Mangled Thoughts

In Essays on Socialism, one has been comparing late C19th to 1930?s Germany, and the descent into socialism. Socialism is a religion, a pseudo rational equivalent of a theocracy. Until the rise of, in reality of superstition and mysticism as substitutes for philosophy, economics and law, the last through `legal positivism?, and with it, the rise of the cult of the nation. There was a vigorous classical liberal tradition in Germany, which was over-ridden in the second half of the 19tth century.by the incipiently totalitarian novelties. The boosters of central planning sneered at the Liberals as dreamers clinging to quaint notions from a dead past

Rousseau?s lie of the savage noble as truly human had an unfortunate widespread influence in France and Germany, of which the Romantic Movement was but one issue. In England, the Romantic Movement was short-lived and given short thrift, regarded as built on no more than a pile of shite. Wordsworth, as a leading proponent of Rousseau?s nonsense, repented of it in his old age. He was embarrassed by his indulgence of it, and by that he had wasted so much effort distilling it through poetry.

Rousseau?s nonsense is reflected in the mythologising of the history of the German people, and in socialist pseudo philosophy, as reflected in, for example, the Rubbish of Marx and National Socialism, for which the notion of the primitive savage as true man is central. Civilisation and the basis of civilisation, freedom and free market economic production and trade, are treated as artificial. To this, from Rousseau, the expression `torn-condition? was coined and popularised. Civilisation, that is, `unnatural?, and violates the `natural man?. Yet, civilisation is so far advanced, it cannot be reversed. The question, for the pseudo philosophers and mythologisers of history, was how to reconcile the two? Socialism, as a religion is essentially the attempt to retain the primitive mores and values of tribal man, reflected in, religion is an amplification of primitive tribalism. It is interesting that the tribalist can only succeed in making many conform to religious dictate is through coercion exercised through absolutism, and hence the ramification of religion is totalitarianism.

One other upshot was a reaction against science, and substitution of scientism, charlatanism, for science, under both communist regimes and the Nazi regime. The Nazi Party went further and, basically, cultically worshipped `nature?. Others have observed all the savage beliefs of Greenies were held by the Nazi Party.

The central argument being run in essays on socialism is, all the features outlined of C19th to early C20th Germany are clearly visible in Australia and have been embraced by the major political parties in Australia. Moreover, for example, `Government? as directed the proliferation, popularisation and inculcation of savage beliefs, inclusive of those of Greens. Science is attacked and undermined by this national socialist and statist descent into charlatanism and savage mysticism and superstition. Another parallel one has drawn is the mythologising of Australian History, which is pivotal to the rise of an increasing and more strident shift to National Socialism by both the major parties. Many of Kim Beazley?s parliamentary speeches are nakedly anchored in national socialist rhetoric. The Coalition, on the other hand, have as `advisers? to cabinet those charlatans called sociologists. Sociology is not a learned discipline; it is a non-discipline, which rests on the same pseudo-philosophical streams which informed Nazism and communism, and it rests on ignorance.

A number of articles have been posted on the Ludwig von Mises Institute?s website which demonstrate the same argument in the Essays on Socialism, but with fresh content.

Germany, and the descent into socialism. Socialism is a religion, a pseudo rational equivalent of a theocracy. Until the rise of, in reality of superstition and mysticism as substitutes for philosophy, economics and law, the last through `legal positivism?, and with it, the rise of the cult of the nation, there was a vigorous classical liberal tradition in Germany which was over-ridden by the incipiently totalitarian novelties.

Rousseau?s lie of the savage noble as truly human had an unfortunate widespread influence in France and Germany, of which the Romantic Movement was but one issue. In England, the Romantic Movement was short-lived and given short thrift, regarded as built on no more than a pile of shite. Wordsworth, as a leading proponent of Rousseau?s nonsense, repented of it in his old age. He was embarrassed by his indulgence of it, and by that he had wasted so much effort distilling it through poetry.

