Max Wind-Cowie: Progressive Conservatism

heel max

The ‘Great Society’ as put forward by Adam Smith in ‘The Theory of Moral Sentiments’ argued that peoples’ specialized activities are not coordinated by direction to perform various tasks, but by an impersonal mechanism that he called the ‘market’. Through the pursuit of economic self-interest, and by the price ‘system’, people are led to meet the needs of others who they will never meet, by means of mechanisms that they do not fully comprehend. Conservatism stepped into this vacuum to insist it could explain this. The market in Smith’s day is not comparable to our own world of cartels, monopolies, off-shore tax havens, hedge funds, derivatives and it ignores political patronage. Now we have a super rich elite who operate a personal mechanism: rather than rely on this invisible hand. Part of this includes propaganda whereby elite direction is ‘obliterated’: economic liberalization is so unpopular that it can only win through an attendant deception or coercion; part of that includes distraction and one recent one in the form of ‘Progressive Conservatism’ is discussed below.

Progressive Conservatism, as a propaganda project, has two strands: the first is to capture the language of other parties to make the party seem progressive (this functions almost solely through repetition); secondly it seeks the obliteration of the distinction between elite direction and democratic initiative—to continue business as usual. Both are examples that politics is swamped by marketing techniques. Under democratic conditions, in the long run, the effect of this resort to propaganda should be to undermine the basic loyalties upon which democratic institutions depend, and to prepare the way for impulsive revolt against them.  The Progressive Conservatives (a very small group) took this on as some kind of further emulation of ‘New Labour’, using Demos and other think tanks to fill the media with various vested-interest-funded psychological adjustments.

The propaganda project draws on people (who we have been told) have nothing to do with Conservatism to run it—but it is clearly elite co-ordinated from the top of the Conservative party down; it simply uses the type of person who Christopher Lasch, in his last work, called a new ‘cognitive elite’. His focus was on how language was a key mechanism whereby social realities were blurred by this ‘talking class’ that was made up of: lawyers, academics, journalists, systems analysts, brokers, bankers, and I would add at a lower level, people from the melange of think tanks, consultancies and lobbyists.

For Lasch the use of little substantive difference between Left and Right, enabled this elite to increasingly meld corporate, governmental and academic and pseudo-academic roles. My interpretation of Lasch is that this group indulges in a charade that does not threaten any vested interest—and particularly not their own publicly funded sinecures and that this is the case with Progressive Conservatism. Lasch felt that this situation had imbued in the general population an inability to believe either in a stable core of personal identity or in a politics that rises above the level of platitudes and propaganda, and that this elite had reduced themselves to professional traffickers in information who manipulate words and numbers for a living (the policy entrepreneur). This is akin to Hayek’s notion of ‘second-hand dealers in ideas’ that was institutionalized with the Thatcherite think tanks of the 1980s and residues of these regressive tendencies are still in evidence supporting Progressive Conservatism.

David Cameron’s PR puff of the ‘Big Society’ is a macabre mockery of Smith — the hand is visible.  For Walter Lippmann the highest social set consists of those who embodied the leadership of the ‘Great Society’. In so far as it is bound together, the hierarchy is bound together by the social leaders who at any one level are involved in a social set of the social leaders, the ‘radiant points of conventionality.’ Here the big decisions about war, peace, social strategy, and the ultimate distribution of social power are: “intimate experiences within a circle of what, potentially at least, are personal acquaintances.” Here the money is dished out to friends not enemies. Edward Bernays’ statement that: “Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country” seems to offer an honesty lacking in today’s Conservative propaganda. But with propaganda the social bases of political identities, forms of state organization of interests, the sources and distribution of political power and political transformations are all discoverable, even although they are supposedly invisible.

How we get a glimpse of the mechanism is, I would argue, by examining propaganda, lobbying and the political initiatives of think tanks—these are so shoddy now that the game is given away, particularly by the more inadequate propagandists and hucksters.


Max Wind-Cowie

Max Wind-Cowie is with a think tank called ‘Right Angle’ which has ties with older completely reactionary think tanks such as the Freedom Association (FA). The pretence is that it does not is so that it can offer the pretence that Right Angle will undo all the damage the Freedom Association did (including insisting the Labour party was run by the KGB) and that the Conservatives have changed from the Thatcherite blacklisting, homophobic, race-hate days that the Association inspired.

