The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewEamonn Fingleton Archive
Brexit: Whose Interests Does the Bank of England’s Ardently Pro-EU Governor Really Serve?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Mark Carney at World Economic Forum, 2013. Copyright by WEF, Photo Moritz Hager.  Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Mark Carney at World Economic Forum, 2013. Copyright by WEF, Photo Moritz Hager. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Mark Carney is a globalist’s globalist. To say the least, this seems never to have held him back in the past. His luck may be changing.

Born in Canada and educated at Harvard and Oxford, he worked for Goldman Sachs in London, Tokyo, New York, and Toronto, before going into public service. His wife is British and his children have both Canadian and British passports. Reflecting his Irish ancestry, he himself holds Irish as well as Canadian citizenship. After a brief spell as governor of the Bank of Canada, he was appointed governor of the Bank of England in 2013 – the first non-Briton to hold the post in the bank’s more than 300-year history.

In the UK’s bitter so-called Brexit debate (about whether to exit the European Union), Carney has been doing Trojan work terrifying any voter who might vote Leave in Thursday’s referendum.He has warned, among things, that Brexit could tip the UK into recession, send the pound reeling, reawaken inflation, and throw countless workers on the dole. In so doing, he has provided invaluable “independent” support for an increasingly outrageous scaremongering campaign by Prime Minister David Cameron as well as finance minister George Osborne and other leaders of the so-called Remain camp (those who want to stay in the EU).Carney has even appeared on one of the big British Sunday current affairs programs to bring his Brexit warnings into every living room. This teed things up nicely for Osborne, who a few days later announced that, in the wake of a Leave vote, a punishing emergency budget would have to be enacted in a supposedly desperate attempt to shore up foreign confidence.

In pandering to the Remain camp, Carney has come in for a particularly bluntly worded – by British establishment standards – reprimand from four elders of Cameron’s own Conservative party. In a letter to the London Telegraph, former finance ministers Nigel Lawson and Norman Lamont and former Conservative party leaders Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard wrote: “There has been startling dishonesty in the economic debate, with a woeful failure on the part of the Bank of England, the Treasury, and other official sources to present a fair and balanced analysis. They have been peddling phony forecasts and scare stories to back up the attempts of David Cameron and George Osborne to frighten the electorate into voting Remain.”

Irrespective of which way the vote goes, Carney looks dangerously exposed. Although he claims that the Bank of England has a duty to make itself clear on the alleged consequences of Brexit, the fact is that the bank has a long tradition of staying out of political debates. In particular in the run-up to general elections, it has scrupulously avoided offering any hint of its views on the merits – and sometimes alarming demerits – of the competing parties’ economic programs. In any case, as the prominent Brexit campaigner Bernard Jenkin has pointed out, Carney’s Sunday program appearance clearly crossed a line.

If the British do vote to leave, would this prove, on balance, as bad for the British economy as Carney seems to think? Any honest answer should be prefaced by a mention of the dangers of making forecasts – particularly about the future. Carney might also mention that the Bank of England’s own forecasting record has been spotty at best.

A reasonable guess is that the many economic pluses and minuses of a Brexit decision would broadly balance out. The fact is that a post-Brexit UK would enjoy enormous bargaining power to negotiate an even more favorable free-trade deal with Brussels than that already enjoyed by such super-prosperous non-EU nations as Switzerland and Norway. Thus the Brexit option is less a matter of economic consequences than political ones, and in particular the issue of national sovereignty (and such related matters as immigration from Eastern Europe, which is a hot topic for many Britons).

The irony is that some of Carney’s predictions may prove right – but just not in the baleful way he has suggested. Carney and his colleagues have warned, for instance, that a Brexit vote could precipitate a fall in house prices. There is less here than meets the eye. House prices in the London region are already grossly inflated and are evidently in the later stages of a giant bubble. Irrespective of which way the Brexit vote goes, they are likely to take a tumble in the years ahead – and such a development would be far from unwelcome for millions of ordinary would-be home buyers who have long been priced out of the market. An additional irony is that the main reason house prices have become so inflated is that the Bank of England has been remarkably lax in controlling home loan debt.

Carney has also forecast that the pound, which has already weakened considerably in recent weeks,could take a major hit in the event of Brexit decision. Again this may be proved right – but a drastically lower pound would, on balance, prove a blessing in disguise. After all it would provide a badly needed boost to exporters and help severely challenged domestic producers compete with imports.

The pound has had a long history of overvaluation and, as is obvious to anyone who has taken a look at the UK’s now disastrous trade trend, the problem has become particularly acute in recent years. The UK’s pattern of consistent deficits dates to as far back as the early 1980s and has long run even higher as a percentage of national income even than America’s.

ORDER IT NOW

According to economics commentator Liam Halligan, the current account deficit had already reached a shocking 3.5 percent of national income in 2012. It rose to 4.7 percent in 2013 and to no less than 5.9 percent in 2014. As Halligan points, this latter figure was the worst performance in the UK’s history. And with the exception of the desperate circumstances of war and the immediate aftermath of war, it was probably the worst of any major nation ever. Last year’s figure, at 4.7 percent, was a slight relief but in the larger context was still disastrous.

All the evidence is that the UK has become structurally dependent on an unsustainable level of imports. Not only has this exacerbated its chronically severe unemployment problem but a further alarming consequence is that more and more of the commanding heights of the British economy are coming under foreign ownership. The implications for British sovereignty are bleak. For a telling article on the extent to which the British economy had already come under foreign ownership by 2012, click here.

What has the Bank of England been doing to raise the alarm? And, even more to the point, what has it been doing to counter the trend? The answer in both cases is next to nothing. Whereas Carney and his institution have chosen to play a central role in the Brexit debate, they have been virtually invisible on the balance of payments problem and, if anything, they have helped enable the trend. Last summer Carney pronounced the current account deficits “not an immediate cause for alarm.” A month later, Ben Broadbent, the Bank’s deputy governor for monetary policy, further fed public complacency by suggesting the UK had been savvy in borrowing abroad to fund investments.

One interpretation of Carney’s approach is that he is a doctrinaire globalist – the sort of person who cares not a whit about national interests, not even the interests of the nation that now pays him more than $900,000 a year to oversee its central bank.

One thing is clear: various vested interests that have figured in his past – and may figure again in his future – can be well pleased with his performance. Certainly he has been singing their song.

Take Goldman Sachs. Carney’s notorious former employer has been in the forefront of the scaremongers, predicting that a Leave vote would not only trigger a 20 percent devaluation of sterling but threaten banks and house-builders. It may not be a coincidence that, as the Wall Street Journal has pointed out, Goldman Sachs has a lot of skin in the game, not least because it is currently building a vast new $500 millionLondon headquarters for its European operations.

Then there is the Japanese establishment. Given that Carney’s early success dates in no small measure to a spell in Goldman’s Tokyo office, it is interesting to ask how his Japanese friends see the vote. The answer comes as no surprise to anyone with significant Japan watching experience (I worked in Tokyo for 27 years). The Japanese establishment is strongly pro-Remain. Though Japanese corporations couch their case in terms of what is supposed to be best for the UK, it is probably not a coincidence that Japanese mercantilists have found that the fractured and polyglot European Commission is a breeze to deal with. By contrast, a solidly led UK that was free to pursue its own independent trade diplomacy might not prove such a pushover. The fact is that though protectionism is integral to the Japanese economic system, Brussels never seems to have noticed. When did you last hear it protest even such an obvious scandal as Tokyo’s virtual total embargo on imports of foreign cars?

