If You Believe In True Democracy - According To The LabCon ...

Dr Sean Gabb On Nigel Farage.

Nigel Farage and the Leadership Principle
Sean Gabb (17th May 2015)

I have met Nigel Farage three times. Once was when we had lunch. The other times were when I attended UKIP events, and we found ourselves in conversation. I liked him. He had no reason to court me, but was both charming and modest. This is not to say that I am a regular UKIP voter. I always vote UKIP in European election. I voted UKIP in the 2001 and 2005 general elections, when it was plain that the Conservatives would lose, and the best use for my vote was to tell them to try harder. But I voted Conservative in 2010, when they had a good chance to get Labour out, and again in 2015, when it seemed they might fail to keep Labour out. I remain, even so, a fan of Mr Farage, and was glad that UKIP did well in terms of votes the week before last.

I side entirely with Mr Farage in his latest troubles. He has been accused of running his party as a cult of personality. This is to say that he makes sure that he is its only authoritative spokesman, and will allow no dissent within the general leadership from his own opinions. I could deny the truth of this, and refer to my experience of him in private. But I see no reason to do so. You can be both modest and authoritarian. If Mr Farage manages to be both, this is simply one more cause to respect him.

Let me explain.

If it is to have any success, a movement for radical change needs to be led. It needs someone in charge whose decisions are not open to regular challenge. The title of the essay includes the words “leadership principle.” These are most closely associated with Hitler. Looking at him in purely functional terms, he led the Nazi Party into government, and he kept it there. He decided what the Party’s ideology was, and its electoral strategy. Once in power, he decided all matters of domestic policy that he thought important. He also determined Germany’s foreign and military policies. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not approve of his objectives, or of his means of achieving them. But dwelling on his badness as a man is beside the point. His early strengths made him and his party supreme in Germany, and made Germany the most powerful country in Europe. His later weaknesses took Germany to destruction.

It was similar with the Soviet Communist Party. The main difference was that this existed to propagate an ideology that was already, in its essentials, decided by others. But it was Lenin who adapted this ideology to Russian circumstances, and whose leadership was critical to the Communist seizure and retention of power. After his death, it was Stalin who took up the Party leadership, and who made Russia into a superpower.

Take away Hitler and Lenin and Stalin, and neither of the two big totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century would have made the sort of mark that they did. Without their leaders, the parties would have been cliques of ranting intellectuals, unable to reach out to the people at large, and unable to take immediate and ruthless action to advance their cause. Or they might have divided into lesser movements, each with its own charismatic leader, and all sniping at each other. As it was, Stalin saw off Trotsky and his followers, and Hitler did the same with Ernst Roehm. The function of a leader is to set a course for his movement, to sell that course to the people, and to hold the movement together.

The weakness of such parties is that the leader may lose touch with reality, as Hitler did after 1940, or as Stalin may have done towards the end of his life. The only answer then is to remove him by irregular means – unsuccessful with Hitler, successful with Stalin. Or there is the problem of the succession. This was especially the case with Hitler, whowas National Socialism. Even with the Soviets, though, there were voids in the leadership after Lenin and Stalin died. These, however, are problems that arise after a party has become successful. It is the foundations of initial success that interest me here.

A seeming objection to this analysis is that the main parties in Britain and, I think, in America are oligarchies with some show of formal accountability to the membership. The Conservative Party, for example, has never had a leader supreme in the sense that Hitler and Stalin were. Even Margaret Thatcher had to work within constraints. When she tried too often to step outside those constraints, she was deposed. Every recent leader has been approved by a ballot of the membership. Yet the Conservative and Labour Parties have remained broadly united and effective parties of government.

The answer is that these are not parties that have been recently brought together with any urgency of purpose. Until well into the twentieth century, the Conservative Party existed to defend a set of landed and financial interests that were long established. It was the political wing of a set of interlocking families who had ruled England since time immemorial. It had a wide base of funding and general support. It had the critical mass and the patronage to keep its intellectuals and enthusiasts under control. The membership could be guided or ignored. Except its aristocratic base has been eroded, this remains the case. Supreme leadership has never been needed for its success.

