Monthly Archives: September 2007


Celebrities. Only 34 views today by the time I blogged this. Poor show; where is everyone? You should all be saving the world, since there is no work for you to do today.

Just experimenting with the ways to get visit-figures up on Saturdays. April fool.

However, if “celebrities” brings more readers to the blog for legitimate reasons, then we might talk about them sometimes, but of course only for the best of socioligical reasons. Like why “Madonna” wants to be a Sloane, and why, er, that woman whose name I can’t remember or maybe it’s a man, wants to be, er, landed and famous, etc. And why Reg whatisname (he’s changed it to Elton something) has peculiar pictures, and, er…………who?

And…….why do all these strange people, who affect to want to destroy Western Civilisation and also have a small “carbon footprint”, as reflected in their songs, ditties, plays, films etc, want to live here, in it, even after it shall have been destroyed, as grandees? Why not in Khazakhstan, wherefrom All Apples have come? (True.) Or Mongolia, from which the liberal BBC hero Ghenghiz Khan came and liberated people from their heads? Or China, from which All Civilisation without any exception whatever has come, even gunpowder and writing and paper and art and walls and stuff? Or Burma, from which all Buddhism has come? Or Southern Rhodesia, where the Messiah Mugabe reigns yet?

If Satan created MacDonald’s, did he also create sharwarma bars? It must be so, but nobody has said.

Did Satan create this stuff (which is very nice) or not? If so, then why do they eat it all over the Muddle East? And in Queeensway, London  W2,England, at all hours of the day and night?

This is after all “fast food”, and I for one ate it in Lebanon, in 1969 (I am half-Syrian) long before it became available in London, and long before MacDonald’s had been heard of outside One-horse-town, Upper-Moonscapia, USA.

What’s different about MacDonald’s or Burger King or KFC? 

Boris Johnson strangely disappeared along with some other stuff, from little-known web-hoster in Glos

Boris Johnson is back on line, after his webhosters have pulled him accidentally (or otherwise? Funny how the pulled were all “right wingers?) in response to a suggestion by an Uzbek “commercially-involved-person” about some other blogs.

I think everybody ought to find and repeat repeat the original texts about the guy who’s got his teeth into Arsenal FC’s ankle.

Question; Why do “Russian” “businessmen” want to own British football clubs? I can’t figure that one out, try I ever so hard. Why not own Tesco? Or M&S? (Jewish by blood, they could even afford to buy it and close it down as a mega-hubristic act!) They could throttle our food supply so we have to let them buy missiles (again.) Why football clubs? They don’t matter a tinker’s toss. Can anyone enlighten me?


Katherine Hamnett fires Tesco

What do you expect from a woman who didn’t want the West to deploy Cruise and Pershing? With that mindset, she can’t want ordinary poor-people to be able to freely shop, in their cars, for what Prince Charles sneered at as “cheap food” either.

What on earth did such an upright, sincere leftist women think that she was doing in bed with the likes of a British supermarket in the first place? was she after money? 

Where would she be now if she had won in the 80s? The Gulag?

If a British Libertarian Party was to exist and it won an election, what ought it to do? (Part 7) The Union, as in the UK

I’m not certain but it seems safe to assume that the Nationalists will have de Iure as opposed to just de Facto power in Scotland, after any General election. This may turn out to be a good thing – for Scotland also. For Wales and Northern Ireland, we shall have to see.

As there will almost certainly be an absolute Libertarian majority in England, the Tories being presumably wiped out totally, the issue of who pays for whom will be critical. Since large parts of the Public Sector will be in the process of being closed down (see Sean Gabb’s new book) and feelings about English over-taxation to pay for others’ “services” will be running high, the current “bill for Scotland” will be in the spotlight. I’m not sure a Libertarian Party would be able to resist parliamentary demands for an Act to end the Union – whatever the pros and cons of this.

Personally, I think it would be sad, but only a bit (like Belgium breaking up.) I’m sure a Customs and currency Union could be cobbled up, for as long as we want one of either. This may flounder on the rock of progressive and continuing Libertarian abolition of duties on everything. “Ever Lower Taxation”, rather than “ever-closer-union”….

Indeed, a currency Union might be unnecessary since presumably Libertarian monetary policy (sounds like an oxymoron too) could allow many “Monies” to be legal tender, with the best and most desired retaining their value and purchasing power, and the less good, such as the Southern Rhodesian whatever-it-is, doing less well and being accepted in “fewer outlets”. I’m sure the Euro would gravitate to somewhere near its true value quicker here than it would in isolation as per now.

I was going to talk about money later. However, a return to Gold, as far as the State Bank is concerned (we shall have to have one for some time yet) might not be a bad idea, as it will be cometing with smaller and faster moneyers, some of whom will have spotted this already. It’s a bad time to buy gold as you will have noticed. Freedom and Whisky tracks it for you daily.

More on food. Fair trade or food fascism? “Fair Trade” food annoys and insults me. How about you? (Part 7 of “what should a Libertarian Party do” is tomorrow.)


Updates are shown in red, to be fair to everyone.

David Davis 


I always say that, to annoy the lefties, nazis, government-state-ownership-of-people-obesity-gauleiters, and anti-globalisation-students/food-police/carboncrats.

However, you can’t escape “Fair Trade” brands of the sort of food-product you’d expect rightly to be grown in hot poor countries, even there. Now as a Libertarian, I have no objection to people willingly agreeing if they want to, to pay more money than they need to, whether via middlemen like Sir Terry Leahy or not, for food that they could get more cheaply at Kwiksave or wherever. But I object to the snidely-implied threat or “slide” put on “ordinary” trade by calling their brands “FAIR TRADE” or its variations.

Does that imply that all other transactions concerning this stuff, from other suppliers, are “unfair trade”? That can’t have been the original intention………….or was it?

The problem with “fair trade” brands is that the word “fair” has been prostituted and lynched by the nazis, for us, while we were not looking – and for their ends and not the growers’ or ours. They play upon our sense of FAIRNESS by pretending that we, somehow, by freely being consumers of stuff that human invention is able to bring to us over thousands of miles, for little money or power, are robbing the producers of the benefit of same. “Fair” sounds good, if you believe that profit is wrong and bad, and that “TNCs” exploit people in “LEDCs”.

But if you are Fidel Castro, or Peter Mandelson, or Stalin, or the “sharers” whom the Hobbits finally encountered on their return to the Shire after the war of the Ring, then it can mean what you want us to think it is supposed to mean.

The top post on this site, put on today 14th March 2008, tells you the consequences of this line of thinking as regards British students in general.

Just thought I’d talk about food for a minute or two, thank you recombinantsocks for flagging it so importantly.

FOOD seems to be a problem for statists. They think they ought to tell us what kind and how much we ought to put into our bodies: “to be healthy”, to “not be a burden on the state” etc etc etc. Even large companies, those supposed champions of capitalism, but now seemingly ever trembling at the feet of statists, say things in their ads like “could help to keep your heart healthy”.

Recombinantsocks has been kind enough to challenge us these past couple of days in his comments, over our stance that people ought to be able to eat the food they want without interference, abatement of supply, or “state care sanctions” in the aftermath. Please seek our post “fat food individual liberty”, it’s quite recent so probably has not yet been taken down by any alert state’s nutrition-police-department.

What a let-down for individual liberty.  Sorry, socks old chap. You look like a sensible guy. I can’t think you’d get many sovereign individuals to agree with you. But by all means try.

The “turkey-twizzler” thing was of course got up by the Booby-See, to help them to help Jamie Oliver to earn money by ruining the lives and well-being of “more than 650,000+++” “kids”, while promoting food-types the “kids” don’t like, but that the people that their parents think they would like themselves to be like, would like to think that they would like their children to like.

Salad (no dressing.) Pasta, without salt. Ciabatta (what the f*** is that?) with ashes on it (without salt.) Vegetables (without salt.) No crisps (also without salt.) Boiled potatoes (without salt – tastes of ashes, like fat-free-oven-chips, just try for yourself.) What the hell is going on? British children, especially males, do not eat that stuff. How can they live and play footy? This is the North. God knows what they’re suffering in London – Boris, sort it out!

Speaking of the Booby-See, I think we have recently advocated demolishing it utterly, shredding its records, shutting it down, sacking all the staff, and offering its copyrights to anyone who wants to pay for them. Sean Gabb has written much on this one.


“And Satan created MacDonald’s”…and presumably WIMPY, Burger King, KFC, Baltichindian takeaways and also….Charwarrama-bars!

Nothing here about what a British Libertarian Party ought to do!

But wait………….I have an idea! (See after this paragraph…)

The first part of the title “AND SATAN CREATED MACDONALD’S” , was yet another highly-illuminating search-engine phrase that kind WordPress told us somebody used yesterday, and that they arrived here as a result. Gratifying! I’ve put it in as part of the title, since a temporarily promiscuous attitude to what tools are that real humans use to search for things, might advantage this blog.

I’m not proud. Whether you hate America or not, and even if you hate MacDonald’s, we are happy for you to come and read here. we want to be an “important blog”, like, er, other ones. you cna come here with or without your plastic box of takeaway-minced-turkey-giblets, (as opined to me by a commentator on the post “fat food individual liberty” the other day.)

This generation of hominid children is the healthiest and largest in the history of Homo Sapiens Sapiens – it is so here in Lancashire, God’s Own County, and it ought to be so for all. However, this does not go for many, many hominid children who have the grave misfortune to be born in socialist autarkies such as most of Africa, nor to those born in warmongering anti-Western states such as Iran, which reject the idea of free choice and therefore reject MacDonald’s as a symbol thereof. 

(I think they just hate America, both ‘cos they’d like to go and live and shag there, but would look stupid doing so, and ‘cos America sits there like a bright blue-white searchlight-beam, showing up with the Light of Truth and Reason just how hideous those ranting buggers are to their own people.)

Geology shows that large animals evolve to be larger when resources are plentiful, and go small – or disappear! – when they are scarce. I cannot see the logic of consciously denying individual animals the resources they prefer, and which (they say) (for this animal has selfhood and can speak) improve their feeling of well-being.

LONG LIVE MACDONALD’S! The standard-bearer of the Free World to benighted peoples! (Honourable mentions for Burger King, KFC and any other one who knows me!)