This is not, of course, to suggest that Carney has been consciously dancing to Tokyo’s tune. It is worth noting, however, that nothing is more revelatory of the depth of Japan’s commitment to mercantilism than a few years’ residence in the country. For a foreign investment banker to survive there, let alone to take his career to the next stage, it is necessary to hold tight to the mantra that “trade does not matter.” Even better, one should go around proclaiming that nations that protect their markets “hurt only themselves.” The fact that the success of the whole of the East Asian region – not only that of Japan, but of South Korea, Taiwan, and now China – stands in silent contradiction of this view must be studiously swept under the rug.

A further consideration is what the Germans think. Like Japan, Germany sees the virtues of one-way globalism: it insists that other nations open their markets to its exports while maintaining a tissue of unobtrusive barriers to imports. Although the EU was supposed to provide a level playing field, that playing field has long been quietly tipped in Germany’s favor. Thus while the UK has scrupulously opened its markets to other nations (not least to Germany), Brussels has turned a blind eye to German protectionism. Even as the UK has incurred ever greater trade deficits, Germany has racked up ever greater surpluses. So much so that Germany last year enjoyed a current account surplus equal to 8.5 percent of national income. This was one of the best performances of any major nation in history – actually little short of astounding (Germany’s surplus was nearly as high in money terms as that of China, a mercantilist nation with more than fifteen times Germany’s population).

Of course, this is not to suggest that Carney has been any more conscious of facilitating Germany’s agenda than Japan’s. But the Germans, like the Japanese, have an interest in promoting the rise to ultimate leadership of true globalists in other nations. In that regard, it is worth recalling that Carney attended the annual meetings of the pro-German Bilderberg Group in 2011 and 2012. A reasonable guess is that he would not have been invited had his views been considered problematical for German trade policy. (The Bilderberg Group was founded in the 1950s by, among others, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, a German-born former executive of IG Farben who displayed notable Nazi sympathies in the 1930s.)

What we are left with is a remarkable dichotomy. On the one hand, there is Carney’s almost total silence on the concrete reality of a UK balance of payments problem that is unprecedented in the history of any major First World nation. By comparison the economic management of the Ottoman empire in its dissolute last decades seems a model of economic rectitude.

On the other hand, there is Carney’s straining at the leash to forestall a Brexit vote that, while it may engender some uncertainty in the short term, will come with major long term opportunities (in allowing the UK to negotiate its own made-to-measure trade deals with, for instance, China, India, and the United States).

What explains this dichotomy? For now, almost no one seems to be asking. It is, however, a question that may bulk large in Carney’s future.

Eamonn Fingleton is a commentator on global trade. He is the author of In Praise of Hard Industries: Why Manufacturing, Not the Information Economy, Is the Key to Future Prosperity (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999).

 
• Category: Economics, Foreign Policy • Tags: Brexit, Britain, EU, Mark Carney 
Hide 38 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Rehmat says:

    In 2013, when I read UK’s Jewish Chronicle gloating over the ‘good work’ Mark Carney had been doing at the Bank of England, which in fact is owned by the Rothschild family – I smelled a skunk.

    Simply put – Mark Carney is a 101% Goldman Sachs’ RAT, and we all know who own Goldman Sachs.

    In 2012, a mural in the heart of bohemian east London caused uproar among local politicians and community leaders who accused it of being anti-Semitic – in an area with a long Jewish and immigrant history.

    The mural was work of internationally renowned LA-based graffiti artist Mear One (Kalen Ockerman), which depicted caricatures of wealthy Jewish men playing Monopoly, using the backs of hunched people as their table. In the background was a pyramid with an eyeball in it. To one side of the painting, a man holds up a placard that says: “The New World Order is the enemy of humanity.”

    For the graffiti, Mear One was honored of being an ‘antisemite’ by pro-Israel lobby groups and individuals. Mear One defended his artwork claiming it represented the reality (1% vs 99%) and did not show hatred toward Jews.

    Local councilor Peter Golds, who is Jewish and gay – urged the police to investigate the artist under hate laws.

    Then Mayor of the local council (Tower Hamlets), Bangladesh-born Lutfur Rahman, ordered the removal of the controversial mural immediately. The Mayor is hated by Israel-Firsters for his support for anti-Israel former London Mayor Ken Livingstone and British MP George Galloway.

    The mural became ‘double’ antismitic because the property on which the moral was painted – was owned by a Bangladeshi Muslim Azmal Hussain, who operates Brick Lane restaurant Preem….

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/10/22/anti-bankers-mural-offends-british-jewish-groups/

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    the Bank of England, which in fact is owned by the Rothschild family
     
    If you cannot be bothered to check basic facts, why bother to say anything at all.

    The Bank of England was nationalized in 1946, and is wholly in public ownership via the UK Treasury Solicitor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /efingleton/brexit-whose-interests-does-the-bank-of-englands-ardently-pro-eu-governor-really-serve/#comment-1460910
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Way back in 1973, EEC membership, as it then was, was recommended by the establishment as a way of boosting ‘chronically uncompetitive’ British industry and opening up new export markets for British manufacturers. In a word the idea was to ‘improve’ Britain’s foreign trade position.

    Evidently, the strategy simply did not work.

    The trade deficit – *the* long term brake and draw back on UK economic growth and the bane of all post war governments is worse now than ever.

    Also, the massive uncontrolled immigration that the UK has suffered since 1997 has not fundamentally altered the real cause of weakness and slow growth in the British economy.

    In short, Britain, and the Britons have abolished themselves for nothing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    "Way back in 1973, EEC membership, as it then was, was recommended by the establishment as a way of boosting ‘chronically uncompetitive’ British industry and opening up new export markets for British manufacturers."

    A former professor of mine, one who was in a position to know and was uniquely qualified to speak authoritatively about these things had this to say about British manufactured goods being produced in the 1970's.

    (paraphrased) "The British have a lot of good ideas, are able to manufacture things reasonably well, but there is always some minor yet fatal flaw in their design and manufacture which makes their products burdensome to own and operate."

    And this is why they lost foreign markets to the Germans and Japanese.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. LondonBob says:

    Of course his predecessor Mervyn King has been very quietly supporting leave, at least in the sense he does not see any economic consequences to leaving and that the decision should be decided by other factors.

    Anyway we shall see what happens in a few days, could go either way, all about who turns out.

    Read More
    • Agree: unit472
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    Way back in 1973, EEC membership, as it then was, was recommended by the establishment as a way of boosting 'chronically uncompetitive' British industry and opening up new export markets for British manufacturers. In a word the idea was to 'improve' Britain's foreign trade position.

    Evidently, the strategy simply did not work.

    The trade deficit - *the* long term brake and draw back on UK economic growth and the bane of all post war governments is worse now than ever.

    Also, the massive uncontrolled immigration that the UK has suffered since 1997 has not fundamentally altered the real cause of weakness and slow growth in the British economy.

    In short, Britain, and the Britons have abolished themselves for nothing.

    “Way back in 1973, EEC membership, as it then was, was recommended by the establishment as a way of boosting ‘chronically uncompetitive’ British industry and opening up new export markets for British manufacturers.”

    A former professor of mine, one who was in a position to know and was uniquely qualified to speak authoritatively about these things had this to say about British manufactured goods being produced in the 1970′s.

