Monthly Archives: February 2008

So THIS is what the lazy effing bastards in Westminster do with their expensively-paid-for time

Early Day Motion

EDM 286   VENEZUELA15.11.2007 McDonnell, John That this House notes the advances made by the Venezuelan people since the election of President Chávez in 1998, particularly in the fields of healthcare, education, land reform and redistribution of wealth; further notes that the groundwork for these advances was laid by the adoption of the 1999 constitution, the contents of which were ratified by referendum after an intense national debate; applauds President Chávez and his government for seeking to reform this constitution in an open and democratic way, with the maximum involvement of the Venezuelan people; condemns any interference with this peaceful and democratic process in the lead-up to a referendum on 2nd December, particularly from the country’s old elite and their allies in the US Administration; and calls on the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary to pledge their support for the progressive initatives of President Chávez’s government and attempt to improve diplomatic relations, which deteriorated rapidly after the UK Government’s tacit support of the failed 2002 coup.  

McDonnell, John
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cryer, Ann
Drew, David
George, Andrew
Jones, Lynne
Llwyd, Elfyn
Simpson, Alan
Burgon, Colin
Campbell, Ronnie
Hancock, Mike
Vis, Rudi
Wareing, Robert N
Devine, Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin
Clapham, Michael
Etherington, Bill
Anderson, David
Galloway, George
Abbott, Diane
Taylor, Dari
Gerrard, Neil
Hamilton, David
MacNeil, Angus
Buck, Karen

I may be a very very naive, and rather junior, wannabe war-blogger, but, finding out in this detail the stalinist rubbish that our supposed “representatives” like to get up to peddling, I feel hurt, insulted and duped, all at once.  

The glorification of the Pig Castro (and no, Che Guevara was an evil murderer, and your T-shirt is even less cool than I said it was.)

This appeared on The Last Ditch and also, I guess, in public;


EDM 982




Burgon, Colin

That this House commends the achievements of Fidel Castro in securing first-class free healthcare and education provision for the people of Cuba despite the 44 year illegal US embargo of the Cuban economy; notes the great strides Cuba has taken during this period in many fields such as biotechnology and sport in both of which Cuba is a world leader; acknowledges the esteem in which Castro is held by the people and leaders of Africa, Asia and Latin America for leading the calls for emancipation of the world’s poorest people from slavery, hunger and the denial of human rights such as the right to life, the right to shelter, the right to healthcare and basic medicines and the right to education; welcomes the EU statement that constructive engagement with Cuba at this time is the most responsible course of action; and calls upon the Government to respect Cuba’s right to self-determination and resist the aggressive forces within the US Administration who are openly planning their own illegal transition in Cuba.

Burgon, Colin
Trickett, Jon
Cruddas, Jon
Gibson, Ian
Clapham, Michael
Mudie, George
Hopkins, Kelvin
McDonnell, John
Cryer, Ann
Abbott, Diane
Taylor, David
Riordan, Linda
Price, Adam
Skinner, Dennis
Heyes, David
Iddon, Brian
Jones, Lynne
Llwyd, Elfyn
O’Hara, Edward
Campbell, Ronnie
Caton, Martin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Dismore, Andrew
Flynn, Paul
Francis, Hywel
Hamilton, David
Battle, John
Clark, Katy
Devine, Jim
Prentice, Gordon
Purchase, Ken
Sheridan, Jim
Singh, Marsha
Holmes, Paul
Hood, Jim
Hoyle, Lindsay
Humble, Joan
Lepper, David
Murphy, Denis
Owen, Albert
Cohen, Harry
Crausby, David
Dean, Janet
Dobbin, Jim
Drew, David
Efford, Clive
Etherington, Bill
Grogan, John
Hamilton, Fabian
Austin, John
Begg, Anne
Taylor, Dari
Wood, Mike
Anderson, David
Davies, Dai
Buck, Karen
Caborn, Richard
Challen, Colin
Cook, Frank
Sharma, Virendra Kumar
Simpson, Alan
Havard, Dai
Kilfoyle, Peter
Mackinlay, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin
Chaytor, David
Davidson, Ian
Galloway, George
Turner, Desmond
Salter, Martin
Vis, Rudi
Slaughter, Andy
James, Sian C

I do not know what relevance this has to the problems created by this same administration, which ought to be sorted out in Westminster. Tom Paine says that Tim Worstall and the Devil want these abovenenamed people to be hanged. Perhaps these are the last days of the 1970s student activists, and the problem will subside along with the Americanisation and freeing of Cuba (long delayed) and the retirement of these sad MPs.