Rousseau?s nonsense is reflected in the mythologising of the history of the German people, and in socialist pseudo philosophy, as reflected in, for example, the Rubbish of Marx and National Socialism, for which the notion of the primitive savage as true man is central. Civilisation and the basis of civilisation, freedom and free market economic production and trade, are treated as artificial. To this, from Rousseau, the expression `torn-condition? was coined and popularised. Civilisation, that is, `unnatural?, and violates the `natural man?. Yet, civilisation is so far advanced, it cannot be reversed. The question, for the pseudo philosophers and mythologisers of history, was how to reconcile the two? Socialism, as a religion is essentially the attempt to retain the primitive mores and values of tribal man, reflected in, religion is an amplification of primitive tribalism. It is interesting that the tribalist can only succeed in making many conform to religious dictate is through coercion exercised through absolutism, and hence the ramification of religion is totalitarianism.

One other upshot was a reaction against science, and substitution of scientism, charlatanism, for science, under both communist regimes and the Nazi regime. The Nazi Party went further and, basically, cultically worshipped `nature?. Others have observed all the savage beliefs of Greenies were held by the Nazi Party.

The central argument being run in essays on socialism is, all the features outlined of C19th to early C20th Germany are clearly visible in Australia and have been embraced by the major political parties in Australia. Moreover, for example, `Government? as directed the proliferation, popularisation and inculcation of savage beliefs, inclusive of those of Greens. Science is attacked and undermined by this national socialist and statist descent into charlatanism and savage mysticism and superstition. Another parallel one has drawn is the mythologising of Australian History, which is pivotal to the rise of an increasing and more strident shift to National Socialism by both the major parties. Many of Kim Beazley?s parliamentary speeches are nakedly anchored in national socialist rhetoric. The Coalition, on the other hand, have as `advisers? to cabinet those charlatans called sociologists. Sociology is not a learned discipline; it is a non-discipline, which rests on the same pseudo-philosophical streams which informed Nazism and communism, and rests on the deliberate cultivation of ignorance.

A number of articles have been posted on the Ludwig von Mises Institute?s website which demonstrate the same argument in the Essays on Socialism, but with fresh content.

The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism by Murray N. Rothbard, who observes:

Americans hedged in their new governments with numerous limits and restrictions …

The new federal government formed by the Articles of Confederation was not permitted to levy any taxes upon the public; and any fundamental extension of its powers required unanimous consent by every state government.

Actually, that was true of England from when Henry II bound the King to observe the Rule of Common Law to Sir Robert Peel. The Crown had no a-priori right to tax, and had no mystical power to tax. Any revenue measure was restricted as a temporary measure only. Sir Robert Peel usurped the Parliament, which was a court of common law, by his imposition of unrestricted taxes. Peel?s novelties, inclusive of imposing a bureaucracy modelled on the Royal Court of China’s mandarin administration, for the express purpose of central planning and `regulation’ -over against the rule of common law, were nearly defeated. If he had have been defeated, would have been politically finished, a pity he got away with it.

Australian politicians in the 19th century did exactly the opposite tot eh Americans. While Australian Parliaments and the courts are rooted in the Common Law tradition, the politicians imbibed in the absolutists doctrines popular in Europe. The articles of each constitution, Federal and States? Parliaments, are loaded with terms indebted to the absolutists pseudo-philosophies cum dogmas the Europeans are still adduced to. In fact, that is what is so unsatisfactory about the resolution to the Eureka rebellion.

The Victorian Government imposed the tax the gold mining `licence? as a coercive measure with the aims of

1 Imposing a tax revenue.
2. To force the `miners? to return to working for employers.
3. To eradicate what Melbourne?s Brahmans, both sides of the political fence `conservative? and `radical?, considered unseemly and an offence to their sensibilities, transient men and families living in tent cities.

With the police used as nothing but tax extractors, and the administration of justice a risible farce, the miner?s complaint was right. The settlement to the uprising was not right, the key provision, the vote in return for taxation amounts to nothing less than a handful of politicians, administrators and miners, having agreed to sell common law upheld freedoms against a coercive executive.

It is notable that, free trading New South Welshmen opposed the N.S.W. Government?s attempt to impose a gold licence in N.S.W. While they resented the labour shortage due to the gold rush, businessmen in N.S.W opposed the attempt for the very reason that it would have been an appalling act of usurpation of liberty and with long run ramifications.

While the Eureka incident and, more importantly, the settlement to it, is celebrated as the `birth of Australian democracy?, the truth is rather different. The winners were the political Brahman, `left? and `right?, for it was the `birth? of absolutism. The Constitution for the Victorian Parliament and Executive makes that crystal clear.