    (paraphrased) “The British have a lot of good ideas, are able to manufacture things reasonably well, but there is always some minor yet fatal flaw in their design and manufacture which makes their products burdensome to own and operate.”

    And this is why they lost foreign markets to the Germans and Japanese.

    Read More
    • Replies: @edNels


    English are way artistic in the design dept. I think they desired to retain the past glory days, looking at their cars, many of which were retro in looks to horse drawn, but then in the late '60s the new Jaguar XKE made a break with that and looked more like a… X15 rocket!

    A guy at the office bought a Jag, and he defiantly said, ''well I liked, so I bought it!'' I mean he had just explained that the window wipers got tangled up with each other and self destructed! Many of the sports cars were said to be concocted from Lucas Parts, sort of what was available.

    That's different from the German who are fanatic about details and efficiency.

    But an old maxim was that good design comes from adherence to FFF, or Form Follows Function.

    Then again… what happens to the 3F's when Function is defined as turn over/ built in obsolescence? (don't know the correct marketing term.)

    I guess that Function to the Japanese Auto industry, was to gain market share by providing better quality through combining German engineering with fuel and maintenance economy. Toyota.

    If you could buy a modal T or A today it would be very popular. (with a few upgrades that is.)
    , @Thomas Fuller
    Another reason was the deplorable state of British labour relations. In the 1970s the unions were all-powerful, so powerful in fact that people like Len Murray (head of the Trades Union Congress) were invited by the-then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, to participate in formulating government policy. The situation became so parlous and absurd by 1979 that the election of Margaret Thatcher was inevitable. There was speculation at the time, and has been since, that much of the industrial strife was abetted or even initiated by the Soviets: even Wilson himself was accused of being a Soviet mole.

    As for Mr Carney and his globalist pals (among whom we may number the current Prime Minister, God rot him), their campaign has been little short of disgusting – negative, threatening, and largely mendacious; ghoulishly capitalizing, moreover, on the convenient assassination last week of a member of parliament who just happened to be a youngish women, mother of two children, a leftist and firmly pro-Remain.

    To judge the merits of the referendum, all one has to do is look at the people in favour of Remain. They are the bankers, the large corporations, their stooges and lobbyists in Brussels, the Lügenpresse (including, and especially, the BBC), and the rest of the brainwashed left, the useful idiots of globalism. In the opposite corner we have everyone else.

    I do not believe the count will be fair. Things have gone too far. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear that Britain's release from the EU will only happen when the whole thing collapses under the weight of its own internal contradictions.
    , @Rehmat
    Of course some Brits have "good ideas" about European history too but are afraid to mention it in public. For example, Afro-Jewish activist Jackie Walker, who was suspended in May 2016 by UK's Labour party for her antisemitism.

    Walker wrote on her Facebook page in February that as a person of mixed heritage, her (Jewish) ancestors were involved in both the Nazi Holocaust and the slave trade. “Millions more Africans were killed in the African Holocaust,” she wrote, apparently equating the African slave trade with the Nazi Holocaust, the trade-mark reserved only for the sufferings of the Jews.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/05/29/uk-thou-shalt-not-blame-jews-for-slavery-or-holocaust/
    , @CanSpeccy

    A former professor of mine, one who was in a position to know and was uniquely qualified to speak authoritatively about these things had this to say about British manufactured goods being produced in the 1970′s.

    (paraphrased) “The British have a lot of good ideas ... but there is always some minor yet fatal flaw in their design and manufacture which makes their products burdensome to own and operate.”
     

    There were multiple reasons for Britain's post-war failure in the industrial sphere.

    First, was high taxation, up to 97.5% income tax immediately after the war, and for a period, in excess of 100% on investment income under Chancellor Roy Jenkins. The result: no one greatly driven to succeed in the world would likely have been interested in industrial management.

    Chiefly, the focus of those in management was to maximize the non-taxable perks, chauffeured Rolls-Royces, new each year, the directors dining room, etc. Apart from the perks there was nothing in it for them or any reason, therefore, to worry whether the bloody cars they produced would start in the morning or not. Often they would not. In fact, in Alec Issigonis, British Leyland had probably the greatest car designer of the mid 20th century. It was he who initiated the switch to front wheel drive, designed the Morris Minor, far superior in design to the VW bug, and the still in production Mini. But the Morris had no gas heater for North American buyers and the soft top was Hell to raise or lower, so the car had virtually zero US sales. There were problems with most of the other cars too, simultaneous power steering and brake failure on my Dad's Austin Princess (he abandoned it where it came to rest in a cow pasture in Cornwall) the result of management that didn't give a damn.

    Second, whereas British firms mostly survived the war intact, most German firms were dismantled, which made way for a mass of start ups that gave rise to Germany's famed mittelstand sector, i.e.,the small and medium sized companies operating in a competitive environment that drove efficiency and innovation.

    Third, although in importance probably first, was the very widespread acceptance of socialism as the way forward, the Labour government that followed Churchill's war-time administration being committed to the nationalization of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Then it was unremarkable to hear, as I did, a supposedly distinguished professor of economics say "economic growth is not worth the candle." In other words, it was the distribution of wealth that everyone cared about, not its creation. The idea that wealth creation mattered came as a novelty to many in Britain, during the Thatcher era.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:
    @anonymous
    "Way back in 1973, EEC membership, as it then was, was recommended by the establishment as a way of boosting ‘chronically uncompetitive’ British industry and opening up new export markets for British manufacturers."

    A former professor of mine, one who was in a position to know and was uniquely qualified to speak authoritatively about these things had this to say about British manufactured goods being produced in the 1970's.

    (paraphrased) "The British have a lot of good ideas, are able to manufacture things reasonably well, but there is always some minor yet fatal flaw in their design and manufacture which makes their products burdensome to own and operate."

    And this is why they lost foreign markets to the Germans and Japanese.

    English are way artistic in the design dept. I think they desired to retain the past glory days, looking at their cars, many of which were retro in looks to horse drawn, but then in the late ’60s the new Jaguar XKE made a break with that and looked more like a… X15 rocket!

    A guy at the office bought a Jag, and he defiantly said, ”well I liked, so I bought it!” I mean he had just explained that the window wipers got tangled up with each other and self destructed! Many of the sports cars were said to be concocted from Lucas Parts, sort of what was available.

    That’s different from the German who are fanatic about details and efficiency.

    But an old maxim was that good design comes from adherence to FFF, or Form Follows Function.

    Then again… what happens to the 3F’s when Function is defined as turn over/ built in obsolescence? (don’t know the correct marketing term.)

    I guess that Function to the Japanese Auto industry, was to gain market share by providing better quality through combining German engineering with fuel and maintenance economy. Toyota.

    If you could buy a modal T or A today it would be very popular. (with a few upgrades that is.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @anonymous
    "Way back in 1973, EEC membership, as it then was, was recommended by the establishment as a way of boosting ‘chronically uncompetitive’ British industry and opening up new export markets for British manufacturers."

    A former professor of mine, one who was in a position to know and was uniquely qualified to speak authoritatively about these things had this to say about British manufactured goods being produced in the 1970's.

    (paraphrased) "The British have a lot of good ideas, are able to manufacture things reasonably well, but there is always some minor yet fatal flaw in their design and manufacture which makes their products burdensome to own and operate."

    And this is why they lost foreign markets to the Germans and Japanese.

