget is that the over­whelming bulk of the British proletariat does not live in Britain, but in Asia and Africa. It is not in Hitler’s power, for instance, to make a penny an hour a normal industrial wage; it is perfectly normal in India, and we are at great pains to keep it so. One gets some idea of the real relationship of England and India when one reflects that the per capita annual income in England is something over £80, and in India about £7. It is quite common for an Indian coolie’s leg to be thinner than the average Englishman’s arm. And there is nothing racial in this, for well-fed members of the same races are of normal physique; it is due to simple starvation. This is the system which we all live on and which we denounce when there seems to be no danger of its being altered. Of late, however, it has become the first duty of a ‘good anti-Fascist’ to lie about it and help to keep it in being.
Now here I have nothing to suggest about America. I have never, for example, tried to work out the consequences of the absence of executive ministers from the legislature. I am inclined to think that is one of the weak points in the Constitution and that the English usage which exposes the minister to question time in the House and makes him a prime mover in legislation affecting his department, is a less complicated and therefore more democratic arrangement than the American one. And the powers and functions of the President and the Senate are so different from the consolidated powers of Cabinet and Prime Minister, that even when an Englishman has industriously “mugged up” the constitutional points, he is still almost as much at a loss to get the living reality as he would be if he were shown the score of an opera before hearing it played or the blue prints of a machine he had never seen in action. Very few Europeans understand the history of Woodrow Wilson, the Senate and his League of Nations. They think that “America”, which they imagine as a large single individual, planted the latter institution upon Europe and then deliberately shuffled out of her responsibility for it, and they will never think otherwise. And they think that “America” kept out of the war to the very limit of decency, overcharged us for munitions that contributed to the common victory, and made a grievance because the consequent debt was not discharged. They talk like that while Americans talk as if no English were killed between 1914 and 1918 (we had 800,000 dead) until the noble American conscripts came forward to die for them (to the tune of about 50,000). Savour for example even the title of Quincy Howe’s England expects every American to do his Duty. It’s the meanest of titles, but many Americans seem to like it.
On my desk as I write is a pamphlet by a Mr Robert Randall, nicely cyclostyled and got up. Which urges a common attack on the United States as a solution of the problem of Europe. No countries will ever feel united unless they have a common enemy, and the natural common enemy for Europe, it is declared, is the United States. So to bring about the United States of Europe we are to begin by denouncing the Monroe doctrine. I believe in the honesty and good intentions of Mr Robert Randall; he is, I am sure, no more in the pay of Germany, direct or indirect, than Mr Quincy Howe or Mr Harry Elmer Barnes; but could the most brilliant of Nazi war propagandists devise a more effective estranging suggestion?
Real brothers can curse each other and keep friends. Someday Britannia will give Columbia a piece of her mind, and that may clear the air. Said an exasperated Englishman to me a day or so ago: “I pray to God they keep out of the end of this war anyhow. We shall never hear the last of it if they don’t….”
Mrs. Nesta Webster
She has set herself with the greatest industry to trace and link together the long-drawn succession of Cabalists, Gnostics, Manichaeans, the Old Man of the Mountains, Knight Templars, Satanists, Rosicrucians, Illuminati, Freemasons, Rousseau, Voltaire, Cagliostro, Madame Blavatsky, Mrs. Besant, Trade Unions, Anarchists, Socialists, Theosophists, Communists, Those Bolsheviks, a frightful horde all plotting and getting hold of power and handing it on and doing down Christianity and the Christian life. Her books are written with-conviction enough to make one look under the bed at nights. She has never quite committed herself to those famous forged Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion which were published as the articles of association so to speak of that world conspiracy, but she stoutly maintains that though that book may not be genuine, it nevertheless shows the sort of thing of which the Jews are capable. Her book Secret Societies And Subversive Movements concludes: “For behind the concrete forces of revolution—whether Pan-German, Judaic or Illuminist—beyond that invisible secret circle which perhaps directs them all, is there not yet another force, still more potent, that must be taken into account?

§23. — THREE FACTORS IN EVERYONE

WE have now exposed, in stripped outline, the primary factors in world affairs at the present time. In all these matters I have written with the complete freedom of a biologically trained and uncontrolled observer. Sir Arthur Salter, for example, in his Security. Can We Retrieve It? (1939), writes with all the discretions and reserves of a responsible politician who has to think and speak within the conventions that I, in my entire irresponsibility, can repudiate and kick aside. His thoughts are capped and gowned and mine are stark. He has an air of scarcely recognizing the realities I assemble. Nevertheless, his intelligence and integrity are manifestly forcing him towards a conception of public policy and the human future essentially the same as those I have stated concisely and brutally here.*
* See Note 23A for a quotation from his Epilogue.
Note 23A. Sir Arthur’s Epilogue begins: “Shall we never pluck the best from fate and find the Golden Mean? Must we ever choose freedom without order, or order without freedom? Must justice and mercy bring always weakness in their train, and strength bring tyranny?
“Shall Peace be never made between equals, but imposed always by victor upon vanquished? Must every peace treaty sow the seeds of future war? Shall the strong never be magnanimous and the weak never secure justice? Must success always sap the will, and the humiliation of defeat incite only to revenge? Shall wars with changing victors be for ever the dire fate of men?
“We, the free democracies of the world, have the virtues bred and nursed in the pursuits of peace. That is not enough. We need also the sterner virtues—fortitude, daemonic energy, the will to act—and to act together.” (p. 385.)
“…willing cooperation and the endurance which is only possible to an instructed people who understand the purpose of their effort and approve it.” (p. 384.) Sir Arthur Salter, Security. Can We Retrieve It? (1939).
Illarionov argued that the real reason every rich nation but America, the world’s biggest polluter, backs the Protocol is because they want control of emissions quotas, something he said will give developed nations unprecedented control of poor countries’ economies.
“Europe has seen the effects of the national-socialist ideology and the Marxist ideology. The imperialist philosophy behind Kyoto is nothing short of these in its scale,” he said. “This is war. But our cause is just and we will prevail.”
European Union’s lack of democracy, continuing integration and economic policies:

The present decision-making system of the European Union is different from a classic parliamentary democracy, tested and proven by history. In a normal parliamentary system, part of the MPs support the government and part support the opposition. In the European Parliament, this arrangement has been missing. Here, only one single alternative is being promoted, and those who dare think about a different option are labelled as enemies of European integration… There is also a great distance (not only in a geographical sense) between citizens and Union representatives, which is much greater than is the case inside the member countries. This distance is often described as the democratic deficit, the loss of democratic accountability, the decision-making of the unelected – but selected – ones, as bureaucratisation of decision-making etc. The proposals to change the current state of affairs – included in the rejected European Constitution or in the not much different Lisbon Treaty – would make this defect even worse. Since there is no European demos – and no European nation – this defect cannot be solved by strengthening the role of the European Parliament, either.[19][20]

After this point was made, a number of MEPs walked out of the chamber.
Klaus is a long-term opponent of centrally implemented economic policies in the EU and of the euro as common currency of the eurozone countries. During the observance of the 10th anniversary of the euro in 2008 he expressed his beliefs in a Financial Times article:

If Europe does not wake up, it will face hard times. A common monetary policy will not help. Member countries already react differently to the appreciation of the euro against the dollar, the rising cost of energy, food or raw materials, and Asian competition. . . . In practice, the existence of euro has shown that forcing an economically disparate Europe into a homogeneous entity through a political decision is political engineering par excellence, far from beneficial for all countries concerned.[23]

Václav Klaus 2009
Klaus is a strong critic of the scientific consensus that global warming is anthropogenic. He has also called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change a group of politicized scientists with one-sided opinions and one-sided assignments. He has said that some other top-level politicians do not expose their doubts about global warming being anthropogenic because “a whip of political correctness strangles their voices.”[53]
In addition he says, “Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences” along with other “isms” such as communism, feminism, and liberalism. Klaus said that “environmentalism is a religion” and, answering questions of U.S. Congressmen, a “modern counterpart of communism” that seeks to change peoples’ habits and economic systems.[54]
Blue Planet in Green Shackles”. It claims that “The theory of global warming and the hypothesis on its causes, which has spread around massively nowadays, may be a bad theory, it may also be a valueless theory, but in any case it is a very dangerous theory.”
Special interests and lobbying by non-country interested parties[edit]
There are numerous special interest groups, organizations, corporations who have public and private positions on the multifaceted topic of global warming. The following is a partial list of the types of special interest parties that have demonstrated an interest in the politics of global warming:
  • Financial Institutions: Financial institutions generally support restrictive policies regarding global warming, particularly the implementation of carbon trading schemes and the creation of market mechanisms that associate a price with carbon. These new markets would require trading infrastructures which banking institutions are well positioned to provide. Financial institutions would also be positioned well to invest, trade and develop various financial instruments that they could profit from through speculative positions on carbon prices and the use of brokerage and other financial functions like insurance and derivative instruments.[23]
  • Environmental groups: Environmental groups generally take ideological positions on global warming and favor strict restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions. Environmental groups, as activists, engage in raising awareness and attracting investment into the advocacy movement to further raise awareness.[24]
  • Fossil fuel companies: Traditional fossil fuel corporations could benefit or lose from stricter global warming regulations. A reduction in the use of fossil fuels could negatively impact fossil fuel corporations.[25][26] However, the fact that fossil fuel companies are a large source of energy, are also the primary source of carbon dioxide, and are engaged in energy trading might mean that their participation in trading schemes and other such mechanisms might give them a unique advantage and makes it unclear whether traditional fossil fuel companies would all and always be against stricter global warming policies. As an example, Enron, a traditional gas pipeline company with a large trading desk heavily lobbied the government for the EPA to regulate CO2: they thought that they would dominate the energy industry if they could be at the center of energy trading.[27]
  • Alternative energy companies: alternative energy companies like wind and solar generally support stricter global warming policies. They would expect their share of the energy market to expand as fossil fuels are made more expensive through trading schemes or taxes.[28]
  • Nuclear energy companies: nuclear energy companies could see a renaissance in a world where fossil fuels are taxed directly or through a carbon trading mechanism. For this reason, it is likely that nuclear energy companies would likely support stricter global warming policies.[29]
  • Traditional retailers and marketers: traditional retailers, marketers, and the general corporations respond by adopting policies that resonate with their customers. If “being green” helps a general corporation, then they could undertake modest programs to please and better align with their customers. However, since the general corporation does not make a profit from their particular position, it is unlikely that they would strongly lobby either for or against a stricter global warming policy position.[30]
  • Governments: On the Australian Sunday morning political discussion show The Bolt ReportRichard Lindzen said in a 2011 interview that governments might use global warming as a rationale for additional taxes.[31]
The various interested parties sometimes align with one another to reinforce their message. Sometimes industries will fund specialty nonprofit organizations to raise awareness and lobby on their behest.[32][33] The combinations and tactics that the various interested parties use are nuanced and sometimes unlimited in the variety of their approaches to promote their positions onto the general public.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, pioneer of the political treatment of the greenhouse effect
  • 1969, on Initiative of US President Richard NixonNATO tried to establish a third civil column and planned to establish itself as a hub of research and initiatives in the civil region, especially on environmental topics.[52] Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Nixons NATO delegate for the topic[52] named acid rain and the greenhouse effect as suitable international challenges to be dealt by NATO
Entitled Facts Kerry at the UN Syria????
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
– quoted in 
Robert Sobel‘s review of Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies, edited by Mark C. Carnes

‘Climate emails hacked by spies’

Interception bore hallmarks of foreign intelligence agency, says expert
A highly sophisticated hacking operation that led to the leaking of hundreds of emails from the Climatic Research Unit in East Anglia was probably carried out by a foreign intelligence agency, according to the Government’s former chief scientist. Sir David King, who was Tony Blair’s chief scientific adviser for seven years until 2007, said that the hacking and selective leaking of the unit’s emails, going back 13 years, bore all the hallmarks of a co-ordinated intelligence operation – especially given their release just before the Copenhagen climate conference in December.
I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.
FT.COM
by: Gideon Rachman

A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.´´

Sooner or later mankind must come to one universal peace, unless our race is to be destroyed by the increasing power of its own destructive inventions; and that universal peace must needs take the form of a government, that is to say, a law-sustaining organisation, in the best sense of the word religious—a government ruling men through the educated co-ordination of their minds in a common conception of human history and human destiny.
The Catholic Church was the first clearly conscious attempt to provide such a government in the wor1d. We cannot too earnestly. examine its deficiencies and inadequacies, for every lesson we can draw from them is necessarily of the greatest value in forming our ideas of our own international relationships.
The transformation of the world is a great, complicated and painful process. For this great task a great class is required. Big ships go on long voyages.
Wells: Yes, but for long voyages a captain and a navigator are required.
Stalin: That is true; but what is first required for a long voyage is a big ship. What is a navigator without a ship? An idle man.
Wells: The big ship is humanity, not a class.
Stalin: You, Mr. Wells, evidently start out with the assumption that all men are good. I, however, do not forget that there are many wicked men. I do not believe in the goodness of the bourgeoisie.
Wells: There was a case in the history of England, however, of a class voluntarily handing over power to another class. In the period between 1830 and 1870, the aristocracy, whose influence was still very considerable at the end of the eighteenth century, voluntarily, without a severe struggle, surrendered power to the bourgeoisie, which serves as a sentimental support of the monarchy. Subsequently, this transference of power led to the establishment of the rule of the financial oligarchy.
Monnet and Retinger: liberal establishment tools in the founding of Europe
Right before and after World War I, Monnet hooked up with leading figures in the Anglo-American establishment. One of the first was Lord Kindersley, who, over the course of his life, was a partner in Lazard Brothers, a chairman of the Hudson’s Bay Company, and a director of the Bank of England. Kindersley’s son is known to have become an executive of the Pilgrims Society [14], a group researched in great detail by this author as it has been the embodiment of the liberal Anglo-American establishment throughout the 20th and early 21st century.
Another very important person was Lord Arthur Salter, whom Monnet first met in 1914. [15] Salter and Monnet would become involved in setting up the Inter-Allied Maritime Transport Council, the Supreme Economic Council at Versailles, and the League of Nations. In 1931, Salter wrote a book entitled The United States of Europe, in which he favored a federal Europe within the framework of the League of Nations. Probably not by coincidence, Monnet’s post-Word War II proposal for a political structure of a united Europe was almost exactly the same; it must have been inspired by Salter. Three years after writing The United States of Europe, in 1934, Salter became a professor at Oxford and a fellow of the university’s All Souls College, referred to by Professor Carroll Quigley as the center of the Round Table Group. In fact, Quigley identified Salter as a member of the Milner Group [16], which was one of several incarnations of the Round Table Group. It is also known that Salter shared a number of boards with Lord Astor and Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, both members of prominent Pilgrims Society and reportedly Round Table families (the Cecils later also appeared in Le Cercle). Salter himself became a regular visitor of Pilgrims Society meetings right after he wrote The United States of Europe. He joined as a formal member in later years.
Others Monnet became close to were Sir Eric Drummond (the 16th Earl of Perth), a member of a very aristocratic Catholic family in Britain; Lord Robert Brand, of Lazard Brothers, whose brother married Lady Nancy Astor; Andre Meyer and Pierre-David Weill of Lazard, John Foster Dulles, Dean Acheson, John McCloy, Douglas Dillon, and many others. [17] Most persons mentioned here belonged to the Pilgrims Society, with the two British individuals once again having had close ties to Quigley’s Round Table Group.
Monnet also was a long-time business associate of Elisha Walker, a CFR member who could be found at Kuhn, Loeb & Co. and the American International Corporation. With Walker he clandestinely tried to take over A. P. Giannini’s Transamerica Corporation and its Bank of America network. The effort failed after a lawsuit in which Giannini vowed to fight the “Wall Street domination” on the board of his company. In February 1932, Walker and Monnet were ousted as chair and vice chair respectively. [18]
The Role of Oligarchs in Russian Capitalism Sergei Guriev, Andrei Rachinsky To cite this version: Sergei Guriev, Andrei Rachinsky. The Role of Oligarchs in Russian Capitalism. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2005, pp.131 – 150.
How Did the Oligarchs Gain Control? A common belief is that the oligarchs owe their fortunes to the “loans-forshares” auctions held in mid-1990s, which are widely regarded as the most scandalous episode of Russian privatization. In the classical loans-for-shares scenario, the government appointed a commercial banker to run an auction that would allocate a controlling stake of a large natural resource enterprise in exchange for a loan to the federal government that the latter never intended to repay. Not surprisingly, the auctioneer always awarded the stake to himself for a nominal bid (usually, slightly above a very low reserve price) by excluding all outside bidders. The scheme was designed to consolidate the bankers’ support for Yeltzin’s reelection campaign in 1996 (Freeland, 2000). The conventional loans-for-shares story fits the cases of Abramovich (in 1995– 1997, a junior partner of Berezovsky), Khodorkovsky and especially Potanin. The other two winners were the oil sector insiders Alekperov and Bogdanov, who obtained stakes in firms they already controlled. However, most of those listed in Table 1 did not become oligarchs through the loans-for-shares program. Some of the 22 largest owners tried to participate in the loans-for-shares and even offered more competitive bids, but were excluded by those in charge of respective auctions; some even raised their concerns in public (Freeland, 2000).
Russian Oligarchs in International Perspective Cross-country comparisons of wealth concentration are usually based on the share of stock market capitalization controlled by a given number (often ten) of families. Certainly, this metric is not a perfect one—after all, it doesn’t include firms not listed on stock markets and emerging markets are likely to provide at best an imperfect measure of value. But we are not aware of comparable data sets on nonlisted firms, so we rely on the data on the share of the stock market owned by the top 10 families. By that measure, ownership concentration in modern Russia is higher than in any other country for which the data are available. The top 10 families or ownership groups (a subset of Table 1) owned 60.2 percent of Russia’s stock market in June 2003. This percentage is much higher than in any country in continental Europe, where the share of 10 largest families is below 35 percent in small countries and below 30 percent in all large countries (Faccio and Lang, 2002). In the United States and the United Kingdom, this share The Role of Oligarchs in Russian Capitalism 139 is in single-digit percentages (Faccio and Lang, 2002, Claessens et al., 2002).8 In east Asian countries before 1997 crisis, the highest shares of 10 largest families were in Indonesia (58 percent), Philippines (52 percent), Thailand (43 percent) and Korea (37 percent) (Claessens, Djankov and Lang, 2000). The numbers for Indonesia and Philippines include the holdings of Suharto and Marcos families, each controlling 17 percent of total market capitalization in the respective countries. In Russia, the personal wealth of Yeltsin and Putin is considered to be very modest
The first thing that should be obvious to any investigator of this network is that the backgrounds and political, economic and religious ideas of the persons attending these groups are too similar to not conclude that groups as Bilderberg, the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and European Rount Table represent the ultimate form of crony capitalism. Basically everyone here has promoted privatization, deregulation and further political and economic integration as the solution to every problem in the world. They are all great supporters of the United Nations. They all warn against the dangers of global warming. During the Cold War the vast majority were staunch supporters of containment and détente. Virtually all strongly disliked the Reagan-backed Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), an incredibly expensive program aimed at creating a space shield against Russian ICBMs. And the list goes on. Of course, it’s possible to nitpick and find a few examples of disagreement among members on how to reach certain objectives. These differences will always be there, as long as there are people. It doesn’t mean, however, that there’s not a powerful supranational network of private individuals out there with largely similar and somewhat mysterious aims.
The Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and even the European Round Table are relatively well-known these days. It actually seems to have been on the agenda to give so much attention to these groups from conspiratorial new agy (Coast to Coast AM), Christian conservative (John Birch Society, Alex Jones) and holocaust-denying, Jew-baiting (Liberty Lobby, Rense) sources that it has become impossible for a well-respected person to even utter the names Rockefeller, Rothschild or any of these groups – which is definitely a problem when discussing a number of important conspiracies. Bring up these names and many people will automatically roll their eyes and lose interest, simply because they have experienced an overload of media-pushed extremists mentioning these names, but mixing them with some of the most bizarre theories possible.
3_esta
A message consisting of a set of ten guidelines or principles is engraved on the Georgia Guidestones[8] in eight different languages, one language on each face of the four large upright stones. Moving clockwise around the structure from due north, these languages are: EnglishSpanishSwahiliHindiHebrewArabicChinese, and Russian.
  1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
  2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
  3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
  4. Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
  5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
  6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
  7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
  8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
  9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
  10. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.
The most widely agreed-upon interpretation of the stones is that they describe the basic concepts required to rebuild a devastated civilization.[14] Author Brad Meltzer notes that the stones were built in 1979 at the height of the Cold War, and thus argues that they may have been intended as a message to the possible survivors of a nuclear World War III. The engraved suggestion to keep humanity’s population below 500 million could have been made under the assumption that war had already reduced humanity below this number.[15]