Got to do some work now

I can’t keep up this pace for more than a day or two. My wife, moreover, sneers at it and says I’m @Saving The World@ instead of my family. Come on, someone else do a bit now.

If a British Libertarian Party etc etc etc (Part 6)…..Where does the Queen fit in to all this Brown-worship? And what ought a Libertarian Party think about a @Head of State@?

The Queen has been not just silent but almost invisible these last few days. There was a picture of her in a hat, doing something or other, but that was it. When the coming election has wiped the floor with everyone else, and Broon is @all we need@, where does the current Head of State fit in?

I despise conspiracy theorists, and those who know my rants about the nine-elevenists (I am told by a farmer here that they now call themselves “Truthers” – a hitherto unexampled stretching of wicked pride and hubristic narcissism till it creaks at the seams) but has the Queen done some sort of deal?

The English nation has always been quite pragmatic about head-of-stateness. Perhaps liberalism came into the world here, because we always in our hearts knew that the HoS was just that, a sort of totem, which could be raised, cast down, repainted, changed, pushed about sort of how we wanted. As it should be. We employ it, not it us. If the State’s going to become less imortant here, what sort of HoS does it need?

Hartlepool wisely elected a monkey, I believe, as mayor.


Awful woman

Having invoked the shade of Auberon Waugh in my last post, I ventured to see what Polly Toynbee danced on his grave with in public, in 2001, as the wiki entry for what she opined interested me.

The Torygraph was kind enough today to publish this. (I got in a plug for the LA!)

The PM is really signalling not only the death of the Tory party but the triumph of the all-encompassing modern state. This is the final trumpet-blast by the statists, in their war against individual effort and initiative. “I will stand up for you.” (He said it verbatim.) Big Brother is arriving, now.

It is ironic and sad that this event has come to pass in the land that invented liberalism and minimal-statism, and which brought Magna Carta to the world, and which has taught, with varying degrees of success, the rest of the world how it should live and organise its political affairs so as to maximize well-being and minimize conflict and strife.

I note that the Libertarian Alliance is currently having a discussion on its blog, about the pros and cons of British Libertarians forming a party. Officers of it seem to think that (a) Brown will win any election he is pleased to call, that (b) he’s stolen all the clothes of any other party which is deliberate, and (c) there’s now a large disenfranchised population out there, bereft of any natural party to gravitate to, and which is broadly conservative (with a small “c”.)

This is the culmination of the process that the “other two parties” went through in order to look more like Blair’s “New” “Labour”, so as to seem to be “electable”. Yet…
percentage electorate turnouts continued to fall and will do so! They can’t be offering what people really want, then. Brown will coast in by inertia. Is this good or not?
Posted by David Davis on September 25, 2007 12:35 PM

More on what a British Libertarian Party ought to do, or not. Crime? (Part 5)

I’m a bit un-deconstructed, I’m afraid. I think a crime occurs because someone decides to commit it. This of course cuts the ground right from under the feet of all the fascist legislators, and their fascist pressure-group-friends and brown-nozers; these together have created 4,000+ new “crimes” in ten years, nearly 100% of which can be committed by ordinary conservatives while going innocently about their daily business.

I think that practically all of these can be deleted, along with some earlier bureaucratic inventions.

The obvious candidates for decriminalisation are “drugs” (an abridgement of the right to life), prostitution (ditto plus attenuation of a property-right in one’s self, in particular acting to disadvantage women, and poor ones at that) and many aspects of land and building use and disposal. Some of these have been already referred to by commentators on posts these last days. Recent laws about “hate-speech” and “racially-motivated” nonsense and the like must go also; the Law has for long been strong enough in regard to libel and slander anyway.

I think a Libertarian party would want to go for a much stricter definition of the key crimes, which mostly come down to property issues anyway, whether in oneself, one’s family or in chattels. The rest can go into the dustbin of socialist historical fiction, and the penalties for the remainder could become exemplary.

I do not personally advocate the return of the death penalty, at least under the current dispensation. However, it would be a matter for voters to decide. But in the present circumstances in which supposedly sovereign individuals do not have the right to take the life of another human, nor the means, then they cannot delegate upwards or downwards that right which they do not currently possess.

I’d like to resurrect Auberon Waugh’s concept of the “Udenopticon”, an anciently novel interpretation of penal servitude, emcompassing at once openly stark mercilessness and also potentially highly redemptive qualities – unlike the bleeding-heart “liberal” (wrong use of the word by the users themselves!) probationary establishment within the Enemy Class of today.

The 1950s for poor people

Come on! Keep searching on that! Then, when you have arrived, see what we have to say about how Capitalism is the answer, for anybody who has not got rocks in his head.

Fat Food Individual Liberty

That says it all!

It was a search-engine phrase inputted to something, which found us here. Welcome to the fat-food-lovers’ blog, whoever you were, and I hope you stuck around for a bit, even if you could get out of the door afterwards.

No human being should be told by the State, or anyone, what to eat or how much. What a bloody f*****g liberty to take. Who do these food-police think they are? And I hope Jamie Oliver is contemplating his children’s slightly-less-financially-secure future, now that 250,000+++ “school kids” including my moderately intelligent son (who now realises that he is a State farm-animal, and hopes he will not get Bluetongue or FMD) all hate him personally for what the State has done to “their” school food in “his” name. The State cares nothing; it even betrays its servants and useful idiots. J-O should have read a few modern-history-books earlier on before going cap-in-hand to the guvmint – such as ones about Lenin, and what he thought about the Jamies of the day.

A bit of Gordon’s speech I missed. Sooooooooooooo funny! Don’t go to a NHS hospital quite yet….

I got this just now from Guido Fawkes who got it from “the Fink” (haven’t found what that is yet.)

Guido lost count of the number of times Gordon said “Britain” or “British”. Don’t think he mentioned Scotland once…

UPDATE : The Fink makes a snappy point, Gordon “pledged that unless contract cleaners in hospitals meet the highest standards of cleanliness they will lose their contract. What’s the procedure at the moment, then?”

Broon Coo and his speech: What ought a British Libertarian Party to do? Naming it. (Part 4)

First, I just want to thank all you people who have commented these last few days!

It’s a lonely business, this Libertarian number, so it is to be sure, and it’s gratifying and makes our day to know that there’s a few people listening. We didn’t know anybody loved us, and so now we will try to blog better than before. 

Now to business. This morning’s papers that I have seen, the wobbly-Torygraph and The Sun seemed to have been paying attention down south. The Torygraph nutshells Brown’s objective, which IMV is “the end of party politics”. No other parties got a mention from him at all, which says everything about the Tories – remember Blair’s annual and frenzied rantings and ravings about the “FORCES OF CONSERVATISM”? You oculd beforgiven today for thinking that he said “I am the State” (implied), and “I will stand up for you” (he DID say that last bit verbatim.) He’s all the British people need, says this Prime Minister.

The Sun picked up that “Europe” got 12 seconds, and a referendum got none. It’s slightly encouraging that Britain contains yet enough people to make a fuss about this point. I know that all Statists have Hearts of Darkness and can’t be trusted to deliver your daughter back home by 11pm as they promised: but His intention to not hold a referendum on the “revised” (or not revised, as those European chaps so disarmingly honestly tell us all) “Treaty” (“constitution”, “scrap of paper”, whatever it may be called next) is too blatant even for a nation hooked on “Big Brother” and “slebs“.

So what now? Why don’t we just have the trailed election, get on with the job of placing the other parties in the mincing machine as He thinks we will, and focussing the debate we’re having here on this blog, about what the “opposition” ought to look like and do – since there won’t be any except Libertarians? I like, tediously, to keep reminding people that Paul Johnson predicted the death of the old orthodox Conservative Party, and that it would occur about now.

We stand at a point where the State, personified by the smiling, bespoke-suited, newly-redless-tied Broon is saying “trust me”. Perhaps He believes it Himself: well he might – he was a “student activist” after all, like Peter Hain, Gastriq Ali, and all the others now in high places. (Perhaps I should have paid more attention at the time, and done it myself.)

I’m forced to conclude that the poor, benighted, overtaxed, over-regulated British people need a British Libertarian Party. There’s no hope of any other principled, logic-based opposition to all this stuff going on in Britain in particular. Nobody’s even told them the truth which IMV is it’s supposed to be their punishment for what this crop of Marxists thinks their ancestors did wrongly. Destroy their culture, erase their history from memory, make them permanent state-clients with “entitlements” that can be turned on or off. no more meme-diaspora from here, then!

Ought it to be called “Libertarian”? I think not. First, it sounds too much like “Libertine”, which the fascist left will quickly conflate it with in the “popular media”. Specially as a manifesto would be made to look – to readers of the News Of The World – like :

(a) their little Madeleine-McCann daughter lookalikes will be subject to sexual predation whenever they are sent out to play on the “estate” half-dressed as usual,

(b) the “streets” will become infested with “druggies”,

(c) everyone will go round shooting each other,

(d) there will be no “edducashun” as there “will be no schools”,

(e) there will be “no ‘ospitals” as the gumment will stop giving money” (“so you’ll all die ‘orribly!”)

(f) who’ abou’ the poor?

No. I don’t think it ought to be called “Libertarian”. Let’s not hand yet another harmless word, with meaning, to the fascists and statists and couch-TV-gurus, for them to lynch for us while we wait.

The policies should of course be libertarian. Otherwise what’s the point? But they could be made to look liberal, which is to say English conservative or “sensible”. UKIP of course tried to to this, and anybody who organised their smearing and destruction by saying they “had no policies” is a stupid **** or in the pay of the fascists which comes to the same thing. But UKIP took too long pissing about and so became vulnerable to attack, and also their early leaders probably did not trust each other (too late for them now IMHO.)

I’ve been on this instalment long enough, as my boy’s machine is hogging all the broadband bits today downloading somethingorother. Over to you all for names for the British Libertarian Party, said names NOT to include the word “Libertarian”!

If a British Libertarian Party existed and it won an election, what ought it to do? (Part 3)

One aspect I have not addressed raises a dilemma, literally.