While the Americans were busy trying to formulate a basis for preventing ‘government? exerting coercive power against the people and, eliminating any possible avenue for the usurpation of liberty, including by taxation and imposition of fiat money, and usurping liberty, in Australia, too many were busy on acquiring coercive power. The framers of the Constitutions of the States and Federation, were busy inserting fictions as articles, which assert nothing less than coercive, absolutist power. Those articles amount to the usurpation of the Rule of Common Law. It is no accident that many of the `Acts? of the Bracks Junta is each an usurpation of Common Law. The Bill of Rights the Bracks Junta is preparing will completely usurp Common Law for the rule of dictators.

Despite the fundamental differences between Australians and Americans over govt. and liberty, Rothbard examines movements in American history which have reversed the American Revolution -

? After the Revolution
Thus, America, above all countries, was born in an explicitly libertarian revolution, a revolution against empire; against taxation, trade monopoly, and regulation; and against militarism and executive power. The revolution resulted in governments unprecedented in restrictions placed on their power…??

So, for example, Rothbard observes something common to Australia too:

?If the laissez-faire liberals were confused by the new recrudescence of statism and mercantilism as “progressive” corporate statism, another reason for the decay of classical liberalism by the end of the nineteenth century was the growth of a peculiar new movement: socialism. Socialism began in the 1830s and expanded greatly after the 1880s. The peculiar thing about socialism was that it was a confused, hybrid movement, influenced by both the two great preexisting polar ideologies, liberalism and conservatism. From the classical liberals the socialists took a frank acceptance of industrialism and the Industrial Revolution, an early glorification of “science” and “reason,” and at least a rhetorical devotion to such classical liberal ideals as peace, individual freedom, and a rising standard of living. Indeed, the socialists, long before the much later corporatists, pioneered in a co-opting of science, reason, and industrialism. And the socialists not only adopted the classical liberal adherence to democracy, but topped it by calling for an “expanded democracy,” in which “the people” would run the economy ? and each other
On the other hand, from the conservatives the socialists took a devotion to coercion and the statist means for trying to achieve these liberal goals. Industrial harmony and growth were to be achieved by aggrandizing the State into an all-powerful institution, ruling the economy and the society in the name of “science.” A vanguard of technocrats was to assume all-powerful rule over everyone’s person and property in the name of the “people” and of “democracy.”

In Athens and the U.S.: Decline and Fall, Eric Phillips begins:

Suppose there existed a world democracy with one vote for each person in the population. Is it not obvious, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe points out, that the world would adopt a flagrantly favorable policy towards China and India at everyone else’s expense?
On the other hand, suppose two robbers break into a house and start ransacking the place. When the owner comes down to protest, the robbers, if abiding strictly by the rules of democracy, could simply hold an election to determine whose property the belongings actually are, and with their superior numbers, outvote the legitimate owner.
These examples may seem theoretical, but our government today abides by this exact philosophy. As Murray Rothbard said, “On the free market, everyone?

Ludwig von Mises paper,The Psychological Basis of the Opposition to Economic Theory, is not an exercise in psycho-babble, as the following quotes demonstrates:

The Hypothesis of Marxism and the Sociology of Knowledge
Let us consider first the doctrine which teaches that thought is dependent upon the class of the thinker.
According to the Marxian view, in the period between the tribal society of the golden age of times immemorial and the transformation of capitalism into the communist paradise of the future, human society is organized into classes whose interests stand in irreconcilable opposition. The class situation ? the social existence ? of an individual determines his thought. Therefore, thinking produces theories that correspond to the class interests of the thinker. These theories form the “ideological superstructure” of class interests. They are apologies for the latter and serve to cover up their nakedness. Subjectively, the individual thinker may be honest. However, it is not possible for him to pass beyond the limitations imposed on his thinking by his class situation. He is able to reveal and unmask the ideologies of other classes, but he remains throughout his life biased in favor of the ideology that his own class interests dictate.
In the volumes that have been written in defense of this thesis the question is ? characteristically ? almost never raised whether there is any truth in the supposition that society is divided into classes whose interests stand in irreconcilable conflict.[7] For Marx the case was obvious.