Rosicrucian Manifestos[edit]

Origins[edit]

Between 1607 and 1616, two anonymous manifestos were published, first in Germany and later throughout Europe.[5] These were the Fama Fraternitatis RC (The Fame of the Brotherhood of RC) and the Confessio Fraternitatis (The Confession of the Brotherhood of RC).
The Fama Fraternitatis presented the legend of a German doctor and mystic philosopher referred to as “Frater C.R.C.” (later identified in a third manifesto as Christian Rosenkreuz, or “Rose-cross”). The year 1378 is presented as being the birth year of “our Christian Father”, and it is stated that he lived 106 years. After studying in the Middle East under various masters, possibly adhering to Sufism,[6] he was unable to spread the knowledge he had acquired to any prominent European figures. Instead, he gathered a small circle of friends/disciples and founded the Rosicrucian Order (this can be deduced to have occurred around 1407).
During Rosenkreuz’s lifetime, the order was said to consist of no more than eight members, each a doctor and a sworn bachelor. Each member undertook an oath to heal the sick without payment, to maintain a secret fellowship, and to find a replacement for himself before he died. Three such generations had supposedly passed between c. 1500 and c. 1600, a time when scientific, philosophical and religious freedom had grown so that the public might benefit from the Rosicrucians’ knowledge, so that they were now seeking good men.[7]

Sufism or Taṣawwuf[1] (Arabicالتصوف‎‎), which is often defined as “Islamic mysticism,”[2] “the inward dimension of Islam,”[3][4] or “the phenomenon of mysticism within Islam,”[5][6] is a mystical trend in Islam “characterized … [by particular] values, ritual practices, doctrines and institutions”[7] which began very early on in Islamic history[5] and which represents “the main manifestation and the most important and central crystallization of” mystical practice in Islam.[8]
Existing in both Sunni and Shia Islam, Sufism is not a distinct sect,[9] as is sometimes erroneously assumed,[9] but a method of approaching or a way of understanding the religion,[9] which strives to take the regular practice of the religion to the “supererogatory level”[9] through simultaneously “fulfilling … [the obligatory] religious duties”[5] and finding a “way and a means of striking a root through the ‘narrow gate’ in the depth of the soul out into the domain of the pure arid unimprisonable Spirit which itself opens out on to the Divinity.”[2] Historically, practitioners of Sufism have been referred to as “Sufis” (/ˈsuːfi/صُوفِيّ ṣūfī), an Arabic word which is believed by some scholars to have originally indicated the “woollen clothes (ṣūf) or rough garb” which the early Islamic mystics wore.[5]
Historically, Sufism became “an incredibly important part of Islam” and “one of the most widespread and omnipresent aspects of Muslim life” in Islamic civilization from the early medieval period onwards,[10][11] when it began to permeate nearly all major aspects of Sunni Islamic life in regions stretching from India and Iraq to the Balkans and Senegal.[9] Sufism continued to remain a crucial part of daily Islamic life until the twentieth century, when its historical influence upon Islamic civilization began to be undermined by modernism[12] as well as be combated by the rise of Salafism and Wahhabism.[9][13] Islamic scholar Timothy Winter has remarked: “[In] classical, mainstream, medieval Sunni Islam … [the idea of] ‘orthodox Islam’ would not … [have been possible] without Sufism,”[10] and that the classical belief in Sufism being an essential component of Islam has only weakened in some quarters of the Islamic world “a generation or two ago” with the rise of Salafism.[10] In the modern world, the classical interpretation of Sunni orthodoxy, which sees in Sufism an essential dimension of Islam alongside the disciplines of jurisprudence and theology, is represented by institutions such as Al-Azhar University and Zaytuna College, with Al-Azhar’s current Grand Imam Ahmed el-Tayeb recently defining “Sunni orthodoxy” as being a follower “of any of the four schools of [legal] thought (HanafiShafi’iMaliki or Hanbali) and … [also] of the Sufism of Imam Junayd of Baghdad in doctrines, manners and [spiritual] purification.”[14]
In the eleventh-century, Sufism, which had previously been a less “codified” trend in Islamic piety, began to be “ordered and crystallized”[15] into orders which have continued until the present day.[15] All these orders were founded by a major Islamic saint, and some of the largest and most widespread included the Qadiriyya (after Abdul-Qadir Gilani [d. 1166]), the Rifa’iyya (after Ahmed al-Rifa’i [d. 1182]), the Chishtiyya (after Moinuddin Chishti [d. 1236]), the Shadiliyya (after Abul Hasan ash-Shadhili [d. 1258]), and the Naqshbandiyya (after Baha-ud-Din Naqshband Bukhari [d. 1389]).[15] Contrary to popular perception in the West,[16] however, neither the founders of these orders nor their followers ever considered themselves to be anything other than orthodox Sunni Muslims,[16] and in fact all of these orders were attached to one of the four orthodox legal schools of Sunni Islam.[10][14] Thus, the Qadiriyya order was Hanbali, with its founder, Abdul-Qadir Gilani, being a renowned Hanbali jurist; the Chishtiyya was Hanafi; the Shadiliyya order was Maliki; and the Naqshbandiyya order was Hanafi.[17] Thus, it is precisely because it is historically proven that “many of the most eminent defenders of Islamic orthodoxy, such as Abdul-Qadir GilaniGhazali, and the Sultan Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn (Saladin) were connected with Sufism”[18] that the popular studies of writers like Idris Shah are continuously disregarded by scholars as conveying the fallacious image that “Sufism” is somehow distinct from “Islam.”[19][20][18][21] All Sufi orders trace many of their original precepts from Muhammad through his cousin and son-in-law Ali with the notable exception of the Naqshbandi, who claim to trace their origins from Muhammad through the first Rashid Caliph, Abu Bakr.[22]
Classical Sufis were characterized by their asceticism, especially by their attachment to dhikr, the practice of repeating the names of God, often performed after prayers.[23] Sufism gained adherents among a number of Muslims as a reaction against the worldliness of the early Umayyad Caliphate (661–750).[24] Sufis have spanned several continents and cultures over a millennium, originally expressing their beliefs in Arabic before spreading into PersianTurkish, and Urdu among dozens of other languages.[25] According to William Chittick, “In a broad sense, Sufism can be described as the interiorization, and intensification of Islamic faith and practice.”[26]

https://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/03/notes-for-peom-or-some-prose.html

On the present discontents, Burke opined #Conquest of Dough

mais par impatience de souffrir
On the present discontents, Burke opined
Putin ,Trump and Farage set courses un-entangled
INTRODUCTION
Edmund Burke was born at Dublin on the first of January, 1730.  His father was an attorney, who had fifteen children, of whom all but four died in their youth.  Edmund, the second son, being of delicate health in his childhood, was taught at home and at his grandfather’s house in the country before he was sent with his two brothers Garrett and Richard to a school at Ballitore, under Abraham Shackleton, a member of the Society of Friends.  For nearly forty years afterwards Burke paid an annual visit to Ballitore.
In 1744, after leaving school, Burke entered Trinity College, Dublin.  He graduated B.A. in 1748; M.A., 1751.  In 1750 he came to London, to the Middle Temple.  In 1756 Burke became known as a writer, by two pieces.  One was a pamphlet called “A Vindication of Natural Society.”  This was an ironical piece, reducing to absurdity those theories of the excellence of uncivilised humanity which were gathering strength in France, and had been favoured in the philosophical works of Bolingbroke, then lately published.  Burke’s other work published in 1756, was his “Essay on the Sublime and Beautiful.”
At this time Burke’s health broke down.  He was cared for in the house of a kindly physician, Dr. Nugent, and the result was that in the spring of 1757 he married Dr. Nugent’s daughter.  In the following year Burke made Samuel Johnson’s acquaintance, and acquaintance ripened fast into close friendship.  In 1758, also, a son was born; and, as a way of adding to his income, Burke suggested the plan of “The Annual Register.”
In 1761 Burke became private secretary to William Gerard Hamilton, who was then appointed Chief Secretary to Ireland.  In April, 1763, Burke’s services were recognised by a pension of £300 a year; but he threw this up in April, 1765, when he found that his services were considered to have been not only recognised, but also bought.  On the 10th of July in that year (1765) Lord Rockingham became Premier, and a week later Burke, through the good offices of an admiring friend who had come to know him in the newly-founded Turk’s Head Club, became Rockingham’s private secretary.  He was now the mainstay, if not the inspirer, of Rockingham’s policy of pacific compromise in the vexed questions between England and the American colonies.  Burke’s elder brother, who had lately succeeded to his father’s property, died also in 1765, and Burke sold the estate in Cork for £4,000.
Having become private secretary to Lord Rockingham, Burke entered Parliament as member for Wendover, and promptly took his place among the leading speakers in the House.
On the 30th of July, 1766, the Rockingham Ministry went out, and Burke wrote a defence of its policy in “A Short Account of a late Short Administration.”  In 1768 Burke bought for £23,000 an estate called Gregories or Butler’s Court, about a mile from Beaconsfield.  He called it by the more territorial name of Beaconsfield, and made it his home.  Burke’s endeavours to stay the policy that was driving the American colonies to revolution, caused the State of New York, in 1771, to nominate him as its agent.  About May, 1769, Edmund Burke began the pamphlet here given, Thoughts on the Present Discontents.  It was published in 1770, and four editions of it were issued before the end of the year.  It was directed chiefly against Court influence, that had first been used successfully against the Rockingham Ministry.  Allegiance to Rockingham caused Burke to write the pamphlet, but he based his argument upon essentials of his own faith as a statesman.  It was the beginning of the larger utterance of his political mind.
Court influence was strengthened in those days by the large number of newly-rich men, who bought their way into the House of Commons for personal reasons and could easily be attached to the King’s party.  In a population of 8,000,000 there were then but 160,000 electors, mostly nominal.  The great land-owners generally held the counties.  When two great houses disputed the county of York, the election lasted fourteen days, and the costs, chiefly in bribery, were said to have reached three hundred thousand pounds.  Many seats in Parliament were regarded as hereditary possessions, which could be let at rental, or to which the nominations could be sold.  Town corporations often let, to the highest bidders, seats in Parliament, for the benefit of the town funds.  The election of John Wilkes for Middlesex, in 1768, was taken as a triumph of the people.  The King and his ministers then brought the House of Commons into conflict with the freeholders of Westminster.  Discontent became active and general.  “Junius” began, in his letters, to attack boldly the King’s friends, and into the midst of the discontent was thrown a message from the Crown asking for half a million, to make good a shortcoming in the Civil List.  Men asked in vain what had been done with the lost money.  Confusion at home was increased by the great conflict with the American colonies; discontents, ever present, were colonial as well as home.  In such a time Burke endeavoured to show by what pilotage he would have men weather the storm.
H. M.