(1) How does a Libertarian caucus, within a statist polity, get itself understood?  Particularly in the case of Britain, where the population’s ability to understand, discuss and CRITICALLY WEIGH the pros and cons of sheer abstractions is declining, almost yearly?

The main problem here is the virtual invisibility of what Libertarianism means, for nearly everyone I meet: this goes for London just as much as Lancashire. (I’m not an intellectual and I don’t move in the circles of the educated intelligensia of either the “Right” or the “Left”

(2) How would (in the event of a decision to form a Libertarian party) it protect itself, its Officers and its adherents, from the inevitable and ferocious vilification – and worse – that must and will come from the now-embattled Statists? These will at that point realise that, in manichaean terms, this is Armageddon: the actual point of realisation by “The People” that they have been had all along, and that the Statists are rumbled for what they are.  If Statism is to survive in any form at all, then “The People” will have to be deselected, and a new one appointed – the changeover will be messy (for Statists have Hearts of Darkness, and they think we do also) and perhaps  – but I pray not – morally bloodsoaked, perhaps involving the ruin of the lives of prominent Libertarians.

Could there be enough people who have, essentially, nothing to lose and who trust each other implicitly, so that this could go forward? Or could the task be accomplished so fast that the British political compass reverses overnight? I personally am pessimistic, but I wonder what everyone else thinks.

Fundamental question; do Libertarians think it will be good or even useful for British ones to have political power?

This is the Boromir Question. Ought we to gain and use the political power lying around a modern state in order to limit and contain that state’s power, and hopefully reduce it long term?

Or the flipside is this; ought we to simply persuade “intellectuals” to persuade everybody else (including statists) that the right course is to let the existing machinery of tyrannisation, as used by statists, fall into disuse?

Will the Hog be persuaded to slaughter itself?

More on “If a British Libertarian Party was to exist and it won an election, what ought it to do? (Part 2)

The “British Libertarian Party’s” defence and foreign policy so far seems to be not very well-thought out. I got fairly scragged (see below) but not I think in an unkind way, which is a start.

However these are early days as there’s no party yet. At least we are having the discussions the right way round – get the plans and ideas sorted first, then find whether enough people agree with them to form a useful and finctional party – unlike today’s Tories, or indeed anybody on the UK political party scene for that matter. I’d call ours a market-based approach to politics.

What about educasun educashun educashun? (What real people call education)? I’m sure most Libertarians would agree that as the State degrades everything it touches, there ought to be no compulsory State education as of now, let alone the perniciously Marxist thing called a “National Curriculum”.

I’ve just started to (try to) educate a young girl of 13 who’s been not just excluded but “expelled” (I didn’t know it was still allowed!) so that “no state school in the region will take her”. We’ve jointly torn up the NC, her mum, her and I, and she’s starting to look you in the eye and react to stuff she’s taught, for the first time for three years. She actually looks forward to the lessons now.

But what I’m interested in, for this blog, is ideas from all you thinkers out there about HOW TO GET PAST THE SOCIALIST RETORT that “you have to have compulsory education (centrally run, which is always implied if not said) otherwise nobody will go to school let alone pay for it”. It’s the same thing re the NHS as “what about the poor?”

Clearly, the entire existing educational state bureaucracy would have to be demolished. As not all state teachers are Marxists, however, there seems no reason to do anything other than formally sack them all wholesale (that is to say, cease sending them state salaries by bank transfer – easy since we will have stopped raising the requisite amounts by taxation anyway) leave the buildings in place, and tell them all to get students/fend for themselves/run the schools as best they can.

In the general panic they will suddenly discover what it is that parents have wanted their children taught all along, and will provide it pronto. The universities, already with the gubmint’s teeth in their ankles, will breathe a sigh of relief and be able to go back to admitting the best instead of the designated.

Over to you people………….?

If a British Libertarian Party was to exist, and it won an election, what ought it to do? (Part 1)

David Davis 

If a minimal state had functions, what would they be? Has to be – protection of the Life, the Liberty and the ability to trade, give and dispose of Property, without Let or Hinderance.

If I was to assume such a victory, we can envisage with it the disappearance of the UK Political Class (what Sean Gabb broadly dubs the Enemy Class) which would of course have practically no useful function any more under a Libertarian administration.

Then the remaining primary functions of any importance can only be in the areas of foreign policy towards other existing states, and defence; since war is the diplomacy-method of a state when carried on by open means. We have to assume that these other states are still presumably non-libertarian and therefore potentially hostile, given the prevailing desire of Enemy Classes to replicate themselves, since all power is delightful, and absolute power is absolutely delightful. It would be interesting to analyse exactly how a Libertarian state, if that is not an oxymoron, would go to war if it needed to, except in self-defence. However there are precedents which ought to be considered, such as the entry into WW1 and WW2 by the British Empire.

A Libertarian administration with a good Parliamentary majority ought therefore to increase defence spending very much. Since “allies” will be hard to find, there ought to be no pretence of “creating jobs” by selling good weapons technology to “customers round the world”. Israel is an embattled case in point, which makes good technology for itself, and does not even sell it to the Jordanians, who are as good neighbours as it seems possible to be to poor Israel in the current circumstamces. (I am not saying Israel is libertarian, far from it.)

No statist nation on the planet ought to be able to sleep 100% easy in its political class’s beds at night, on the basis that that any UN-jumpingupanddown-gangster-cheerleadered assaults on a Libertarian UK would bring instant and terrible anihilation to the jumperupanddowners, the flagburners and the AK47dischargersintotheair. (Would we even need, or want, a flag? For the enemy to burn? Who cares? This is 2007 and our “ships”, whatever they might be, could see each other across the word on-screen in the dark…) The economic benefits of Libertarian “economic policy” (also an oxymoron!)  would signal like a lighthouse to the oppressed peoples of the UN-nations (I assume we would leave the UN straight away and stop our payments?) why their current situation is hideous and inhuman, why it’s the fault of “their” own Enemy Classes, and also what can and ought to be achieved instead for them and by themselves if they had the power and the will.

A Free People would be much better at war than a state. Look on the works of the English for 14 centuries, you statists, and despair. (Now.) I’m not trying to be proud of what poor old nice misguided socialist Dennis Healey called “glorying in slaughter” but winning seems to be the general prerogative of the side that allows the most creativity to its people.

This role was supposed to be America’s, the “City On A Hill”. She was our First Child, and not just the oldest republic in the world, and it was a grand and noble try, and it nearly worked. But the Enemy Class rumbled us while we were either bust, or asleep.  So, given the deep and possibly irrevocably unremediable Gramsco-Marxian corruption of both its major parties by “intellectuals”, we can count out for now a statist America. Politically, Libertarians would be Alone In The World. (Er, most of us probably don’t mind anyway.) (Some people have even said that (some of us) are autistic!)

As to general foreign policy, what ought that to mean? Only that we consider events in the light of what action would be in our own people’s best interest – as represented to @their@ gubmint (I suppose that would have to be us…..What a blasted bummer…) This raises all sorts of problems even in the Libertarian Alliance – not a good sign. I have never failed to support our involvement, with our allies the Americans, the Australians, the Poles, the Spanish (for a bit?)  etc,  in the Iraq war for example, whereas Sean Gabb has always bravely opposed it and has always stated that it would end in disaster if conducted in the present way.

All right. This puts up for discussion the problem of what a Libertarian society does with regard to conflict with other (non-Libertarian) societies. How ought it to be resolved? Comments please! Someone must be reading this stuff……

There are of course minor proximal matters, such as the EU. I expect we’d all agree that the UK , if intact, ought to leave immediately. if it’s not intact, than England ought to. Comments please!

Could a British Libertarian party encompass conservative positions?

Further to my yesterday’s stuff, I wondered in the night what sort of people would vote for a “Libertarian Party” if there was one.

The wholesale wrecking of United Kingdom political tradition and arrangements, by this “New” “Labour” series of adminisrations, in what I can only suppose to be an act of calculated revenge on the English People for daring to teach Mankind how to live well and in peace, has both fuelled almost universal cynicism about politics (a bad thing) and has left very large numbers of voters disenfranchised. These are broadly conservative; that is to say they have English attitudes to issues, morality and epistemology (even if most of them don’t know what the word means) unlike the present Political Class which has spent the past 10 years forcing its own arrangements into place.

I am eternally unconvinced about the majority of “socialists” who “become” Libertarians. Sorry, but my own experience of many leads me to believe that the “conversion” involves the dumping of much Marxist baggage, but many rotting residues remain in the dark corners of the Soul. Chronic green-ness – in that a belief that “society” or the “State” stil has some role to play in resource use and allocation, is often difficult if not impossible to eradicate, for example.

So it’s probable that a Libertarian franchise owuld have to come from the present disenfranchised voters. I have a few thoughts about what a party’s policy position ought to be, mainly on the defence and foreign affairs front os far, and will put them up here shortly. but I invite comments from readers about this and other areas.

“Does Britain need a Libertarian Party?” – what I should have added!

You cna find the details on the LA website under the “Chris R Tame Memorial Prize”.

“Does Britain need a Libertarian Party?”

Interetsing question. With “New” “Labour” (or is it just “Labour” now? I can’t keep track) heading for one-nation-oligarchy, the Lib-Dem franchise imploding into the newly-left-wing/green Tories, and the Tories becoming irrelevant, the choice facing any voter who thinks is between statism and, er, more statism, or about the same amount, or perhaps slightly less…or more, or, well, thereabouts. You either have to vote for members of the Political Class, or, er, well, nobody (unless you don’t care that the nobodies for whom you vote are going to lose their deposits anyway).

Voting for nobody is what more and more people are doing actually. It is a tragic waste, and represents criminal destruction (probably deliberate) of a noble and ancient franchise, that – unlike the operating franchise in most of the 200-odd “democracies” which rant at us in the “United” “Nations”  actually used to mean something.

At least voting is not compulsory here (yet). I dread to think of the volume of spoiled ballot papers that (I hope) would result from this move. Apart from the mockery this will make of liberal democracy by secret ballot in the eyes of the world, in the nation that invented it in its modern form, the Political Class will no doubt then find a way of tracking who did what in the polling booth. Recent ballot papers I have spoiled used are already coded with a number which is tagged to your name in the electoral roll, which I find sinister and alarming, and which should be terminated right away.