As for the Labour Party, this joined the Establishment cartel more by accident than by the nature of its leadership. Before the Great War, it was a loose pressure group. It then simply stepped into the position vacated by the Liberals. After 1931, it was governed by a clique of trade union leaders and career politicians. Even so, the powers of this clique were always uncertain. Its failure after 1979 opened the way to fifteen years of internal chaos and of resulting electoral failure. Its recovery in the 1990s was the effect of a new leadership far more authoritarian than Margaret Thatcher’s had been. Once Tony Blair was gone, it drifted steadily towards oblivion.

We can say, then, that oligarchic rule is appropriate only in the special case of parties or movements that have no ideological imperative. A good further example is the Soviet Communist Party after Stalin’s death. The country had been remade. The ideology had become an established faith. Short of dissolving itself and letting Russia rejoin the civilised world, the Party no longer had any work that had urgently to be done. It could give up on absolute leadership and become an oligarchy of those who had survived the purges. What finished it off was that the oligarchy was unable to reproduce itself, and the system it defended was a comprehensive failure.

This returns me to UKIP. It is a small party. Its funding base is narrow. Its main objectives put it in conflict with the existing order of things. It owes its success in the past few general and other elections to the leadership of Nigel Farage. The alternative to his leadership is rule by a group of men whose main skill is to stay awake through five hour committee meetings, or by men whose general abilities are untested, and perhaps better not tested. I am at least suspicious of Douglas Carswell. If he rejoins the Conservatives in the next few months, I shall not be surprised.

I am disappointed by how badly Mr Farage took his failure to win the Thanet election. His resignation as UKIP leader, followed by a hint that he might stand for re-election, followed by the withdrawal of his resignation, was an obvious mistake. It made him look absurd. But anyone who wants UKIP to remain a political success should be in no doubt of which side he needs to take in the turmoil this has enabled. Mr Farage should be urged to impose an iron control over the party, and to purge anyone who stands in his way. He should, so far as possible, own UKIP. The offer he should make to actual and potential supporters is that he will lead the way to a set of agreed ends, and they should not object to his means. If anyone thinks he can do the job better, let him go and start his own party.

Despite its failure to win many seats in Parliament, UKIP did very well in this month’s general election. With the Labour and Liberal Democrat Parties crippled, and unlikely to recover in at least the medium term, UKIP is on the verge of becoming the main party of opposition in England. So far, the pendulum has swung between two parties of authoritarian corporatists. It may be that our politics are about to reconfigure themselves into a contest between a party of authoritarian corporatists and a party of smaller and more traditionalist government. The removal of the leader who – whatever his personal and intellectual faults – has brought us to this possibility would be a disaster for anyone who believes in smaller government.

For this reason, while I have not so far been a consistent UKIP voter, I side with Mr Farage. Time to sharpen the long knives, Nigel – time to break out the ice picks!

Postscript A further point for the avoidance of doubt. Nothing said above refers to how a leader should behave in power. If he ever becomes Prime Minister, it should go without saying that I expect Mr Farage to govern within the traditional norms. The main point I make is that political parties are best run as despotisms.

Scam Alert!

Merkel has indicated she’s willing to go as far as changing the EU treaty in order to keep Britain in the Union.
https://euobserver.com/political/128897

Seek.

Speciation - Evidence of Evolution?

A reader has sent in links to two evolutionist sites listing examples of speciation, and asked us which are not real examples of speciation. The list includes the Hawthorn fly, Three-spined sticklebacks, Cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago, Tennessee cave salamanders, Greenish Warbler, Ensatina salamanders, Larus gulls, Petroica multicolour, Drosophila (fruit flies), Mayr bird fauna, Finches, Squirrels in the north and south rims of the Grand Canyon, Apple maggot, Faeroe Island house mouse, Primula kewensis (a flowering plant), and Croatian lizards.

Actually all are classed as good examples of speciation, but none of them are evolution!

So what is speciation?

It is a process that occurs when a group of living things that originally were freely interbreeding, become divided into subgroups that sooner or later no longer breed with one another.  The newly formed non-interbreeding groups are technically a new species. But note carefully: After this happens the squirrels on either side of the Grand Canyon are still squirrels, Chichlid fish are still chiclid fish, Larus gulls remain gulls, Drosophila are still fruit flies, etc. So this is not evolution.  The plants and animals are still actually within the one kind.

We have written about this process in our Evidence newsletter.  See links in text below.