THOUGHTS ON THE PRESENT DISCONTENTS

It is an undertaking of some degree of delicacy to examine into the cause of public disorders.  If a man happens not to succeed in such an inquiry, he will be thought weak and visionary; if he touches the true grievance, there is a danger that he may come near to persons of weight and consequence, who will rather be exasperated at the discovery of their errors than thankful for the occasion of correcting them.  If he should be obliged to blame the favourites of the people, he will be considered as the tool of power; if he censures those in power, he will be looked on as an instrument of faction.  But in all exertions of duty something is to be hazarded.  In cases of tumult and disorder, our law has invested every man, in some sort, with the authority of a magistrate.  When the affairs of the nation are distracted, private people are, by the spirit of that law, justified in stepping a little out of their ordinary sphere.  They enjoy a privilege of somewhat more dignity and effect than that of idle lamentation over the calamities of their country.  They may look into them narrowly; they may reason upon them liberally; and if they should be so fortunate as to discover the true source of the mischief, and to suggest any probable method of removing it, though they may displease the rulers for the day, they are certainly of service to the cause of Government.  Government is deeply interested in everything which, even through the medium of some temporary uneasiness, may tend finally to compose the minds of the subjects, and to conciliate their affections.  I have nothing to do here with the abstract value of the voice of the people.  But as long as reputation, the most precious possession of every individual, and as long as opinion, the great support of the State, depend entirely upon that voice, it can never be considered as a thing of little consequence either to individuals or to Government.  Nations are not primarily ruled by laws; less by violence.  Whatever original energy may be supposed either in force or regulation, the operation of both is, in truth, merely instrumental.  Nations are governed by the same methods, and on the same principles, by which an individual without authority is often able to govern those who are his equals or his superiors, by a knowledge of their temper, and by a judicious management of it; I mean, when public affairs are steadily and quietly conducted: not when Government is nothing but a continued scuffle between the magistrate and the multitude, in which sometimes the one and sometimes the other is uppermost—in which they alternately yield and prevail, in a series of contemptible victories and scandalous submissions.  The temper of the people amongst whom he presides ought therefore to be the first study of a statesman.  And the knowledge of this temper it is by no means impossible for him to attain, if he has not an interest in being ignorant of what it is his duty to learn.
To complain of the age we live in, to murmur at the present possessors of power, to lament the past, to conceive extravagant hopes of the future, are the common dispositions of the greater part of mankind—indeed, the necessary effects of the ignorance and levity of the vulgar.  Such complaints and humours have existed in all times; yet as all times have not been alike, true political sagacity manifests itself, in distinguishing that complaint which only characterises the general infirmity of human nature from those which are symptoms of the particular distemperature of our own air and season.
* * * * *
Nobody, I believe, will consider it merely as the language of spleen or disappointment, if I say that there is something particularly alarming in the present conjuncture.  There is hardly a man, in or out of power, who holds any other language.  That Government is at once dreaded and contemned; that the laws are despoiled of all their respected and salutary terrors; that their inaction is a subject of ridicule, and their exertion of abhorrence; that rank, and office, and title, and all the solemn plausibilities of the world, have lost their reverence and effect; that our foreign politics are as much deranged as our domestic economy; that our dependencies are slackened in their affection, and loosened from their obedience; that we know neither how to yield nor how to enforce; that hardly anything above or below, abroad or at home, is sound and entire; but that disconnection and confusion, in offices, in parties, in families, in Parliament, in the nation, prevail beyond the disorders of any former time: these are facts universally admitted and lamented.
This state of things is the more extraordinary, because the great parties which formerly divided and agitated the kingdom are known to be in a manner entirely dissolved.  No great external calamity has visited the nation; no pestilence or famine.  We do not labour at present under any scheme of taxation new or oppressive in the quantity or in the mode.  Nor are we engaged in unsuccessful war, in which our misfortunes might easily pervert our judgment, and our minds, sore from the loss of national glory, might feel every blow of fortune as a crime in Government.
* * * * *
It is impossible that the cause of this strange distemper should not sometimes become a subject of discourse.  It is a compliment due, and which I willingly pay, to those who administer our affairs, to take notice in the first place of their speculation.  Our Ministers are of opinion that the increase of our trade and manufactures, that our growth by colonisation and by conquest, have concurred to accumulate immense wealth in the hands of some individuals; and this again being dispersed amongst the people, has rendered them universally proud, ferocious, and ungovernable; that the insolence of some from their enormous wealth, and the boldness of others from a guilty poverty, have rendered them capable of the most atrocious attempts; so that they have trampled upon all subordination, and violently borne down the unarmed laws of a free Government—barriers too feeble against the fury of a populace so fierce and licentious as ours.  They contend that no adequate provocation has been given for so spreading a discontent, our affairs having been conducted throughout with remarkable temper and consummate wisdom.  The wicked industry of some libellers, joined to the intrigues of a few disappointed politicians, have, in their opinion, been able to produce this unnatural ferment in the nation.
Nothing indeed can be more unnatural than the present convulsions of this country, if the above account be a true one.  I confess I shall assent to it with great reluctance, and only on the compulsion of the clearest and firmest proofs; because their account resolves itself into this short but discouraging proposition, “That we have a very good Ministry, but that we are a very bad people;” that we set ourselves to bite the hand that feeds us; that with a malignant insanity we oppose the measures, and ungratefully vilify the persons, of those whose sole object is our own peace and prosperity.  If a few puny libellers, acting under a knot of factious politicians, without virtue, parts, or character (such they are constantly represented by these gentlemen), are sufficient to excite this disturbance, very perverse must be the disposition of that people amongst whom such a disturbance can be excited by such means.  It is besides no small aggravation of the public misfortune that the disease, on this hypothesis, appears to be without remedy.  If the wealth of the nation be the cause of its turbulence, I imagine it is not proposed to introduce poverty as a constable to keep the peace.  If our dominions abroad are the roots which feed all this rank luxuriance of sedition, it is not intended to cut them off in order to famish the fruit.  If our liberty has enfeebled the executive power, there is no design, I hope, to call in the aid of despotism to fill up the deficiencies of law.  Whatever may be intended, these things are not yet professed.  We seem therefore to be driven to absolute despair, for we have no other materials to work upon but those out of which God has been pleased to form the inhabitants of this island.  If these be radically and essentially vicious, all that can be said is that those men are very unhappy to whose fortune or duty it falls to administer the affairs of this untoward people.  I hear it indeed sometimes asserted that a steady perseverance in the present measures, and a rigorous punishment of those who oppose them, will in course of time infallibly put an end to these disorders.  But this, in my opinion, is said without much observation of our present disposition, and without any knowledge at all of the general nature of mankind.  If the matter of which this nation is composed be so very fermentable as these gentlemen describe it, leaven never will be wanting to work it up, as long as discontent, revenge, and ambition have existence in the world.  Particular punishments are the cure for accidental distempers in the State; they inflame rather than allay those heats which arise from the settled mismanagement of the Government, or from a natural ill disposition in the people.  It is of the utmost moment not to make mistakes in the use of strong measures, and firmness is then only a virtue when it accompanies the most perfect wisdom.  In truth, inconstancy is a sort of natural corrective of folly and ignorance.
I am not one of those who think that the people are never in the wrong.  They have been so, frequently and outrageously, both in other countries and in this.  But I do say that in all disputes between them and their rulers the presumption is at least upon a par in favour of the people.  Experience may perhaps justify me in going further.  When popular discontents have been very prevalent, it may well be affirmed and supported that there has been generally something found amiss in the constitution or in the conduct of Government.  The people have no interest in disorder.  When they do wrong, it is their error, and not their crime.  But with the governing part of the State it is far otherwise.  They certainly may act ill by design, as well as by mistake.  “Les révolutions qui arrivent dans les grands états ne sont point un effect du hasard, ni du caprice des peuples.  Rien ne révolte les grands d’un royaume comme un Gouvernoment foible et dérangé.  Pour la populace, ce n’est jamais par envie d’attaquer qu’elle se soulève, mais par impatience de souffrir.”  These are the words of a great man, of a Minister of State, and a zealous assertor of Monarchy.  They are applied to the system of favouritism which was adopted by Henry the Third of France, and to the dreadful consequences it produced.  What he says of revolutions is equally true of all great disturbances.  If this presumption in favour of the subjects against the trustees of power be not the more probable, I am sure it is the more comfortable speculation, because it is more easy to change an Administration than to reform a people.
* * * * *
Upon a supposition, therefore, that, in the opening of the cause, the presumptions stand equally balanced between the parties, there seems sufficient ground to entitle any person to a fair hearing who attempts some other scheme besides that easy one which is fashionable in some fashionable companies, to account for the present discontents.  It is not to be argued that we endure no grievance, because our grievances are not of the same sort with those under which we laboured formerly—not precisely those which we bore from the Tudors, or vindicated on the Stuarts.  A great change has taken place in the affairs of this country.  For in the silent lapse of events as material alterations have been insensibly brought about in the policy and character of governments and nations as those which have been marked by the tumult of public revolutions.
It is very rare indeed for men to be wrong in their feelings concerning public misconduct; as rare to be right in their speculation upon the cause of it.  I have constantly observed that the generality of people are fifty years, at least, behindhand in their politics.  There are but very few who are capable of comparing and digesting what passes before their eyes at different times and occasions, so as to form the whole into a distinct system.  But in books everything is settled for them, without the exertion of any considerable diligence or sagacity.  For which reason men are wise with but little reflection, and good with little self-denial, in the business of all times except their own.  We are very uncorrupt and tolerably enlightened judges of the transactions of past ages; where no passions deceive, and where the whole train of circumstances, from the trifling cause to the tragical event, is set in an orderly series before us.  Few are the partisans of departed tyranny; and to be a Whig on the business of a hundred years ago is very consistent with every advantage of present servility.  This retrospective wisdom and historical patriotism are things of wonderful convenience, and serve admirably to reconcile the old quarrel between speculation and practice.  Many a stern republican, after gorging himself with a full feast of admiration of the Grecian commonwealths and of our true Saxon constitution, and discharging all the splendid bile of his virtuous indignation on King John and King James, sits down perfectly satisfied to the coarsest work and homeliest job of the day he lives in.  I believe there was no professed admirer of Henry the Eighth among the instruments of the last King James; nor in the court of Henry the Eighth was there, I dare say, to be found a single advocate for the favourites of Richard the Second.
No complaisance to our Court, or to our age, can make me believe nature to be so changed but that public liberty will be among us, as among our ancestors, obnoxious to some person or other, and that opportunities will be furnished for attempting, at least, some alteration to the prejudice of our constitution.  These attempts will naturally vary in their mode, according to times and circumstances.  For ambition, though it has ever the same general views, has not at all times the same means, nor the same particular objects.  A great deal of the furniture of ancient tyranny is worn to rags; the rest is entirely out of fashion.  Besides, there are few statesmen so very clumsy and awkward in their business as to fall into the identical snare which has proved fatal to their predecessors.  When an arbitrary imposition is attempted upon the subject, undoubtedly it will not bear on its forehead the name of Ship-money.  There is no danger that an extension of the Forest laws should be the chosen mode of oppression in this age.  And when we hear any instance of ministerial rapacity to the prejudice of the rights of private life, it will certainly not be the exaction of two hundred pullets, from a woman of fashion, for leave to lie with her own husband.
Every age has its own manners, and its politics dependent upon them; and the same attempts will not be made against a constitution fully formed and matured, that were used to destroy it in the cradle, or to resist its growth during its infancy.
Against the being of Parliament, I am satisfied, no designs have ever been entertained since the Revolution.  Every one must perceive that it is strongly the interest of the Court to have some second cause interposed between the Ministers and the people.  The gentlemen of the House of Commons have an interest equally strong in sustaining the part of that intermediate cause.  However they may hire out the usufruct of their voices, they never will part with the fee and inheritance.  Accordingly those who have been of the most known devotion to the will and pleasure of a Court, have at the same time been most forward in asserting a high authority in the House of Commons.  When they knew who were to use that authority, and how it was to be employed, they thought it never could be carried too far.  It must be always the wish of an unconstitutional statesman, that a House of Commons who are entirely dependent upon him, should have every right of the people entirely dependent upon their pleasure.  It was soon discovered that the forms of a free, and the ends of an arbitrary Government, were things not altogether incompatible.
The power of the Crown, almost dead and rotten as Prerogative, has grown up anew, with much more strength, and far less odium, under the name of Influence.  An influence which operated without noise and without violence; an influence which converted the very antagonist into the instrument of power; which contained in itself a perpetual principle of growth and renovation; and which the distresses and the prosperity of the country equally tended to augment, was an admirable substitute for a prerogative that, being only the offspring of antiquated prejudices, had moulded in its original stamina irresistible principles of decay and dissolution.  The ignorance of the people is a bottom but for a temporary system; the interest of active men in the State is a foundation perpetual and infallible.  However, some circumstances, arising, it must be confessed, in a great degree from accident, prevented the effects of this influence for a long time from breaking out in a manner capable of exciting any serious apprehensions.  Although Government was strong and flourished exceedingly, the Court had drawn far less advantage than one would imagine from this great source of power.
* * * * *
At the Revolution, the Crown, deprived, for the ends of the Revolution itself, of many prerogatives, was found too weak to struggle against all the difficulties which pressed so new and unsettled a Government.  The Court was obliged therefore to delegate a part of its powers to men of such interest as could support, and of such fidelity as would adhere to, its establishment.  Such men were able to draw in a greater number to a concurrence in the common defence.  This connection, necessary at first, continued long after convenient; and properly conducted might indeed, in all situations, be a useful instrument of Government.  At the same time, through the intervention of men of popular weight and character, the people possessed a security for their just proportion of importance in the State.  But as the title to the Crown grew stronger by long possession, and by the constant increase of its influence, these helps have of late seemed to certain persons no better than incumbrances.  The powerful managers for Government were not sufficiently submissive to the pleasure of the possessors of immediate and personal favour, sometimes from a confidence in their own strength, natural and acquired; sometimes from a fear of offending their friends, and weakening that lead in the country, which gave them a consideration independent of the Court.  Men acted as if the Court could receive, as well as confer, an obligation.  The influence of Government, thus divided in appearance between the Court and the leaders of parties, became in many cases an accession rather to the popular than to the royal scale; and some part of that influence, which would otherwise have been possessed as in a sort of mortmain and unalienable domain, returned again to the great ocean from whence it arose, and circulated among the people.  This method therefore of governing by men of great natural interest or great acquired consideration, was viewed in a very invidious light by the true lovers of absolute monarchy.  It is the nature of despotism to abhor power held by any means but its own momentary pleasure; and to annihilate all intermediate situations between boundless strength on its own part, and total debility on the part of the people.
To get rid of all this intermediate and independent importance, and to secure to the Court the unlimited and uncontrolled use of its own vast influenceunder the sole direction of its own private favour, has for some years past been the great object of policy.  If this were compassed, the influence of the Crown must of course produce all the effects which the most sanguine partisans of the Court could possibly desire.  Government might then be carried on without any concurrence on the part of the people; without any attention to the dignity of the greater, or to the affections of the lower sorts.  A new project was therefore devised by a certain set of intriguing men, totally different from the system of Administration which had prevailed since the accession of the House of Brunswick.  This project, I have heard, was first conceived by some persons in the Court of Frederick, Prince of Wales.
The earliest attempt in the execution of this design was to set up for Minister a person, in rank indeed respectable, and very ample in fortune; but who, to the moment of this vast and sudden elevation, was little known or considered in the kingdom.  To him the whole nation was to yield an immediate and implicit submission.  But whether it was from want of firmness to bear up against the first opposition, or that things were not yet fully ripened, or that this method was not found the most eligible, that idea was soon abandoned.  The instrumental part of the project was a little altered, to accommodate it to the time, and to bring things more gradually and more surely to the one great end proposed.
The first part of the reformed plan was to draw a line which should separate the Court from the Ministry.  Hitherto these names had been looked upon as synonymous; but, for the future, Court and Administration were to be considered as things totally distinct.  By this operation, two systems of Administration were to be formed: one which should be in the real secret and confidence; the other merely ostensible, to perform the official and executory duties of Government.  The latter were alone to be responsible; whilst the real advisers, who enjoyed all the power, were effectually removed from all the danger.
Secondly, a party under these leaders was to be formed in favour of the Court against the Ministry: this party was to have a large share in the emoluments of Government, and to hold it totally separate from, and independent of, ostensible Administration.
The third point, and that on which the success of the whole scheme ultimately depended, was to bring Parliament to an acquiescence in this project.  Parliament was therefore to be taught by degrees a total indifference to the persons, rank, influence, abilities, connections, and character of the Ministers of the Crown.  By means of a discipline, on which I shall say more hereafter, that body was to be habituated to the most opposite interests, and the most discordant politics.  All connections and dependencies among subjects were to be entirely dissolved.  As hitherto business had gone through the hands of leaders of Whigs or Tories, men of talents to conciliate the people, and to engage their confidence, now the method was to be altered; and the lead was to be given to men of no sort of consideration or credit in the country.  This want of natural importance was to be their very title to delegated power.  Members of parliament were to be hardened into an insensibility to pride as well as to duty.  Those high and haughty sentiments, which are the great support of independence, were to be let down gradually.  Point of honour and precedence were no more to be regarded in Parliamentary decorum than in a Turkish army.  It was to be avowed, as a constitutional maxim, that the King might appoint one of his footmen, or one of your footmen, for Minister; and that he ought to be, and that he would be, as well followed as the first name for rank or wisdom in the nation.  Thus Parliament was to look on, as if perfectly unconcerned while a cabal of the closet and back-stairs was substituted in the place of a national Administration.
With such a degree of acquiescence, any measure of any Court might well be deemed thoroughly secure.  The capital objects, and by much the most flattering characteristics of arbitrary power, would be obtained.  Everything would be drawn from its holdings in the country to the personal favour and inclination of the Prince.  This favour would be the sole introduction to power, and the only tenure by which it was to be held: so that no person looking towards another, and all looking towards the Court, it was impossible but that the motive which solely influenced every man’s hopes must come in time to govern every man’s conduct; till at last the servility became universal, in spite of the dead letter of any laws or institutions whatsoever.
How it should happen that any man could be tempted to venture upon such a project of Government, may at first view appear surprising.  But the fact is that opportunities very inviting to such an attempt have offered; and the scheme itself was not destitute of some arguments, not wholly unplausible, to recommend it.  These opportunities and these arguments, the use that has been made of both, the plan for carrying this new scheme of government into execution, and the effects which it has produced, are in my opinion worthy of our serious consideration.
His Majesty came to the throne of these kingdoms with more advantages than any of his predecessors since the Revolution.  Fourth in descent, and third in succession of his Royal family, even the zealots of hereditary right, in him, saw something to flatter their favourite prejudices; and to justify a transfer of their attachments, without a change in their principles.  The person and cause of the Pretender were become contemptible; his title disowned throughout Europe, his party disbanded in England.  His Majesty came indeed to the inheritance of a mighty war; but, victorious in every part of the globe, peace was always in his power, not to negotiate, but to dictate.  No foreign habitudes or attachments withdrew him from the cultivation of his power at home.  His revenue for the Civil establishment, fixed (as it was then thought) at a large, but definite sum, was ample, without being invidious; his influence, by additions from conquest, by an augmentation of debt, by an increase of military and naval establishment, much strengthened and extended.  And coming to the throne in the prime and full vigour of youth, as from affection there was a strong dislike, so from dread there seemed to be a general averseness from giving anything like offence to a monarch against whose resentment opposition could not look for a refuge in any sort of reversionary hope.
These singular advantages inspired his Majesty only with a more ardent desire to preserve unimpaired the spirit of that national freedom to which he owed a situation so full of glory.  But to others it suggested sentiments of a very different nature.  They thought they now beheld an opportunity (by a certain sort of statesman never long undiscovered or unemployed) of drawing to themselves, by the aggrandisement of a Court faction, a degree of power which they could never hope to derive from natural influence or from honourable service; and which it was impossible they could hold with the least security, whilst the system of Administration rested upon its former bottom.  In order to facilitate the execution of their design, it was necessary to make many alterations in political arrangement, and a signal change in the opinions, habits, and connections of the greater part of those who at that time acted in public.
In the first place, they proceeded gradually, but not slowly, to destroy everything of strength which did not derive its principal nourishment from the immediate pleasure of the Court.  The greatest weight of popular opinion and party connection were then with the Duke of Newcastle and Mr. Pitt.  Neither of these held his importance by the new tenure of the Court; they were not, therefore, thought to be so proper as others for the services which were required by that tenure.  It happened very favourably for the new system, that under a forced coalition there rankled an incurable alienation and disgust between the parties which composed the Administration.  Mr. Pitt was first attacked.  Not satisfied with removing him from power, they endeavoured by various artifices to ruin his character.  The other party seemed rather pleased to get rid of so oppressive a support; not perceiving that their own fall was prepared by his, and involved in it.  Many other reasons prevented them from daring to look their true situation in the face.  To the great Whig families it was extremely disagreeable, and seemed almost unnatural, to oppose the Administration of a Prince of the House of Brunswick.  Day after day they hesitated, and doubted, and lingered, expecting that other counsels would take place; and were slow to be persuaded that all which had been done by the Cabal was the effect, not of humour, but of system.  It was more strongly and evidently the interest of the new Court faction to get rid of the great Whig connections than to destroy Mr. Pitt.  The power of that gentleman was vast indeed, and merited; but it was in a great degree personal, and therefore transient.  Theirs was rooted in the country.  For, with a good deal less of popularity, they possessed a far more natural and fixed influence.  Long possession of Government; vast property; obligations of favours given and received; connection of office; ties of blood, of alliance, of friendship (things at that time supposed of some force); the name of Whig, dear to the majority of the people; the zeal early begun and steadily continued to the Royal Family; all these together formed a body of power in the nation, which was criminal and devoted.  The great ruling principle of the Cabal, and that which animated and harmonised all their proceedings, how various soever they may have been, was to signify to the world that the Court would proceed upon its own proper forces only; and that the pretence of bringing any other into its service was an affront to it, and not a support.  Therefore when the chiefs were removed, in order to go to the root, the whole party was put under a proscription, so general and severe as to take their hard-earned bread from the lowest officers, in a manner which had never been known before, even in general revolutions.  But it was thought necessary effectually to destroy all dependencies but one, and to show an example of the firmness and rigour with which the new system was to be supported.
Thus for the time were pulled down, in the persons of the Whig leaders and of Mr. Pitt (in spite of the services of the one at the accession of the Royal Family, and the recent services of the other in the war), the two only securities for the importance of the peoplepower arising from popularityand power arising from connection.  Here and there indeed a few individuals were left standing, who gave security for their total estrangement from the odious principles of party connection and personal attachment; and it must be confessed that most of them have religiously kept their faith.  Such a change could not, however, be made without a mighty shock to Government.
To reconcile the minds of the people to all these movements, principles correspondent to them had been preached up with great zeal.  Every one must remember that the Cabal set out with the most astonishing prudery, both moral and political.  Those who in a few months after soused over head and ears into the deepest and dirtiest pits of corruption, cried out violently against the indirect practices in the electing and managing of Parliaments, which had formerly prevailed.  This marvellous abhorrence which the Court had suddenly taken to all influence, was not only circulated in conversation through the kingdom, but pompously announced to the public, with many other extraordinary things, in a pamphlet which had all the appearance of a manifesto preparatory to some considerable enterprise.  Throughout, it was a satire, though in terms managed and decent enough, on the politics of the former reign.  It was indeed written with no small art and address.
In this piece appeared the first dawning of the new system; there first appeared the idea (then only in speculation) of separating the Court from the Administration; of carrying everything from national connection to personal regards; and of forming a regular party for that purpose, under the name of King’s men.
To recommend this system to the people, a perspective view of the Court, gorgeously painted, and finely illuminated from within, was exhibited to the gaping multitude.  Party was to be totally done away, with all its evil works.  Corruption was to be cast down from Court, as Atè was from heaven.  Power was thenceforward to be the chosen residence of public spirit; and no one was to be supposed under any sinister influence, except those who had the misfortune to be in disgrace at Court, which was to stand in lieu of all vices and all corruptions.  A scheme of perfection to be realised in a Monarchy, far beyond the visionary Republic of Plato.  The whole scenery was exactly disposed to captivate those good souls, whose credulous morality is so invaluable a treasure to crafty politicians.  Indeed, there was wherewithal to charm everybody, except those few who are not much pleased with professions of supernatural virtue, who know of what stuff such professions are made, for what purposes they are designed, and in what they are sure constantly to end.  Many innocent gentlemen, who had been talking prose all their lives without knowing anything of the matter, began at last to open their eyes upon their own merits, and to attribute their not having been Lords of the Treasury and Lords of Trade many years before merely to the prevalence of party, and to the Ministerial power, which had frustrated the good intentions of the Court in favour of their abilities.  Now was the time to unlock the sealed fountain of Royal bounty, which had been infamously monopolised and huckstered, and to let it flow at large upon the whole people.  The time was come to restore Royalty to its original splendour.  Mettre le Roy hors de page, became a sort of watchword.  And it was constantly in the mouths of all the runners of the Court, that nothing could preserve the balance of the constitution from being overturned by the rabble, or by a faction of the nobility, but to free the Sovereign effectually from that Ministerial tyranny under which the Royal dignity had been oppressed in the person of his Majesty’s grandfather.
These were some of the many artifices used to reconcile the people to the great change which was made in the persons who composed the Ministry, and the still greater which was made and avowed in its constitution.  As to individuals, other methods were employed with them, in order so thoroughly to disunite every party, and even every family, that no concertorderor effectmight appear in any future opposition.  And in this manner an Administration without connection with the people, or with one another, was first put in possession of Government.  What good consequences followed from it, we have all seen; whether with regard to virtue, public or private; to the ease and happiness of the Sovereign; or to the real strength of Government.  But as so much stress was then laid on the necessity of this new project, it will not be amiss to take a view of the effects of this Royal servitude and vile durance, which was so deplored in the reign of the late Monarch, and was so carefully to be avoided in the reign of his successor.  The effects were these.