It seems to me that there must exist a large and growing polity whose political concerns are quite unrepresented.  Chris Tame was always against forming a Libertarian party, for he said we would fight each other and not the enemy, or words to that effect, which was probably a sound observation of human nature when there existed a broadly pro-capitalist Conservative Party which could be captured. If Chris was living at this hour, I think he would have come to a different opinion. 

But success from worthwhile capture is no longer the case – just gaze…fior a moment…upon David Cameron and his “advisers”, and his mottley crue of shadow-ministers with the possible exception of my namesake, and despair. That lot is no longer worth trying to capture, for it has no working machinery worth the name. The very brand “Conservative” has been effectively lynched both by Tony Blair, cleverly, and by the manifest failings of John Major’s administration, which even Paul Johnson abhorred. (Read Paul’s paeans of praise to Tony Blair in 1995/1996/early 1997…somewhere…I have not time to search for you today.) “Conservative” has joined words such as “capitalism”, “spokesman”, “waiter”, “Victorian”, “British”, “chairman”, and the like – they cannot be uttered or discussed in polite conversation, unless you are deliberately planning to insult somebody or to stand out as an oddity on the prevailing hegemony of PC discourse. See Sean Gabb’s writings for much sharper analysis of these matters.

Sean Gabb has put up a £1,000 essay prize, entitled “Does Britain Need A Libertarian Party?” You can find the rules of entry on the Libertarian Alliance website, here. Time is short as you have to mail your entries, typed, by the end of this month! But please do, for Libertarians would like to arrive at some sort of a position on this issue, and quite soon!

 Get writing!

Anti-Western post-educationalists (in the West sadly) confuse class size data with usefulness.

The wobbly-Torygraph, which sadly is all we have as we can’t trust the Maily Dail to do news,since it needs “two-(false)-health-scares-affecting-women-a-week” in order to keep its “circulation” pumped up, states today that “Britain trails even Slovenia in state school class sizes.” Front page stuff! 

Apart from being a slightly sideswiped and subliminal insult to poor little Slovenia, which has done nothing bad to the world recently and which is a perfectly nice small country that has friendly relations with us as far as I know, this is a non-sequitur which is worse.

Every teacher who is honest would say that class sizes are not in themselves a problem. Yes, it is very nice and warm-making that in most private schools classes are between one and four pupils, and this of course has its benefits, but then of course 1-2-1 tutoring as originally practised in the Two Universities (that is to say, groups up to say 3 or 4 today) also has its benefits. As a teacher you can’t go to sleep; and if you are boring your students, you know about it quite fast.

The problems with Britain are as follows, and the gubmint knows it but cannot say so;

(1) The curriculum, especially in “primary” “schools”, has been suffused with socialism and has been feminized; both for a well-defined strategic-political reason – the destruction of English cultural memory and historiography. “Science” is all about healthy eating and not taking (your) car to school, and Maths is about making a coloured poster of “endangered birds”, whose fault it is (yours!) and how many there are. History is about the “Slave Trade” and how the “British” ran it and drove it. (My boy’s been doing slavery for two weeks this term and for four last Summer.) This approach makes it (a) boring and (b) especially boring to boys and (c) mendacious. Children are likely to gaze out of the window, or throw things, or smoke cigarettes behind the recycling-bins, especially if male.

(2) There is no money except for more bureaucrats and more whiteboards and computers. This is a substitute for teaching, not an aid to it. Therefore classes tend towards the large side. General discipline falls by the wayside as a result, largely due to the colossal tedium of the subject matter, and coupled with the ineptitude of its commanded delivery-style.

Korea, Chile, Japan, Turkey, Israel, Brazil. These all have larger average class sizes than we do. Do you think these nations’ parents would tolerate silliness from either the children, or the bureaucrats concerned? No. The quality of learning depends on what you learn and whether it has value (such as perhaps in Korea) or no value (such as in a typical English State primary – with of course honourable exceptions sometimes) and whether your prevailing family culture supports the idea of learning in schools, or it does not.

Governments should not underwrite banks. People should. In GOLD we trust.

It’s interesting that “new” ‘Labour” has a prime minister now, who, while continuing to remain the same physical person as he was always before, has done all the following things:

Firstly, he has @windfall-taxed@ banks and other firms which he thought were electorally unpopular, and then mulcted pension funds of #5-billion a year since he came to office as chancellor. The combined marginal depradation of pension assets he has caused, is variously estimated at #150-#200+ billion (Sterling) – that would have been available to fund pension liabilities that are now outstanding, and which would instead have funded capital growth and industrial/commercial investment.

Instead, it has gone on buying the votes of a stalinist-salariat, the first to exist in a modern liberal Western nation in peacetime. 

(I am typing on a strange machine and I can’t find the Pound-Sterling key at all.)

Secondly, he has publicly declared that the gumment (it is a gun at the head of the BoE) will underwrite northern Rock’s depositors.

Do socialists like Banks or not? Or do they just like socialist banks in the North East of England, where Blair’s constituency (was)?

If poor Northern Rock with its smiling CEO has done some rum deals in buying dodgy @securitized packages@ from rather smooth guys who were not socialists and who therefore knoew what was happening, and so if it is now strapped, then that is the problem of the depositors who backed it. They can, along with shareholders who will presumably support them, fire the board and sell what is left. In a real Market, those guys would never get jobs in financial services again.

If, however, Broon is prepared to force @his@ central bank to underwrite it, then why not for every institution in the same or potentially a similar position? We can be fairly sure there are others. You  don’t win career points in today’s job markets in large companies by following a line that’s against the current, prevailing herd-instinct; this instead makes you unemployable. just think of the goloal warm-mongers and what they have done to scientists who are what they call @contrarians@.

So! Whose depositors will Broon guarantee next…?

I have not my F A Hayek books directly to hand, but he said something about this kind of stuff.

Now Sean Gabb on the Wireless

Well having sent out the announcement re David Carr, I can now say that I shall be on the same station at midnight. I have been booked to discuss the fraudulent claim that half the population wants tougher penalties against people who drop litter in public. It seems that the beastly health fascists who gave us the smoking ban are upset that people continue to smoke outside enclosed “public” places, and so are getting up a clamour about dogends in the street. I will try to be polite to whatever creep is sent on to defend this, but I expect I shall fail.

Do try to tune in.


Station: BBC Radio Five (
On air: 909khz medium wave
Time: Midnight BST, Sunday the 16th September 2007
Programme: Stephen Nolan Live phone-in on the main stories of the day
Call free on 0500 909 693 or text 85058 [network rates apply]
Send E-mail to
Text to 85058

As said, please do try to tune in. Also, please do send in e-mails and texts of support, and consider calling the programme to voice your support. Bear in mind that the usual callers to these programmes are fools or lefties. It’s up to you to provide the balance!

“I only ask because I want to know”. A 5p bottle of State-champagne-substitute (or 4 grillion State alcohol-free-drink-coupons) to the first bolg-responder who correctly identifies and places my title-quote.

I do like this one from Jackie Danicki. Reprinted here in full as it’s good, and you don’t have to click stuff.

Inquiring minds want to know

September 12th, 2007

Have you ever had people look at you with a “Please stop inquiring” panic in their eyes while their mouths tell you that you are asking irrelevant or silly questions about something? Join the club. This is a good thing:

[T]he most important [thing I learnt at Oxford] was the ability to ask ’stupid’ questions, as in very simple questions, which often go to the heart of the problem and ferret out inconsistencies. With that comes the confidence to ask when things don’t make sense. Even when everyone else is looking like they know what’s going on. There is a touch of irreverence and disruption in that. And it maximises your chances of coming up with the right answer.

I would say this is a habit that is useful especially when everyone else is looking like they know what’s going on. Those are often the times when the crowd is swimming in BS, and disturbing them can make for all sorts of fun and revelation. This is not a path to popularity, but – more importantly – it will attract others who have no time for all that BS either. Why would you want to be popular with those who do?

Now then! Doesn’t that just tell us everything we want to know about the global-warm-mongers? And the anti-slavery lobby (Libertarians will know that it’s still going on by the way, and the Royal Navy, trashed by Brown, still gets no credit for attenuating it thanklessly for nearly 200 years, now typically off the coasts of Indian Ocean countries that I can’t mention.)

David Carr on BBC Radio Sunday Evening – 16th September 2007

David Carr, Director of Legal Affairs for the Libertarian Alliance, will be on BBC Radio Five this evening (Sunday the 16th September 2007) after 10:00pm BST. He will be talking about the Human Rights Act, and the desire of our political class to act without any legal constraints.

This will be a quality performance. Do try to tune in.


Station: BBC Radio Five (
On air: 909khz medium wave
Time: 10:00pm BST, Sunday the 16th September 2007
Programme: Stephen Nolan Live phone-in on the main stories of the day
Call free on 0500 909 693 or text 85058 [network rates apply]
Send E-mail to
Text to 85058

As said, please do try to tune in. Also, please do send in e-mails and texts of support, and consider calling the programme to voice your support. Bear in mind that the usual callers to these programmes are fools or lefties. It’s up to you to provide the balance!

Our new political masters; or are they perhaps not as new as Oborne thinks after all? The Enemy Class studied.

Peter Oborne in this week’s Spectator, has a goodish piece on what he calls the new Political Class. It’s OK and a useful read, but Sean Gabb has done much more research, over a longer time, on this phenomenon. Sean’s piece entitled “not socialism but post-socialism; the nature of the enemy” (free Life Commentary 113, 13th October 2003) treats the whole subject of an new type of arising “Enemy Class” in Britain rather better and in more detail. I recommend it as a good intro to the subject, and also his new book “Cultural Revolution and Culture War; how the Conservstives lost England and how to get it back.” You can find a link direct to this on Sean’s pages.

This stuff ought to matter to Libertarians and also liberals (that is also to say, conservatives) as opposed to Conservatives which is what David Cameron thinks he is in charge of. Why does he not go the whole Blairite hog and call his depleted caucus “New Conservatives”?

“NEOCONS” is actually the right etymology for him, but I suspect he would not like that very much, as that word has already been lynched by the people he says he is trying to defeat.