They offer the usual nonsense that “Right Angle is a grassroots community.” It is not: it is an Astroturf organisation.

It even admits it achievements are zero.

Because Right Angle is so obviously a pitiful fig leaf, Max Wind-Cowie was also placed with another think tank, Demos, largely to use any ideas that could be of use to the Prog-Con scam. Here, Max has been trying to help out MPs such as Robert Halfon in his attempts to produce Progressive Conservative propaganda—I am not making this up:

Robert Halfon sets out to debunk the myths and misunderstandings about the relationship between the Conservative party and trade unions and concludes that the two could become ‘soulmates’.

That would be the Robert Halfon  who is also with Right Angle—to win over the unions three of Right Angle’s four directors forged links with Dmitry Firtash a Ukrainian billionaire with a controversial past: but let’s put that to one side. Halfon is still on the Freedom Association Council, which included Aims of Industry members and other anti-union reactionaries who ran vicious anti-union campaigns. If Halfon is sniffing around the unions something funny is going on—anyone can start a union. He was involved in the early days of the Freedom Association. The Times October 1, 1990 shows him attacking student ‘unions’ at their behest in an ugly campaign.  He also worked with the Heritage foundation-funded Social Affairs Unit devoted to dismantling the welfare state—Halfon’s writing was on how pressure groups should not be allowed to interfere with capitalism: he claimed that Business: “should concentrate on making profits and leave concerns about ethics to the philosophers” (see: Alasdair Murray, “Shaping the ethical face of capitalism,” Times, 28 August 1998).

In Halfon’s Demos pamphlet he argues that: “Margaret Thatcher was herself a proud trade union member.” Ronnie Reagan too at one point—but so what: then what did they do? Part of the Progressive Conservative agenda seems to be revising Thatcher’s legacy for the party as set out in ‘Tory Modernisation 2.0’. David Williets has it that when Thatcher said there was ‘no such thing as society’ that was: “a completely misleading picture of Margaret Thatcher’s own beliefs.” Could it just be that on occasion Mrs Thatcher was given nonsense to read out by people like him? The double-think is employed here to avoid the admission that the Conservative party got it — and continue to get it — spectacularly wrong. History that doesn’t fit will simply be ignored.

Although Demos was a monster born out of New Labour it always retained a link to the Conservatives—its principles are to be unprincipled. That attracts a certain kind of person: Max’s involvement is as someone who will simply insist that the chimera that he calls the Progressive Conservatism Project is real — in much the same way as the endless chant of ‘third-way’ nonsense Demos provided by Geoff Mulgan back in the 1990s (that the Tories disparaged).

living off the poor

Jonty Olliff-Cooper

Back in 2009 Cameron & Co., as part of the push for government wanted people to think that the Conservatives were being run by “true progressives”. Fresh out of Eton Jonty Olliff-Cooper (pictured above) was put in charge of running the programme called Progressive Conservatism that was launched by Cameron in January 2009 (Toby Helm & Anushka Asthan (2009) Observer August 16). Olliff-Cooper also initiated ‘Bright Blue‘ made up of Conservatives from other think tanks and funded by The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust despite its obvious political intentions. So far Bright Blue has spent the money on either a series of ‘Drink Tanks,’ such as a get-together to promote Robert Halfon, or its Advisory Board (made up of Conservative ministers) or on Policy Exchange: thanks Joseph Rowantree.  Even the Telegraph finds the “increasingly discredited oxymoron “progressive Conservatism”” difficult to swallow and that its members confirm:

…the impression that the various “progressive” Tory organisations muster a rotating overall membership of around 20 people. It seems likely that the whole “modernisation” process has been imposed upon the Conservative Party by some 40 individuals. Trotsky, the father of Entryism, would have loved it.

For PRWeek (2009) April 9, and other PR magazines Bright Blue is nothing more than a a communications strategy aimed at floating voters: and little more than a website, some drinks and  sort of backed up by the ConservativeHome blog, Jonty concedes this:

“It’s definitely not for the traditional rank and file,” said Olliff-Cooper. “We’re primarily aiming at people who are not sure for which party they would vote.”

Just about everything in politics is reduced to this and devious forms of political patronage. Jonty could have ended up in charge of anything—that’s what’s so scary about the incompetence of this government: innocent poor people suffer so as those who are to blame walk away with millions.