In times full of doubt and danger to his person and family, George the Second maintained the dignity of his Crown connected with the liberty of his people, not only unimpaired, but improved, for the space of thirty-three years.  He overcame a dangerous rebellion, abetted by foreign force, and raging in the heart of his kingdoms; and thereby destroyed the seeds of all future rebellion that could arise upon the same principle.  He carried the glory, the power, the commerce of England, to a height unknown even to this renowned nation in the times of its greatest prosperity: and he left his succession resting on the true and only true foundation of all national and all regal greatness; affection at home, reputation abroad, trust in allies, terror in rival nations.  The most ardent lover of his country cannot wish for Great Britain a happier fate than to continue as she was then left.  A people emulous as we are in affection to our present Sovereign, know not how to form a prayer to Heaven for a greater blessing upon his virtues, or a higher state of felicity and glory, than that he should live, and should reign, and, when Providence ordains it, should die, exactly like his illustrious predecessor.
A great Prince may be obliged (though such a thing cannot happen very often) to sacrifice his private inclination to his public interest.  A wise Prince will not think that such a restraint implies a condition of servility; and truly, if such was the condition of the last reign, and the effects were also such as we have described, we ought, no less for the sake of the Sovereign whom we love, than for our own, to hear arguments convincing indeed, before we depart from the maxims of that reign, or fly in the face of this great body of strong and recent experience.
One of the principal topics which was then, and has been since, much employed by that political school, is an effectual terror of the growth of an aristocratic power, prejudicial to the rights of the Crown, and the balance of the constitution.  Any new powers exercised in the House of Lords, or in the House of Commons, or by the Crown, ought certainly to excite the vigilant and anxious jealousy of a free people.  Even a new and unprecedented course of action in the whole Legislature, without great and evident reason, may be a subject of just uneasiness.  I will not affirm, that there may not have lately appeared in the House of Lords a disposition to some attempts derogatory to the legal rights of the subject.  If any such have really appeared, they have arisen, not from a power properly aristocratic, but from the same influence which is charged with having excited attempts of a similar nature in the House of Commons; which House, if it should have been betrayed into an unfortunate quarrel with its constituents, and involved in a charge of the very same nature, could have neither power nor inclination to repel such attempts in others.  Those attempts in the House of Lords can no more be called aristocratic proceedings, than the proceedings with regard to the county of Middlesex in the House of Commons can with any sense be called democratical.
It is true, that the Peers have a great influence in the kingdom, and in every part of the public concerns.  While they are men of property, it is impossible to prevent it, except by such means as must prevent all property from its natural operation: an event not easily to be compassed, while property is power; nor by any means to be wished, while the least notion exists of the method by which the spirit of liberty acts, and of the means by which it is preserved.  If any particular Peers, by their uniform, upright, constitutional conduct, by their public and their private virtues, have acquired an influence in the country; the people on whose favour that influence depends, and from whom it arose, will never be duped into an opinion, that such greatness in a Peer is the despotism of an aristocracy, when they know and feel it to be the effect and pledge of their own importance.
I am no friend to aristocracy, in the sense at least in which that word is usually understood.  If it were not a bad habit to moot cases on the supposed ruin of the constitution, I should be free to declare, that if it must perish, I would rather by far see it resolved into any other form, than lost in that austere and insolent domination.  But, whatever my dislikes may be, my fears are not upon that quarter.  The question, on the influence of a Court, and of a Peerage, is not, which of the two dangers is the most eligible, but which is the most imminent.  He is but a poor observer, who has not seen, that the generality of Peers, far from supporting themselves in a state of independent greatness, are but too apt to fall into an oblivion of their proper dignity, and to run headlong into an abject servitude.  Would to God it were true, that the fault of our Peers were too much spirit!  It is worthy of some observation, that these gentlemen, so jealous of aristocracy, make no complaints of the power of those peers (neither few nor inconsiderable) who are always in the train of a Court, and whose whole weight must be considered as a portion of the settled influence of the Crown.  This is all safe and right; but if some Peers (I am very sorry they are not as many as they ought to be) set themselves, in the great concern of Peers and Commons, against a back-stairs influence and clandestine government, then the alarm begins; then the constitution is in danger of being forced into an aristocracy.
I rest a little the longer on this Court topic, because it was much insisted upon at the time of the great change, and has been since frequently revived by many of the agents of that party: for, whilst they are terrifying the great and opulent with the horrors of mob-government, they are by other managers attempting (though hitherto with little success) to alarm the people with a phantom of tyranny in the Nobles.  All this is done upon their favourite principle of disunion, of sowing jealousies amongst the different orders of the State, and of disjointing the natural strength of the kingdom; that it may be rendered incapable of resisting the sinister designs of wicked men, who have engrossed the Royal power.
* * * * *
Thus much of the topics chosen by the courtiers to recommend their system; it will be necessary to open a little more at large the nature of that party which was formed for its support.  Without this, the whole would have been no better than a visionary amusement, like the scheme of Harrington’s political club, and not a business in which the nation had a real concern.  As a powerful party, and a party constructed on a new principle, it is a very inviting object of curiosity.
It must be remembered, that since the Revolution, until the period we are speaking of, the influence of the Crown had been always employed in supporting the Ministers of State, and in carrying on the public business according to their opinions.  But the party now in question is formed upon a very different idea.  It is to intercept the favour, protection, and confidence of the Crown in the passage to its Ministers; it is to come between them and their importance in Parliament; it is to separate them from all their natural and acquired dependencies; it is intended as the control, not the support, of Administration.  The machinery of this system is perplexed in its movements, and false in its principle.  It is formed on a supposition that the King is something external to his government; and that he may be honoured and aggrandised, even by its debility and disgrace.  The plan proceeds expressly on the idea of enfeebling the regular executory power.  It proceeds on the idea of weakening the State in order to strengthen the Court.  The scheme depending entirely on distrust, on disconnection, on mutability by principle, on systematic weakness in every particular member; it is impossible that the total result should be substantial strength of any kind.
As a foundation of their scheme, the Cabal have established a sort of Rota in the Court.  All sorts of parties, by this means, have been brought into Administration, from whence few have had the good fortune to escape without disgrace; none at all without considerable losses.  In the beginning of each arrangement no professions of confidence and support are wanting, to induce the leading men to engage.  But while the Ministers of the day appear in all the pomp and pride of power, while they have all their canvas spread out to the wind, and every sail filled with the fair and prosperous gale of Royal favour, in a short time they find, they know not how, a current, which sets directly against them; which prevents all progress, and even drives them backwards.  They grow ashamed and mortified in a situation, which, by its vicinity to power, only serves to remind them the more strongly of their insignificance.  They are obliged either to execute the orders of their inferiors, or to see themselves opposed by the natural instruments of their office.  With the loss of their dignity, they lose their temper.  In their turn they grow troublesome to that Cabal, which, whether it supports or opposes, equally disgraces and equally betrays them.  It is soon found necessary to get rid of the heads of Administration; but it is of the heads only.  As there always are many rotten members belonging to the best connections, it is not hard to persuade several to continue in office without their leaders.  By this means the party goes out much thinner than it came in; and is only reduced in strength by its temporary possession of power.  Besides, if by accident, or in course of changes, that power should be recovered, the Junto have thrown up a retrenchment of these carcases, which may serve to cover themselves in a day of danger.  They conclude, not unwisely, that such rotten members will become the first objects of disgust and resentment to their ancient connections.
They contrive to form in the outward Administration two parties at the least; which, whilst they are tearing one another to pieces, are both competitors for the favour and protection of the Cabal; and, by their emulation, contribute to throw everything more and more into the hands of the interior managers.
A Minister of State will sometimes keep himself totally estranged from all his colleagues; will differ from them in their counsels, will privately traverse, and publicly oppose, their measures.  He will, however, continue in his employment.  Instead of suffering any mark of displeasure, he will be distinguished by an unbounded profusion of Court rewards and caresses; because he does what is expected, and all that is expected, from men in office.  He helps to keep some form of Administration in being, and keeps it at the same time as weak and divided as possible.
However, we must take care not to be mistaken, or to imagine that such persons have any weight in their opposition.  When, by them, Administration is convinced of its insignificancy, they are soon to be convinced of their own.  They never are suffered to succeed in their opposition.  They and the world are to be satisfied, that neither office, nor authority, nor property, nor ability, eloquence, counsel, skill, or union, are of the least importance; but that the mere influence of the Court, naked of all support, and destitute of all management, is abundantly sufficient for all its own purposes.
When any adverse connection is to be destroyed, the Cabal seldom appear in the work themselves.  They find out some person of whom the party entertains a high opinion.  Such a person they endeavour to delude with various pretences.  They teach him first to distrust, and then to quarrel with his friends; among whom, by the same arts, they excite a similar diffidence of him; so that in this mutual fear and distrust, he may suffer himself to be employed as the instrument in the change which is brought about.  Afterwards they are sure to destroy him in his turn; by setting up in his place some person in whom he had himself reposed the greatest confidence, and who serves to carry on a considerable part of his adherents.
When such a person has broke in this manner with his connections, he is soon compelled to commit some flagrant act of iniquitous personal hostility against some of them (such as an attempt to strip a particular friend of his family estate), by which the Cabal hope to render the parties utterly irreconcilable.  In truth, they have so contrived matters, that people have a greater hatred to the subordinate instruments than to the principal movers.
As in destroying their enemies they make use of instruments not immediately belonging to their corps, so in advancing their own friends they pursue exactly the same method.  To promote any of them to considerable rank or emolument, they commonly take care that the recommendation shall pass through the hands of the ostensible Ministry: such a recommendation might, however, appear to the world as some proof of the credit of Ministers, and some means of increasing their strength.  To prevent this, the persons so advanced are directed in all companies, industriously to declare, that they are under no obligations whatsoever to Administration; that they have received their office from another quarter; that they are totally free and independent.
When the Faction has any job of lucre to obtain, or of vengeance to perpetrate, their way is, to select, for the execution, those very persons to whose habits, friendships, principles, and declarations, such proceedings are publicly known to be the most adverse; at once to render the instruments the more odious, and therefore the more dependent, and to prevent the people from ever reposing a confidence in any appearance of private friendship, or public principle.
If the Administration seem now and then, from remissness, or from fear of making themselves disagreeable, to suffer any popular excesses to go unpunished, the Cabal immediately sets up some creature of theirs to raise a clamour against the Ministers, as having shamefully betrayed the dignity of Government.  Then they compel the Ministry to become active in conferring rewards and honours on the persons who have been the instruments of their disgrace; and, after having first vilified them with the higher orders for suffering the laws to sleep over the licentiousness of the populace, they drive them (in order to make amends for their former inactivity) to some act of atrocious violence, which renders them completely abhorred by the people.  They who remember the riots which attended the Middlesex Election; the opening of the present Parliament; and the transactions relative to Saint George’s Fields, will not be at a loss for an application of these remarks.
That this body may be enabled to compass all the ends of its institution, its members are scarcely ever to aim at the high and responsible offices of the State.  They are distributed with art and judgment through all the secondary, but efficient, departments of office, and through the households of all the branches of the Royal Family: so as on one hand to occupy all the avenues to the Throne; and on the other to forward or frustrate the execution of any measure, according to their own interests.  For with the credit and support which they are known to have, though for the greater part in places which are only a genteel excuse for salary, they possess all the influence of the highest posts; and they dictate publicly in almost everything, even with a parade of superiority.  Whenever they dissent (as it often happens) from their nominal leaders, the trained part of the Senate, instinctively in the secret, is sure to follow them; provided the leaders, sensible of their situation, do not of themselves recede in time from their most declared opinions.  This latter is generally the case.  It will not be conceivable to any one who has not seen it, what pleasure is taken by the Cabal in rendering these heads of office thoroughly contemptible and ridiculous.  And when they are become so, they have then the best chance, for being well supported.
The members of the Court faction are fully indemnified for not holding places on the slippery heights of the kingdom, not only by the lead in all affairs, but also by the perfect security in which they enjoy less conspicuous, but very advantageous, situations.  Their places are, in express legal tenure, or in effect, all of them for life.  Whilst the first and most respectable persons in the kingdom are tossed about like tennis balls, the sport of a blind and insolent caprice, no Minister dares even to cast an oblique glance at the lowest of their body.  If an attempt be made upon one of this corps, immediately he flies to sanctuary, and pretends to the most inviolable of all promises.  No conveniency of public arrangement is available to remove any one of them from the specific situation he holds; and the slightest attempt upon one of them, by the most powerful Minister, is a certain preliminary to his own destruction.
Conscious of their independence, they bear themselves with a lofty air to the exterior Ministers.  Like Janissaries, they derive a kind of freedom from the very condition of their servitude.  They may act just as they please; provided they are true to the great ruling principle of their institution.  It is, therefore, not at all wonderful, that people should be so desirous of adding themselves to that body, in which they may possess and reconcile satisfactions the most alluring, and seemingly the most contradictory; enjoying at once all the spirited pleasure of independence, and all the gross lucre and fat emoluments of servitude.
Here is a sketch, though a slight one, of the constitution, laws, and policy, of this new Court corporation.  The name by which they choose to distinguish themselves, is that of King’s men, or the King’s friends, by an invidious exclusion of the rest of his Majesty’s most loyal and affectionate subjects.  The whole system, comprehending the exterior and interior Administrations, is commonly called, in the technical language of the Court, Double Cabinet; in French or English, as you choose to pronounce it.
Whether all this be a vision of a distracted brain, or the invention of a malicious heart, or a real faction in the country, must be judged by the appearances which things have worn for eight years past.  Thus far I am certain, that there is not a single public man, in or out of office, who has not, at some time or other, borne testimony to the truth of what I have now related.  In particular, no persons have been more strong in their assertions, and louder and more indecent in their complaints, than those who compose all the exterior part of the present Administration; in whose time that faction has arrived at such a height of power, and of boldness in the use of it, as may, in the end, perhaps bring about its total destruction.
It is true, that about four years ago, during the administration of the Marquis of Rockingham, an attempt was made to carry on Government without their concurrence.  However, this was only a transient cloud; they were hid but for a moment; and their constellation blazed out with greater brightness, and a far more vigorous influence, some time after it was blown over.  An attempt was at that time made (but without any idea of proscription) to break their corps, to discountenance their doctrines, to revive connections of a different kind, to restore the principles and policy of the Whigs, to reanimate the cause of Liberty by Ministerial countenance; and then for the first time were men seen attached in office to every principle they had maintained in opposition.  No one will doubt, that such men were abhorred and violently opposed by the Court faction, and that such a system could have but a short duration.
It may appear somewhat affected, that in so much discourse upon this extraordinary party, I should say so little of the Earl of Bute, who is the supposed head of it.  But this was neither owing to affectation nor inadvertence.  I have carefully avoided the introduction of personal reflections of any kind.  Much the greater part of the topics which have been used to blacken this nobleman are either unjust or frivolous.  At best, they have a tendency to give the resentment of this bitter calamity a wrong direction, and to turn a public grievance into a mean personal, or a dangerous national, quarrel.  Where there is a regular scheme of operations carried on, it is the system, and not any individual person who acts in it, that is truly dangerous.  This system has not risen solely from the ambition of Lord Bute, but from the circumstances which favoured it, and from an indifference to the constitution which had been for some time growing among our gentry.  We should have been tried with it, if the Earl of Bute had never existed; and it will want neither a contriving head nor active members, when the Earl of Bute exists no longer.  It is not, therefore, to rail at Lord Bute, but firmly to embody against this Court party and its practices, which can afford us any prospect of relief in our present condition.
Another motive induces me to put the personal consideration of Lord Bute wholly out of the question.  He communicates very little in a direct manner with the greater part of our men of business.  This has never been his custom.  It is enough for him that he surrounds them with his creatures.  Several imagine, therefore, that they have a very good excuse for doing all the work of this faction, when they have no personal connection with Lord Bute.  But whoever becomes a party to an Administration, composed of insulated individuals, without faith plighted, tie, or common principle; an Administration constitutionally impotent, because supported by no party in the nation; he who contributes to destroy the connections of men and their trust in one another, or in any sort to throw the dependence of public counsels upon private will and favour, possibly may have nothing to do with the Earl of Bute.  It matters little whether he be the friend or the enemy of that particular person.  But let him be who or what he will, he abets a faction that is driving hard to the ruin of his country.  He is sapping the foundation of its liberty, disturbing the sources of its domestic tranquillity, weakening its government over its dependencies, degrading it from all its importance in the system of Europe.
It is this unnatural infusion of a system of Favouritism into a Government which in a great part of its constitution is popular, that has raised the present ferment in the nation.  The people, without entering deeply into its principles, could plainly perceive its effects, in much violence, in a great spirit of innovation, and a general disorder in all the functions of Government.  I keep my eye solely on this system; if I speak of those measures which have arisen from it, it will be so far only as they illustrate the general scheme.  This is the fountain of all those bitter waters of which, through a hundred different conducts, we have drunk until we are ready to burst.  The discretionary power of the Crown in the formation of Ministry, abused by bad or weak men, has given rise to a system, which, without directly violating the letter of any law, operates against the spirit of the whole constitution.
A plan of Favouritism for our executory Government is essentially at variance with the plan of our Legislature.  One great end undoubtedly of a mixed Government like ours, composed of Monarchy, and of controls, on the part of the higher people and the lower, is that the Prince shall not be able to violate the laws.  This is useful indeed and fundamental.  But this, even at first view, is no more than a negative advantage; an armour merely defensive.  It is therefore next in order, and equal in importance, that the discretionary powers which are necessarily vested in the Monarchwhether for the execution of the lawsor for the nomination to magistracy and officeor for conducting the affairs of peace and waror for ordering the revenueshould all be exercised upon public principles and national groundsand not on the likings or prejudicesthe intrigues or policies of a Court.  This, I said, is equal in importance to the securing a Government according to law.  The laws reach but a very little way.  Constitute Government how you please, infinitely the greater part of it must depend upon the exercise of the powers which are left at large to the prudence and uprightness of Ministers of State.  Even all the use and potency of the laws depends upon them.  Without them, your Commonwealth is no better than a scheme upon paper; and not a living, active, effective constitution.  It is possible, that through negligence, or ignorance, or design artfully conducted, Ministers may suffer one part of Government to languish, another to be perverted from its purposes: and every valuable interest of the country to fall into ruin and decay, without possibility of fixing any single act on which a criminal prosecution can be justly grounded.  The due arrangement of men in the active part of the state, far from being foreign to the purposes of a wise Government, ought to be among its very first and dearest objects.  When, therefore, the abettors of new system tell us, that between them and their opposers there is nothing but a struggle for power, and that therefore we are no-ways concerned in it; we must tell those who have the impudence to insult us in this manner, that, of all things, we ought to be the most concerned, who and what sort of men they are, that hold the trust of everything that is dear to us.  Nothing can render this a point of indifference to the nation, but what must either render us totally desperate, or soothe us into the security of idiots.  We must soften into a credulity below the milkiness of infancy, to think all men virtuous.  We must be tainted with a malignity truly diabolical, to believe all the world to be equally wicked and corrupt.  Men are in public life as in private—some good, some evil.  The elevation of the one, and the depression of the other, are the first objects of all true policy.  But that form of Government, which, neither in its direct institutions, nor in their immediate tendency, has contrived to throw its affairs into the most trustworthy hands, but has left its whole executory system to be disposed of agreeably to the uncontrolled pleasure of any one man, however excellent or virtuous, is a plan of polity defective not only in that member, but consequentially erroneous in every part of it.
In arbitrary Governments, the constitution of the Ministry follows the constitution of the Legislature.  Both the Law and the Magistrate are the creatures of Will.  It must be so.  Nothing, indeed, will appear more certain, on any tolerable consideration of this matter, than that every sort of Government ought to have its Administration correspondent to its Legislature.  If it should be otherwise, things must fall into a hideous disorder.  The people of a free Commonwealth, who have taken such care that their laws should be the result of general consent, cannot be so senseless as to suffer their executory system to be composed of persons on whom they have no dependence, and whom no proofs of the public love and confidence have recommended to those powers, upon the use of which the very being of the State depends.
The popular election of magistrates, and popular disposition of rewards and honours, is one of the first advantages of a free State.  Without it, or something equivalent to it, perhaps the people cannot long enjoy the substance of freedom; certainly none of the vivifying energy of good Government.  The frame of our Commonwealth did not admit of such an actual election: but it provided as well, and (while the spirit of the constitution is preserved) better, for all the effects of it, than by the method of suffrage in any democratic State whatsoever.  It had always, until of late, been held the first duty of Parliament to refuse to support Governmentuntil power was in the hands of persons who were acceptable to the peopleor while factions predominated in the Court in which the nation had no confidence.  Thus all the good effects of popular election were supposed to be secured to us, without the mischiefs attending on perpetual intrigue, and a distinct canvass for every particular office throughout the body of the people.  This was the most noble and refined part of our constitution.  The people, by their representatives and grandees, were intrusted with a deliberative power in making laws; the King with the control of his negative.  The King was intrusted with the deliberative choice and the election to office; the people had the negative in a Parliamentary refusal to support.  Formerly this power of control was what kept Ministers in awe of Parliaments, and Parliaments in reverence with the people.  If the use of this power of control on the system and persons of Administration is gone, everything is lost, Parliament and all.  We may assure ourselves, that if Parliament will tamely see evil men take possession of all the strongholds of their country, and allow them time and means to fortify themselves, under a pretence of giving them a fair trial, and upon a hope of discovering, whether they will not be reformed by power, and whether their measures will not be better than their morals; such a Parliament will give countenance to their measures also, whatever that Parliament may pretend, and whatever those measures may be.
Every good political institution must have a preventive operation as well as a remedial.  It ought to have a natural tendency to exclude bad men from Government, and not to trust for the safety of the State to subsequent punishment alone—punishment which has ever been tardy and uncertain, and which, when power is suffered in bad hands, may chance to fall rather on the injured than the criminal.
Before men are put forward into the great trusts of the State, they ought by their conduct to have obtained such a degree of estimation in their country as may be some sort of pledge and security to the public that they will not abuse those trusts.  It is no mean security for a proper use of power, that a man has shown by the general tenor of his actions, that the affection, the good opinion, the confidence of his fellow-citizens have been among the principal objects of his life, and that he has owed none of the gradations of his power or fortune to a settled contempt or occasional forfeiture of their esteem.
That man who, before he comes into power, has no friends, or who, coming into power, is obliged to desert his friends, or who, losing it, has no friends to sympathise with him, he who has no sway among any part of the landed or commercial interest, but whose whole importance has begun with his office, and is sure to end with it, is a person who ought never to be suffered by a controlling Parliament, to continue in any of those situations which confer the lead and direction of all our public affairs; because such a man has no connection with the sentiments and opinions of the people.
Those knots or cabals of men who have got together, avowedly without any public principle, in order to sell their conjunct iniquity at the higher rate, and are therefore universally odious, ought never to be suffered to domineer in the State; because they have no connection with the sentiments and opinions of the people.
These are considerations which, in my opinion, enforce the necessity of having some better reason, in a free country and a free Parliament, for supporting the Ministers of the Crown, than that short one, That the King has thought proper to appoint them.  There is something very courtly in this.  But it is a principle pregnant with all sorts of mischief, in a constitution like ours, to turn the views of active men from the country to the Court.  Whatever be the road to power, that is the road which will be trod.  If the opinion of the country be of no use as a means of power or consideration, the qualities which usually procure that opinion will be no longer cultivated.  And whether it will be right, in a State so popular in its constitution as ours, to leave ambition without popular motives, and to trust all to the operation of pure virtue in the minds of Kings and Ministers, and public men, must be submitted to the judgment and good sense of the people of England.
* * * * *
Cunning men are here apt to break in, and, without directly controverting the principle, to raise objections from the difficulty under which the Sovereign labours to distinguish the genuine voice and sentiments of his people from the clamour of a faction, by which it is so easily counterfeited.  The nation, they say, is generally divided into parties, with views and passions utterly irreconcilable.  If the King should put his affairs into the hands of any one of them, he is sure to disgust the rest; if he select particular men from among them all, it is a hazard that he disgusts them all.  Those who are left out, however divided before, will soon run into a body of opposition, which, being a collection of many discontents into one focus, will without doubt be hot and violent enough.  Faction will make its cries resound through the nation, as if the whole were in an uproar, when by far the majority, and much the better part, will seem for awhile, as it were, annihilated by the quiet in which their virtue and moderation incline them to enjoy the blessings of Government.  Besides that, the opinion of the mere vulgar is a miserable rule even with regard to themselves, on account of their violence and instability.  So that if you were to gratify them in their humour to-day, that very gratification would be a ground of their dissatisfaction on the next.  Now as all these rules of public opinion are to be collected with great difficulty, and to be applied with equal uncertainty as to the effect, what better can a King of England do than to employ such men as he finds to have views and inclinations most conformable to his own, who are least infected with pride and self-will, and who are least moved by such popular humours as are perpetually traversing his designs, and disturbing his service; trusting that when he means no ill to his people he will be supported in his appointments, whether he chooses to keep or to change, as his private judgment or his pleasure leads him?  He will find a sure resource in the real weight and influence of the Crown, when it is not suffered to become an instrument in the hands of a faction.