And this is also excellent; it analyses the Enemy Class directly. Sean again.

Laptop trouble

I don’t share Brian Micklethwait’s creditable, enthusiastic but naive fascination with gadgets such as roll-up-and screw-in-pocket paper or bendy-little-computers, etc etc. I think they will prove too ephemeral even for the teenagers who will want them, dissolving away in the rain and suchlike. 

The last few days, my work-HP laptop, built like a tank as laptops go these days, and that’s not saying a lot really, now fails to boot properly and will go back to Chindia or someplace where clever young chaps with screwdrivers etc can make it go again, and enable me to restart my life. I’ve borrowed Mrs D’s but for how long?

Therefore, bolging “will be light”, for a little time, in the words of Guido Fawkes, who always seems to know what the power-crazed monkeys are up to in the monkey-house at Westmonster.

Go to the Torygraph “your view” today. Nobody likes “Zak”, or is it “Zac”? Why don’t we facebook him?

David Davis (yet again….doh!!!)

Here is what the otherwise-wobbly Torygraph kindly published from me today. I could not deny it to you, my bolg-reader, now, could I, as I’m such a vain creature!

Petrol should be priced in gallons (nearly £5 and rising!) to show how damned expensive it now is. I remember when it was four shillings (a gallon.) Then, we can ask what the dickens the gumment is doing with the 90% of it that’s tax revenue already.So long as it’s legal to own any kind of car, any other measure to distort the market for cars implies that people are the gumment’s farm-animals. And we see today what it does to those it does not like, when they have the equivalent of a cold (from which they will mostly recover, like people.)

And no, our “resources” are not running out. That is so much marxist-leninist-anti-Western claptrap, taught as part of the “national curriculum” in schools, so as to make today’s teens more compliant towards the gumment and its plans to kick us back into the 10th century, where it wants us to belong; much easier to manage an immobile population!

“Zac” Goldsmith is I am sure a nice young man, but he should learn to enjoy his wealth quietly, as is his right. He should stick to running a few businesses if that pleases him, or also go after a few pretty girls like his father did very successfully, if he wants to do that too and if he can find someone nice. (SEX. SEX. SEX. Well there you are – I’ve artificially-edited that in to get more hits and trackbacks to us here at the LA blog….this black type here did NOT appear in the Torygraph, so there!)

Then we the people, who need not be his concern as we don’t need it, thanks, and who need to buy food quickly in large amounts for our families, at out-of-town-supermarkets, using largish cars, need not worry about what he thinks. This I think would have been the view of the Sainted Auberon Waugh, today.

LA News Release on “Green Feudalism”

In Association with the Libertarian International
Release Date: Thursday 13th September 2007
Release Time: Immediate

Contact Details:
Dr Sean Gabb (Director), 07956 472 199,

For other contact and link details, see the foot of this message
Release url:


The Libertarian Alliance, the radical free market and civil liberties policy institute, today denounces the Conservative Party report Blueprint for a Green Economy as a “blueprint for green feudalism”.

Libertarian Alliance Director, Dr Sean Gabb, says:

“The Conservatives are proposing more taxes and more regulations on the basis of fraudulent claims about the impact of human activity on the climate. There is no global warming. If there is, it is not our doing. If it is our doing, government action is not the answer. But there is no global warming. This whole set of claims is a device to rescue socialism from the failure of its promise to deliver heaven on earth. Shame on the Conservatives for joining in the clamour.

“And shame, above all, on the very rich men who are telling us to tighten our belts in their attempt to ‘save the planet’. Zac Goldsmith, one of the authors of this Report, is one of the richest men in the country. David Cameron and John Gummer are not poor. If all the economic growth of the past century were to be rolled back, their sort would not suffer. If the rich want to travel, they have their private jets and helicopters. If they want to eat fresh fruit and vegetables out of season, they have their vast greenhouses. If they want to do without washing machines and gas-fired central heating, they can fall back on armies of servants and expensive personal generators. If they want entertainment, they can have their private theatres and orchestras, or whatever in our degraded modern culture serve in their place.

“For them, a reduction of the general wealth would be a blessing. It would ease pressure on the roads that they would continue using, and reduce numbers at exotic holiday resorts that would remain within their reach.

“These people talk about making the world a better place. Perhaps they believe what they say. The natural effect of their words, however, would be to make the world a better place for people who have done nothing to earn their wealth other than take the trouble to be born.

“This whole report is a blueprint for green feudalism.”

The Libertarian Alliance believes:

  • That taxes and government regulations are bad:
  • That economic growth is good;
  • That the world will be a better place when every home in India and China has the same levels of income and consumption as North America and Western Europe;
  • That the world will be a much better place when the continued scientific and technological improvement that freedom makes possible have enabled us to establish colonies on the inner planets and in the asteroid belt, and when the conquest of disease has allowed the human lifespan to be extended to centuries;
  • That Messrs Goldmsith & Co should live as their ancestors did – whoring, drinking, gambling, hunting and being beastly to their servants – and leave the rest of us alone.


Sean is Not Retiring!

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the
Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 165
13th September 2007
Ten years of Being Perhaps Three Quarters Right
by Sean Gabb
The other day, I sent out an issue of Free Life Commentary that suggested I was about to give up on political writing. If I really did suggest that—and I do seem to have done so!—I apologise. All I meant to say was that I was about to become very busy with other matters, and that I might have less time than usual for political writing. Those who were led to fear or hope that I was planning to shut up were misled….

More at:

More regulation and behaviour-control. Now “Zak” (or is it “Zac”?) wants to tax your “gas-guzzler”, for you not to drive to Tesco in it.

It gets worse.

Today, “Zak” or maybe it’s “Zac”, says that we should all pay more for our “4×4″s, and other “gas-guzzlers”, several times over; at point of sale, in VAT and in petrol excise duty. (I don’t own one by the way, I am poor. we have a smallish 6-year-old people-mover, in which when you press the go-pedal, nothing happens for a bit, then by about October you put on a few mph.) Not content with proposing to let the Soviets charge for parking easily at the only places where these poor people can buy food quickly and cheaply, these new “Conservatives” want to distort the market for vehicles.

I think it’s time not only to not try to take over the “Conservative” party, but to actively oppose it in its newly-acquired greenazi attire, at every opportunity. As a Libertarian, I have never failed to vote in any election at all since 1970, it being our temporary duty (until such time as the State Shall Wither Away) to try to mitigate the pernicious effects of marxism/leninism and the fatal attraction it holds for (nearly all) our wannabe rulers here. but it’s time to vote for someone else.

What do readers think? 

No free Out-of-Town parking for poor-people to go and buy food. Statists and Tyrannids expose their real agenda: no matter what party.

David Davis 

Yesterday, the “Conservatives” announced via his Majesty “Zak” Goldsmith, that the Tories will allow Soviets (that’s a giveaway about their new-found crypto-Nazism for a start) to “charge for parking at out-of-town shopping centres.

(I doubt whether “Zak” has been to any of these places in his life. I don’t grudge him his fortune, for he has earned it by virtue of being his father’s son as is right and proper, and I owuld not tax him a penny of the capital if you paid me, but he should stick to being a rich-man, lie back and enjoy it, get out more and run a few companies and also keep up the family tradition by having sex with a lot of pretty girls if that pleases him, and keep his green nose out of poor-people’s affairs.)

Let’s analyse this proposal from a monetarist point of view.

Succesive British socialist gumments, such as Labour and Conservative ones, have allowed local Soviets to acquire a notion of their own importance. This is a grave error. Nothing could be less the concern of jumped-up local busibody wannabe-stasi bureaucrats, than the state of the roads, rubbish-collection, street lighting, the police, and the like. These are so important that they ought to be left to sovereign individuals to organise. As in the USA, they might choose to regularly elect and dismiss all the officials concerned, or they might not. I do not know. Or as traditionally in the UK, they might leave it to Parish Councils, who will consist of retired colonels and old ladies, whose concern – stemming from their lives and occupations, such as bringing up children and soldiering, is to agree to do what is right, rather than what appeases the maximum number of marxist-(de)-educated journalists and “pressure-groups”, which are a Nazi notion.


Local Soviets are now so powerful, and have got their teeth so deeply into the ankle of tax-gathering, local newspsper PR and lobbying, that they run armoured black limousines with private plates, and have “Cabinets”. They have even arrived at the notion that they own roads and public highways, and that they have property rights in these that they can sell and deny (that is to say, for parking, or not parking, as is increasingly the case.)


First we have the tragedy of denial of vehicle access to “town centres”, which the Soviet Gauleiters say are “congested”. The effect of this is to deny trade to “local businesses”, which the same Gauleiters say, in another photo-op somewhere else, that they want to support. The Gauleiters meanwhile, in the shadow of DEFRA’s destruction of farming, are allowing “planning applications”, whatever those might really be, for the building of out-of-town shopping facilities (with parking of course, for how else will you get there?) for the busy stressed subjects of their rule, who can no longer find the time or patience to try and park in the town centres, when they really need crucials groceries…now. This is except for non-critical leisure and tourism purposes at other times (explains the proliferation of “Godwhattery” shops, and the death of food stores. (Ask me what Godwhattery is, if you like!) Now we also know why there is a bogus degree course called “Leisure and Tourism” – it’s to engender belief in and support for local Gauleiters, their supposed “occupations”, and their “concerns”….


So we’ve made it next to impossible to conduct normal trade or business in town centres, and we’ve got a revenue-stream from the parking of those that brave it. This is to be spent of course on “improving public transport links”, but you just try doing a weekly shop for a family of four by bus!


Everybody who can, shops by car at the new Tesco (the successful one, the one held up by the mediarazi for you to hate and boo at.) The rest of you, the old and alone and sick, well, if you can’t get to Tesco, and you can’t struggle on the infrequent bus to the town centre if there ARE any grocers left there, well, er, why don’t you just go and die?


In the nick of time to save the world, along comes “ZAK”! He suggests that you are to be charged for parking out of town also, ostensibly to discourage you from using your car because the world is in mortal peril, (because of your 4×4, or your Y-reg Mondeo more likely, and not his) and also “to fund inproved public transport links”.

Now then!

If we are not careful, we may find that “Zak”, the new Tory wonder-weapon, has contracted an infectious form of “Prince-Charles-Disease” – perhaps we should call it acute Windsorrhoea – a quasi-paranoid condition in which the sufferer believes that everyone except him has “an obession with cheap food”. It is a syndrome contracted by fortunate and well-off males who try to attract the public gaze. There is currently thought to be no cure for this, except poverty and bankruptcy.

There’s no point trying to coat-tail Prince Charles on this one. Gordon Brown already bought and paid for his soul the other week when he (GB) was cleverly not at the Highland Games. It was a deal worth upsetting the more quisling tabloids’ photographers for.

People need to buy food, even in a Nazi police state, otherwise there will be no people for the gumment to dissolve and re-elect, every time a 5-year-plan fails. To pay the taxation-level, and the other Soviet imposts, the “people” need to work much harder. They can’t go traipsing gaily all day round “little local grocers” with a basket-on-arm, and then queue to buy “fresh locally-grown produce” (even if they liked it! Perhaps they don’t – has anyone thought of that? What about turkey-twizzlers without which millions will truly starve? No, I’m really really NOT being funny here) and hope to either collect their children from school in time and make ends meet too.

Out of town shopping centres are the local heroes of “ordinary people”. Dave Cameron and his new super-“Zak” will shoot themselves in the foot if they go ahead with this one. Good, I say. To hell with them. As the 1950s play said (I think it was “Look Back in Anger”)………………

“I’m all right Jack, I’ll pull up the ladder and never mind you.”


This is not the 1950s, even here in the North, where at least we don’t have Ken Livingstone I don’t even begin to imagine how you poor buggers cope down South, where the Stalinists in charge in Westmonster don’t like you ‘cos they think you all vote Tory, and so they want to concrete you over.

I pray for you sometimes.

Sean Gabb on Leadership

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 164
11th September 2007

Before Signing off, Some Reflections
on the Failure of Political Leadership
by Sean Gabb

I have written nothing on politics in over two months. For
reasons that I think it would be tasteless to broadcast in
advance, my home circumstances seem about to change so
profoundly that I am not sure how much time I shall have
for political writing of any kind. This may, therefore, be
my last Free Life Commentary for a while. Bearing in mind
the date, I could write about the American Bombings of
September 2001. But I really have nothing to say about
these and the consequent wars that I have not said many
times already. Besides, just about everyone else is
writing about these things; and I am vain enough to think
myself a soloist and not part of a chorus. And so I will
write about what I see as the main failure of political
leadership in this country since the forced retirement of
Margaret Thatcher in November 1990….

 Read the whole of this article at:-

A nice bookshop in the North.

Readers of books, those increasingly rare items and indeed less and less seen in school and “college” libraries in England, might like to visit Parkinsons bookshop in Lord Street, Southport, Lancashire.

It is conveniently almost next door to a giant megalithic Waterstones, that you can go into if you must, and in the words of the Scousers down the road, “AVV   ‘A   LUFF”.  Not only at the Waterstonyfaced, bepierced vegetarian assistants of indeterminate sex, with intense countenances, but also at the “modern” book displays, mainly of fiction-authors of whom you have not heard before, and about whom you suddenly feel inadequately-well-read. There is a Monsoon in the middle where you can leave your wife or girfriend, while you converse with Tony Parkinson in the proper bookshop, which we call the University of Southport.

Parkinsons, unlike Waterstones, does not sell new books; but you can find titles that you thought had disappeared from the face of the earth long ago. Not much Libertarian stuff, but as all libertarians are always interested in many, many varied things, there is much to delight.

As well as minerals and fossils (he does not “do”  examples of socialism or death-cults, sorry!) he is a good source of “lab gems” to please your intended. That is to say, perfect and chemically-correct artificial copies of stones such as ruby, sapphire, emerald, aquamarines, etc; some very large like half-an-inch or more, or about 100+ carats, for prices 50 to 1,000 times lower than the much rarer mined stones. (More than 90% of all non-diamond precious jewellery stones sold retail in jewellers are lab-synthesised; the technology has been well understood for nearly 8 decades.) Expect to pay around £10 for a nice ruby, or zirconium silicate “diamond” 3-4mm across, or only £150 for a 3/4-inch oval emerald.

Libertarians like bookshops, especially if run by slightly unusual characters with “angles” on things. Parkinsons is great. And you’ll be glad you rubbernecked round the town and along the beach at the same time. (There are other bookish places too; if you have time, go into Kernaghan’s nearby in Wayfarers Arcade, while you are there. More expensive. If you are lucky, the local Soviet will have reinstated the statue of Dan Dare, a Manchester lad drawn and characterised by Frank Hampson, a Southport man.)

I was wrong (see below about 9/11.) We are not quite all alone in the darkness.

UPDATE:- THe article in the original link has been removed as noted by a commentator. This is what’s left.

Posted by David Davis 

Martin Amis in the Times has this on 9/11, and what we face still. Highly readable.

UPDATE:_ From now on, where potentially interesting stuff which the Enemy Class may find contentious is cited, we shall use our hard disk space on WordPress to store it _in full_ for further syndication, should it get censored by the original publisher.

Today is 9/11-2007. Poor lost little girl drives titanic ongoing world war off front pages of all British newspapers. A good day to bury bad news.

Posted by David Davis

You get the drift.

First, I believe sincerely that all Libertarians know whose side they are on in the (currently mis-named-on-purpose) War on us. Those of you who would like further discussion, or are unconvinced about what I mean, are invited cordially to mine our publications on the Libertarian Alliance website archive. (All you have to do is click on “Libertarian Alliance Publications” on the blue sidebar on the main page, and you’ll find all that your heart could desire, under political, philosphical, foreign policy, cultural and religious notes.)

Then, I would heartily recommend everyone who missed it the first time round, to read Mark Steyn’s piece written just after the 9/11 assaults on us.

A few people will have noticed that the entirety of the “Second-World-War-episode’s” active campaigning phase from 1939 to 1945 (being just a part of the far, far longer  – and ongoing – war against Western Enlightenment, sovereign individuality, reason and Science) will fit just comfortably inside the days from 9/11/01 to today.

All this goes on round us. Yet, practically the entire British press media including the ideologically-wobbly Torygraph) and except the Guardian which leads with a pre-shot 9/11-anniversary-video of the dead Bin Laden – predicably as we and the USA are its arch-whipping-boys) splashes the story that there is “a 100% DNA match” between a poor little lost girl whose name we all now know sadly too well, and some specs of “dried blood” in a hire car.

I despise, and I disrate, conspiracy-theorists, chiefly on account of their almost universal adherence to the West’s enemies, such as the belief for example that 9/11 was an “inside job” and that “Jews were all told to stay away on that day”, and that “Americans shot the Moon landings in a studio” in somewhere-or-other. Or that “crop circles” have their “true Gaian origins” hidden “by the Government” and are not in fact the work of hash-crazed failed Wessex picture-framers, with specially-made radial-flattener-jigs. (We are too busy in the North to even scratch our own arses or yours, let alone go out at night and vandalize our friends’ fields of grain. We need our beauty-sleep to fight wars with.)

However, even I could be forgiven for suspecting the motives for the total wiping of the 6th anniversary of the enemy’s opening-campaign-phase-2001, against us.

If we allow ourselves, in the luxury of our technically-driven isolation from the current effects of, and the consequences that flow from, this War: then, if we continue to concern ourselves, obsessively from minute to minute, with flawed ephemeral celebrities, and with the private but photogenic and intensely bathetic concerns of families suffering personal torment: if we shift our focus from mortal threats to the (imperfect but bearable) civilisation that we live in: then what comes after will be an environment lethal to Libertarian thought and discussion.

In non-Libertarian societies, it’s your obligation (unto death, literally) to remember what they tell you to. In (relatively) free ones, forgetting unpleasant things, such as the government, the glory of its plans and the universal paradise they (will) bring, is allowed. But sometimes, when your civilisation is on its uppers through failure to defend the borders and push them further out, managed forgetting is bad. There’s no point in Libertarianism if being thought to be one carries the death penalty, or worse.

More on nationalized grieving. And not just poor old persecuted Liverpool this time.

Posted by David Davis

Barrybeelzebub has a good insight from his 2nd September 2007 bolg-entry. Rather than just trashing the Scousers down the road – and I have tried today to explain (see below) why it’s not all their own fault, for they have been serially abused and duped by Socialists, Euro-Europeans, left-wing-Conservatives and other even less nice types of non-Libertarians – Barry lays the main blame at the door of the Dianaristas. Quite right too, but I fear that the rot had been setting in for some time. Florists nationwide would not have known they ought to gear up quite so quickly without notice; there’s the power of markets for you! Bet they cleaned up.

(Dr Sean Gabb has an interesting September-1997 link about defence of the monarchy, attached to a comment on my nationalization of grief post a few days ago, and you can also get it here.)

A good point Barry makes; why didn’t Winston Churchill, the one man whom future historians (not for now sadly, except possibly Andrew Roberts) can really say saved the world despite even being a statist of sorts, get a 10-year-memorial service?  

New Libertarian Alliance Publications

Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix…
or Did J.K. Rowling Ever Read Ayn Rand?
John Lalor
Cultural Notes No. 54

I admit it: I’m a fan. So far, I’ve read the first five books of the Harry Potter series. OK, so it’s not the most ingenious writing ever, and the concepts are hardly novel, but something that’s gotten kids reading adventure stories in such large numbers can’t be all that bad.

But there’s something more in these books. They bring kids back to a different time, in a land far, far away, where political correctness hadn’t been invented, and the health and safety industry hadn’t commenced destroying all semblance of risk, fun and excitement. Fighting, scheming and disobedience; a child having self-belief when all others take the easy option; the acknowledgement of good and evil; indeed, the mere existence of people of better and worse ability – all of these things are in serious danger of being subverted by the egalitarian, risk-free, moral-subjectivist agenda of the Nanny Statists….

More at

Epicurus: Father of the Enlightenment
Sean Gabb
Philosophical Notes No. 80

Epicurus (341-270 BC) was, with Plato and Aristotle, one of the three great philosophers of the ancient world. He developed an integrated system of ethics and natural philosophy that, he claimed and many accepted, showed everyone the way to a life of the greatest happiness. The school that he founded remained open for 798 years after his death. While it lost place during the last 200 of these years, his philosophy held until then a wide and often decisive hold on the ancient mind.

The revival of Epicureanism in the 17th century coincided with the growth of scientific rationalism and classical liberalism. There can be no doubt these facts are connected. It may, indeed, be argued that the first was a leading cause of the second two, and that we are now living in a world shaped, in every worthwhile sense, by the ideas of Epicurus….

More at

It’s true. There IS something creepy and grief-wallowing about Liverpool.

Posted by David Davis 

A few weeks ago, I wrote about this grand old city, now mired up to the nostrils and sinking, perhaps terminally, into the slough of State-sponsored euroculture-capitalism, and not the Libertarian sort. (Left-wing Soviets controlling it and its hinterland, and Stalinist MPs of various sorts, will not help.) What comes after 2008? Nobody seems to have a blinkiing clue! This is a pity, for Liverpool by its location and vistas has so much more going for it than say Manchester, down the road, where it rains lots more and you can’t see the sea and ships and stuff any more. There are even still lots of lovely Georgian and Victorian terraces which Two-Shags had not quite managed to ceaucesucize, before he was rumbled and had his extremities cut off. Lucky for him it was only that.

Very early this morning, I had perforce to visit Speke airport, to deliver some young flyers back to Poland. In the small-hours absence of traffic, and in the relative quiet of a half-empty terminal building, you have time to notice things: for example, how frequent and how fulsomely massive are the Liverpudlian roadside shrines, to muggees, dead-people, victims of RTAs and the like. In “John Lennon” airport, moreover, I spotted some developments not previously seen, which must have appeared over the past 2/3 months. I was upset and incensed……

Inside, on a vast, elevated architectural blank wall, at about third-floor-level for real-people, is inscribed the word “IMAGINE”…that paean to Western self-hate and inward demoralisation, the wimpishly-unformed ravings of a crazed madman, which has done probably as much damage inside two generations to this civilisation’s self-confidence in the face of the enemy as, perhaps the total anihilation of three divisions at Serre, on 1st July 1916.

On another vast blank Stalinist facade about 50 yards to the East are the words of “All we are saying, is “give peace a chance” “.  I could repeat my comments above, and you get what I think.

Then it goes on; there is yet another one, talking about the rantings of “pig-headed politicians……..(ending with) GIVE ME SOME TRUTH…” (I half-agree with the pig-headed bit except that it seems to imply that these pols are not intelligent and have no (iniquitous) objectives, which we all know is so far, so far from the truth!)  There was another one too, which I had not the time to run right down the length of the building to view.

Speke is a grand old airport. If the stalinist grief-wallowers who seem to control the poor place really madly deeply felt that they wanted to rename their airport, and pop music was all the city felt it had to be proud of, then why not call it “Beatles Airport”? “I’m landing at Liverpool Beatles” has more of a ring to it than “I’m landing at “Liverpool John Lennon”. The Beatles together, not one by one, helped to give a shot-in-the-arm to popular music in the 60s, not just Lennon, and they all came from Liverpool, not just him.

What’s wrong with “She loves you, YEAH! YEAH! YEAH!” on the upper walls, then?

What, indeed, is wrong with “It’s been a Hard Day’s Night”? More appropriate I would have thought, flippantly, to airport-delays.

And…..where does that leave the great Imperial shipping lines, that made Liverpool into the modern city that it nearly managed to stay being after WW2, despite the great bombing and despite the cleverer Southern Railway (which bought Southampton Docks in the 30s)?

“I’m landing at Liverpool WHITE STAR!” Now….THAT would sound cool.

No. Won’t do. They wouldn’t have any of this….too triumphal, too “sure of yourself”, too…….good. Smacks too much of bad elitist Imperial(ist) stuff like…..success.

Worse! There actually was a great deal of giant history behind this place, in which ordinary nobodies, just like you, did more than their duty, for years and years and years, and shone.

No….we can’t have you knowing that. Name the place after the saddo Beatle who got shot, and then died. in totalitarianistan, you must forget what you know, and remember what we tell you.

Boris Johnson was right. There IS an institutionalised sadness/death cult in this poor old city. The stalinists in charge don’t give a stuff, and have a vested interest in continuing it, as it’s a convenient way to extract dosh from the taxpayer, for their armoured black Jaguars etc. You can’t help partly letting the people off for agreeing to collectively wallow in it too, since their schools have been trashed along with their jobs and families, so they are currently living in darkness.

That’ll do. Michael Howard, although you didn’t know it, you did us all a service in making Boris pretend to eat humble pie on TV.

Sean Gabb on Epicurus

Epicurus (341-270 BC) was, with Plato and Aristotle, one of the three great philosophers of the ancient world. He developed an integrated system of ethics and natural philosophy that, he claimed and many accepted, showed everyone the way to a life of the greatest happiness. The school that he founded remained open for 798 years after his death. While it lost place during the last 200 of these years, his philosophy held until then a wide and often decisive hold on the ancient mind.

The revival of Epicureanism in the 17th century coincided with the growth of scientific rationalism and classical liberalism. There can be no doubt these facts are connected. It may, indeed, be argued that the first was a leading cause of the second two, and that we are now living in a world shaped, in every worthwhile sense, by the ideas of Epicurus.

 More at:

More on the Tory Party (Boris is the clever one, getting out honestly, so where’s that leave the others?)

Posted by David Davis 

The increasingly prevailing uselessness of the Tory party, still pretending as it does to act as a virtual-advertising-agency that is supposed to service the “Liberty” account, upsets me. As per my yesterday’s comments, here we have a quite large, potentially-capable polity-managing-machine, which used to be at least vaguely on the side of people running their own lives in an English-sort of Judaeo-Christian way, and it’s effectively broken and out of petrol. It was “The Natural Party of Government”, in a strict sense that applies to more-or-less-free Anglosphere Christian nations, and in the sense that “government” was a sort of minority activity, carried on by grandees and retired colonels largely without thought of personal gain, that impinged very little on the lives of ordinary people.

Today we have an ex-communist judge, Sir Stephen Sedley, braying for a DNA-database-4-all (see your Torygraph) and there seems so far to be no reaction from Dave – if a week is a long time in politics, then a couple of hours or overnight (I saw it last might) ought to be time to get some policy-wonks out of bed to throw a cutard pie or two and keep faith with the two remaining “core voters”.

Nothing so far at time of posting, from major Westminster Tories, saying that anything which increases State power over individuals rather than the reverse, is suspect on principle. You can understand Boris’s silence, for he is heading for the Door-Out-Of-Hell already. (I hope he wins, by the way. you must guess that Cameron wanted him out of the way, as a potential adversary.)

I may be wrong, but I can’t envisage a scenario in which the majority of even today’s British subjects could be in favour of this collectivist DNA idea.

Also, where are the denizenazis of the effectively-state-run tourism “industry”, who ought to be protesting at the notion that all visiting foreigners, even for a day or so, have to be on it too? This will of course do wonders for airport queues and tourism revenue!

Where do they make these people? “Universities”? If so, which ones? I hope he wasn’t at mine. May have to hand back my degrees.

Is it finally time for Libertarians to “capture the Conservative Party”? Or……….at least, what ought to be its proper voters in the Tory/Sociable-Demo/Labour folds?

Posted by David Davis

The late Chris Tame often used to say, in the early days of the Libertarian Alliance, that “we ought to capture the Tory party”. Some of us saw his point: for several years while living in Bedford I tried to influence the local Tories, and even got into trouble for publishing too-liberal stuff in the local newsletter (which I for a time controlled.) At the time, the advantages were obvious; socialism was moribund in the UK and in the Soviet Empire, the prevailing mood was one of Thatcherite optimism and deregulation, freedom was just around the corner for all, and Taki had held a great megabash to celebrate the “End of Communism” (a bit premature, with hindsight, just look at the EU.)

To a far-seeing planner like Chris, a major (no pun intended) remaining obstacle to the triumph of Liberty in the land that gave birth to it was the Tory party itself. Chris also thought that by influencing academics, writers and thinkers, the natural process of libertarianizing Western Politics would go apace……in time. Libertarians knew where they were going and where the world ought to go, and the Tories did not, well, not really: there was no danger of concentration camps any more (we thought?) from British Stalinists, and libertarianism had by then already captured the few intelligent socialists that existed out there in the darkness of the world.

Look at the situation today: a triumphant socialist administration that has stolen all the clothes of the soft-left-Tories, and that correctly anticipates on an almost daily basis what to steal next! This outfit has been in power for 10+ years, looks set to win the next election whether it be now or in say 2010, and may win again after that. The surviving parliamentary Tories themselves, vainly trying to secure their incomes until retirement and beyond, have now no more thoughts of even trying to pretend to adhere to conservative values (that is to say, liberal ones,) they continuously traduce Tory (that is to say, conservative) values and philosphy in an effort to fight the “last war”…..but the political horse has already bolted.

The Tories have indeed been out of power for generational-length times in the past – such as 130+ years ago – but that was when The Nation was substantially Tory for other non-political reasons. To be British was to be broadly conservative:

(1) You rose or fell by your own efforts,

(2) You agreed that poverty, deprivation and ingnorance were hideous because your civilisation and its free institutions were busy showing the nation and the world what was going to be achieved instead,

(3) You distrusted new-fangled philosphies and nostrums, mainly originating in Europe and Russia, both tortured and tormented lands in which (as in the 20th century and also now) no people except the Swiss have been spared all the horrors which Dante would have reserved for the damned.

(4) You saw that the policies able to be carried out by a minimalist state, whose staff then are now outnumbered by today’s staff of say, three of Liverpool’s Soviets, were bringing and would bring comfort, education and some alleviation of suffering to masses of people here and overseas, who had not previously known this level of security.

Poor Karl Marx got it so wrong; he could not understand why the British masses did not revolt. He was a European  – specifially a German, and therefore institutionally unable to comprehend what had happened here, and that he had “missed the bus”. Paul Johnson’s chapter on him in “Intellectuals”  – “Howling Gigantic Curses” – is illuminating.