I wonder who would have given these people a job, any job, had they not ended up in Parliament?

British Stalinist government, in bed with the media, now interfering in voluntary contractual shopping arrangements. 13 reasons why you should demand free plastic carrier-bags.

David Davis 

And those were just the 13 I could stump up with in as many minutes of typing. You ‘orrible lot will want to add more – so, comments please! 

Today, we have this splashed all over the Daily Mail. The Dear Leader, Gordon Brown, has “thrown his weight” behind the Daily Mail’s landmark campaign to “banish the bags”, with an “impassioned plea” to retailers.

Here are some extracts;

 Gordon Brown gives supermarkets one year to start charging for plastic bags … or else…..

The Prime Minister is lending his voice to the Daily Mail’s campaign against the blight of “plastic poison”.

Supermarkets will be forced to charge their customers for disposable carrier bags under plans for a new green levy drawn up by Gordon Brown. They will be given a year to end their reliance on single-use plastic bags or face a legal requirement to introduce a charge and reveal how much it raises.

Gordon Brown: Plan for action in war on plastic

The Prime Minister will introduce legislation next month to impose a charge of 5p or even more on all giveaway bags next year if they fail to comply.

And today he throws his weight behind the Daily Mail’s landmark “Banish the Bags” campaign with an impassioned plea to retailers.

Writing exclusively for the Mail, he urges them to follow the example of Marks & Spencer by calling time on the wasteful culture of free single-use carrier bags that is fouling the planet.

And he reveals that like millions of families each week, he and his wife Sarah are left with a “binful of plastic bags” from their supermarket delivery to remind them of the scale of the problem.

The Mail campaign, and its shocking image of a majestic giant turtle swathed in deadly plastic, has triggered an unprecedented response from readers clamouring for action to end “plastic pollution” caused by 13billion bags handed out by shops each year.

Film stars, environmental groups, academics and politicians have rallied to the campaign.

Last night, Tesco and Sainsbury’s responded to public pressure by confirming that they are drawing up plans to reduce the amount of plastic bags they give away.

And yesterday, the trade body which represents 33,000 convenience stores said they are ready to accept a plastic bag tax in a bid to reduce the number handed out.

There are suspicions that many major chains have been dragging their feet on the issue.

Threats of force if non-compliance ensues do not, to me, sound like an “impassioned plea”. This is, in semantic terms, what is called “ruling by decree”. 

Furthermore, if   Film stars, environmental groups, academics and politicians   have all “rallied” to this cause, then, like Margaret Thatcher used to do with each morning’s Guardian newspaper (she read it and decided to do exacty the opposite of what it recommended) we ought to run a mile from these people.

And…..John Band of bantitry has also just ripped the pants off the greenazis here. (Hat Tip from the Devil.)

And not, here are MY thirteen reasons to use and praise the polythene carrier bag:

(1) it uses less than one cc of cheap, burnable hydrocarbons – it is the singel most efficient and cheapest method of bulk carriage on the planet, or ever.

(2) it requires little energy resources to make, per unit bag, and can be burnt afterwards, to release its carbon back to the air where it correctly belongs.

(3) you can clear up child-vomit into it and bin it for no money.

(4) you can carry stuff home on the bus easily in it.

(5) making it gives employment to thousands of people, here and in LDCs.

(6) you can recycle bulk amounts of them, if you really really must, into low-grade plastic goods.

(7) it sets man apart from the “animals”, who have foolishly, and to their eternal mortal peril, not studied chemistry and so not developed means of moving bulk goods; so they go extinct, or starve in the dark when food is scarce (and then greenazis make us run along and jump about and get them out of their mess.)

(8) you can wrap stuff in it for storage for long periods, and unlike paper or “natural” products, it stays waterproof, does not go mouldy, and does not degrade.

(9) you can hurl in-car-rubbish wrapped in one, into a passing litter-bin, without getting out of the car. You have only to wind down the window, park within 5 feet of the bin, and aim well.