I will not pretend to say that there is nothing at all in this mode of reasoning, because I will not assert that there is no difficulty in the art of government.  Undoubtedly the very best Administration must encounter a great deal of opposition, and the very worst will find more support than it deserves.  Sufficient appearances will never be wanting to those who have a mind to deceive themselves.  It is a fallacy in constant use with those who would level all things, and confound right with wrong, to insist upon the inconveniences which are attached to every choice, without taking into consideration the different weight and consequence of those inconveniences.  The question is not concerning absolute discontent or perfect satisfaction in Government, neither of which can be pure and unmixed at any time or upon any system.  The controversy is about that degree of good-humour in the people, which may possibly be attained, and ought certainly to be looked for.  While some politicians may be waiting to know whether the sense of every individual be against them, accurately distinguishing the vulgar from the better sort, drawing lines between the enterprises of a faction and the efforts of a people, they may chance to see the Government, which they are so nicely weighing, and dividing, and distinguishing, tumble to the ground in the midst of their wise deliberation.  Prudent men, when so great an object as the security of Government, or even its peace, is at stake, will not run the risk of a decision which may be fatal to it.  They who can read the political sky will seen a hurricane in a cloud no bigger than a hand at the very edge of the horizon, and will run into the first harbour.  No lines can be laid down for civil or political wisdom.  They are a matter incapable of exact definition.  But, though no man can draw a stroke between the confines of day and night, yet light and darkness are upon the whole tolerably distinguishable.  Nor will it be impossible for a Prince to find out such a mode of government, and such persons to administer it, as will give a great degree of content to his people, without any curious and anxious research for that abstract, universal, perfect harmony, which, while he is seeking, he abandons those means of ordinary tranquillity which are in his power without any research at all.
It is not more the duty than it is the interest of a Prince to aim at giving tranquillity to his Government.  If those who advise him may have an interest in disorder and confusion.  If the opinion of the people is against them, they will naturally wish that it should have no prevalence.  Here it is that the people must on their part show themselves sensible of their own value.  Their whole importance, in the first instance, and afterwards their whole freedom, is at stake.  Their freedom cannot long survive their importance.  Here it is that the natural strength of the kingdom, the great peers, the leading landed gentlemen, the opulent merchants and manufacturers, the substantial yeomanry, must interpose, to rescue their Prince, themselves, and their posterity.
We are at present at issue upon this point.  We are in the great crisis of this contention, and the part which men take, one way or other, will serve to discriminate their characters and their principles.  Until the matter is decided, the country will remain in its present confusion.  For while a system of Administration is attempted, entirely repugnant to the genius of the people, and not conformable to the plan of their Government, everything must necessarily be disordered for a time, until this system destroys the constitution, or the constitution gets the better of this system.
There is, in my opinion, a peculiar venom and malignity in this political distemper beyond any that I have heard or read of.  In former lines the projectors of arbitrary Government attacked only the liberties of their country, a design surely mischievous enough to have satisfied a mind of the most unruly ambition.  But a system unfavourable to freedom may be so formed as considerably to exalt the grandeur of the State, and men may find in the pride and splendour of that prosperity some sort of consolation for the loss of their solid privileges.  Indeed, the increase of the power of the State has often been urged by artful men, as a pretext for some abridgment of the public liberty.  But the scheme of the junto under consideration not only strikes a palsy into every nerve of our free constitution, but in the same degree benumbs and stupefies the whole executive power, rendering Government in all its grand operations languid, uncertain, ineffective, making Ministers fearful of attempting, and incapable of executing, any useful plan of domestic arrangement, or of foreign politics.  It tends to produce neither the security of a free Government, nor the energy of a Monarchy that is absolute.  Accordingly, the Crown has dwindled away in proportion to the unnatural and turgid growth of this excrescence on the Court.
The interior Ministry are sensible that war is a situation which sets in its full light the value of the hearts of a people, and they well know that the beginning of the importance of the people must be the end of theirs.  For this reason they discover upon all occasions the utmost fear of everything which by possibility may lead to such an event.  I do not mean that they manifest any of that pious fear which is backward to commit the safety of the country to the dubious experiment of war.  Such a fear, being the tender sensation of virtue, excited, as it is regulated, by reason, frequently shows itself in a seasonable boldness, which keeps danger at a distance, by seeming to despise it.  Their fear betrays to the first glance of the eye its true cause and its real object.  Foreign powers, confident in the knowledge of their character, have not scrupled to violate the most solemn treaties; and, in defiance of them, to make conquests in the midst of a general peace, and in the heart of Europe.  Such was the conquest of Corsica, by the professed enemies of the freedom of mankind, in defiance of those who were formerly its professed defenders.  We have had just claims upon the same powers—rights which ought to have been sacred to them as well as to us, as they had their origin in our lenity and generosity towards France and Spain in the day of their great humiliation.  Such I call the ransom of Manilla, and the demand on France for the East India prisoners.  But these powers put a just confidence in their resource of the double Cabinet.  These demands (one of them, at least) are hastening fast towards an acquittal by prescription.  Oblivion begins to spread her cobwebs over all our spirited remonstrances.  Some of the most valuable branches of our trade are also on the point of perishing from the same cause.  I do not mean those branches which bear without the hand of the vine-dresser; I mean those which the policy of treaties had formerly secured to us; I mean to mark and distinguish the trade of Portugal, the loss of which, and the power of the Cabal, have one and the same era.
If, by any chance, the Ministers who stand before the curtain possess or affect any spirit, it makes little or no impression.  Foreign Courts and Ministers, who were among the first to discover and to profit by this invention of the double Cabinet, attended very little to their remonstrances.  They know that those shadows of Ministers have nothing to do in the ultimate disposal of things.  Jealousies and animosities are sedulously nourished in the outward Administration, and have been even considered as a causa sine qua non in its constitution: thence foreign Courts have a certainty, that nothing can be done by common counsel in this nation.  If one of those Ministers officially takes up a business with spirit, it serves only the better to signalise the meanness of the rest, and the discord of them all.  His colleagues in office are in haste to shake him off, and to disclaim the whole of his proceedings.  Of this nature was that astonishing transaction, in which Lord Rochford, our Ambassador at Paris, remonstrated against the attempt upon Corsica, in consequence of a direct authority from Lord Shelburne.  This remonstrance the French Minister treated with the contempt that was natural; as he was assured, from the Ambassador of his Court to ours, that these orders of Lord Shelburne were not supported by the rest of the (I had like to have said British) Administration.  Lord Rochford, a man of spirit, could not endure this situation.  The consequences were, however, curious.  He returns from Paris, and comes home full of anger.  Lord Shelburne, who gave the orders, is obliged to give up the seals.  Lord Rochford, who obeyed these orders, receives them.  He goes, however, into another department of the same office, that he might not be obliged officially to acquiesce in one situation, under what he had officially remonstrated against in another.  At Paris, the Duke of Choiseul considered this office arrangement as a compliment to him: here it was spoke of as an attention to the delicacy of Lord Rochford.  But whether the compliment was to one or both, to this nation it was the same.  By this transaction the condition of our Court lay exposed in all its nakedness.  Our office correspondence has lost all pretence to authenticity; British policy is brought into derision in those nations, that a while ago trembled at the power of our arms, whilst they looked up with confidence to the equity, firmness, and candour, which shone in all our negotiations.  I represent this matter exactly in the light in which it has been universally received.
* * * * *
Such has been the aspect of our foreign politics under the influence of a double Cabinet.  With such an arrangement at Court, it is impossible it should have been otherwise.  Nor is it possible that this scheme should have a better effect upon the government of our dependencies, the first, the dearest, and most delicate objects of the interior policy of this empire.  The Colonies know that Administration is separated from the Court, divided within itself, and detested by the nation.  The double Cabinet has, in both the parts of it, shown the most malignant dispositions towards them, without being able to do them the smallest mischief.
They are convinced, by sufficient experience, that no plan, either of lenity or rigour, can be pursued with uniformity and perseverance.  Therefore they turn their eyes entirely from Great Britain, where they have neither dependence on friendship nor apprehension from enmity.  They look to themselves, and their own arrangements.  They grow every day into alienation from this country; and whilst they are becoming disconnected with our Government, we have not the consolation to find that they are even friendly in their new independence.  Nothing can equal the futility, the weakness, the rashness, the timidity, the perpetual contradiction, in the management of our affairs in that part of the world.  A volume might be written on this melancholy subject; but it were better to leave it entirely to the reflections of the reader himself, than not to treat it in the extent it deserves.
In what manner our domestic economy is affected by this system, it is needless to explain.  It is the perpetual subject of their own complaints.
The Court party resolve the whole into faction.  Having said something before upon this subject, I shall only observe here, that, when they give this account of the prevalence of faction, they present no very favourable aspect of the confidence of the people in their own Government.  They may be assured, that however they amuse themselves with a variety of projects for substituting something else in the place of that great and only foundation of Government, the confidence of the people, every attempt will but make their condition worse.  When men imagine that their food is only a cover for poison, and when they neither love nor trust the hand that serves it, it is not the name of the roast beef of Old England that will persuade them to sit down to the table that is spread for them.  When the people conceive that laws, and tribunals, and even popular assemblies, are perverted from the ends of their institution, they find in those names of degenerated establishments only new motives to discontent.  Those bodies, which, when full of life and beauty, lay in their arms and were their joy and comfort; when dead and putrid, become but the more loathsome from remembrance of former endearments.  A sullen gloom, and furious disorder, prevail by fits: the nation loses its relish for peace and prosperity, as it did in that season of fulness which opened our troubles in the time of Charles the First.  A species of men to whom a state of order would become a sentence of obscurity, are nourished into a dangerous magnitude by the heat of intestine disturbances; and it is no wonder that, by a sort of sinister piety, they cherish, in their turn, the disorders which are the parents of all their consequence.  Superficial observers consider such persons as the cause of the public uneasiness, when, in truth, they are nothing more than the effect of it.  Good men look upon this distracted scene with sorrow and indignation.  Their hands are tied behind them.  They are despoiled of all the power which might enable them to reconcile the strength of Government with the rights of the people.  They stand in a most distressing alternative.  But in the election among evils they hope better things from temporary confusion, than from established servitude.  In the mean time, the voice of law is not to be heard.  Fierce licentiousness begets violent restraints.  The military arm is the sole reliance; and then, call your constitution what you please, it is the sword that governs.  The civil power, like every other that calls in the aid of an ally stronger than itself, perishes by the assistance it receives.  But the contrivers of this scheme of Government will not trust solely to the military power, because they are cunning men.  Their restless and crooked spirit drives them to rake in the dirt of every kind of expedient.  Unable to rule the multitude, they endeavour to raise divisions amongst them.  One mob is hired to destroy another; a procedure which at once encourages the boldness of the populace, and justly increases their discontent.  Men become pensioners of state on account of their abilities in the array of riot, and the discipline of confusion.  Government is put under the disgraceful necessity of protecting from the severity of the laws that very licentiousness, which the laws had been before violated to repress.  Everything partakes of the original disorder.  Anarchy predominates without freedom, and servitude without submission or subordination.  These are the consequences inevitable to our public peace, from the scheme of rendering the executory Government at once odious and feeble; of freeing Administration from the constitutional and salutary control of Parliament, and inventing for it a new control, unknown to the constitution, an interior Cabinet; which brings the whole body of Government into confusion and contempt.
* * * * *
After having stated, as shortly as I am able, the effects of this system on our foreign affairs, on the policy of our Government with regard to our dependencies, and on the interior economy of the Commonwealth; there remains only, in this part of my design, to say something of the grand principle which first recommended this system at Court.  The pretence was to prevent the King from being enslaved by a faction, and made a prisoner in his closet.  This scheme might have been expected to answer at least its own end, and to indemnify the King, in his personal capacity, for all the confusion into which it has thrown his Government.  But has it in reality answered this purpose?  I am sure, if it had, every affectionate subject would have one motive for enduring with patience all the evils which attend it.
In order to come at the truth in this matter, it may not be amiss to consider it somewhat in detail.  I speak here of the King, and not of the Crown; the interests of which we have already touched.  Independent of that greatness which a King possesses merely by being a representative of the national dignity, the things in which he may have an individual interest seem to be these: wealth accumulated; wealth spent in magnificence, pleasure, or beneficence; personal respect and attention; and above all, private ease and repose of mind.  These compose the inventory of prosperous circumstances, whether they regard a Prince or a subject; their enjoyments differing only in the scale upon which they are formed.
Suppose then we were to ask, whether the King has been richer than his predecessors in accumulated wealth, since the establishment of the plan of Favouritism?  I believe it will be found that the picture of royal indigence which our Court has presented until this year, has been truly humiliating.  Nor has it been relieved from this unseemly distress, but by means which have hazarded the affection of the people, and shaken their confidence in Parliament.  If the public treasures had been exhausted in magnificence and splendour, this distress would have been accounted for, and in some measure justified.  Nothing would be more unworthy of this nation, than with a mean and mechanical rule, to mete out the splendour of the Crown.  Indeed, I have found very few persons disposed to so ungenerous a procedure.  But the generality of people, it must be confessed, do feel a good deal mortified, when they compare the wants of the Court with its expenses.  They do not behold the cause of this distress in any part of the apparatus of Royal magnificence.  In all this, they see nothing but the operations of parsimony, attended with all the consequences of profusion.  Nothing expended, nothing saved.  Their wonder is increased by their knowledge, that besides the revenue settled on his Majesty’s Civil List to the amount of £800,000 a year, he has a farther aid, from a large pension list, near £90,000 a year, in Ireland; from the produce of the Duchy of Lancaster (which we are told has been greatly improved); from the revenue of the Duchy of Cornwall; from the American quit-rents; from the four and a half per cent. duty in the Leeward Islands; this last worth to be sure considerably more than £40,000 a year.  The whole is certainly not much short of a million annually.
These are revenues within the knowledge and cognizance of our national Councils.  We have no direct right to examine into the receipts from his Majesty’s German Dominions, and the Bishopric of Osnaburg.  This is unquestionably true.  But that which is not within the province of Parliament, is yet within the sphere of every man’s own reflection.  If a foreign Prince resided amongst us, the state of his revenues could not fail of becoming the subject of our speculation.  Filled with an anxious concern for whatever regards the welfare of our Sovereign, it is impossible, in considering the miserable circumstances into which he has been brought, that this obvious topic should be entirely passed over.  There is an opinion universal, that these revenues produce something not inconsiderable, clear of all charges and establishments.  This produce the people do not believe to be hoarded, nor perceive to be spent.  It is accounted for in the only manner it can, by supposing that it is drawn away, for the support of that Court faction, which, whilst it distresses the nation, impoverishes the Prince in every one of his resources.  I once more caution the reader, that I do not urge this consideration concerning the foreign revenue, as if I supposed we had a direct right to examine into the expenditure of any part of it; but solely for the purpose of showing how little this system of Favouritism has been advantageous to the Monarch himself; which, without magnificence, has sunk him into a state of unnatural poverty; at the same time that he possessed every means of affluence, from ample revenues, both in this country and in other parts of his dominions.
Has this system provided better for the treatment becoming his high and sacred character, and secured the King from those disgusts attached to the necessity of employing men who are not personally agreeable?  This is a topic upon which for many reasons I could wish to be silent; but the pretence of securing against such causes of uneasiness, is the corner-stone of the Court party.  It has however so happened, that if I were to fix upon any one point, in which this system has been more particularly and shamefully blameable, the effects which it has produced would justify me in choosing for that point its tendency to degrade the personal dignity of the Sovereign, and to expose him to a thousand contradictions and mortifications.  It is but too evident in what manner these projectors of Royal greatness have fulfilled all their magnificent promises.  Without recapitulating all the circumstances of the reign, every one of which is more or less a melancholy proof of the truth of what I have advanced, let us consider the language of the Court but a few years ago, concerning most of the persons now in the external Administration: let me ask, whether any enemy to the personal feelings of the Sovereign, could possibly contrive a keener instrument of mortification, and degradation of all dignity, than almost every part and member of the present arrangement?  Nor, in the whole course of our history, has any compliance with the will of the people ever been known to extort from any Prince a greater contradiction to all his own declared affections and dislikes, than that which is now adopted, in direct opposition to every thing the people approve and desire.
An opinion prevails, that greatness has been more than once advised to submit to certain condescensions towards individuals, which have been denied to the entreaties of a nation.  For the meanest and most dependent instrument of this system knows, that there are hours when its existence may depend upon his adherence to it; and he takes his advantage accordingly.  Indeed it is a law of nature, that whoever is necessary to what we have made our object, is sure, in some way, or in some time or other, to become our master.  All this however is submitted to, in order to avoid that monstrous evil of governing in concurrence with the opinion of the people.  For it seems to be laid down as a maxim, that a King has some sort of interest in giving uneasiness to his subjects: that all who are pleasing to them, are to be of course disagreeable to him: that as soon as the persons who are odious at Court are known to be odious to the people, it is snatched at as a lucky occasion of showering down upon them all kinds of emoluments and honours.  None are considered as well-wishers to the Crown, but those who advised to some unpopular course of action; none capable of serving it, but those who are obliged to call at every instant upon all its power for the safety of their lives.  None are supposed to be fit priests in the temple of Government, but the persons who are compelled to fly into it for sanctuary.  Such is the effect of this refined project; such is ever the result of all the contrivances which are used to free men from the servitude of their reason, and from the necessity of ordering their affairs according to their evident interests.  These contrivances oblige them to run into a real and ruinous servitude, in order to avoid a supposed restraint that might be attended with advantage.
If therefore this system has so ill answered its own grand pretence of saving the King from the necessity of employing persons disagreeable to him, has it given more peace and tranquillity to his Majesty’s private hours?  No, most certainly.  The father of his people cannot possibly enjoy repose, while his family is in such a state of distraction.  Then what has the Crown or the King profited by all this fine-wrought scheme?  Is he more rich, or more splendid, or more powerful, or more at his ease, by so many labours and contrivances?  Have they not beggared his Exchequer, tarnished the splendour of his Court, sunk his dignity, galled his feelings, discomposed the whole order and happiness of his private life?
It will be very hard, I believe, to state in what respect the King has profited by that faction which presumptuously choose to call themselves his friends.
If particular men had grown into an attachment, by the distinguished honour of the society of their Sovereign, and, by being the partakers of his amusements, came sometimes to prefer the gratification of his personal inclinations to the support of his high character, the thing would be very natural, and it would be excusable enough.  But the pleasant part of the story is, that these King’s friends have no more ground for usurping such a title, than a resident freeholder in Cumberland or in Cornwall.  They are only known to their Sovereign by kissing his hand, for the offices, pensions, and grants into which they have deceived his benignity.  May no storm ever come, which will put the firmness of their attachment to the proof; and which, in the midst of confusions and terrors, and sufferings, may demonstrate the eternal difference between a true and severe friend to the Monarchy, and a slippery sycophant of the Court; Quantum infido scurræ distabit amicus!
* * * * *
So far I have considered the effect of the Court system, chiefly as it operates upon the executive Government, on the temper of the people and on the happiness of the Sovereign.  It remains that we should consider, with a little attention, its operation upon Parliament.
Parliament was indeed the great object of all these politics, the end at which they aimed, as well as the instrument by which they were to operate.  But, before Parliament could be made subservient to a system, by which it was to be degraded from the dignity of a national council, into a mere member of the Court, it must be greatly changed from its original character.
In speaking of this body, I have my eye chiefly on the House of Commons.  I hope I shall be indulged in a few observations on the nature and character of that assembly; not with regard to its legal form and power, but to its spirit, and to the purposes it is meant to answer in the constitution.
The House of Commons was supposed originally to be no part of the standing Government of this country.  It was considered as a control, issuing immediately from the people, and speedily to be resolved into the mass from whence it arose.  In this respect it was in the higher part of Government what juries are in the lower.  The capacity of a magistrate being transitory, and that of a citizen permanent, the latter capacity it was hoped would of course preponderate in all discussions, not only between the people and the standing authority of the Crown, but between the people and the fleeting authority of the House of Commons itself.  It was hoped that, being of a middle nature between subject and Government, they would feel with a more tender and a nearer interest everything that concerned the people, than the other remoter and more permanent parts of Legislature.
Whatever alterations time and the necessary accommodation of business may have introduced, this character can never be sustained, unless the House of Commons shall be made to bear some stamp of the actual disposition of the people at large.  It would (among public misfortunes) be an evil more natural and tolerable, that the House of Commons should be infected with every epidemical frenzy of the people, as this would indicate some consanguinity, some sympathy of nature with their constituents, than that they should in all cases be wholly untouched by the opinions and feelings of the people out of doors.  By this want of sympathy they would cease to be a House of Commons.  For it is not the derivation of the power of that House from the people, which makes it in a distinct sense their representative.  The King is the representative of the people; so are the Lords; so are the Judges.  They all are trustees for the people, as well as the Commons; because no power is given for the sole sake of the holder; and although Government certainly is an institution of Divine authority, yet its forms, and the persons who administer it, all originate from the people.
A popular origin cannot therefore be the characteristical distinction of a popular representative.  This belongs equally to all parts of Government, and in all forms.  The virtue, spirit, and essence of a House of Commons consists in its being the express image of the feelings of the nation.  It was not instituted to be a control upon the people, as of late it has been taught, by a doctrine of the most pernicious tendency.  It was designed as a control for the people.  Other institutions have been formed for the purpose of checking popular excesses; and they are, I apprehend, fully adequate to their object.  If not, they ought to be made so.  The House of Commons, as it was never intended for the support of peace and subordination, is miserably appointed for that service; having no stronger weapon than its Mace, and no better officer than its Serjeant-at-Arms, which it can command of its own proper authority.  A vigilant and jealous eye over executory and judicial magistracy; an anxious care of public money, an openness, approaching towards facility, to public complaint; these seem to be the true characteristics of a House of Commons.  But an addressing House of Commons, and a petitioning nation; a House of Commons full of confidence, when the nation is plunged in despair; in the utmost harmony with Ministers, whom the people regard with the utmost abhorrence; who vote thanks, when the public opinion calls upon them for impeachments; who are eager to grant, when the general voice demands account; who, in all disputes between the people and Administration, presume against the people; who punish their disorder, but refuse even to inquire into the provocations to them; this is an unnatural, a monstrous state of things in this constitution.  Such an Assembly may be a great, wise, awful senate; but it is not, to any popular purpose, a House of Commons.  This change from an immediate state of procuration and delegation to a course of acting as from original power, is the way in which all the popular magistracies in the world have been perverted from their purposes.  It is indeed their greatest and sometimes their incurable corruption.  For there is a material distinction between that corruption by which particular points are carried against reason (this is a thing which cannot be prevented by human wisdom, and is of less consequence), and the corruption of the principle itself.  For then the evil is not accidental, but settled.  The distemper becomes the natural habit.
For my part, I shall be compelled to conclude the principle of Parliament to be totally corrupted, and therefore its ends entirely defeated, when I see two symptoms: first, a rule of indiscriminate support to all Ministers; because this destroys the very end of Parliament as a control, and is a general previous sanction to misgovernment; and secondly, the setting up any claims adverse to the right of free election; for this tends to subvert the legal authority by which the House of Commons sits.
I know that, since the Revolution, along with many dangerous, many useful powers of Government have been weakened.  It is absolutely necessary to have frequent recourse to the Legislature.  Parliaments must therefore sit every year, and for great part of the year.  The dreadful disorders of frequent elections have also necessitated a septennial instead of a triennial duration.  These circumstances, I mean the constant habit of authority, and the infrequency of elections, have tended very much to draw the House of Commons towards the character of a standing Senate.  It is a disorder which has arisen from the cure of greater disorders; it has arisen from the extreme difficulty of reconciling liberty under a monarchical Government, with external strength and with internal tranquillity.
It is very clear that we cannot free ourselves entirely from this great inconvenience; but I would not increase an evil, because I was not able to remove it; and because it was not in my power to keep the House of Commons religiously true to its first principles, I would not argue for carrying it to a total oblivion of them.  This has been the great scheme of power in our time.  They who will not conform their conduct to the public good, and cannot support it by the prerogative of the Crown, have adopted a new plan.  They have totally abandoned the shattered and old-fashioned fortress of prerogative, and made a lodgment in the stronghold of Parliament itself.  If they have any evil design to which there is no ordinary legal power commensurate, they bring it into Parliament.  In Parliament the whole is executed from the beginning to the end.  In Parliament the power of obtaining their object is absolute, and the safety in the proceeding perfect: no rules to confine, no after reckonings to terrify.  Parliament cannot with any great propriety punish others for things in which they themselves have been accomplices.  Thus the control of Parliament upon the executory power is lost; because Parliament is made to partake in every considerable act of Government. Impeachmentthat great guardian of the purity of the Constitutionis in danger of being losteven to the idea of it.
By this plan several important ends are answered to the Cabal.  If the authority of Parliament supports itself, the credit of every act of Government, which they contrive, is saved; but if the act be so very odious that the whole strength of Parliament is insufficient to recommend it, then Parliament is itself discredited; and this discredit increases more and more that indifference to the constitution, which it is the constant aim of its enemies, by their abuse of Parliamentary powers, to render general among the people.  Whenever Parliament is persuaded to assume the offices of executive Government, it will lose all the confidence, love, and veneration which it has ever enjoyed, whilst it was supposed the corrective and control of the acting powers of the State.  This would be the event, though its conduct in such a perversion of its functions should be tolerably just and moderate; but if it should be iniquitous, violent, full of passion, and full of faction, it would be considered as the most intolerable of all the modes of tyranny.
For a considerable time this separation of the representatives from their constituents went on with a silent progress; and had those, who conducted the plan for their total separation, been persons of temper and abilities any way equal to the magnitude of their design, the success would have been infallible; but by their precipitancy they have laid it open in all its nakedness; the nation is alarmed at it; and the event may not be pleasant to the contrivers of the scheme.  In the last session, the corps called the King’s friends made a hardy attempt all at once, to alter the right of election itself; to put it into the power of the House of Commons to disable any person disagreeable to them from sitting in Parliament, without any other rule than their own pleasure; to make incapacities, either general for descriptions of men, or particular for individuals; and to take into their body, persons who avowedly had never been chosen by the majority of legal electors, nor agreeably to any known rule of law.