Galapagos finches are a well-known example of non-evolutionary variation.  They have been represented as the classic example of speciation, with birds on the different Galapagos Islands being classified into different species according to their beak shapes.  However, when circumstances have caused a change in available food and many of those with the wrong shaped beak shape have died out, some have survived by breeding with different beaked species, thus proving they are still the same ‘kind’ of finch no matter what shape their beak was, and regardless of what species we have labelled them.  Genome studies have shown there is a gene flow between the different finch species, confirming they do breed with one another.  See our report Finch Gene Flow.

Other studies have shown that the variation in beak shape is simply due to variations in interaction of growth promoting chemicals during embryonic development.  All the “species” have these same chemicals, confirming that the differences are just variation within kind.  See our report Finch Beak Variation.

For more information on Galapagos finches see the question: GALAPAGOS Island finches have shown new evolution recently, so how do you explain this?  Answer here.

In some cases speciation has been shown to be the result of degeneration of genes in one of the subgroups.  Here is an example of this happening in Thale cress.

In some plants, speciation occurs due to genetic polyploidy, i.e. incorporating two complete sets of chromosomes into a hybrid offspring between two parent plants.  The offspring can no longer breed with the parent plants, so technically are a new species.  This is not evolution.  No new genes were produced.  Existing genes have just become mixed.  Sometimes this process can be deliberately done by plant breeders.  Here is an example in a daisy.

Sometime the separation only based on variations in behaviour, e.g. mating calls.  The animals are still physically the same.  Here is an example in frogs.

Larus gulls are a famous example of a ring species, or partial separation into species.  We have written about these in another question: Ring Species: don’t Herring Gulls and other ring species prove evolution is occurring as we watch? Answer here.

Sometimes the separated species occur because of lack of opportunity to breed, rather than mating being a biological impossibility.  In these cases the classification into different species is simply a man-made distinction.  I remember being told by a conservationist in Australia that there was a problem with imported ducks breeding with native ducks and contaminating the gene pool.  The same complaint has been made about salamanders in the US.  Apparently the ducks and salamanders did not know they have been classified as different species, but just got on with doing what comes naturally.

Sometimes two similar species can be shown to be a case of over-splitting in the classification system by using hybridisation experiments in the laboratory.  Here is an example in butterflies.

If anything, speciation is the opposite of evolution.  Whenever a large and varied group of living creatures has been split into smaller and less variable sub-groups, regardless of the reason, each of the less viable (often called specialised) subgroups is more likely to die out if the environment changes.  This is because natural selection, (another real but non-evolutionary process), will eliminate any organism that does not have the appropriate genetic variations needed to survive in the new environment.

Examples of apparent and real speciation remind us that the real issue in the creation-evolution debate is not about the origin of species, but the origin of Kinds.  Darwin may have written about the origin of the species, but the Bible does not!  In Genesis we read that God created the various life forms according to their Kinds.  When the original Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Greek around 300BC, the word for Kind was rendered as γένος or “genos,” which is ultimately where the creation based inventor of the classification system Linnaeus derived the word for Genus in the classification system.This does not mean that every genus in the classification system is a different Kind.  In some cases there has been over-spitting of genera as well as species, and the original Kind was probably a much larger and varied group.  This reminds us that the current classification system that identifies living things according to a base unit we label as a species is a man-made system that simply enables us to keep records of what living things we have observed, and organise our knowledge of them.  It is not a record of evolutionary changes. For a comment on Darwin’s Origin of Species click here

For more information on what is, and what is not evolution, see the Creation Research DVDDarwin’s Evolution: a very unnatural selection.  Available from the Creation Research webshop.  Preview here.

Be A Winner.

Rome Fell - Our Society Is Not Learning From History.

His idea was that all civilisation is built on the premise that women say no to sex before marriage. The Roman Empire began to fall apart once this basic resolve was abandoned. Promiscuity, homosexuality, divorce and fornication were poor replacements for marriage.

Wanna guess how I now know that our own society is catapulting itself precipitously downhill? But our society is actually in a worse state than this. All they were jettisoning were the mores of a culture - we are saying 'no' to God Almighty!

Never Ignore The Righteousness of God.

Scandalous!

Jade Rayner, 23, was five times over the drink drive limit when she crashed her Ford Ka after drinking on her own at bars in Manchester city centre. Her vehicle was rendered immobile by the force of the impact - yet she continued revving the engine in a bid to drive on. A passer-by went to help her only to be knocked back by the strong smell of liquor coming from the car. But Rayner was spared prison with a suspended sentence at 150 hours of unpaid work, infuriating drink drive campaigners. Mail.