    Another reason was the deplorable state of British labour relations. In the 1970s the unions were all-powerful, so powerful in fact that people like Len Murray (head of the Trades Union Congress) were invited by the-then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, to participate in formulating government policy. The situation became so parlous and absurd by 1979 that the election of Margaret Thatcher was inevitable. There was speculation at the time, and has been since, that much of the industrial strife was abetted or even initiated by the Soviets: even Wilson himself was accused of being a Soviet mole.

    As for Mr Carney and his globalist pals (among whom we may number the current Prime Minister, God rot him), their campaign has been little short of disgusting – negative, threatening, and largely mendacious; ghoulishly capitalizing, moreover, on the convenient assassination last week of a member of parliament who just happened to be a youngish women, mother of two children, a leftist and firmly pro-Remain.

    To judge the merits of the referendum, all one has to do is look at the people in favour of Remain. They are the bankers, the large corporations, their stooges and lobbyists in Brussels, the Lügenpresse (including, and especially, the BBC), and the rest of the brainwashed left, the useful idiots of globalism. In the opposite corner we have everyone else.

    I do not believe the count will be fair. Things have gone too far. I hope I’m wrong, but I fear that Britain’s release from the EU will only happen when the whole thing collapses under the weight of its own internal contradictions.

    Read More
    • Agree: NickG
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Even today, British trade unionism, which frankly has little or no political power left, is thoroughly riddled by card-carrying careerist Marxists who more or less use the union movement as a cat's paw or platform for expounding Marxism.

    Jeremy Corbyn, a former NUPE organizer back in the '70s must be regarded as suspect.

    Another irony is the TUC - alongside Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and George Osborne, are officially pro EU. This whilst the EU more or less guarantees the permanent wage under cutting of the British working man.

    In other words, the Labour movement is working against the interests of Labour.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. […] have been forwarded this interesting piece which casts doubt about the neutrality of the Bank of England’s governor Mark Carney. Given […]

    Read More
  8. Rehmat says:
    @anonymous
    "Way back in 1973, EEC membership, as it then was, was recommended by the establishment as a way of boosting ‘chronically uncompetitive’ British industry and opening up new export markets for British manufacturers."

    A former professor of mine, one who was in a position to know and was uniquely qualified to speak authoritatively about these things had this to say about British manufactured goods being produced in the 1970's.

    (paraphrased) "The British have a lot of good ideas, are able to manufacture things reasonably well, but there is always some minor yet fatal flaw in their design and manufacture which makes their products burdensome to own and operate."

    And this is why they lost foreign markets to the Germans and Japanese.

    Of course some Brits have “good ideas” about European history too but are afraid to mention it in public. For example, Afro-Jewish activist Jackie Walker, who was suspended in May 2016 by UK’s Labour party for her antisemitism.

    Walker wrote on her Facebook page in February that as a person of mixed heritage, her (Jewish) ancestors were involved in both the Nazi Holocaust and the slave trade. “Millions more Africans were killed in the African Holocaust,” she wrote, apparently equating the African slave trade with the Nazi Holocaust, the trade-mark reserved only for the sufferings of the Jews.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/05/29/uk-thou-shalt-not-blame-jews-for-slavery-or-holocaust/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. unit472 says:

    Its an all hands on deck moment for the representatives of finance, government and globalism. The reason is that that British voters have been given a rare opportunity to decide the course of their nation. In or Out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Thomas Fuller
    Another reason was the deplorable state of British labour relations. In the 1970s the unions were all-powerful, so powerful in fact that people like Len Murray (head of the Trades Union Congress) were invited by the-then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, to participate in formulating government policy. The situation became so parlous and absurd by 1979 that the election of Margaret Thatcher was inevitable. There was speculation at the time, and has been since, that much of the industrial strife was abetted or even initiated by the Soviets: even Wilson himself was accused of being a Soviet mole.

    As for Mr Carney and his globalist pals (among whom we may number the current Prime Minister, God rot him), their campaign has been little short of disgusting – negative, threatening, and largely mendacious; ghoulishly capitalizing, moreover, on the convenient assassination last week of a member of parliament who just happened to be a youngish women, mother of two children, a leftist and firmly pro-Remain.

    To judge the merits of the referendum, all one has to do is look at the people in favour of Remain. They are the bankers, the large corporations, their stooges and lobbyists in Brussels, the Lügenpresse (including, and especially, the BBC), and the rest of the brainwashed left, the useful idiots of globalism. In the opposite corner we have everyone else.

    I do not believe the count will be fair. Things have gone too far. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear that Britain's release from the EU will only happen when the whole thing collapses under the weight of its own internal contradictions.

    Even today, British trade unionism, which frankly has little or no political power left, is thoroughly riddled by card-carrying careerist Marxists who more or less use the union movement as a cat’s paw or platform for expounding Marxism.

    Jeremy Corbyn, a former NUPE organizer back in the ’70s must be regarded as suspect.

    Another irony is the TUC – alongside Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and George Osborne, are officially pro EU. This whilst the EU more or less guarantees the permanent wage under cutting of the British working man.

    In other words, the Labour movement is working against the interests of Labour.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomas Fuller
    As I hinted in my first post, the globalists are using, and will increasingly use, Marxism (or Marxism-lite) as the opiate of the people, giving the illusion of control to the powerless. Hence the deliberate cretinization of school curricula all over the West and their pollution with propaganda – e.g. to do with sexuality, nationality and race – that serves to atomize society and make the individual reliant on the state.

    It was instructive and revealing to see David Cameron and Harriet Harman sharing a platform. Like most of the Labour Party, Harman is probably unaware of the way she is being exploited. She's not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but then socialism is a pretty low-wattage pastime, as the Venezuelans are beginning to realize.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Sean says:

    Carney knows how to pump up the housing market, which makes him no judge of long term economic strategy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. @Anonymous
    Even today, British trade unionism, which frankly has little or no political power left, is thoroughly riddled by card-carrying careerist Marxists who more or less use the union movement as a cat's paw or platform for expounding Marxism.

    Jeremy Corbyn, a former NUPE organizer back in the '70s must be regarded as suspect.

    Another irony is the TUC - alongside Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and George Osborne, are officially pro EU. This whilst the EU more or less guarantees the permanent wage under cutting of the British working man.

    In other words, the Labour movement is working against the interests of Labour.

    As I hinted in my first post, the globalists are using, and will increasingly use, Marxism (or Marxism-lite) as the opiate of the people, giving the illusion of control to the powerless. Hence the deliberate cretinization of school curricula all over the West and their pollution with propaganda – e.g. to do with sexuality, nationality and race – that serves to atomize society and make the individual reliant on the state.

    It was instructive and revealing to see David Cameron and Harriet Harman sharing a platform. Like most of the Labour Party, Harman is probably unaware of the way she is being exploited. She’s not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but then socialism is a pretty low-wattage pastime, as the Venezuelans are beginning to realize.

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    "...and will increasingly use, Marxism (or Marxism-lite) as the opiate of the people, giving the illusion of control to the powerless. Hence the deliberate cretinization of school curricula all over the West and their pollution with propaganda – e.g. to do with sexuality, nationality and race –"
    As per the usual, a rightist tries to tar Marxism with the P.C brush. No genuine Marxist is taken in by the pseudo-liberal cultural claptrap politics: they know exactly what it is-- a means of splintering working people and reinforcing the status quo.
    Funny when socialism is mentioned it's always Venezuela, never Norway, Sweden, Denmark nor Holland. Nor is the fact mentioned that Venezuela has been under constant economic/political attack from neoliberal elements inside and outside its borders.
    , @edNels


    Globalism isn't anything to do with ''Marxism'', or Communism. Globalists are Liberals!