The arguments upon which this claim was founded and combated, are not my business here.  Never has a subject been more amply and more learnedly handled, nor upon one side, in my opinion, more satisfactorily; they who are not convinced by what is already written would not receive conviction though one arose from the dead.
I too have thought on this subject; but my purpose here, is only to consider it as a part of the favourite project of Government; to observe on the motives which led to it; and to trace its political consequences.
A violent rage for the punishment of Mr. Wilkes was the pretence of the whole.  This gentleman, by setting himself strongly in opposition to the Court Cabal, had become at once an object of their persecution, and of the popular favour.  The hatred of the Court party pursuing, and the countenance of the people protecting him, it very soon became not at all a question on the man, but a trial of strength between the two parties.  The advantage of the victory in this particular contest was the present, but not the only, nor by any means, the principal, object.  Its operation upon the character of the House of Commons was the great point in view.  The point to be gained by the Cabal was this: that a precedent should be established, tending to show, That the favour of the people was not so sure a road as the favour of the Court even to popular honours and popular trusts.  A strenuous resistance to every appearance of lawless power; a spirit of independence carried to some degree of enthusiasm; an inquisitive character to discover, and a bold one to display, every corruption and every error of Government; these are the qualities which recommend a man to a seat in the House of Commons, in open and merely popular elections.  An indolent and submissive disposition; a disposition to think charitably of all the actions of men in power, and to live in a mutual intercourse of favours with them; an inclination rather to countenance a strong use of authority, than to bear any sort of licentiousness on the part of the people; these are unfavourable qualities in an open election for Members of Parliament.
The instinct which carries the people towards the choice of the former, is justified by reason; because a man of such a character, even in its exorbitancies, does not directly contradict the purposes of a trust, the end of which is a control on power.  The latter character, even when it is not in its extreme, will execute this trust but very imperfectly; and, if deviating to the least excess, will certainly frustrate instead of forwarding the purposes of a control on Government.  But when the House of Commons was to be new modelled, this principle was not only to be changed, but reversed.  Whist any errors committed in support of power were left to the law, with every advantage of favourable construction, of mitigation, and finally of pardon; all excesses on the side of liberty, or in pursuit of popular favour, or in defence of popular rights and privileges, were not only to be punished by the rigour of the known law, but by a discretionary proceeding, which brought on the loss of the popular object itself.  Popularity was to be rendered, if not directly penal, at least highly dangerous.  The favour of the people might lead even to a disqualification of representing them.  Their odium might become, strained through the medium of two or three constructions, the means of sitting as the trustee of all that was dear to them.  This is punishing the offence in the offending part.  Until this time, the opinion of the people, through the power of an Assembly, still in some sort popular, led to the greatest honours and emoluments in the gift of the Crown.  Now the principle is reversed; and the favour of the Court is the only sure way of obtaining and holding those honours which ought to be in the disposal of the people.
It signifies very little how this matter may be quibbled away.  Example, the only argument of effect in civil life, demonstrates the truth of my proposition.  Nothing can alter my opinion concerning the pernicious tendency of this example, until I see some man for his indiscretion in the support of power, for his violent and intemperate servility, rendered incapable of sitting in parliament.  For as it now stands, the fault of overstraining popular qualities, and, irregularly if you please, asserting popular privileges, has led to disqualification; the opposite fault never has produced the slightest punishment.  Resistance to power has shut the door of the House of Commons to one man; obsequiousness and servility, to none.
Not that I would encourage popular disorder, or any disorder.  But I would leave such offences to the law, to be punished in measure and proportion.  The laws of this country are for the most part constituted, and wisely so, for the general ends of Government, rather than for the preservation of our particular liberties.  Whatever therefore is done in support of liberty, by persons not in public trust, or not acting merely in that trust, is liable to be more or less out of the ordinary course of the law; and the law itself is sufficient to animadvert upon it with great severity.  Nothing indeed can hinder that severe letter from crushing us, except the temperaments it may receive from a trial by jury.  But if the habit prevails of going beyond the law, and superseding this judicature, of carrying offences, real or supposed, into the legislative bodies, who shall establish themselves into courts of criminal equity, (so the Star Chamber has been called by Lord Bacon,) all the evils of the Star Chamber are revived.  A large and liberal construction in ascertaining offences, and a discretionary power in punishing them, is the idea of criminal equity; which is in truth a monster in Jurisprudence.  It signifies nothing whether a court for this purpose be a Committee of Council, or a House of Commons, or a House of Lords; the liberty of the subject will be equally subverted by it.  The true end and purpose of that House of Parliament which entertains such a jurisdiction will be destroyed by it.
I will not believe, what no other man living believes, that Mr. Wilkes was punished for the indecency of his publications, or the impiety of his ransacked closet.  If he had fallen in a common slaughter of libellers and blasphemers, I could well believe that nothing more was meant than was pretended.  But when I see, that, for years together, full as impious, and perhaps more dangerous writings to religion, and virtue, and order, have not been punished, nor their authors discountenanced; that the most audacious libels on Royal Majesty have passed without notice; that the most treasonable invectives against the laws, liberties, and constitution of the country, have not met with the slightest animadversion; I must consider this as a shocking and shameless pretence.  Never did an envenomed scurrility against everything sacred and civil, public and private, rage through the kingdom with such a furious and unbridled licence.  All this while the peace of the nation must be shaken, to ruin one libeller, and to tear from the populace a single favourite.
Nor is it that vice merely skulks in an obscure and contemptible impunity.  Does not the public behold with indignation, persons not only generally scandalous in their lives, but the identical persons who, by their society, their instruction, their example, their encouragement, have drawn this man into the very faults which have furnished the Cabal with a pretence for his persecution, loaded with every kind of favour, honour, and distinction, which a Court can bestow?  Add but the crime of servility (the foedum crimem servitutis) to every other crime, and the whole mass is immediately transmuted into virtue, and becomes the just subject of reward and honour.  When therefore I reflect upon this method pursued by the Cabal in distributing rewards and punishments, I must conclude that Mr. Wilkes is the object of persecution, not on account of what he has done in common with others who are the objects of reward, but for that in which he differs from many of them: that he is pursued for the spirited dispositions which are blended with his vices; for his unconquerable firmness, for his resolute, indefatigable, strenuous resistance against oppression.
In this case, therefore, it was not the man that was to be punished, nor his faults that were to be discountenanced.  Opposition to acts of power was to be marked by a kind of civil proscription.  The popularity which should arise from such an opposition was to be shown unable to protect it.  The qualities by which court is made to the people, were to render every fault inexpiable, and every error irretrievable.  The qualities by which court is made to power, were to cover and to sanctify everything.  He that will have a sure and honourable seat, in the House of Commons, must take care how he adventures to cultivate popular qualities; otherwise he may, remember the old maxim, Breves et infaustos populi Romani amores.  If, therefore, a pursuit of popularity expose a man to greater dangers than a disposition to servility, the principle which is the life and soul of popular elections will perish out of the Constitution.
It behoves the people of England to consider how the House of Commons under the operation of these examples must of necessity be constituted.  On the side of the Court will be, all honours, offices, emoluments; every sort of personal gratification to avarice or vanity; and, what is of more moment to most gentlemen, the means of growing, by innumerable petty services to individuals, into a spreading interest in their country.  On the other hand, let us suppose a person unconnected with the Court, and in opposition to its system.  For his own person, no office, or emolument, or title; no promotion ecclesiastical, or civil, or military, or naval, for children, or brothers, or kindred.  In vain an expiring interest in a borough calls for offices, or small livings, for the children of mayors, and aldermen, and capital burgesses.  His court rival has them all.  He can do an infinite number of acts of generosity and kindness, and even of public spirit.  He can procure indemnity from quarters.  He can procure advantages in trade.  He can get pardons for offences.  He can obtain a thousand favours, and avert a thousand evils.  He may, while he betrays every valuable interest of the kingdom, be a benefactor, a patron, a father, a guardian angel, to his borough.  The unfortunate independent member has nothing to offer, but harsh refusal, or pitiful excuse, or despondent representation of a hopeless interest.  Except from his private fortune, in which he may be equalled, perhaps exceeded, by his Court competitor, he has no way of showing any one good quality, or of making a single friend.  In the House, he votes for ever in a dispirited minority.  If he speaks, the doors are locked.  A body of loquacious placemen go out to tell the world, that all he aims at, is to get into office.  If he has not the talent of elocution, which is the case of many as wise and knowing men as any in the House, he is liable to all these inconveniences, without the eclat which attends upon any tolerably successful exertion of eloquence.  Can we conceive a more discouraging post of duty than this?  Strip it of the poor reward of popularity; suffer even the excesses committed in defence of the popular interest to become a ground for the majority of that House to form a disqualification out of the line of the law, and at their pleasure, attended not only with the loss of the franchise, but with every kind of personal disgrace; if this shall happen, the people of this kingdom may be assured that they cannot be firmly or faithfully served by any man.  It is out of the nature of men and things that they should; and their presumption will be equal to their folly, if they expect it.  The power of the people, within the laws, must show itself sufficient to protect every representative in the animated performance of his duty, or that duty cannot be performed.  The House of Commons can never be a control on other parts of Government, unless they are controlled themselves by their constituents; and unless these constituents possess some right in the choice of that House, which it is not in the power of that House to take away.  If they suffer this power of arbitrary incapacitation to stand, they have utterly perverted every other power of the House of Commons.  The late proceeding, I will not say, is contrary to law; it must be so; for the power which is claimed cannot, by any possibility, be a legal power in any limited member of Government.
The power which they claim, of declaring incapacities, would not be above the just claims of a final judicature, if they had not laid it down as a leading principle, that they had no rule in the exercise of this claim but their own discretion.  Not one of their abettors has ever undertaken to assign the principle of unfitness, the species or degree of delinquency, on which the House of Commons will expel, nor the mode of proceeding upon it, nor the evidence upon which it is established.  The direct consequence of which is, that the first franchise of an Englishman, and that on which all the rest vitally depend, is to be forfeited for some offence which no man knows, and which is to be proved by no known rule whatsoever of legal evidence.  This is so anomalous to our whole constitution, that I will venture to say, the most trivial right, which the subject claims, never was, nor can be, forfeited in such a manner.
The whole of their usurpation is established upon this method of arguing.  We do not make laws.  No; we do not contend for this power.  We only declare law; and, as we are a tribunal both competent and supreme, what we declare to be law becomes law, although it should not have been so before.  Thus the circumstance of having no appeal from their jurisdiction is made to imply that they have no rule in the exercise of it: the judgment does not derive its validity from its conformity to the law; but preposterously the law is made to attend on the judgment; and the rule of the judgment is no other than the occasional will of the House.  An arbitrary discretion leads, legality follows; which is just the very nature and description of a legislative act.
This claim in their hands was no barren theory.  It was pursued into its utmost consequences; and a dangerous principle has begot a correspondent practice.  A systematic spirit has been shown upon both sides.  The electors of Middlesex chose a person whom the House of Commons had voted incapable; and the House of Commons has taken in a member whom the electors of Middlesex had not chosen.  By a construction on that legislative power which had been assumed, they declared that the true legal sense of the country was contained in the minority, on that occasion; and might, on a resistance to a vote of incapacity, be contained in any minority.
When any construction of law goes against the spirit of the privilege it was meant to support, it is a vicious construction.  It is material to us to be represented really and bona fide, and not in forms, in types, and shadows, and fictions of law.  The right of election was not established merely as a matter of form, to satisfy some method and rule of technical reasoning; it was not a principle which might substitute a Titius or a Maevius, a John Doe or Richard Roe, in the place of a man specially chosen; not a principle which was just as well satisfied with one man as with another.  It is a right, the effect of which is to give to the people that man, and that man only, whom by their voices, actually, not constructively given, they declare that they know, esteem, love, and trust.  This right is a matter within their own power of judging and feeling; not an ens rationis and creature of law: nor can those devices, by which anything else is substituted in the place of such an actual choice, answer in the least degree the end of representation.
I know that the courts of law have made as strained constructions in other cases.  Such is the construction in common recoveries.  The method of construction which in that case gives to the persons in remainder, for their security and representative, the door-keeper, crier, or sweeper of the Court, or some other shadowy being without substance or effect, is a fiction of a very coarse texture.  This was however suffered, by the acquiescence of the whole kingdom, for ages; because the evasion of the old Statute of Westminster, which authorised perpetuities, had more sense and utility than the law which was evaded.  But an attempt to turn the right of election into such a farce and mockery as a fictitious fine and recovery, will, I hope, have another fate; because the laws which give it are infinitely dear to us, and the evasion is infinitely contemptible.
The people indeed have been told, that this power of discretionary disqualification is vested in hands that they may trust, and who will be sure not to abuse it to their prejudice.  Until I find something in this argument differing from that on which every mode of despotism has been defended, I shall not be inclined to pay it any great compliment.  The people are satisfied to trust themselves with the exercise of their own privileges, and do not desire this kind intervention of the House of Commons to free them from the burthen.  They are certainly in the right.  They ought not to trust the House of Commons with a power over their franchises; because the constitution, which placed two other co-ordinate powers to control it, reposed no such confidence in that body.  It were a folly well deserving servitude for its punishment, to be full of confidence where the laws are full of distrust; and to give to an House of Commons, arrogating to its sole resolution the most harsh and odious part of legislative authority, that degree of submission which is due only to the Legislature itself.
When the House of Commons, in an endeavour to obtain new advantages at the expense of the other orders of the State, for the benefits of the Commons at large, have pursued strong measures; if it were not just, it was at least natural, that the constituents should connive at all their proceedings; because we were ourselves ultimately to profit.  But when this submission is urged to us, in a contest between the representatives and ourselves, and where nothing can be put into their scale which is not taken from ours, they fancy us to be children when they tell us they are our representatives, our own flesh and blood, and that all the stripes they give us are for our good.  The very desire of that body to have such a trust contrary to law reposed in them, shows that they are not worthy of it.  They certainly will abuse it; because all men possessed of an uncontrolled discretionary power leading to the aggrandisement and profit of their own body have always abused it: and I see no particular sanctity in our times, that is at all likely, by a miraculous operation, to overrule the course of nature.
But we must purposely shut our eyes, if we consider this matter merely as a contest between the House of Commons and the Electors.  The true contest is between the Electors of the Kingdom and the Crown; the Crown acting by an instrumental House of Commons.  It is precisely the same, whether the Ministers of the Crown can disqualify by a dependent House of Commons, or by a dependent court of Star Chamber, or by a dependent court of King’s Bench.  If once Members of Parliament can be practically convinced that they do not depend on the affection or opinion of the people for their political being, they will give themselves over, without even an appearance of reserve, to the influence of the Court.
Indeed, a Parliament unconnected with the people, is essential to a Ministry unconnected with the people; and therefore those who saw through what mighty difficulties the interior Ministry waded, and the exterior were dragged, in this business, will conceive of what prodigious importance, the new corps of King’s men held this principle of occasional and personal incapacitation, to the whole body of their design.
When the House of Commons was thus made to consider itself as the master of its constituents, there wanted but one thing to secure that House against all possible future deviation towards popularity; an unlimited fund of money to be laid out according to the pleasure of the Court.
* * * * *
To complete the scheme of bringing our Court to a resemblance to the neighbouring Monarchies, it was necessary, in effect, to destroy those appropriations of revenue, which seem to limit the property, as the other laws had done the powers, of the Crown.  An opportunity for this purpose was taken, upon an application to Parliament for payment of the debts of the Civil List; which in 1769 had amounted to £513,000.  Such application had been made upon former occasions; but to do it in the former manner would by no means answer the present purpose.
Whenever the Crown had come to the Commons to desire a supply for the discharging of debts due on the Civil List, it was always asked and granted with one of the three following qualifications; sometimes with all of them.  Either it was stated that the revenue had been diverted from its purposes by Parliament; or that those duties had fallen short of the sum for which they were given by Parliament, and that the intention of the Legislature had not been fulfilled; or that the money required to discharge the Civil List debt was to be raised chargeable on the Civil List duties.  In the reign of Queen Anne, the Crown was found in debt.  The lessening and granting away some part of her revenue by Parliament was alleged as the cause of that debt, and pleaded as an equitable ground (such it certainly was), for discharging it.  It does not appear that the duties which wore then applied to the ordinary Government produced clear above £580,000 a year; because, when they were afterwards granted to George the First, £120,000 was added, to complete the whole to £700,000 a year.  Indeed it was then asserted, and, I have no doubt, truly, that for many years the nett produce did not amount to above £550,000.  The Queen’s extraordinary charges were besides very considerable; equal, at least, to any we have known in our time.  The application to Parliament was not for an absolute grant of money, but to empower the Queen to raise it by borrowing upon the Civil List funds.
The Civil List debt was twice paid in the reign of George the First.  The money was granted upon the same plan which had been followed in the reign of Queen Anne.  The Civil List revenues were then mortgaged for the sum to be raised, and stood charged with the ransom of their own deliverance.
George the Second received an addition to his Civil List.  Duties were granted for the purpose of raising £800,000 a year.  It was not until he had reigned nineteen years, and after the last rebellion, that he called upon Parliament for a discharge of the Civil List debt.  The extraordinary charges brought on by the rebellion, account fully for the necessities of the Crown.  However, the extraordinary charges of Government were not thought a ground fit to be relied on.  A deficiency of the Civil List duties for several years before was stated as the principal, if not the sole, ground on which an application to Parliament could be justified.  About this time the produce of these duties had fallen pretty low; and even upon an average of the whole reign they never produced £800,000 a year clear to the Treasury.
That Prince reigned fourteen years afterwards: not only no new demands were made, but with so much good order were his revenues and expenses regulated, that, although many parts of the establishment of the Court were upon a larger and more liberal scale than they have been since, there was a considerable sum in hand, on his decease, amounting to about £170,000, applicable to the service of the Civil List of his present Majesty.  So that, if this reign commenced with a greater charge than usual, there was enough, and more than enough, abundantly to supply all the extraordinary expense.  That the Civil List should have been exceeded in the two former reigns, especially in the reign of George the First, was not at all surprising.  His revenue was but £700,000 annually; if it ever produced so much clear.  The prodigious and dangerous disaffection to the very being of the establishment, and the cause of a Pretender then powerfully abetted from abroad, produced many demands of an extraordinary nature both abroad and at home.  Much management and great expenses were necessary.  But the throne of no Prince has stood upon more unshaken foundations than that of his present Majesty.
To have exceeded the sum given for the Civil List, and to have incurred a debt without special authority of Parliament, was, prima facie, a criminal act: as such Ministers ought naturally rather to have withdrawn it from the inspection, than to have exposed it to the scrutiny, of Parliament.  Certainly they ought, of themselves, officially to have come armed with every sort of argument, which, by explaining, could excuse a matter in itself of presumptive guilt.  But the terrors of the House of Commons are no longer for Ministers.
On the other hand, the peculiar character of the House of Commons, as trustee of the public purse, would have led them to call with a punctilious solicitude for every public account, and to have examined into them with the most rigorous accuracy.
The capital use of an account is, that the reality of the charge, the reason of incurring it, and the justice and necessity of discharging it, should all appear antecedent to the payment.  No man ever pays first, and calls for his account afterwards; because he would thereby let out of his hands the principal, and indeed only effectual, means of compelling a full and fair one.  But, in national business, there is an additional reason for a previous production of every account.  It is a cheek, perhaps the only one, upon a corrupt and prodigal use of public money.  An account after payment is to no rational purpose an account.  However, the House of Commons thought all these to be antiquated principles; they were of opinion that the most Parliamentary way of proceeding was, to pay first what the Court thought proper to demand, and to take its chance for an examination into accounts at some time of greater leisure.
The nation had settled £800,000 a year on the Crown, as sufficient for the purpose of its dignity, upon the estimate of its own Ministers.  When Ministers came to Parliament, and said that this allowance had not been sufficient for the purpose, and that they had incurred a debt of £500,000, would it not have been natural for Parliament first to have asked, how, and by what means, their appropriated allowance came to be insufficient?  Would it not have savoured of some attention to justice, to have seen in what periods of Administration this debt had been originally incurred; that they might discover, and if need were, animadvert on the persons who were found the most culpable?  To put their hands upon such articles of expenditure as they thought improper or excessive, and to secure, in future, against such misapplication or exceeding?  Accounts for any other purposes are but a matter of curiosity, and no genuine Parliamentary object.  All the accounts which could answer any Parliamentary end were refused, or postponed by previous questions.  Every idea of prevention was rejected, as conveying an improper suspicion of the Ministers of the Crown.
When every leading account had been refused, many others were granted with sufficient facility.
But with great candour also, the House was informed, that hardly any of them could be ready until the next session; some of them perhaps not so soon.  But, in order firmly to establish the precedent of payment previous to account, and to form it into a settled rule of the House, the god in the machine was brought down, nothing less than the wonder-working Law of Parliament.  It was alleged, that it is the law of Parliament, when any demand comes from the Crown, that the House must go immediately into the Committee of Supply; in which Committee it was allowed, that the production and examination of accounts would be quite proper and regular.  It was therefore carried that they should go into the Committee without delay, and without accounts, in order to examine with great order and regularity things that could not possibly come before them.  After this stroke of orderly and Parliamentary wit and humour, they went into the Committee, and very generously voted the payment.
There was a circumstance in that debate too remarkable to be overlooked.  This debt of the Civil List was all along argued upon the same footing as a debt of the State, contracted upon national authority.  Its payment was urged as equally pressing upon the public faith and honour; and when the whole year’s account was stated, in what is called The Budget, the Ministry valued themselves on the payment of so much public debt, just as if they had discharged £500,000 of navy or exchequer bills.  Though, in truth, their payment, from the Sinking Fund, of debt which was never contracted by Parliamentary authority, was, to all intents and purposes, so much debt incurred.  But such is the present notion of public credit and payment of debt.  No wonder that it produces such effects.
Nor was the House at all more attentive to a provident security against future, than it had been to a vindictive retrospect to past, mismanagements.  I should have thought indeed that a Ministerial promise, during their own continuance in office, might have been given, though this would have been but a poor security for the public.  Mr. Pelham gave such an assurance, and he kept his word.  But nothing was capable of extorting from our Ministers anything which had the least resemblance to a promise of confining the expenses of the Civil List within the limits which had been settled by Parliament.  This reserve of theirs I look upon to be equivalent to the clearest declaration that they were resolved upon a contrary course.
However, to put the matter beyond all doubt, in the Speech from the Throne, after thanking Parliament for the relief so liberally granted, the Ministers inform the two Houses that they will endeavour to confine the expenses of the Civil Government—within what limits, think you? those which the law had prescribed?  Not in the least—“such limits as the honour of the Crown can possibly admit.”
Thus they established an arbitrary standard for that dignity which Parliament had defined and limited to a legal standard.  They gave themselves, under the lax and indeterminate idea of the honour of the Crown, a full loose for all manner of dissipation, and all manner of corruption.  This arbitrary standard they were not afraid to hold out to both Houses; while an idle and inoperative Act of Parliament, estimating the dignity of the Crown at £800,000, and confining it to that sum, adds to the number of obsolete statutes which load the shelves of libraries without any sort of advantage to the people.
After this proceeding, I suppose that no man can be so weak as to think that the Crown is limited to any settled allowance whatsoever.  For if the Ministry has £800,000 a year by the law of the land, and if by the law of Parliament all the debts which exceed it are to be paid previous to the production of any account, I presume that this is equivalent to an income with no other limits than the abilities of the subject and the moderation of the Court—that is to say, it is such in income as is possessed by every absolute Monarch in Europe.  It amounts, as a person of great ability said in the debate, to an unlimited power of drawing upon the Sinking Fund.  Its effect on the public credit of this kingdom must be obvious; for in vain is the Sinking Fund the great buttress of all the rest, if it be in the power of the Ministry to resort to it for the payment of any debts which they may choose to incur, under the name of the Civil List, and through the medium of a committee, which thinks itself obliged by law to vote supplies without any other account than that of the more existence of the debt.
Five hundred thousand pounds is a serious sum.  But it is nothing to the prolific principle upon which the sum was voted—a principle that may be well called, the fruitful mother of a hundred more.  Neither is the damage to public credit of very great consequence when compared with that which results to public morals and to the safety of the Constitution, from the exhaustless mine of corruption opened by the precedent, and to be wrought by the principle of the late payment of the debts of the Civil List.  The power of discretionary disqualification by one law of Parliament, and the necessity of paying every debt of the Civil List by another law of Parliament, if suffered to pass unnoticed, must establish such a fund of rewards and terrors as will make Parliament the best appendage and support of arbitrary power that ever was invented by the wit of man.  This is felt.  The quarrel is begun between the Representatives and the People.  The Court Faction have at length committed them.
In such a strait the wisest may well be perplexed, and the boldest staggered.  The circumstances are in a great measure new.  We have hardly any landmarks from the wisdom of our ancestors to guide us.  At best we can only follow the spirit of their proceeding in other cases.  I know the diligence with which my observations on our public disorders have been made.  I am very sure of the integrity of the motives on which they are published: I cannot be equally confident in any plan for the absolute cure of those disorders, or for their certain future prevention.  My aim is to bring this matter into more public discussion.  Let the sagacity of others work upon it.  It is not uncommon for medical writers to describe histories of diseases, very accurately, on whose cure they can say but very little.
The first ideas which generally suggest themselves for the cure of Parliamentary disorders are, to shorten the duration of Parliaments, and to disqualify all, or a great number of placemen, from a seat in the House of Commons.  Whatever efficacy there may be in those remedies, I am sure in the present state of things it is impossible to apply them.  A restoration of the right of free election is a preliminary indispensable to every other reformation.  What alterations ought afterwards to be made in the constitution is a matter of deep and difficult research.