It will take you all the time of typing his name into Google to discover that Olliff-Cooper is said to be part of the ‘systemic’ abuse of taxpayer-funded contracts with the now notorious organisation A4e. In September 2010 he joined the A4e group as a director of policy and strategy. Months later, A4e founder Emma Harrison was appointed Mr Cameron’s ‘families tsar’ with a brief to get ‘problem households back to work’.  To help the poor Jonty and Emma have given themselves millions (or reorganised the public sector, depending on whether you are in on the scam or not).  What’s new about that sort of Victorian horror? A4e was estimated to receive £13,000 per person it ‘gets back to work’ and is mired in allegations of fraud which the government appear to have known about. Jonty now tells us that there is not enough money to solve the problem of long-term unemployment: what he means by ‘solving’ is the government giving his company even more money, despite the fact that it has clearly imbibed and wasted millions. Ollif-Cooper is so detached and greed-centred that more cash for A4e solves the problem because he profits from it—progressive prebendalism. Indeed his his attempts to mask 4Ae as a “social purpose company” was thwarted by the Advertising Standards Authority.

His fellow Progressive Conservative, Max Wind-Cowie’s schtick is largely a weird form of humourless comedy — in 2012 he was trotting out: “Put Melanie Phillips in Charge of Equality and Human Rights”. That does have a kind of Monty Python cachet value, but for all the facade of change in reality it’s a return to the old days, such as his work with the Libery League, complete with Moselyesque iconography and sponsored by all the de-regulators of the banks, blacklisters and so on (such as the Adam Smith Institute, the IEA, the Freedom Association).

In his writing for Demos, Max offered this appeal condemning everyone:

How can we defend the language, narrative and legal structures of human rights as the public begins to reject them wholesale? And should we?

I thought he was going to break into a Barbra Striesand number there, but this is from one of his pamphlets  (imagine if these things were reliant on sales or that people read them) that really is just some tedious screed on ‘reforming’ the The European Convention on Human Rights so as to back up the bunging in of Melanie Phillips to run it along the lines of her peculiar ideological beliefs.


The Menscheviks 

To find some inside information of what Demos offers the aspiring propagandist, lobbyist or huckster we can have regard to Patricia Hewitt’s testimony in 2010 when Progressive Conservatism was manufactured —here she offered advice to a private company who would pay her to do something using her position as an MP, or bribery as it used to be called:

Now the think tank and the seminar route I think is a very good one and will remain a good one and so identifying the right think-tank. Policy Exchange is a good one at the moment, Demos is another good one. And saying ok, does that think tank already have a relationship with Minister X? Can we invite Minister X to give a seminar on this subject? Your client would then sponsor the seminar and you do it via the think-tank. And that’s very useful, because what you get for your sponsorship is basically you sit next to the Minister. (Dispatches, ‘Politicians for Hire’, Channel 4, March 22)

That was advice for business to get a room with a politician to completely traduce the idea of democracy but not frighten the horses. Wind-Cowie produces the occasional Demos pamphlet that helps to propagandise this un-Conservative Conservatism: this arbitrage. This led to products where he gets all feminist while denouncing feminism, such as the Conservative’s Iron Ladies.  To have a go at feminism this was written entirely by females—except for Max.  Yes he just couldn’t help himself by lording it over them — why they might fall and twist their ankles. With the other pamphlets it is back to normale: the experiment now being over.

Max’s swaying pamphleteering induces a sea sickness. It’s like watching sewage effluent and rubbish on the deck of a sinking ship slop and roll about in a storm, the useless sloshing to and fro amalgamating into an undifferentiated foamy sludge.  To convince us of his feminist credentials he tells us:

Margaret Thatcher claimed ‘I owe nothing to women’s lib.’ But her contribution to the movement is great, whether she likes it or not. Lady Thatcher is held up as a feminist icon by women from the Spice Girls to glass-ceiling smashing City bankers. While Thatcher may not have appreciated the narratives of women’s lib, it is certainly true that she helped to liberate women from the sometimes limited scope of women’s lib itself — showing that it was possible to ‘have it all’ as a woman of the right. Lady Thatcher’s legacy lives on today within the Conservative party.