(10) you can line the inside of the roof of your thatched caveman’s hut with lots of them (laid like slates, start at the BOTTOM, overlap triple in thirds just like slate (as used to be) row by row, and work UP!) when the greenazis stop you from building proper houses that you can live in. The handles even act like hooks and can be hung over the projecting twig-ends, so you don’t even have to use the nails that they won’t allow you to anyway (too much “carbon”.) Then, when you can’t replace the rotting thatch as the greenazis won’t let you cut any more reeds from the new wetlands where Cambridge used to stand, the water still won’t get inside.

(11) Gordon Brown, the dear leader, and Sarah, the Mother of the People, have decreed that those with whom you would voluntarily do business, may not offer you, of their own volition, a convenient way to carry away your just goods, for nothing. This last alone is good and sufficient reason for at last standing up to the Nazi leftist control-freakish moonbattery of our Dear Leaders and their unconscionably wicked (they KNOW they are doing it, it is deliberate) film-star friends.

(12) you can put ot over your head in bed while shagging the slightly rough bird you picked up in the disco after the students’ uni-meeting; or you can do the “double-bag-job” – she wears one too in case yours falls off.

(13) you can vomit into it on those long bus-journeys the greenazis will make you take everywhere, using your “internal passport” (see MEG HILLIER MP  (Lab.) ) after cars are banned. Then, stow it surreptitiously between the broken and parting plastic wall-plates of the bus, just before you queue off.

If the grocers cave in, we are truly lost. Not just this, everything.

The British “national curriculum” syllabus for “Geography” … Have you ever wondered what it contains?

David Davis 

This evening I went with my boy (year 9) to discuss “options” for his GCSE years. below is some exerpts of what the school’s batty-chatty moonbattery leaflet says about this grand and formerly rigorous subject, in which we learned where everything was, how to use (proper) maps, how to draft same, and how the surface of the planet got like it did.

I quote:

….. Geography tackles the big issues ; (1) Environmental responsibility, (2) Our global interdependence, (3) Cultural understanding and tolerance, (4) Commerce, trade and industry (but not in the way you think, people…)

…. Geographers can ;

Make a consice (SIC) report; Handle data; Ask questions and find the answers; make decisions about an issue; analyse material; manage themselves; solve problems; independent thinkers (what does this mean here? sic, again). The results show (source: AGCAS):

* 40.6% “management and administration”

* 24.8% “further training” (inc PCgE/teaching)

* 11.4% “financial sector”

* 10.4% “retail”

* 10% “other professional inc “media” “

I leave you all to decide what part of the Public Sector socialist salariat each of these percentages corresponds to!

In fact very little “classical” Geography is now taught at all. There is a token amount of “map reading”, in which you find the 100-m OS reference for the wind-turbine, and you still have to know what an oxbow lake is. You’ll never visit one (you might fall in, “Health and Safety!”) You may even do a project about “How effective are the new (expensive!) flood defences in York” (but you don’t know where York is, because you were just bussed there) or “How effective are the congestion control measures round Beatrix Potter’s house?”, or “Is Kirkby Stephen a “honeypot destination?” (you don’t know where that is either nor care what its “CBD” is, for you were just bussed there too…I’m sure its august residents would not agree, and I’d support them – it’s very nice – but your lot just think it’s a boring little hole coz’ you are 15-y-o-cool-dudes.)

You also learn about “TNCs” and how they exploit “local labour, often women and children” for “low wages” in “LDCs”, where “social legislation is not strong”, making stuff like “NIKE trainers” (whatever those might be) for sale for “profit” in “MDCs”.

‘Nuff said.

William F Buckley, of National review fame, died yesterday.

This man needs no intro from me,

But, as that paper does them so well usually, Here is his obit in the DTel. 

Here is

Mark Steyn’s take on him.

DNA database …. Identity-theft …. just because the “database” says I have peed on the body, does not mean I have murdered today’s broadcast-media’s (young and sexy) girl (no, not the one in the papers yesterday or the other one the day before…)

The DNA “database” seems to be coming under attack from a few (real) policemen.

Another angle is that such a database will also open a market-opportunity for a black market in DNA – to be bought and sold and used either to “fit up” someone, or by the criminals themselves to divert attention to an enemy or someone totally innocent and unconnected. 

A chum heard a policeman argue against such a database the other day. The Officer argued that already there is evidence that some criminals are taking other people’s urine, hair, etc, and leaving it at the scene of a crime…

The officer argued for a return to old fashioned detective work.



…. DISCUSS …..