Even if we were to assume that society is divided into classes with conflicting interests and if we were to agree that everyone is morally obliged to follow his class interests and nothing but his class interests, the question would still remain: What best serves class interests? This
is the point where “scientific” socialism and the “sociology of knowledge” show their mysticism. They assume without hesitation that whatever is demanded by one’s class interests is always immediately evident and unequivocal.[9] The comrade who is of a different opinion can only be a traitor to his class.
What reply can Marxian socialism make to those who, precisely on behalf of the proletarians, demand private ownership of the means of production, and not their socialization? If they are proletarians, this demand alone is sufficient to brand them as traitors to their class, or, if they are not proletarians, as class enemies. Or if, finally, the Marxists
The historical function of the theory of classes can best be understood when it is compared to the theory of the nationalists. Nationalism and racism also declare that there are irreconcilable conflicts of interests ? not between classes, of course, but between nations and races ? and that one’s thinking is determined by one’s nationality or race. The nationalists form “Fatherland” and “National” parties, which boast that they and they alone pursue the goals that serve the welfare of the nation and the people. Whoever does not agree with them ? whether or not he belongs to their nationality ? is forever after regarded as an enemy or a traitor. The nationalist refuses to he convinced that the programs of other parties also seek to serve the interests of the nation and the people. He cannot believe that the man who wants to live in peace with neighboring countries or who advocates free trade rather than protective tariffs does not make these demands in the interests of a foreign country, but likewise wishes to act, and thinks he is acting, in the interests of his own country. The nationalist believes so adamantly in his own program that he simply cannot conceive how any other could possibly be in the interests of his nation. Whoever thinks differently can only be a traitor or a foreign enemy.
Consequently, both doctrines ? the Marxian sociology of knowledge as well as the political theory of nationalism and racism share the assumption that the interests of one’s class, nation, or race unequivocally demand a definite course of action and that for the members of a class or nationality, or for the racially pure, no doubt can arise about what this should be. An intellectual discussion of the pros and cons of different party programs seems unthinkable to them. Class membership
What makes this procedure a matter of serious concern is that, if adhered to in practice, it renders impossible every discussion involving argument and counterargument. The battle of minds is replaced by the examination of opponents’ social, national, or racial backgrounds. Because of the vagueness of the concepts of class, nation, and race, it is always possible to conclude such an examination by “unmasking” one’s opponent. It has gone so far that one acknowledges as comrades, fellow countrymen, or racial brothers only those who share the ideas that are alone presumed adequate to such a status. (It is a sign of a special lack?

Economics refuted the belief that prosperity is to be expected from the abolition of private property and the market economy. It proved that the omnipotence of the authorities, from whom wonders had been hoped for, is a delusion and that the man who undertakes to organize social cooperation, the ****, as well as the homo faber, who directs organic and inorganic nature in the process of production, cannot go beyond certain limits. This too had to appear to the servitors of the apparatus of violence, both those in the imperium and those in the magisterium, as a lowering of their personal prestige. They considered themselves as demigods who make history, or at least as the assistants of these demigods. Now they were to be nothing but the executors of an unalterable necessity. Just as the deterministic theories, entirely apart from the condemnation they received from the ecclesiastical authorities on dogmatic grounds, encountered the inner opposition of those who believed themselves to be possessed of free will, so these theories too met with resistance on the part of rulers and their retinue, who felt free in the exercise of their political power.

And in the course of time the authority of the public institutions of compulsion and coercion, i.e., of state, church, and political parties, has somehow become very much involved with the old theory. These powers, by their very nature unfriendly to every change, now oppose the new theory precisely because it is new.
However, when we speak of the opposition that the?

Conclusion
The romantic revolt against logic and science does not limit itself to the sphere of social phenomena and the sciences of human action. It is a revolt against our entire culture and civilization. Both Spann and Sombart demand the renunciation of scientific knowledge and the return to the faith and the bucolic conditions of the Middle Ages, and all Germans who are not in the Marxist camp joyfully agree with them. The Marxists, however, are eager in this regard to transform their once sober “scientific” socialism into a romantic and sentimental socialism more pleasing to the masses.

As positivism has been inclucated into undergraduates in law schools, the same sneers against Liberalism and Common Law made by the 19th century central planners -

“There was a vigorous classical liberal tradition in Germany, which was over-ridden in the second half of the 19tth century.by the incipiently totalitarian novelties. The boosters of central planning sneered at the Liberals as dreamers cling to quaint notions from a dead past…”

are common place in Australia today, the sneers of the ignornant.