He tries to induce the belief that the females selected by David Cameron and the Tory party hierarchy as a front for the same old same old are somehow committed to something.  But I have two words for them Louise Mensch. The game is over right there and then, but Max thought a pamphlet that included the musings of Claire Perry (Louise having left for the calling of God) and the party’s new cohort of ‘Iron Ladies’ would make another great Demos work. I think The Menscheviks would have been a better title. This refers to those who show no previous commitment to Conservative politics, have probably flirted with the Labour party as a student/drug user, who in somewhere like Guardianland are termed  “far from easy to pin down ideologically” rather than completely and utterly in it for the money. This sophistication has perplexed the Guardian: Max Wind-Cowie is of the rightwing think tank Demos (in Sarah Ditum’s (2012) ‘Can anti-abortion and pro-choice campaigners agree on anything?’ Guardian, September 14) and Max Wind-Cowie is of the “left-leaning Demos” (in the Guardian (2011) December 9). Yeah whatever.  This utterly disrespect for its readers is possibly excused by the confusion inherent in the process whereby what Demos is depends on who is stumping up the cash for the musings. This severed conscience, in my experience, has had an adverse effect on the personality of its propagandists.

Sue Buxton, secretary to the Devizes constituency Labour party, dismissed Sue Perry as “a self-publicist [who] likes to be seen out and about cutting ribbons” while writing a weekly column in the local newspaper that largely ignores “important local issues.” As if the Labour party was some kind of grass roots resistance to this. With people like this from all three parties now running this kind of politics there is nothing else in its moral core apart from expense claims, pitching oneself for a reality TV show, or getting on a select committee so as to get a job with whatever rich person is being interrogated and investigated. What people like Nadine Dorries, Tommy Sheridan and George Galloway seem not to realise is that appearance on these things is vivid evidence that they will do anything for money, that they are open to bribery. Jonty has also joined the reality TV gang.

The Menscheviks like Perry and other Progressive Conservatives also offer a low point in propaganda, even the Daily Politics show, designed for politicians to fry their fish, proved too much for Perry. Her task was simply to persuade journalists via the put up Conservative Women’s Forum that David Cameron doesn’t really have a “women problem” (and go nowhere near the reality of the average Conservative MP’s actual beliefs, and ignore what the polls say). Indeed the leader of all things avaricious and careerist, Mensch, calls Perry a “kindred spirit”. Perry was a formerly with McKinsey and Credit Suisse (who have now been busted for their greed and deception).

Perry is noted for her loud-mouth swearing and for her remark in the House of Commons: “What have I got to do to be called by the Speaker? Give him a blow job?” No, that is a think tank’s job — but the way they are all going why not if it encourages one’s career: are morals to stand in the way of Conservative Progress and a potential Reality TV Game Show here? Think of the ratings on Parliament TV and the potential advertising  returns. George Osborne suggested Perry simply turned up and impressed him so much with her energy and enthusiasm that he gave her a job and then a safe seat (that sounds a bit coded to me).  But let me return to Max.

Max runs the Progressive Conservatism Project at Demos. Now what the fuck is that? — as Perry would say — well logically it is a contradiction in terms: Conservatives are against progressive ideas, that is why they are Conservatives — whatever rubbish the think tanks are producing now, no amount of guff, is going to change that.

Max’s work on ‘patriotism,’ the last refuge of a scoundrel and something that is not particularly different from any other form of intolerance, is a case in point here. Titled ‘Dying in War is Special’ it’s an ugly goulish nightmare arguing that: “Their deaths are sacrificial […] we are celebrating their deaths too. And we are also, uncomfortable as this may seem, celebrating and remembering their other sacrifice: killing their adversaries.” It’s celebration of murder ignores how the bodies of the dead of both sides and those caught in between are often ploughed into pits by bulldozers to argue that we should not remember those who were killed who are not English: “A nation that refuses to prefer its war dead to the dead of its enemies will find itself unable to inspire such sacrifice in the future.” Everyday racism folks.

Max is never going to be a soldier. Death is not so wonderful that he is volunteering. His function is to mill around all these contradictions in the hope that someone will take him seriously and a story gets into the press because of an eye-catching ‘provocative’ headline and he gets overpaid. Obviously Demos is part of this political prostitution, avidly seizing on any funding and running the line of whoever stumps up the cash.  Remember Demos pretends it is impartial to avoid tax but the Progressive Conservative Project can use it as a base.  The people who have leant there name to it are:

Greg Clark MP — Financial Secretary to the Treasury as of 2012 who wrote with Jeremy Hunt on Progressive Conservatism in opposition—then it was transformed into ‘The Big Society’ and from there to the Murdoch scandal.  What Hunt and Clark promised according to the Policy Network was:

…taking on ‘today’s real ruling elite’ (by which they meant ‘public sector appointees, private sector contractors, media moguls and various go-betweens in the PR and lobbying industries, then most reckon they are only doing so because their previous involvement with such people has been so embarrassingly exposed [by the Leveson Inquiry].