Our Broken System.

64 Lib Dem and SNP MPs represent a total of 3.87 million people. 1 UKIP MP represents 3.88 million people. Time for  @electoralreform  debate.

Philippians Says ...

Street Preachers.

Two Christian street preachers have been cleared of all charges after they were arrested in Basildon and Hereford.  I am thanking God for this very positive news!

Love ...

EU Getting Scary Again.

EU considering common tax to end tax havens. 

https://euobserver.com/tickers/128838

With the EU the word 'common' always spells danger.

Worthy!

Sometimes We Need A Reminder As To What Righteousness Really Looks Like.

Paedophile teacher executed in China after he raped and molested TWENTY-SIX girls under the age of 12 in just one year. Mail.

Jonathan On 5 Reasons Why EU Is Bad For The N. East.

Five reasons why membership of the European Union is bad for the North East

Compelling reasons why membership of the European Union is bad for the North East have been voiced by UKIP MEP Jonathan Arnott today.

Responding to remarks by local Labour Euro-MPs giving five reasons to stay in the European Union Mr Arnott has given five cogent reasons to leave.

UKIP MEP Jonathan Arnott said:

“Sadly, the pro-EU case is selling myths (such as the idea that the EU, not NATO, keeps the peace), scaremongering (claiming that jobs are at risk when they’re not, or raising the spectre of phantom trade tariffs) and half-truths (praising some ‘good’ pieces of legislation like maternity rights – where our Parliament in Westminster could, should and does provide protection for our own workers).  There’s a positive case for trading with Europe but not being governed by Europe, which actually addresses the vast majority of their concerns.  Here are my top 5 reasons to leave:

Reason 1.  To stop sending £55 million+ of taxpayers’ money every single day to Brussels

Whenever you hear talk about ‘EU money’, remember that just means we’re getting a portion of our own taxation back.  Every EU project has been paid for – and more – by the taxpayer.

Reason 2.  To develop our global trade links and create new jobs

Outside the EU we’d be free to negotiate our own trade deals.  Forget flawed deals (like the proposed TTIP) negotiated for us by the EU Trade Commissioner.  Switzerland has more free trade deals than we do; it’s time to remember the Commonwealth, look to the wider world, and trade with emerging markets as well as Europe.

Did you know?  Companies like JCB and Dyson want to leave the EU because it would be good for trade.

Reason 3.  To control our borders

We believe that the British people, and the British Parliament in Westminster, should have the right to determine our own immigration policy.

Reason 4.  To regain the freedom to make our own laws

From agriculture to commerce, foreign aid to business, criminal justice to transport, our own Parliament in Westminster should be taking the final decisions.  Every so-called ‘good’ EU law could have been passed by our own Parliament, but we could avoid the ‘bad’ ones.

Did you know? The European Arrest Warrant leaves British citizens vulnerable to deportation without any evidence being weighed up in a British court.  

Reason 5.  To stop EU red tape and regulation strangling our small businesses

With more lobbyists in Brussels than Washington DC, big business certainly knows how to shape EU legislation so that it has a competitive advantage.  But small businesses don’t have the resources to cope.  Our small businesses shouldn’t be strangled at birth, but freed to become the big business of tomorrow.

Did you know? Many small businesses can’t afford to trade with Europe any more because of the new VATMOSS regulations.

William Dartmouth - Nice One!

http://www.ukipmeps.org/news_1041_William-Dartmouth-MEP-slams-Labour-for-failing-to-protect-the-NHS-against-TTIP-in-the-European-Parliament.html

Sorry - But I Think He Does!

How To Win The Referendum.

http://www.capx.co/nine-ways-for-eurosceptics-to-win-the-referendum/

This Blog predicts defeat. I saw how it was wickedly stage-managed last time in '75 - and it will be again! (Most of those who voted last time are now dead!)

Great Is Your Faithfulness, Oh Lord.

Ted Cruz - Next US President?

http://www.christianpost.com/news/5-interesting-facts-about-ted-cruzs-christian-faith-139247/

The Good Samaritan - Modern Version.

On a Sheffield side street not too far from the city centre, an elderly man is mugged and left bleeding in the gutter.

A vicar comes by and says, "I hope you are soon better." And he walks by.