    "Opiate of the people'', Jeesus, that's what Marx called Religion!

    Cretinizing school curricula, has been underway, for a couple a hundred years, since compulsory school attendance started over there in Prussia, for the specific purpose of forming a dummied down populous, Read '' Gatto's book.

    Your right about how sexuality is used to control though. Look at the fact that all the designers that tell the ladies what to wear, and fix their hair, and a lot more, are all a bunch a… well, at least they are pretty openly so!!

    So your right maybe that ''socialism'' is low wattage, but all we have of pure socialism to judge that is the military! So how about a little support for it, total socialism in practice!

    Scandinavian ''socialism'', only because of the high standards, homogeneity until the future melting pot nixes that soon.
    , @myname1sl1nk
    Ever happened to have a phantasy?
    A machine that if activated turns all people into very intelligent, non-manipulable, beings.

    This won't be invented — or, if available later, the relevant technology won't be used to the purpose —.

    We'll have to wait for the current international Western tyranny to shoot itself in its feet. Which is something that has always happened, since thirst for power known no limit, and actually intensifies as the power held grows, enslaving its holders.

    I am not sure that what comes later will be preferable, though. As history is cyclical, I foresee a "People's Republic" kind of communistic order following the dissolution of capitalism.

    This, if we think in current terms. Many a thinker expects an age of machines, the Pax Technica, to be the creed dominating the whole world within some decades.

    What's sure is until humans will be there, the law of power will be the law of the world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Sam Shama says:

    A reasonable guess is that the many economic pluses and minuses of a Brexit decision would broadly balance out. The fact is that a post-Brexit UK would enjoy enormous bargaining power to negotiate an even more favorable free-trade deal with Brussels than that already enjoyed by such super-prosperous non-EU nations as Switzerland and Norway. Thus the Brexit option is less a matter of economic consequences than political ones, and in particular the issue of national sovereignty (and such related matters as immigration from Eastern Europe, which is a hot topic for many Britons).

    Agree with every word of this.

    On a humourous note, I link w/o comment:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Whose Interests Does the Bank of England’s Ardently Pro-EU Governor Really Serve?

    The Jews’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. TOM GILES says: • Website

    The Rothschild Dynasty is who it serves and always will be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/21/the-brexit-could-be-bad-news-for-game-of-thrones/

    What a stupid celebrity-pop-culture-crazed world.

    Brexit is bad, why?

    It might jeopardize your enjoyment of watching a crowned dwarf chopping off heads.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Rehmat
    In 2013, when I read UK's Jewish Chronicle gloating over the 'good work' Mark Carney had been doing at the Bank of England, which in fact is owned by the Rothschild family - I smelled a skunk.

    Simply put - Mark Carney is a 101% Goldman Sachs' RAT, and we all know who own Goldman Sachs.

    In 2012, a mural in the heart of bohemian east London caused uproar among local politicians and community leaders who accused it of being anti-Semitic – in an area with a long Jewish and immigrant history.

    The mural was work of internationally renowned LA-based graffiti artist Mear One (Kalen Ockerman), which depicted caricatures of wealthy Jewish men playing Monopoly, using the backs of hunched people as their table. In the background was a pyramid with an eyeball in it. To one side of the painting, a man holds up a placard that says: “The New World Order is the enemy of humanity.”

    For the graffiti, Mear One was honored of being an ‘antisemite’ by pro-Israel lobby groups and individuals. Mear One defended his artwork claiming it represented the reality (1% vs 99%) and did not show hatred toward Jews.

    Local councilor Peter Golds, who is Jewish and gay – urged the police to investigate the artist under hate laws.

    Then Mayor of the local council (Tower Hamlets), Bangladesh-born Lutfur Rahman, ordered the removal of the controversial mural immediately. The Mayor is hated by Israel-Firsters for his support for anti-Israel former London Mayor Ken Livingstone and British MP George Galloway.

    The mural became ‘double’ antismitic because the property on which the moral was painted – was owned by a Bangladeshi Muslim Azmal Hussain, who operates Brick Lane restaurant Preem....

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/10/22/anti-bankers-mural-offends-british-jewish-groups/

    the Bank of England, which in fact is owned by the Rothschild family

    If you cannot be bothered to check basic facts, why bother to say anything at all.

    The Bank of England was nationalized in 1946, and is wholly in public ownership via the UK Treasury Solicitor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    B & E was nationalized in 1946 - so who owned it between 1694 and 1946 - your old Mama?

    http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2013/01/who-owns-the-bank-of-england/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @anonymous
    "Way back in 1973, EEC membership, as it then was, was recommended by the establishment as a way of boosting ‘chronically uncompetitive’ British industry and opening up new export markets for British manufacturers."

    A former professor of mine, one who was in a position to know and was uniquely qualified to speak authoritatively about these things had this to say about British manufactured goods being produced in the 1970's.

    (paraphrased) "The British have a lot of good ideas, are able to manufacture things reasonably well, but there is always some minor yet fatal flaw in their design and manufacture which makes their products burdensome to own and operate."

    And this is why they lost foreign markets to the Germans and Japanese.

    A former professor of mine, one who was in a position to know and was uniquely qualified to speak authoritatively about these things had this to say about British manufactured goods being produced in the 1970′s.

    (paraphrased) “The British have a lot of good ideas … but there is always some minor yet fatal flaw in their design and manufacture which makes their products burdensome to own and operate.”

    There were multiple reasons for Britain’s post-war failure in the industrial sphere.

    First, was high taxation, up to 97.5% income tax immediately after the war, and for a period, in excess of 100% on investment income under Chancellor Roy Jenkins. The result: no one greatly driven to succeed in the world would likely have been interested in industrial management.

    Chiefly, the focus of those in management was to maximize the non-taxable perks, chauffeured Rolls-Royces, new each year, the directors dining room, etc. Apart from the perks there was nothing in it for them or any reason, therefore, to worry whether the bloody cars they produced would start in the morning or not. Often they would not. In fact, in Alec Issigonis, British Leyland had probably the greatest car designer of the mid 20th century. It was he who initiated the switch to front wheel drive, designed the Morris Minor, far superior in design to the VW bug, and the still in production Mini. But the Morris had no gas heater for North American buyers and the soft top was Hell to raise or lower, so the car had virtually zero US sales. There were problems with most of the other cars too, simultaneous power steering and brake failure on my Dad’s Austin Princess (he abandoned it where it came to rest in a cow pasture in Cornwall) the result of management that didn’t give a damn.

    Second, whereas British firms mostly survived the war intact, most German firms were dismantled, which made way for a mass of start ups that gave rise to Germany’s famed mittelstand sector, i.e.,the small and medium sized companies operating in a competitive environment that drove efficiency and innovation.

    Third, although in importance probably first, was the very widespread acceptance of socialism as the way forward, the Labour government that followed Churchill’s war-time administration being committed to the nationalization of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Then it was unremarkable to hear, as I did, a supposedly distinguished professor of economics say “economic growth is not worth the candle.” In other words, it was the distribution of wealth that everyone cared about, not its creation. The idea that wealth creation mattered came as a novelty to many in Britain, during the Thatcher era.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The only trouble with that analysis is that the UK's all time peak as a manufacturing nation - note this includes the Victorian years of the industrial revolution - in terms of manufacturing's share of the economy, employment, output etc was in 1966.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Rehmat says:
    @CanSpeccy

    the Bank of England, which in fact is owned by the Rothschild family
     
    If you cannot be bothered to check basic facts, why bother to say anything at all.

    The Bank of England was nationalized in 1946, and is wholly in public ownership via the UK Treasury Solicitor.

    B & E was nationalized in 1946 – so who owned it between 1694 and 1946 – your old Mama?

    http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2013/01/who-owns-the-bank-of-england/

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    B & E was nationalized in 1946
     
    Thank you for confirming that you were in error when claiming that the Bank of England is "in fact is owned by the Rothschild family."

    The Bank of England has, as you now acknowledge, been in full public ownership for the last 70 years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. utu says:

    “Yes Minister — Why Britain Joined the European Union”

    Read More
    • Agree: Catiline
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. @Thomas Fuller
    As I hinted in my first post, the globalists are using, and will increasingly use, Marxism (or Marxism-lite) as the opiate of the people, giving the illusion of control to the powerless. Hence the deliberate cretinization of school curricula all over the West and their pollution with propaganda – e.g. to do with sexuality, nationality and race – that serves to atomize society and make the individual reliant on the state.

    It was instructive and revealing to see David Cameron and Harriet Harman sharing a platform. Like most of the Labour Party, Harman is probably unaware of the way she is being exploited. She's not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but then socialism is a pretty low-wattage pastime, as the Venezuelans are beginning to realize.

    “…and will increasingly use, Marxism (or Marxism-lite) as the opiate of the people, giving the illusion of control to the powerless. Hence the deliberate cretinization of school curricula all over the West and their pollution with propaganda – e.g. to do with sexuality, nationality and race –”
    As per the usual, a rightist tries to tar Marxism with the P.C brush. No genuine Marxist is taken in by the pseudo-liberal cultural claptrap politics: they know exactly what it is– a means of splintering working people and reinforcing the status quo.
    Funny when socialism is mentioned it’s always Venezuela, never Norway, Sweden, Denmark nor Holland. Nor is the fact mentioned that Venezuela has been under constant economic/political attack from neoliberal elements inside and outside its borders.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @CanSpeccy

    A former professor of mine, one who was in a position to know and was uniquely qualified to speak authoritatively about these things had this to say about British manufactured goods being produced in the 1970′s.

    (paraphrased) “The British have a lot of good ideas ... but there is always some minor yet fatal flaw in their design and manufacture which makes their products burdensome to own and operate.”
     

    There were multiple reasons for Britain's post-war failure in the industrial sphere.

    First, was high taxation, up to 97.5% income tax immediately after the war, and for a period, in excess of 100% on investment income under Chancellor Roy Jenkins. The result: no one greatly driven to succeed in the world would likely have been interested in industrial management.

    Chiefly, the focus of those in management was to maximize the non-taxable perks, chauffeured Rolls-Royces, new each year, the directors dining room, etc. Apart from the perks there was nothing in it for them or any reason, therefore, to worry whether the bloody cars they produced would start in the morning or not. Often they would not. In fact, in Alec Issigonis, British Leyland had probably the greatest car designer of the mid 20th century. It was he who initiated the switch to front wheel drive, designed the Morris Minor, far superior in design to the VW bug, and the still in production Mini. But the Morris had no gas heater for North American buyers and the soft top was Hell to raise or lower, so the car had virtually zero US sales. There were problems with most of the other cars too, simultaneous power steering and brake failure on my Dad's Austin Princess (he abandoned it where it came to rest in a cow pasture in Cornwall) the result of management that didn't give a damn.

    Second, whereas British firms mostly survived the war intact, most German firms were dismantled, which made way for a mass of start ups that gave rise to Germany's famed mittelstand sector, i.e.,the small and medium sized companies operating in a competitive environment that drove efficiency and innovation.

    Third, although in importance probably first, was the very widespread acceptance of socialism as the way forward, the Labour government that followed Churchill's war-time administration being committed to the nationalization of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Then it was unremarkable to hear, as I did, a supposedly distinguished professor of economics say "economic growth is not worth the candle." In other words, it was the distribution of wealth that everyone cared about, not its creation. The idea that wealth creation mattered came as a novelty to many in Britain, during the Thatcher era.

    The only trouble with that analysis is that the UK’s all time peak as a manufacturing nation – note this includes the Victorian years of the industrial revolution – in terms of manufacturing’s share of the economy, employment, output etc was in 1966.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Interestingly, just as the returned war veterans had returned home, settled in to work and sought better standards for their new baby-boom families, immigration from the colonies soared to unprecedented levels unemployment jumped and the class wars were well underway. Sound familiar?
    , @CanSpeccy
    I didn't say that Britain's post-war economy went into reverse. Much was produced, but much of it was of of sub-standard quality or of a kind for which there would soon be no demand, e.g., British coal (twice as expensive as coal from Australia, Canada and the US), British-built ships (uncompetitive with Japan, Korea, China, etc.), British-built airliners, e.g., the Comet, the first production jet airliner, but prone to metal fatigue and mid-air disintegration, and British-built computers by Ferranti et al. which couldn't compete with IBM, much of said production being state subsidized and thus not viable in the long-term even if it had been marketable in the long term.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Anonymous
    The only trouble with that analysis is that the UK's all time peak as a manufacturing nation - note this includes the Victorian years of the industrial revolution - in terms of manufacturing's share of the economy, employment, output etc was in 1966.

    Interestingly, just as the returned war veterans had returned home, settled in to work and sought better standards for their new baby-boom families, immigration from the colonies soared to unprecedented levels unemployment jumped and the class wars were well underway. Sound familiar?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    No, it doesn't sound familiar at all. The past 30 years have been characterized by even higher immigration, relatively low unemployment, and the decline of unions, let alone union power and militancy. There was an actual class war in the 70s with union activity and strikes and the like. There's been nothing like it since.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Rehmat
    B & E was nationalized in 1946 - so who owned it between 1694 and 1946 - your old Mama?

    http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2013/01/who-owns-the-bank-of-england/

    B & E was nationalized in 1946

    Thank you for confirming that you were in error when claiming that the Bank of England is “in fact is owned by the Rothschild family.”

    The Bank of England has, as you now acknowledge, been in full public ownership for the last 70 years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    The only trouble with that analysis is that the UK's all time peak as a manufacturing nation - note this includes the Victorian years of the industrial revolution - in terms of manufacturing's share of the economy, employment, output etc was in 1966.

    I didn’t say that Britain’s post-war economy went into reverse. Much was produced, but much of it was of of sub-standard quality or of a kind for which there would soon be no demand, e.g., British coal (twice as expensive as coal from Australia, Canada and the US), British-built ships (uncompetitive with Japan, Korea, China, etc.), British-built airliners, e.g., the Comet, the first production jet airliner, but prone to metal fatigue and mid-air disintegration, and British-built computers by Ferranti et al. which couldn’t compete with IBM, much of said production being state subsidized and thus not viable in the long-term even if it had been marketable in the long term.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:
    @Thomas Fuller
    As I hinted in my first post, the globalists are using, and will increasingly use, Marxism (or Marxism-lite) as the opiate of the people, giving the illusion of control to the powerless. Hence the deliberate cretinization of school curricula all over the West and their pollution with propaganda – e.g. to do with sexuality, nationality and race – that serves to atomize society and make the individual reliant on the state.

    It was instructive and revealing to see David Cameron and Harriet Harman sharing a platform. Like most of the Labour Party, Harman is probably unaware of the way she is being exploited. She's not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but then socialism is a pretty low-wattage pastime, as the Venezuelans are beginning to realize.

    Globalism isn’t anything to do with ”Marxism”, or Communism. Globalists are Liberals!

    “Opiate of the people”, Jeesus, that’s what Marx called Religion!

    Cretinizing school curricula, has been underway, for a couple a hundred years, since compulsory school attendance started over there in Prussia, for the specific purpose of forming a dummied down populous, Read ” Gatto’s book.

    Your right about how sexuality is used to control though. Look at the fact that all the designers that tell the ladies what to wear, and fix their hair, and a lot more, are all a bunch a… well, at least they are pretty openly so!!

    So your right maybe that ”socialism” is low wattage, but all we have of pure socialism to judge that is the military! So how about a little support for it, total socialism in practice!

    Scandinavian ”socialism”, only because of the high standards, homogeneity until the future melting pot nixes that soon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @NoseytheDuke
    Interestingly, just as the returned war veterans had returned home, settled in to work and sought better standards for their new baby-boom families, immigration from the colonies soared to unprecedented levels unemployment jumped and the class wars were well underway. Sound familiar?

    No, it doesn’t sound familiar at all. The past 30 years have been characterized by even higher immigration, relatively low unemployment, and the decline of unions, let alone union power and militancy. There was an actual class war in the 70s with union activity and strikes and the like. There’s been nothing like it since.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    The past 30 years have been characterized by even higher immigration, relatively low unemployment
     
    Immigration is what drives Western economies. It means more houses, roads, schools, maternity hospitals, and big profits for friends of government who build the new infrastructure and the property developers who build the houses. Exactly how this process of destroying communities by flooding them with a mass of people of a different race, an alien culture and an imperialist religious, legal and political tradition helps the indigenous population no one seems able to explain.

    and the decline of unions, let alone union power and militancy
     
    That was another plus — well, depending on your point of view — of mass immigration, it delivered cheap labor to undercut the old working class in the labor market and to outvote them at election time, the immigrant community opting for the pro-immigration anti-labor Blairites and Camoronites.

    Globalization, the dismantling of national economic policy, gave organized labor its death blow. Margaret Thatcher beat the coal miners into submission to make way for cheap imported coal. Cheap imported everything from cars, washing machines and TV sets followed and there was nothing left for organized labor to organize around except the state sectors of the economy, which explains why the public sector, inevitably subservient to the elite globalist agenda, is overpaid compared with the private sector.

    As for "relatively low unemployment" that is a fiction created by statistical manipulation.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    No, it doesn't sound familiar at all. The past 30 years have been characterized by even higher immigration, relatively low unemployment, and the decline of unions, let alone union power and militancy. There was an actual class war in the 70s with union activity and strikes and the like. There's been nothing like it since.

    The past 30 years have been characterized by even higher immigration, relatively low unemployment

    Immigration is what drives Western economies. It means more houses, roads, schools, maternity hospitals, and big profits for friends of government who build the new infrastructure and the property developers who build the houses. Exactly how this process of destroying communities by flooding them with a mass of people of a different race, an alien culture and an imperialist religious, legal and political tradition helps the indigenous population no one seems able to explain.

    and the decline of unions, let alone union power and militancy

    That was another plus — well, depending on your point of view — of mass immigration, it delivered cheap labor to undercut the old working class in the labor market and to outvote them at election time, the immigrant community opting for the pro-immigration anti-labor Blairites and Camoronites.

    Globalization, the dismantling of national economic policy, gave organized labor its death blow. Margaret Thatcher beat the coal miners into submission to make way for cheap imported coal. Cheap imported everything from cars, washing machines and TV sets followed and there was nothing left for organized labor to organize around except the state sectors of the economy, which explains why the public sector, inevitably subservient to the elite globalist agenda, is overpaid compared with the private sector.

    As for “relatively low unemployment” that is a fiction created by statistical manipulation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @myname1sl1nk
    "As for “relatively low unemployment” that is a fiction created by statistical manipulation."

    What should we expect to happen, as immigration will continue, and real employment will continue to decline (owing to the rise of the East, and robotization) as well?

    Real unemployement is already dreadfully high in the USA, and we see what it is meaning in terms of social tension.
    , @anon
    Immigration doesn't drive western economies at all. It is just the broken window fallacy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Thomas Fuller
    As I hinted in my first post, the globalists are using, and will increasingly use, Marxism (or Marxism-lite) as the opiate of the people, giving the illusion of control to the powerless. Hence the deliberate cretinization of school curricula all over the West and their pollution with propaganda – e.g. to do with sexuality, nationality and race – that serves to atomize society and make the individual reliant on the state.

    It was instructive and revealing to see David Cameron and Harriet Harman sharing a platform. Like most of the Labour Party, Harman is probably unaware of the way she is being exploited. She's not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but then socialism is a pretty low-wattage pastime, as the Venezuelans are beginning to realize.

    Ever happened to have a phantasy?
    A machine that if activated turns all people into very intelligent, non-manipulable, beings.

    This won’t be invented — or, if available later, the relevant technology won’t be used to the purpose —.

    We’ll have to wait for the current international Western tyranny to shoot itself in its feet. Which is something that has always happened, since thirst for power known no limit, and actually intensifies as the power held grows, enslaving its holders.

    I am not sure that what comes later will be preferable, though. As history is cyclical, I foresee a “People’s Republic” kind of communistic order following the dissolution of capitalism.

    This, if we think in current terms. Many a thinker expects an age of machines, the Pax Technica, to be the creed dominating the whole world within some decades.

    What’s sure is until humans will be there, the law of power will be the law of the world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @CanSpeccy

    The past 30 years have been characterized by even higher immigration, relatively low unemployment
     
    Immigration is what drives Western economies. It means more houses, roads, schools, maternity hospitals, and big profits for friends of government who build the new infrastructure and the property developers who build the houses. Exactly how this process of destroying communities by flooding them with a mass of people of a different race, an alien culture and an imperialist religious, legal and political tradition helps the indigenous population no one seems able to explain.

    and the decline of unions, let alone union power and militancy
     
    That was another plus — well, depending on your point of view — of mass immigration, it delivered cheap labor to undercut the old working class in the labor market and to outvote them at election time, the immigrant community opting for the pro-immigration anti-labor Blairites and Camoronites.

    Globalization, the dismantling of national economic policy, gave organized labor its death blow. Margaret Thatcher beat the coal miners into submission to make way for cheap imported coal. Cheap imported everything from cars, washing machines and TV sets followed and there was nothing left for organized labor to organize around except the state sectors of the economy, which explains why the public sector, inevitably subservient to the elite globalist agenda, is overpaid compared with the private sector.

    As for "relatively low unemployment" that is a fiction created by statistical manipulation.

    “As for “relatively low unemployment” that is a fiction created by statistical manipulation.”

    What should we expect to happen, as immigration will continue, and real employment will continue to decline (owing to the rise of the East, and robotization) as well?

    Real unemployement is already dreadfully high in the USA, and we see what it is meaning in terms of social tension.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    What should we expect to happen, as immigration will continue, and real employment will continue to decline
     
    More foodstamps.

    To keep the surplus population alive costs very little. For example, the US produces annually 333 million tons of corn, each ton providing enough calories to keep seven people alive for a year. So, a couple of hundred dollars worth of cheap processed food, mainly corn based, is all it takes to feed one redundant human.

    Besides food stamps, brainwashing via TV, Facebook, Internet porn, K-12 sex "education", etc. and you will have demoralization, depravity, reproductive failure and premature death.

    Getting rid of white Americans while inviting in millions of Third Worlders may seem a contradiction but is not. First, immigration destroys national solidarity making it so much easier to dispose of any semblance of real democracy. Furthermore, the immigrants, being among the brighter, more energetic, and ambitious citizens of their country of origin, are, on average, better qualified than the mass of white Europeans and Americans to maintain the necessary functions of the industrial system upon which the power of the elite depends. Furthermore, most immigrants are from countries with more or less tyrannical governments so they tend to have few silly ideas about free speech, the rights of man, or the reality of democracy.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @myname1sl1nk
    "As for “relatively low unemployment” that is a fiction created by statistical manipulation."

    What should we expect to happen, as immigration will continue, and real employment will continue to decline (owing to the rise of the East, and robotization) as well?

    Real unemployement is already dreadfully high in the USA, and we see what it is meaning in terms of social tension.

    What should we expect to happen, as immigration will continue, and real employment will continue to decline

    More foodstamps.

    To keep the surplus population alive costs very little. For example, the US produces annually 333 million tons of corn, each ton providing enough calories to keep seven people alive for a year. So, a couple of hundred dollars worth of cheap processed food, mainly corn based, is all it takes to feed one redundant human.

    Besides food stamps, brainwashing via TV, Facebook, Internet porn, K-12 sex “education”, etc. and you will have demoralization, depravity, reproductive failure and premature death.

    Getting rid of white Americans while inviting in millions of Third Worlders may seem a contradiction but is not. First, immigration destroys national solidarity making it so much easier to dispose of any semblance of real democracy. Furthermore, the immigrants, being among the brighter, more energetic, and ambitious citizens of their country of origin, are, on average, better qualified than the mass of white Europeans and Americans to maintain the necessary functions of the industrial system upon which the power of the elite depends. Furthermore, most immigrants are from countries with more or less tyrannical governments so they tend to have few silly ideas about free speech, the rights of man, or the reality of democracy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Art says:

    BREAKING – Establishment Losing – Brexit – LEAVE winning!

    Big Jew establishment bankers losing – both Big Jew parties losing – Labor and Tory.

    Trump only US politician for Leave!

    Obama Hillary losers.

    Trump winner!

    Trump with the voters!

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Don't think painting Brexit simply in terms of rich Jews versus the people makes much sense.

    You say that Trump is with the people, but he's also with the Jews, backed by Sheldon Adelson, the richest Jew in the world, to the tune of $100 million.

    Better to think of the Brexit vote in terms of the globalist oligarchy and their political agents versus the people. Many of the oligarchs are Jews, but most, Bush's, Clinton's, Gates's, Buffett's, and a thousand others are not.
    , @Art
    FINAL --- BREAKING

    Brit white working class people take their country back. Leave wins!

    World big money, Jew banker class lose. Jew media cry foul - push fear.

    The ball is rolling.

    GO TRUMP!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Art
    BREAKING – Establishment Losing – Brexit – LEAVE winning!

    Big Jew establishment bankers losing – both Big Jew parties losing – Labor and Tory.

    Trump only US politician for Leave!

    Obama Hillary losers.

    Trump winner!

    Trump with the voters!

    Don’t think painting Brexit simply in terms of rich Jews versus the people makes much sense.

    You say that Trump is with the people, but he’s also with the Jews, backed by Sheldon Adelson, the richest Jew in the world, to the tune of $100 million.

    Better to think of the Brexit vote in terms of the globalist oligarchy and their political agents versus the people. Many of the oligarchs are Jews, but most, Bush’s, Clinton’s, Gates’s, Buffett’s, and a thousand others are not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Art says:
    @Art
    BREAKING – Establishment Losing – Brexit – LEAVE winning!

    Big Jew establishment bankers losing – both Big Jew parties losing – Labor and Tory.

    Trump only US politician for Leave!

    Obama Hillary losers.

    Trump winner!

    Trump with the voters!

    FINAL — BREAKING

    Brit white working class people take their country back. Leave wins!

    World big money, Jew banker class lose. Jew media cry foul – push fear.

    The ball is rolling.

    GO TRUMP!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @CanSpeccy

    The past 30 years have been characterized by even higher immigration, relatively low unemployment
     
    Immigration is what drives Western economies. It means more houses, roads, schools, maternity hospitals, and big profits for friends of government who build the new infrastructure and the property developers who build the houses. Exactly how this process of destroying communities by flooding them with a mass of people of a different race, an alien culture and an imperialist religious, legal and political tradition helps the indigenous population no one seems able to explain.

    and the decline of unions, let alone union power and militancy
     
    That was another plus — well, depending on your point of view — of mass immigration, it delivered cheap labor to undercut the old working class in the labor market and to outvote them at election time, the immigrant community opting for the pro-immigration anti-labor Blairites and Camoronites.

    Globalization, the dismantling of national economic policy, gave organized labor its death blow. Margaret Thatcher beat the coal miners into submission to make way for cheap imported coal. Cheap imported everything from cars, washing machines and TV sets followed and there was nothing left for organized labor to organize around except the state sectors of the economy, which explains why the public sector, inevitably subservient to the elite globalist agenda, is overpaid compared with the private sector.

    As for "relatively low unemployment" that is a fiction created by statistical manipulation.

    Immigration doesn’t drive western economies at all. It is just the broken window fallacy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Immigration ... is just the broken window fallacy.
     
    Good way to look at it.
    , @helena
    I get the broken window example but not how it applies to immigration - does it mean; spending money on immigration means not being able to spend it on public services, or does it mean something more nuanced? I've always wondered why public commenters don't reply to the usual 'without immigrants the NHS wouldn't function', with, 'well, without immigrants we wouldn't need such a big NHS'.

    Anyway, I think with immigration, because immigration=people, it has just been very easy for corporate interests to use post-christian humanitarian idealism as a cover to force through corporate-friendly policies - many of which were covert e.g. Blair's refusal to record border stats.

    But this post-christian idea of humanitarianism needs to be challenged - there are other ways to help other countries develop. We have to insist on linking financial aid with human capital (i.e. send people with the money, to manage the project).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @anon
    Immigration doesn't drive western economies at all. It is just the broken window fallacy.

    Immigration … is just the broken window fallacy.

    Good way to look at it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. helena says:
    @anon
    Immigration doesn't drive western economies at all. It is just the broken window fallacy.

    I get the broken window example but not how it applies to immigration – does it mean; spending money on immigration means not being able to spend it on public services, or does it mean something more nuanced? I’ve always wondered why public commenters don’t reply to the usual ‘without immigrants the NHS wouldn’t function’, with, ‘well, without immigrants we wouldn’t need such a big NHS’.

    Anyway, I think with immigration, because immigration=people, it has just been very easy for corporate interests to use post-christian humanitarian idealism as a cover to force through corporate-friendly policies – many of which were covert e.g. Blair’s refusal to record border stats.

    But this post-christian idea of humanitarianism needs to be challenged – there are other ways to help other countries develop. We have to insist on linking financial aid with human capital (i.e. send people with the money, to manage the project).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Eamonn Fingleton Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?