Back in 2007 Progress Magazine identified Clark and Hunt as the architects of an “an oxymoron, an incoherent political philosophy that crumbles when subjected to analysis,” called Progressive Conservatism, this was said to have creepilly adopted the right-wing policies claiming inspiration from Reagan, Disraeli, Churchill and Thatcher. Progress noted:

What is missing from this story of course is any account of class, power and inequality. These issues remain toxic for the Tories and they are studiously avoided by contemporary Conservatism – except of course to the extent that the state can be blamed for “declining social mobility”.

Zac Goldsmith — Former Editor of the Ecologist, Conservative MP for Richmond Park.

John Gray — Emeritus Professor of European Social Thought, LSE, something of a new Malthus, gray was a supporter of Thatcher and Hayek, in the 80s he was with the Cato Institute and the CIA’s Liberty Fund in the US, then he was a big fan of New Labour, now this.

Danny Finkelstein — Commentator and former Conservative adviser on all the old stuff which is now not wrong but misunderstood?

Ferdinand Mount — Old Etonian Commentator and former head of Conservative Policy Unit, author of the 1983 Tory manifesto whose Mother is Cameron’s cousin.  With the Centre for Policy Studies in its Alfred Sherman hey day.

Frank Field MP — Labour MP and former Minister for Welfare Reform (OK so Progressive Conservatism is a cross-party thing?)

Why Ferdinand Mount, John Gray et al are here, beats me — they are as progressive as Nicholas Ridley, Norman Tebbit and Rhodes Boyson rolled into one. These leopards have changed their spots — who says so: why they do (and an up-for-hire think tank that everyone knows is a laughing stock). But it is a millieu that turned Max and the Eton educated Jonty into intelligent young men who have learned to thrive in a polluted stream: just as neoliberalism trains our new generations of mathematical geniuses into little other than using their talents in ways of concocting complex algorithms of extortion.

Max also lets off both barrels at Conservative home, to read it is a bit like travelling back to the 1980s and endless debates on the deserving and the undeserving poor (so as to become one of the undeserving rich) that sickened and poisoned our society in the past.

here max

The Policy Dog’s tricks

For Jonty Olliff-Cooper & Max Wind-Cowie: there is nothing incompatible about progressive ends and Conservative means — thus their disgusting hypocrisy, sycophancy and contempt for their audience knows no bounds.  But what is new about that in politics? Max is gay, and the reason we have been informed of this is part of the routine: as if this was somehow ground-breaking: but in this milieu of utter dissimulation I’d really have to see that demonstrated.  The same goes for anything about the Progressive Conservatism routine: it is a bit like watching a dog walking on his hind legs — sooner or later it’s back to all fours. It would appear that some time ago the Tories realised that Cameron would have to do a similar performance to attract any easily fooled voters. So trained dogs are hired to do these kind of tricks now that Andy Coulson is gone.

Although it all seems like an empty repetition and thus worthless, this futility is only really understood in terms of its utility—it is no different from an advert; of course it’s nonsense but if we say it often enough…it becomes very real, particularly if you are one of the people who get the money! To finish here’s a quick round up of how Max amuses his masters.

(1) He can bark at poor minorities: such as when MasterCard funded Demos to demonise disabled people (and rope them in to its debt farm).  The web page for Prog Cons has a little note on a 2009 “Recapitalising the Poor” another Demos stunt: this was run by Max Wind-Cowie and Jonty Olliff-Cooper the double-barrelled sawn-off shot gun of Prog-Con. They are a pair of shysters.

(2) He can give you a paw: if you are in the process of privatising the NHS and you are obliged to put up a screen — just like the nurses do when that machine starts to continuously bleep because something horrible is happening — well Max will say: “The NHS must be decentralised and freed from government control if it is to thrive,” and pose as an expert on Health care. Get these people away from the health service.