The results of conservatism in Britain ought to give comfort then, to modern Libertarians seeking a political role, now that we are so close to a New Dark Age. Brown is no liberal conservative; you have only to read between the lines of his positively anodyne statements of his beliefs, to reveal, er……..nothing at all, other than that he’s going to do stuff to us. He’s a Great Planning Prime Minister, that’s all. That’s why he’s so good at shearing the legs away from the poor Tories every time they propose something, about an hour after he’s said it.  Simon Heffer (for Prime Minister – in default of Boris Johnson….) in today’s quisling-graph, analyses what’s now even more wrong with the way the Tories are conducting themselves.

So what’s left? The skull if a formerly-major party that once stood for people being better at taking their own decisions that the state can for them, and er, ummm……….that’s it. Is it worth taking it over? I don’t think so, but in the meantime there is no party that represents a still large although falling number of real people with real decided opinions that are broadly liberal.

“liberals” I take to include; people who want to leave the EU; people who think citizens ought to be able to retaliate against burgulators and robbers; people who think the “national curriculum” is a load of pretentious boring socialist crap, and especially damaging – deliberately – to poorer boys; people who think the idea of a DNA database is fundametally evil a-priori; people who think that one’s personal energy consumption patterns (“carbon footprint?”) are private matters, to be determined in a free market for energy by one’s own preferences and personal budget; people who think there are too many statutory crimes which are nothing to do with protecting Life, Liberty and Property, and the enforcement of whose laws give rise to volumes of other more damaging crime, such as “drug-related” robberies, murders and the like. 

There ought still to be a sufficient number of such people, once such a position has been explained to them, to make a substantial franchise base for a new party. I don’t think it’s possible to resurrect the “Conservative” brand any more, now that it has been so tarnished both by Blair’s assaults on it directly and by its reprehensible stewardship under Cameron in particular. (Hague going to the State-Authorised-Notting-Hill-Race-Riot in a baseball cap didn’t help much either.)

So…the party? No. But its natural “core” voters? Yes. Cameron has, by his actions and statements let it be known that he doesn’t want them any more; he’s more interested in reducing Labour’s majority than in supporting views that might (or might not) get him one of his own. Quisling.

So…let’s put the Conservative Party out of its misery finally, and get these electors for ourselves. It will of course not be long before the smear-campaigns start, so we would (or whoever led it) have to be careful how we all (have) behaved, since we were about three-and-a-half.

I think it’s time for British libertarians to go political.

Warning: This post may be nuts.

Posted by David Davis

Girl on the Right, although clearly no libertarian, often has her heart in the Right Place.

Have you, my dear bolgreader, noticed over the last few years, how “designer allergies” are multiplying?

You may well ask what the libertarian perspective is on designer allergies, and I have a hypothesis. It is a new, 21st-century, politically-unassailable weapon, approved by The Daily Mail (read by well-off people who wish they could be lefties but can’t bring themselves to adopt outright public dishonesty) and the Grauniad (read by real lefties who don’t give a stuff) with which to beat “TNCs”. That is to say, “trans-national companies”, unless you are a British state-geography student, therefore know what this abbreviation means already, and are taught how much to hate and scream.

The Daily Mail is called around these parts the Daily-2-health-scares-a-week-Mail.  ‘Nuff-said. The Grauniad features large articles by (usually) women of earnest mien and without makeup, who “spent many months on the internet” “researching” their partner’s/child’s/friend’s/colleague’s allergy problem, until (s)he “came up with something that astounded her”. ‘Nuff-said.

Nevertheless, when I wer’……’nobbut-a-lad, some people did have allergies, but not many. You tried not to make a fuss about it, for it was inconvenient for others around you. One or two sufferers, there were, here and there. You pitied them and helped them get on the bus when they were gasping for air, and that was that. Usually it was pollen. You got it when the farmers (remember those things, anyone? Farmers?) were Mowing The Hay. Or when the lime trees came out on 10th July every year. It was your lot, sent to you for your sins, as Man is A Fallen Creature.

 And then the 1950s, the late 1950s, and……….Peanut Butter! It arrived! In glass jars, for about a shilling a go. Ambrosia! (I guess the GIs must have brought it first as I have no record of it before the mid-1940s.) Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh…………………….lovely thing. Everybody loved it, and nobody was allergic to it. (I wonder why not?)

So……………….why (when his/her relicts have had their mediapublic, tearful, lawyer-attended assault on the company/restaurant/whatever) is today’s mortal sufferer from this supposed complaint so widespread? Has the lipid-metabolising-biochemistry of Homo Sapiens Sapiens Caucasiensis (Anglica.sp.) – and it does seem to be white Anglo-Saxon variants in the UK in particular who seem to suffer – altered so dramatically inside 5 decades that a growing minority is “allergic” to certain particular fat-soluble chemicals, of the sort found in nuts/seeds/kernels?

I can’t think so, for the breeding cycle of this variant of Homo is too slow (as much as 12-25 years, although speeding up in certain quarters) and genetic recombination needs a number of generations of adverse selection and pairing for this trait to become as widespread as it would have to be, if it was truly genetic.

Yet it seems to be an accepted fact that occasionally people die, or are reported to die, from eating “nuts”, or “shellfish”, or “avocado pear”. It is regarded as so deeply newsworthy, instead of being one family’s private tragedy, that it makes the papers.

It’s become cool to hit producers of foods, for large sums, and for lots of bad publicity. To what extent this is down to the prevailing Marxist ethic among young British teachers, i.e. that all “enterprises” are institutionally exploiters (and covert harmers, to be exposed by journalists whose proper job this must be) of consumers and not their servants, is hard to judge.

But it is tempting to correlate the rise – in numbers and distribution of designer allergies – with a rise in the antipathy that teachers command their pupils to project towards producers of high-volume-consumer-foodstuffs, in the recent decades when Gramsco-Marxian perspectives have formed part of the syllabuses of training courses. 

Yet again, a libertarian finds himself in favour of deleting the notion of a “National Curriculum. The same goes for how teachers are “trained”. I wonder if that notion is anyway slightly oxymoronic?

Diana, Madeleine McCann, Rhys Jones, and the mawkish nationalisation of grief; a Libertarian view of emotional collectivization.

 Posted by David Davis  

Yesterday, ten years after, the British people tanked-up and fuelled by the media that they have come to deserve, buried Lady Diana Spencer, all over again. In the meantime, the indescribable and now globally-public tragedy of the McCanns’ little girl’s sudden and complete disappearance, while her parents were in a tapas bar, thunders on. Almost as if on cue to keep the furnaces of public sorrowing fully stoked, comes the terrible murder of a little boy on the way home from his football practice.  

I have reasonable memories of life in the 80s and early 90s but I do not recall the general climate of collective emotional incontinence about celebs, lost children or flawed icons that seems to sweep up in its insistent blast, millions of otherwise quite sane and ordinary people, and makes them do things like cover the railings of our town’s grand War Memorial with teddy bears, and (laminated!!!) newspaper portraits of the poor little McCann girl. Next to said display, is a lovingly crafted banner that states: “WE FEEL YOUR PAIN”………  

……no, I don’t think so, I’m sorry. No parent that has not lost a child without trace can make such a statement about one who has. In this, All Men Are Islands, and perhaps the emotional damage that Diana did to us in her life was to make unfortunate people think she could really do that, and…………she did it to camera (as well as, it must be admitted, in private, where it really belonged.)  

An increasingly fascist-oriented government slashes at the bonds that bind individuals and communities and generations to each other via nuclear families and free institutions, and within which all emotions can be expressed and worked out privately among those who really know and care. These are natural structures that more-or-less free people in more-or-less free civilisations have come to preserve, or more accurately, CONSERVE.   

In default of these arrangements which it has acted consciously to destroy, a state has allowed the media equivalent of GOSPLAN to take over the management and planning of the emotional responses of an entire people. I expect that – if he had been party to the media sales objectives of the various tabloid papers – Goebbels would have been not unimpressed.  

In the case of Diana, I bet you all 7p that the extent and what’s more the tone of the coverage of the past week or so has been planned for months.

In the two others I have mentioned, you have to wonder about two possibilities; Firstly, to what extent the two sets of distraught parents have either actively wanted to go along with their forced celebritization on the grounds that “it might help” (that is to say, catch the kidnapper/find our daughter/ arrest the murderer…..and the like.) Or secondly, whether the media now act consciously or otherwise to fill the gap left by the broken private support institutions I mentioned earlier. Either way, emotional expression has been nationalized. A quote from Mark Steyn’s recent article “The transfiguration of Diana” says it better than I: 

No one could doubt the sincerity of the people’s reaction. But their sincerity did not make it any less repellent. The supposedly reserved, bloodless Brits had, like the Princess, swallowed wholesale the vocabulary of American “Oprahfied” psychobabble, a depressing enough prospect. But they had fused it with the brutish vulgarity of modern British mass culture to create a truly horrible mutant: aggressive empathy. Their message to their Sovereign was in essence: If you can’t come out and feel our pain, we’ll come in and give you some of your own to feel. Through a spokesman, the Queen protested to the British people that she was not indifferent to their grief.

Hang on: She’s not indifferent to their grief? The Queen, who had known Diana Spencer since she was a little girl, has to prove that she grieves as much as people who have never met her? On the one hand, the masses disdain the paparazzi for intruding into the privacy of their beloved Princess; on the other, the masses are quite happy metaphorically to storm Balmoral and intrude on the most private moments of all – the right of a family to grieve in their own way for someone close to them. In the week after Diana’s death, the moral decay of the British people plumbed new depths. At least the paparazzi, in their own crazed fashion, were seeking something objective: a photograph of two lovers canoodling. The mournerazzi who flooded London were demanding only that those who knew the real Diana sign on to the approved myths: Diana was the queen of hearts, her mother-in-law is a Queen with no heart; Diana was a warm mother, Charles is a cold father. Were they? Who really knows?  (©Mark Steyn 2007)

Either something has happened to people regarding how they manage emotionally-charged times, in the closing part of the 20th century: or else a particularly anti-Libertarian strand of modern British government thinking has undone the existing structures on purpose, to bring about the ability to “manage” the “people’s feelings”, treating us and our polity no better than a dull mob. 

Do any of you have a view?