If I wrote merely to please the popular palate, it would indeed be as little troublesome to me as to another to extol these remedies, so famous in speculation, but to which their greatest admirers have never attempted seriously to resort in practice.  I confess them, that I have no sort of reliance upon either a Triennial Parliament or a Place-bill.  With regard to the former, perhaps, it might rather serve to counteract than to promote the ends that are proposed by it.  To say nothing of the horrible disorders among the people attending frequent elections, I should be fearful of committing, every three years, the independent gentlemen of the country into a contest with the Treasury.  It is easy to see which of the contending parties would be ruined first.  Whoever has taken a careful view of public proceedings, so as to endeavour to ground his speculations on his experience, must have observed how prodigiously greater the power of Ministry is in the first and last session of a Parliament, than it is in the intermediate periods, when Members sit a little on their seats.  The persons of the greatest Parliamentary experience, with whom I have conversed, did constantly, in canvassing the fate of questions, allow something to the Court side, upon account of the elections depending or imminent.  The evil complained of, if it exists in the present state of things, would hardly be removed by a triennial Parliament: for, unless the influence of Government in elections can be entirely taken away, the more frequently they return, the more they will harass private independence; the more generally men will be compelled to fly to the settled systematic interest of Government, and to the resources of a boundless Civil List.  Certainly something may be done, and ought to be done, towards lessening that influence in elections; and this will be necessary upon a plan either of longer or shorter duration of Parliament.  But nothing can so perfectly remove the evil, as not to render such contentions, foot frequently repeated, utterly ruinous, first to independence of fortune, and then to independence of spirit.  As I am only giving an opinion on this point, and not at all debating it in an adverse line, I hope I may be excused in another observation.  With great truth I may aver that I never remember to have talked on this subject with any man much conversant with public business who considered short Parliaments as a real improvement of the Constitution.  Gentlemen, warm in a popular cause, are ready enough to attribute all the declarations of such persons to corrupt motives.  But the habit of affairs, if, on one hand, it tends to corrupt the mind, furnishes it, on the other, with the, means of better information.  The authority of such persons will always have some weight.  It may stand upon a par with the speculations of those who are less practised in business; and who, with perhaps purer intentions, have not so effectual means of judging.  It is besides an effect of vulgar and puerile malignity to imagine that every Statesman is of course corrupt: and that his opinion, upon every constitutional point, is solely formed upon some sinister interest.
The next favourite remedy is a Place-bill.  The same principle guides in both: I mean the opinion which is entertained by many of the infallibility of laws and regulations, in the cure of public distempers.  Without being as unreasonably doubtful as many are unwisely confident, I will only say, that this also is a matter very well worthy of serious and mature reflection.  It is not easy to foresee what the effect would be of disconnecting with Parliament, the greatest part of those who hold civil employments, and of such mighty and important bodies as the military and naval establishments.  It were better, perhaps, that they should have a corrupt interest in the forms of the constitution, than they should have none at all.  This is a question altogether different from the disqualification of a particular description of Revenue Officers from seats in Parliament; or, perhaps, of all the lower sorts of them from votes in elections.  In the former case, only the few are affected; in the latter, only the inconsiderable.  But a great official, a great professional, a great military and naval interest, all necessarily comprehending many people of the first weight, ability, wealth, and spirit, has been gradually formed in the kingdom.  These new interests must be let into a share of representation, else possibly they may be inclined to destroy those institutions of which they are not permitted to partake.  This is not a thing to be trifled with: nor is it every well-meaning man that is fit to put his hands to it.  Many other serious considerations occur.  I do not open them here, because they are not directly to my purpose; proposing only to give the reader some taste of the difficulties that attend all capital changes in the Constitution; just to hint the uncertainty, to say no worse, of being able to prevent the Court, as long as it has the means of influence abundantly in its power, from applying that influence to Parliament; and perhaps, if the public method were precluded, of doing it in some worse and more dangerous method.  Underhand and oblique ways would be studied.  The science of evasion, already tolerably understood, would then be brought to the greatest perfection.  It is no inconsiderable part of wisdom, to know how much of an evil ought to be tolerated; lest, by attempting a degree of purity impracticable in degenerate times and manners, instead of cutting off the subsisting ill practices, new corruptions might be produced for the concealment and security of the old.  It were better, undoubtedly, that no influence at all could affect the mind of a Member of Parliament.  But of all modes of influence, in my opinion, a place under the Government is the least disgraceful to the man who holds it, and by far the most safe to the country.  I would not shut out that sort of influence which is open and visible, which is connected with the dignity and the service of the State, when it is not in my power to prevent the influence of contracts, of subscriptions, of direct bribery, and those innumerable methods of clandestine corruption, which are abundantly in the hands of the Court, and which will be applied as long as these means of corruption, and the disposition to be corrupted, have existence amongst us.  Our Constitution stands on a nice equipoise, with steep precipices and deep waters upon all sides of it.  In removing it from a dangerous leaning towards one side, there may be a risk of oversetting it on the other.  Every project of a material change in a Government so complicated as ours, combined at the same time with external circumstances still more complicated, is a matter full of difficulties; in which a considerate man will not be too ready to decide; a prudent man too ready to undertake; or an honest man too ready to promise.  They do not respect the public nor themselves, who engage for more than they are sure that they ought to attempt, or that they are able to perform.  These are my sentiments, weak perhaps, but honest and unbiassed; and submitted entirely to the opinion of grave men, well affected to the constitution of their country, and of experience in what may best promote or hurt it.
Indeed, in the situation in which we stand, with an immense revenue, an enormous debt, mighty establishments, Government itself a great banker and a great merchant, I see no other way for the preservation of a decent attention to public interest in the Representatives, but the interposition of the body of the people itself, whenever it shall appear, by some flagrant and notorious act, by some capital innovation, that these Representatives are going to over-leap the fences of the law, and to introduce an arbitrary power.  This interposition is a most unpleasant remedy.  But, if it be a legal remedy, it is intended on some occasion to be used; to be used then only, when it is evident that nothing else can hold the Constitution to its true principles.
* * * * *
The distempers of Monarchy were the great subjects of apprehension and redress, in the last century; in this, the distempers of Parliament.  It is not in Parliament alone that the remedy for Parliamentary disorders can be completed; hardly, indeed, can it begin there.  Until a confidence in Government is re-established, the people ought to be excited to a more strict and detailed attention to the conduct of their Representatives.  Standards, for judging more systematically upon their conduct, ought to be settled in the meetings of counties and corporations.  Frequent and correct lists of the voters in all important questions ought to be procured.
By such means something may be done.  By such means it may appear who those are, that, by an indiscriminate support of all Administrations, have totally banished all integrity and confidence out of public proceedings; have confounded the best men with the worst; and weakened and dissolved, instead of strengthening and compacting, the general frame of Government.  If any person is more concerned for government and order than for the liberties of his country, even he is equally concerned to put an end to this course of indiscriminate support.  It is this blind and undistinguishing support that feeds the spring of those very disorders, by which he is frighted into the arms of the faction which contains in itself the source of all disorders, by enfeebling all the visible and regular authority of the State.  The distemper is increased by his injudicious and preposterous endeavours, or pretences, for the cure of it.
An exterior Administration, chosen for its impotency, or after it is chosen purposely rendered impotent, in order to be rendered subservient, will not be obeyed.  The laws themselves will not be respected, when those who execute them are despised: and they will be despised, when their power is not immediate from the Crown, or natural in the kingdom.  Never were Ministers better supported in Parliament.  Parliamentary support comes and goes with office, totally regardless of the man, or the merit.  Is Government strengthened?  It grows weaker and weaker.  The popular torrent gains upon it every hour.  Let us learn from our experience.  It is not support that is wanting to Government, but reformation.  When Ministry rests upon public opinion, it is not indeed built upon a rock of adamant; it has, however, some stability.  But when it stands upon private humour, its structure is of stubble, and its foundation is on quicksand.  I repeat it again—He that supports every Administration, subverts all Government.  The reason is this.  The whole business in which a Court usually takes an interest goes on at present equally well, in whatever hands, whether high or low, wise or foolish, scandalous or reputable; there is nothing, therefore, to hold it firm to any one body of men, or to any one consistent scheme of politics.  Nothing interposes to prevent the full operation of all the caprices and all the passions of a Court upon the servants of the public.  The system of Administration is open to continual shocks and changes, upon the principles of the meanest cabal, and the most contemptible intrigue.  Nothing can be solid and permanent.  All good men at length fly with horror from such a service.  Men of rank and ability, with the spirit which ought to animate such men in a free state, while they decline the jurisdiction of dark cabal on their actions and their fortunes, will, for both, cheerfully put themselves upon their country.  They will trust an inquisitive and distinguishing Parliament; because it does inquire, and does distinguish.  If they act well, they know that, in such a Parliament, they will be supported against any intrigue; if they act ill, they know that no intrigue can protect them.  This situation, however awful, is honourable.  But in one hour, and in the self-same Assembly, without any assigned or assignable cause, to be precipitated from the highest authority to the most marked neglect, possibly into the greatest peril of life and reputation, is a situation full of danger, and destitute of honour.  It will be shunned equally by every man of prudence, and every man of spirit.
Such are the consequences of the division of Court from the Administration; and of the division of public men among themselves.  By the former of these, lawful Government is undone; by the latter, all opposition to lawless power is rendered impotent.  Government may in a great measure be restored, if any considerable bodies of men have honesty and resolution enough never to accept Administration, unless this garrison of King’s meat, which is stationed, as in a citadel, to control and enslave it, be entirely broken and disbanded, and every work they have thrown up be levelled with the ground.  The disposition of public men to keep this corps together, and to act under it, or to co-operate with it, is a touchstone by which every Administration ought in future to be tried.  There has not been one which has not sufficiently experienced the utter incompatibility of that faction with the public peace, and with all the ends of good Government; since, if they opposed it, they soon lost every power of serving the Crown; if they submitted to it they lost all the esteem of their country.  Until Ministers give to the public a full proof of their entire alienation from that system, however plausible their pretences, we may be sure they are more intent on the emoluments than the duties of office.  If they refuse to give this proof, we know of what stuff they are made.  In this particular, it ought to be the electors’ business to look to their Representatives.  The electors ought to esteem it no less culpable in their Member to give a single vote in Parliament to such an Administration, than to take an office under it; to endure it, than to act in it.  The notorious infidelity and versatility of Members of Parliament, in their opinions of men and things, ought in a particular manner to be considered by the electors in the inquiry which is recommended to them.  This is one of the principal holdings of that destructive system which has endeavoured to unhinge all the virtuous, honourable, and useful connections in the kingdom.
This cabal has, with great success, propagated a doctrine which serves for a colour to those acts of treachery; and whilst it receives any degree of countenance, it will be utterly senseless to look for a vigorous opposition to the Court Party.  The doctrine is this: That all political connections are in their nature factious, and as such ought to be dissipated and destroyed; and that the rule for forming Administrations is mere personal ability, rated by the judgment of this cabal upon it, and taken by drafts from every division and denomination of public men.  This decree was solemnly promulgated by the head of the Court corps, the Earl of Bute himself, in a speech which he made, in the year 1766, against the then Administration, the only Administration which, he has ever been known directly and publicly to oppose.
It is indeed in no way wonderful, that such persons should make such declarations.  That connection and faction are equivalent terms, is an opinion which has been carefully inculcated at all times by unconstitutional Statesmen.  The reason is evident.  Whilst men are linked together, they easily and speedily communicate the alarm of an evil design.  They are enabled to fathom it with common counsel, and to oppose it with united strength.  Whereas, when they lie dispersed, without concert, order, or discipline, communication is uncertain, counsel difficult, and resistance impracticable.  Where men are not acquainted with each other’s principles, nor experienced in each other’s talents, nor at all practised in their mutual habitudes and dispositions by joint efforts in business; no personal confidence, no friendship, no common interest, subsisting among them; it is evidently impossible that they can act a public part with uniformity, perseverance, or efficacy.  In a connection, the most inconsiderable man, by adding to the weight of the whole, has his value, and his use; out of it, the greatest talents are wholly unserviceable to the public.  No man, who is not inflamed by vainglory into enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single, unsupported, desultory, unsystematic endeavours, are of power to defeat, the subtle designs and united cabals of ambitious citizens.  When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
It is not enough in a situation of trust in the commonwealth, that a man means well to his country; it is not enough that in his single person he never did an evil act, but always voted according to his conscience, and even harangued against every design which he apprehended to be prejudicial to the interests of his country.  This innoxious and ineffectual character, that seems formed upon a plan of apology and disculpation, falls miserably short of the mark of public duty.  That duty demands and requires, that what is right should not only be made known, but made prevalent; that what is evil should not only be detected, but defeated.  When the public man omits to put himself in a situation of doing his duty with effect, it is an omission that frustrates the purposes of his trust almost as much as if he had formally betrayed it.  It is surely no very rational account of a man’s life that he has always acted right; but has taken special care to act in such a manner that his endeavours could not possibly be productive of any consequence.
I do not wonder that the behaviour of many parties should have made persons of tender and scrupulous virtue somewhat out of humour with all sorts of connection in politics.  I admit that people frequently acquire in such confederacies a narrow, bigoted, and proscriptive spirit; that they are apt to sink the idea of the general good in this circumscribed and partial interest.  But, where duty renders a critical situation a necessary one, it is our business to keep free from the evils attendant upon it, and not to fly from the situation itself.  If a fortress is seated in an unwholesome air, an officer of the garrison is obliged to be attentive to his health, but he must not desert his station.  Every profession, not excepting the glorious one of a soldier, or the sacred one of a priest, is liable to its own particular vices; which, however, form no argument against those ways of life; nor are the vices themselves inevitable to every individual in those professions.  Of such a nature are connections in politics; essentially necessary for the full performance of our public duty, accidentally liable to degenerate into faction.  Commonwealths are made of families, free Commonwealths of parties also; and we may as well affirm, that our natural regards and ties of blood tend inevitably to make men bad citizens, as that the bonds of our party weaken those by which we are held to our country.
Some legislators went so far as to make neutrality in party a crime against the State.  I do not know whether this might not have been rather to overstrain the principle.  Certain it is, the best patriots in the greatest commonwealths have always commanded and promoted such connections.  Idem sentire de republica, was with them a principal ground of friendship and attachment; nor do I know any other capable of forming firmer, dearer, more pleasing, more honourable, and more virtuous habitudes.  The Romans carried this principle a great way.  Even the holding of offices together, the disposition of which arose from chance, not selection, gave rise to a relation which continued for life.  It was called necessitudo sortis; and it was looked upon with a sacred reverence.  Breaches of any of these kinds of civil relation were considered as acts of the most distinguished turpitude.  The whole people was distributed into political societies, in which they acted in support of such interests in the State as they severally affected.  For it was then thought no crime, to endeavour by every honest means to advance to superiority and power those of your own sentiments and opinions.  This wise people was far from imagining that those connections had no tie, and obliged to no duty; but that men might quit them without shame, upon every call of interest.  They believed private honour to be the great foundation of public trust; that friendship was no mean step towards patriotism; that he who, in the common intercourse of life, showed he regarded somebody besides himself, when he came to act in a public situation, might probably consult some other interest than his own.  Never may we become plus sages que les sages, as the French comedian has happily expressed it—wiser than all the wise and good men who have lived before us.  It was their wish, to see public and private virtues, not dissonant and jarring, and mutually destructive, but harmoniously combined, growing out of one another in a noble and orderly gradation, reciprocally supporting and supported.  In one of the most fortunate periods of our history this country was governed by a connection; I mean the great connection of Whigs in the reign of Queen Anne.  They were complimented upon the principle of this connection by a poet who was in high esteem with them.  Addison, who knew their sentiments, could not praise them for what they considered as no proper subject of commendation.  As a poet who knew his business, he could not applaud them for a thing which in general estimation was not highly reputable.  Addressing himself to Britain,
“Thy favourites grow not up by fortune’s sport,
Or from the crimes or follies of a Court;
On the firm basis of desert they rise,
From long-tried faith, and friendship’s holy ties.”
The Whigs of those days believed that the only proper method of rising into power was through bard essays of practised friendship and experimented fidelity.  At that time it was not imagined that patriotism was a bloody idol, which required the sacrifice of children and parents, or dearest connections in private life, and of all the virtues that rise from those relations.  They were not of that ingenious paradoxical morality to imagine that a spirit of moderation was properly shown in patiently bearing the sufferings of your friends, or that disinterestedness was clearly manifested at the expense of other people’s fortune.  They believed that no men could act with effect who did not act in concert; that no men could act in concert who did not act with confidence; that no men could act with confidence who were not bound together by common opinions, common affections, and common interests.
These wise men, for such I must call Lord Sunderland, Lord Godolphin, Lord Somers, and Lord Marlborough, were too well principled in these maxims, upon which the whole fabric of public strength is built, to be blown off their ground by the breath of every childish talker.  They were not afraid that they should be called an ambitious Junto, or that their resolution to stand or fall together should, by placemen, be interpreted into a scuffle for places.
Party is a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed.  For my part, I find it impossible to conceive that any one believes in his own politics, or thinks them to be of any weight, who refuses to adopt the means of having them reduced into practice.  It is the business of the speculative philosopher to mark the proper ends of Government.  It is the business of the politician, who is the philosopher in action, to find out proper means towards those ends, and to employ them with effect.  Therefore, every honourable connection will avow it as their first purpose to pursue every just method to put the men who hold their opinions into such a condition as may enable them to carry their common plans into execution, with all the power and authority of the State.  As this power is attached to certain situations, it is their duty to contend for these situations.  Without a proscription of others, they are bound to give to their own party the preference in all things, and by no means, for private considerations, to accept any offers of power in which the whole body is not included, nor to suffer themselves to be led, or to be controlled, or to be over-balanced, in office or in council, by those who contradict, the very fundamental principles on which their party is formed, and even those upon which every fair connection must stand.  Such a generous contention for power, on such manly and honourable maxims, will easily be distinguished from the mean and interested struggle for place and emolument.  The very style of such persons will serve to discriminate them from those numberless impostors who have deluded the ignorant with professions incompatible with human practice, and have afterwards incensed them by practices below the level of vulgar rectitude.
It is an advantage to all narrow wisdom and narrow morals that their maxims have a plausible air, and, on a cursory view, appear equal to first principles.  They are light and portable.  They are as current as copper coin, and about as valuable.  They serve equally the first capacities and the lowest, and they are, at least, as useful to the worst men as the best.  Of this stamp is the cant of Not menbut measures; a sort of charm, by which many people got loose from every honourable engagement.  When I see a man acting this desultory and disconnected part, with as much detriment to his own fortune as prejudice to the cause of any party, I am not persuaded that he is right, but I am ready to believe he is in earnest.  I respect virtue in all its situations, even when it is found in the unsuitable company of weakness.  I lament to see qualities, rare and valuable, squandered away without any public utility.  But when a gentleman with great visible emoluments abandons the party in which he has long acted, and tells you it is because he proceeds upon his own judgment that he acts on the merits of the several measures as they arise, and that he is obliged to follow his own conscience, and not that of others, he gives reasons which it is impossible to controvert, and discovers a character which it is impossible to mistake.  What shall we think of him who never differed from a certain set of men until the moment they lost their power, and who never agreed with them in a single instance afterwards?  Would not such a coincidence of interest and opinion be rather fortunate?  Would it not be an extraordinary cast upon the dice that a man’s connections should degenerate into faction, precisely at the critical moment when they lose their power or he accepts a place?  When people desert their connections, the desertion is a manifest fact, upon which a direct simple issue lies, triable by plain men.  Whether a measure of Government be right or wrong is no matter of fact, but a mere affair of opinion, on which men may, as they do, dispute and wrangle without end.  But whether the individual thinks the measure right or wrong is a point at still a greater distance from the reach of all human decision.  It is therefore very convenient to politicians not to put the judgment of their conduct on overt acts, cognisable in any ordinary court, but upon such a matter as can be triable only in that secret tribunal, where they are sure of being heard with favour, or where at worst the sentence will be only private whipping.
I believe the reader would wish to find no substance in a doctrine which has a tendency to destroy all test of character as deduced from conduct.  He will therefore excuse my adding something more towards the further clearing up a point which the great convenience of obscurity to dishonesty has been able to cover with some degree of darkness and doubt.
In order to throw an odium on political connection, these politicians suppose it a necessary incident to it that you are blindly to follow the opinions of your party when in direct opposition to your own clear ideas, a degree of servitude that no worthy man could bear the thought of submitting to, and such as, I believe, no connections (except some Court factions) ever could be so senselessly tyrannical as to impose.  Men thinking freely will, in particular instances, think differently.  But still, as the greater Part of the measures which arise in the course of public business are related to, or dependent on, some great leading general principles in Government, a man must be peculiarly unfortunate in the choice of his political company if he does not agree with them at least nine times in ten.  If he does not concur in these general principles upon which the party is founded, and which necessarily draw on a concurrence in their application, he ought from the beginning to have chosen some other, more conformable to his opinions.  When the question is in its nature doubtful, or not very material, the modesty which becomes an individual, and (in spite of our Court moralists) that partiality which becomes a well-chosen friendship, will frequently bring on an acquiescence in the general sentiment.  Thus the disagreement will naturally be rare; it will be only enough to indulge freedom, without violating concord or disturbing arrangement.  And this is all that ever was required for a character of the greatest uniformity and steadiness in connection.  How men can proceed without any connection at all is to me utterly incomprehensible.  Of what sort of materials must that man be made, how must he be tempered and put together, who can sit whole years in Parliament, with five hundred and fifty of his fellow-citizens, amidst the storm of such tempestuous passions, in the sharp conflict of so many wits, and tempers, and characters, in the agitation of such mighty questions, in the discussion of such vast and ponderous interests, without seeing any one sort of men, whose character, conduct, or disposition would lead him to associate himself with them, to aid and be aided, in any one system of public utility?
I remember an old scholastic aphorism, which says that “the man who lives wholly detached from others must be either an angel or a devil.”  When I see in any of these detached gentlemen of our times the angelic purity, power, and beneficence, I shall admit them to be angels.  In the meantime, we are born only to be men.  We shall do enough if we form ourselves to be good ones.  It is therefore our business carefully to cultivate in our minds, to rear to the most perfect vigour and maturity, every sort of generous and honest feeling that belongs to our nature.  To bring the, dispositions that are lovely in private life into the service and conduct of the commonwealth; so to be patriots, as not to forget we are gentlemen.  To cultivate friendships, and to incur enmities.  To have both strong, but both selected: in the one, to be placable; in the other, immovable.  To model our principles to our duties and our situation.  To be fully persuaded that all virtue which is impracticable is spurious, and rather to run the risk of falling into faults in a course which leads us to act with effect and energy than to loiter out our days without blame and without use.  Public life is a situation of power and energy; he trespasses against his duty who sleeps upon his watch, as well as he that goes over to the enemy.
There is, however, a time for all things.  It is not every conjuncture which calls with equal force upon the activity of honest men; but critical exigences now and then arise, and I am mistaken if this be not one of them.  Men will see the necessity of honest combination, but they may see it when it is too late.  They may embody when it will be ruinous to themselves, and of no advantage to the country; when, for want of such a timely union as may enable them to oppose in favour of the laws, with the laws on their side, they may at length find themselves under the necessity of conspiring, instead of consulting.  The law, for which they stand, may become a weapon in the hands of its bitterest enemies; and they will be cast, at length, into that miserable alternative, between slavery and civil confusion, which no good man can look upon without horror, an alternative in which it is impossible he should take either part with a conscience perfectly at repose.  To keep that situation of guilt and remorse at the utmost distance is, therefore, our first obligation.  Early activity may prevent late and fruitless violence.  As yet we work in the light.  The scheme of the enemies of public tranquillity has disarranged, it has not destroyed us.
If the reader believes that there really exists such a Faction as I have described, a Faction ruling by the private inclinations of a Court, against the general sense of the people; and that this Faction, whilst it pursues a scheme for undermining all the foundations of our freedom, weakens (for the present at least) all the powers of executory Government, rendering us abroad contemptible, and at home distracted; he will believe, also, that nothing but a firm combination of public men against this body, and that, too, supported by the hearty concurrence of the people at large, can possibly get the better of it.  The people will see the necessity of restoring public men to an attention to the public opinion, and of restoring the Constitution to its original principles.  Above all, they will endeavour to keep the House of Commons from assuming a character which does not belong to it.  They will endeavour to keep that House, for its existence for its powers, and its privileges, as independent of every other, and as dependent upon themselves, as possible.  This servitude is to a House of Commons (like obedience to the Divine law), “perfect freedom.”  For if they once quit this natural, rational, and liberal obedience, having deserted the only proper foundation of their power, they must seek a support in an abject and unnatural dependence somewhere else.  When, through the medium of this just connection with their constituents, the genuine dignity of the House of Commons is restored, it will begin to think of casting from it, with scorn, as badges of servility, all the false ornaments of illegal power, with which it has been, for some time, disgraced.  It will begin to think of its old office of CONTROL.  It will not suffer that last of evils to predominate in the country; men without popular confidence, public opinion, natural connection, or natural trust, invested with all the powers of Government.
When they have learned this lesson themselves, they will be willing and able to teach the Court, that it is the true interest of the Prince to have but one Administration; and that one composed of those who recommend themselves to their Sovereign through the opinion of their country, and not by their obsequiousness to a favourite.  Such men will serve their Sovereign with affection and fidelity; because his choice of them, upon such principles, is a compliment to their virtue.  They will be able to serve him effectually; because they will add the weight of the country to the force of the executory power.  They will be able to serve their King with dignity; because they will never abuse his name to the gratification of their private spleen or avarice.  This, with allowances for human frailty, may probably be the general character of a Ministry, which thinks itself accountable to the House of Commons, when the House of Commons thinks itself accountable to its constituents.  If other ideas should prevail, things must remain in their present confusion, until they are hurried into all the rage of civil violence; or until they sink into the dead repose of despotism.

Maximilien de Béthune, 1st Duke of SullyMarquis of Rosny and NogentCount of Muret and VillebonViscount of Meaux (13 December 1560 – 22 December 1641) was a noblemansoldier, statesman, and faithful right-hand man who assisted king Henry IV of France in the rule of France. Historians emphasize Sully’s role in building a strong centralized administrative system in France using coercion and highly effective new administrative techniques. His policies were not original, and most were reversed. Historians have also studied his neo-Stoicism and his ideas about virtue, prudence, and discipline.[1]

Sully in power[edit]

From 1596, when he was added to Henry’s finance commission, Rosny introduced some order into France’s economic affairs. Acting as sole Superintendent of Finances at the end of 1601, he authorized the free exportation of grain and wine, reduced legal interest, established a special court to try cases of peculation, forbade provincial governors to raise money on their own authority, and otherwise removed many abuses of tax-collecting. Rosny abolished several offices, and by his honest, rigorous conduct of the country’s finances, he was able to save between 1600 and 1610 an average of a million livres a year.[3]
His achievements were by no means solely financial. In 1599, he was appointed grand commissioner of highways and public works, superintendent of fortifications and grand master of artillery; in 1602, governor of Nantes and of Jargeau, captain-general of the Queen’s gens d’armes and governor of the Bastille; in 1604, he was governor of Poitou; and in 1606, made first duke of Sully and a pair de France, ranking next to princes of the blood. He declined the office of constable of France because he would not become a Roman Catholic.[3]

Statue of Sully at the Palais du Louvre, Paris.

Sully encouraged agriculture, urged the free circulation of produce, promoted stock-raising, forbade the destruction of the forests, drained swamps, built roads and bridges, planned a vast system of canals and actually began the Canal de Briare. He strengthened the French military establishment; under his direction, the construction of a great line of defences on the frontiers began. Abroad, Sully opposed the king’s colonial policy as inconsistent with French interests, in opposition to men like Champlain who urged greater colonial efforts in Canada and elsewhere. Neither did Sully show much favor toward industrial pursuits but, on the urgent solicitation of the king, he established a few silk factories. He fought together with Henry IV in Savoy (1600–1601) and negotiated the treaty of peace in 1602; in 1603, he represented Henry at the court of James I of England; and throughout the reign, he helped the king to put down insurrections of the nobles, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant. It was Sully, too, who arranged the marriage between Henry IV and Marie de’ Medici.[3]

Accomplishments[edit]

Château de Rosny-sur-Seine, the stately home built by Duc de Sully.

Sully was very unpopular because he was a favorite and was seen as selfish, obstinate, and rude. He was hated by most Catholics because he was a Protestant, and by most Protestants because he was faithful to the king. He amassed a large personal fortune, and his jealousy of all other ministers and favorites was extravagant. Nevertheless, he was an excellent man of business, inexorable in punishing malversation and dishonesty on the part of others, and opposed to ruinous court expenditures that was the bane of almost all European monarchies in his day. He was gifted with executive ability, with confidence and resolution, with fondness for work, and above all with deep devotion to his master. He was implicitly trusted by Henry IV and proved himself the most able assistant of the king in dispelling the chaos into which the religious and civil wars had plunged France. After Henry IV, Sully was a major driving force behind the happy transformation in France between 1598 and 1610, in which agriculture and commerce benefitted, and peace and internal order were reestablished.[3]

Legacy