(3) He can do that balancing a biscuit on his nose until told to eat it: “Big supermarket chains have a key role to play in regenerating Britain’s poorest communities” says Max (wonder who funded that):

Max Wind-Cowie, the report’s author, said supermarkets were not the enemy of “Big Society”. “They have a role to play in helping deprived communities regenerate by reducing stigma, boosting morale and bringing low-cost quality produce to the area,” said Wind-Cowie. “It’s easy to be cynical about retail chains, but they can be the game-changer for transforming perceptions within and outside run-down neighbourhoods.”

The elaborate hoax of the report suggested tax breaks in the form of business rate cuts and that all manner of ‘flexibility’ would be key in encouraging supermarkets to open sites. “There is no reason why councils should block applications […] It is not the case that small, local good-quality businesses are opening up in deprived communities.” But Max will leave messy droppings around that people are reluctant to pick up. (That particular pile was spotted by Michelle Perrett in The Grocer, June 12, 2010). We must realise they are up for hire propagandists and not authorities: their reports are not to be trusted.

(4) Max can also roll over and play dead and run around chasing his tail: “Private insurers could join efforts to reduce Britain’s £9 billion sickness benefit bill in a scheme that would help to push people back into work […] Private insurers could help to cut sick pay costs by two thirds” was the the Times (2010), October 6 puff of Max’s report provided by Sam Fleming. Little Conservatives cabals are making money out of the poor not giving it to them—this is immoral.

The sight of Max licking his balls might not be to everyone’s taste: why someone as vapid, ideologically motivated, inexperienced, unqualified, biddable, and biased as Max should be taken seriously by the papers is attributable to the war on empty space faced by the UK press. The same goes for Jonty. They put down a sheet of news print and Max and Jonty piss on it — then we are supposed to buy it. The lack of enquiry into these organisation is because they provide copy for the papers—stupidity knows no bounds.

“The key thing that people were proud of is that British people volunteer more than people from other countries and that we’re more socially engaged,” said Max Wind-Cowie, the report’s author.

That is because there are no jobs or people are sacked by supermarkets so that someone can get ‘work experience’. If the funding is right Max can get all objective and scientific for the Israel lobby, such as this headline:

‘Muslims are Britain’s greatest flag wavers; a new poll finds just who has the most pride in Britain and the quirky symbols that swell our hearts.’ (Rosie Kinchen (2011) Sunday Times, November 20)

A poll you say — why it must be true: look numbers! The money for that one came from the Pears Foundation.

Max is certainly out the closet on being a corporate whore, arguing that: “Businesses such as Coca-Cola see the potential for sponsorship of events such as the London 2012 Olympics to create social as well as commercial value”. This is another Demos report ‘Measuring Up: The value of sponsorship’ on the back of its work paid for by Coca-Cola. His routine attacks on the poor don’t really play to anyone outside the tiny bubble Max inhabits. He gets chewed up when his rhetoric falls apart and is left in bits. It is not that his writing is bad (as he has conceded) his purpose is bad—and that can take over a person.


US ‘Conservatism’, when it was remolded by Russell Kirk and others (William F. Buckley) in the 1950s was a giving up of the central goal of the secular impulse in the West — ‘the control through reason of man’s fate’—for the search for some natural Aristocracy, a self-selected elite as an anchor point in tradition, but a character model at odds with US history. When this was imported to the UK via Thatcher and the Heritage Foundation, it focussed on Russell Kirk’s belief that: “divine intent rules society,” and that Conservatism was an unconscious drive, whereby: “it is easiest for people to be conservative when they have no sense of what conservatism means, no sense of the present as being only one alternative to what the future might be.”  The US was a conservative country without any conservative ideology, making it appear as a naked and arbitrary power — how can a country based on a revolution against Monarchy desire its return? Mysticism seems to be the answer—the invisible hand.

To defend Conservatism against the Progressives the Telegraph cited two key influences: the (to my mind crackpot) writings of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s (who even argued that the Nazis are incorrectly described as right-wing and that Hitler’s inner circle were committed socialists) and Gerhart Niemeyer. Their yearning for an Aristocracy, was the desire for a personality somehow super-historical.

We have an elite who prefer not to be thought of as such: hence all this pathetic propaganda drivel to mask the swindling and corruption. But in the midst of this chaos, on analysis it only serves to highlight the very high ratio of publicity to ideas, their emptiness and the seizure by vested interests.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: