Celebrities

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?

Please?

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.)

UPDATED

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

David Davis 

TESCO FOR EVER!

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.

TESCO FOR EVER!

“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!)

TESCO for EVER!

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.

DD

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………….?