Shortly afterwards, a priest is passing the man and says "Bless you, my son," and walks on.

Then a Sheffield social worker appears. She has a horrified look on her face - she kneels beside him and cradles his bleeding head. She says,  "Oh, no! This is awful. Who did this dreadful thing to you? .............  I must go and help them!"

Liberalism.

Game of Thrones and Morality.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-surprising-morality-of-game-of-thrones-139259/

Bigfoot.

With so many programmes of people who have 'seen Bigfoot' - could I please ask that they are all given a lie detector test in order to sort out the deluded from the scam merchants.

Splashing EU Money Around Like Cologne.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPLTK47Q6dc

How To Be Blessed.

Nice One, Jeb.

Jeb Bush Says Christian Businesses Should Be Allowed to Deny Services for Gay Weddings; Same-Sex Marriage Not a Constitutional Right

BY ANUGRAH KUMAR

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a likely Republican presidential candidate, told David Brody of Christian Broadcasting Network that Christian business owners should be able to legally deny services for same-sex weddings, and said traditional marriage is indispensable for America's success. Christian Post.

Some Nations Which, For Fairness, Use The D'Hondt Voting System!

Albania ,  Argentina ,  Austria ,  Belgium ,  Brazil ,  Bulgaria ,  Cambodia ,  Cape Verde ,  Chile, Colombia ,  Croatia ,  Czech Republic ,  Denmark ,  East Timor ,  Ecuador ,  Estonia , Finland ,  Guatemala ,  Hungary ,  Iceland ,  Israel ,  Japan , Luxembourg ,  Macedonia , Moldova ,  Montenegro ,  Netherlands ,  Paraguay ,  Peru ,  Poland ,  Portugal ,  Romania , Scotland ,  Serbia , Slovenia ,  Spain ,  Turkey ,  Uruguay , and  Wales . Shame we lag so far behind democratically!

Did Darwin Recant and Become A Christian?

Almost certainly not. The much expanded story of Lady Hope's visit to a dying Darwin had many accretions and the question reflects an urban myth. It does seem however, that in the months leading to his death, Darwin was indeed studying the Scriptures which is encouraging.

EU Referendum: The Propaganda Has Started.

Sir Michael Rake of the CBI is trying to whip up EU support from CBI members.

The EU suits the multinationals but wrecks smaller businesses. That also suits the multinationals.

Holy.

Former Muslims Living In Fear.

Ex-Muslims afraid to speak out

Young men and women from muslim backgrounds who have left Islam claim that they are a minority within a minority in Britain. A number of ex-muslims told the Guardian how they have been cut off from their families and face death threats as a result of leaving Islam. This is why we setup Safe Haven, an initiative that has been developed with a heart for connecting victims with those who can provide a safe place to stay: a secure and loving home away from the hostility.  Christian Concern.

Well - You Do Have To Wonder Sometimes.

100 Years of Christian Prayer For Muslims.

100 years of praying for Muslims: Conference

Fellowship of Faith for the Muslims (FFM) will be holding a conference at the High Leigh Conference Centre, celebrating 100 years of praying for Muslims. Geroge Verwer, founder of Operation Mobilisation, will be speaking at the conference. The event takes place 19 June - 21 June. If you would like to come, or want more details email: admin@ffm.org.uk

An Affront To Both Freedom And Democracy!

In a landmark judgment, a court ruled that devout Christians Karen and Colin McArthur acted unlawfully in declining the cake order because of their religious beliefs.

The case was brought against the family-run Ashers Baking Company in Belfast after a complaint by Gareth Lee, a member of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy group Queer Space.

He had asked the bakery for a cake iced with a picture of Sesame Street puppets Bert and Ernie and the slogan “Support Gay Marriage” to mark International Anti-Homophobia Day.

Mrs McArthur, who founded the bakery with her husband Colin, said she initially accepted the order to avoid a confrontation.

But as a born-again Christian she felt uncomfortable. After talking to her husband and son Daniel, she called Mr Lee and cancelled the order.

The Northern Ireland Equality Commission brought a case on behalf of Mr Lee, who claimed the refusal left him feeling “like a lesser person”.

District judge Isobel Brownlie said at Belfast County Court: “The defendants have unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiff on grounds of sexual discrimination. This is direct discrimination for which there can be no justification.” 

The firm was ordered to pay damages of £500 plus court costs.