The End Of The Thirty Years' War

History always throws up interesting comparisons. Sometimes they're interesting, sometimes they make you want to throw up.

For example, could any functionary of either the Labour or Conservative parties please tell me the normative difference between a shortened working week caused by union activism in the 1970's, and a shortened working week caused by plutocratic excess in the 2000's? Will the return of the three day week mean that capital's right to organise will end up being as thoroughly mangled and smashed as labour's right to organise was in consequence of what happened 30 years ago?

Of course not. That would be 'fundamentally totalitarian'.

Ed Balls, the bug-eyed bootleg butty-banning Bilderberger who possesses a profound sense of his own exceptionalism and who only answers questions on constituency matters, is reported to have said of the current crisis that,

"I think that this is a financial crisis more extreme and more serious than that of the 1930s and we all remember how the politics of that era were shaped by the economy."

He added,

"We now are seeing the realities of globalisation, though at a speed, pace and ferocity which none of us have seen before.

"The reality is that this is becoming the most serious global recession for, I'm sure, over 100 years as it will turn out."

Let us contemplate Balls for a moment.

Why does Balls believe himself to be exceptional? Because politics has become a profession, just another form of labour to be divided in order to achieve maximum efficiency. To allow this to have happened has been an enormous historic mistake; whereas participation in the conduct of affairs should be the right of all, it has become the privilege of the few - and it takes no great leap for the privileged to consider themselves exceptional. And when you believe yourself to be exceptional, you start doing stupid and arrogant things.

No British politician has ever had any business attending the Bilderberg Group. It is a closed and unreported forum at which only the views of capital are advanced. The only circumstances under which British politicians should attend Bilderberg is on the condition that the rights of labour are as well-represented as those of capital. That is not the case; at Bilderberg, it is as if the rights of labour, which for the avoidance of doubt are set out in Scripture, do not exist. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that policies should thereafter be enacted which treat the rights of labour as if they do not exist.

It is with some interest that one notes that the avid Bilderberger Kenneth Clarke once pooh-poohed the idea of Muslim clerics who call for jihad and plot the overthrow of the state being charged with treason - those with an uncharitable cast of mind could ask whether he was watching his own back; or another portion of his anatomy.

But (or butty?) back to Balls.

Balls uses the word 'globalisation', as if this phenomenon possessed one clear and single definition - which it does not. For all we know, he could be talking about a gypsy in leprechaun's clothes.

Therefore, what is he talking about? When he deploys that over-used and under-defined word, we are entitled to ask - what is he actually talking about? If he is acknowledging that this ultimate 'win-win' scenario (which we can now surmise has only ever been a mask for the advance of plutocratic totalitarianism) has a downside, then he and his fellow politicians who have pushed this unmandated policy, not a process, onto the people should be facing stern questions from the electorate.

Yet we now have a policy vacuum; there is no alternative policy there. If that's not totalitarianism, I don't really know what is; but Balls's self-image is probably based on the assumption that he's the sort of guy who asks the tough questions, to which he expects staright answers - not someone from whom straight answers are expected in response to tough questions.

And now Balls reveals everything which is most dangerous about himself and the people with whom he associates -

"I think that this is a financial crisis more extreme and more serious than that of the 1930s and we all remember how the politics of that era were shaped by the economy."

When those words come from the mouth of Edward Balls, lovers of liberty everywhere should feel the blow of a chill wind.

We must be both generous and charitable in the face of extreme provocation, and presume that Balls is ignorant. Stanley Payne's 'A History of Fascism' (quoted passim) makes the following facts quite clear -

1. Fascism was a Continental phenomenon, almost exclusive to nations only formed in the late 19th Century such as Germany and Italy;

2. German National Socialism was much the consequence of the influence of Romanticism in German culture, a fact alluded to by Bertrand Russell in his discussion of Rousseau, as of the country's economic circumstances in the wake of the Great War and during the Great Depression; and

3. At all times and under all circumstances, the British Union of Fascists was a minority group which never came anywhere near power; and the volume of literature which has been produced regarding both it and Oswald Mosley has been in gross disproportion to whatever influence either he or his movement ever held.

Britain's is not a fascist culture, its people not one susceptible to fascism's snares. They never have been and they never will be. If Ed Balls doesn't realise that or understand that, then his ignorance of his own country's history, and his lack of regard for his fellow citizens, is inexcusable.

Yet the same fretting and hand-wringing that the Establishment has engaged in over the rise of Mosley's muppets for the past 75 years is now being seen over the British National Party, a perfectly legitimate political party. For the avoidance of doubt, I stand among the BNP's opponents, as stated here, here, and here - yet I would never dream of trying to have it declared religious anathema; and kudos to the bishops for telling Ian Blair where to go.

It really would be conspiracy theory to think that the current crisis has been engineered by the global elite for the purpose of imposing world government. Under that genuine conspiracy theory, those of their critics who have suggested that they are ignorant of history would be totally wrong; they have read Toynbee, they would be all too aware of history, they would know that mass immigration and the advance of Islam into Europe would result in the same social tensions appearing across the Continent; and they would know that they would then be able to divide and conquer.

They would know that the collapse of an international financial system apparently created for no purpose other than to enable them to pillage it would provide opportunities for them to seize power; perhaps by threatening the rise of non-existent, non-probable bogeymen like a mass British fascist movement unless they're allowed to seize the reins.

Such a conspiracy is so improbable as to be capable of being immediately discounted. If it did exist, it would be truly diabolical.

Yet the danger of liberty being snatched away from the British people is very real. In the coming days and weeks, we may just see how far the banking aristocracy's tentacles have wrapped themselves around the organs of the British state. Folks, it's time to take a quick trip back to 1648.

The end of the Thirty Years' War saw Germany in ruins. One German in four had been killed. The country's elites had fought themselves to exhaustion, and the country into poverty.

The only way that the elites could see to restore prosperity while maintaining their positions was the through the imposition of crushing taxation. This resulted in the extension of serfdom; real-life, crushing serfdom.

In 2009, our bankers, our own aristocrats, have gorged themselves to the point of exhaustion. The only way many can now survive is through public bailouts. These bailouts have to be paid for - if the bankers cannot make the banks pay, they will have to be paid for by taxation so crushing it would have the same impact upon us as the taxation of the German aristocracy had upon that country's free peasants in the 17th Century.

We are in precisely the same position now as they were in then - when our leaders start talking of their fears for liberty, it is time for us to be mindful of our own.

Keep an eye out for reports of lights in the sky.