Sean Gabb on Truancy

Free Life Commentary,
an independent journal of comment
published on the Internet
Issue Number 126
18th August 2004
postCount(‘flc126′); postCountTB(‘flc126′);

Truancy: A Personal Perspective
Sean GabbMost writing about truancy—indeed, all that I have read—is about people who play truant by people who have not. Inevitably, therefore, discussion of the issue lacks the degree of introspection that one requires in any discussion of—say—drug use, or membership of the Communist Party. My purpose in writing this article is to help supply that lack.

I have two main qualifications for writing. First, I played truant at school. In saying this, I do not mean that I occasionally failed to attend. I was a truant in the fullest sense—I was told once that I had the worst attendance record of anyone in my year. Second, I have been involved for over a decade now in some of the most comprehensive truancy surveys ever conducted in the English-speaking world. Directed by Dr Dennis O’Keeffe, who is currently the Professor of Sociology at the University of Buckingham, and conducted in both England and the United States, these have involved handing out questionnaires to tens of thousands of schoolchildren, and interviewing several hundred, and they have resulted in several books and in a report commissioned and published by the British Government.

Against these qualifications must be set the passing of time. It is now 30 years since I played truant. No one can be expected after so long a time to recall every detail. There is also the possible defect of what I have learnt from looking at the truancy of others. Am I likely to be imposing on my own experiences a scheme of explanation suggested by later research?

These are possibly serious defects—especially the second. What I am writing is only incidentally autobiographical. My main intention here is to contribute to the research on truancy, and it will be a useless exercise if I shall turn out to have recalled only those facts that tend to confirm a theory that must continue to rest wholly on other evidence.

However, while 30 years is a long time, I do have an excellent memory. Not only have I a clear recollection of events, but I am able to place them in chronological order and to place reasonably accurate dates on them. I have kept a diary of sorts since I was 15, and I have many diary entries made in my early 20s that contain much fresher recollections of my earlier life than I could supply from present memory. Also, I still have many of my old school exercise books and much marked homework, and a few of my old school reports. I am convinced that my own recollection of facts from my middle teens is at least as reliable, even today, as that of most people questioned in their late teens—and this in truancy research is considered a valid means of obtaining information. This being so, let me begin with the facts.

The Facts

I first played truant on the second Friday in September 1972. It was entirely by mistake. In my first year at secondary school, Friday afternoon had ended with a French lesson followed by Mathematics. In my second year, that afternoon ended with Mathematics followed by French. On this occasion, I forgot that a new timetable was in operation, remembering the new one as I got off the bus going home, when it struck me that I was the only schoolboy in sight.

From this beginning, I soon proceeded to deliberate truancy. By the spring term of 1973, I doubt if I was attending an entire week of lessons. During the next three years, I was a blanket truant – that is, I did not go in at all to school. I have a diary entry from 1974 in which I confess to not having been to school once in February, and only for one week in March. Since I thought it worth recording, this was an exceptional run of absences. I am trying to discover from the Southwark Education Authority if my attendance records have survived. I they have not, I am not able by myself to say exactly how often I failed to attend. Even so, I believe I was more often than not absent during these three years. My oldest friend was at school with me. He is unable to recall dates and frequency, but is able to confirm that I was hardly ever at school.

I was also a post-registration truant—that is, I would go in to school and register myself in the morning; then I would disappear for the rest of the day. Otherwise, I would absent myself from specific lessons.

I stopped playing truant in January 1976. At the end of the spring term, my Headmaster called me into his office and complimented me on a perfect attendance. For the rest of my time at school, my only absence was the rest of the week following the 11th October 1976, when I was knocked down and nearly killed by a drunken driver. Despite bruises that took weeks to stop aching and a set of gashes on my body that made dramatic or embarrassing stains on my shirt, I went back to school as soon as I had been fitted with a new pair of spectacles.


These are the facts so far as I can recall them. I turn now to the possible explanations.


First, I was able to get away with playing truant. On that first occasion in September 1972, I arrived home worried that the school had telephoned ahead, and that I might have rely on the feeble but true reason of absence of mind. As it was, I had gone to the local library rather than directly home, and so arrived later than if I had gone from school at the proper time. I said nothing, and I soon realised that nothing had been said from school. The following Monday morning, I was similarly worried, and I passed the morning in a double Mathematics lesson waiting for a call to the Headmaster’s office. Again, nothing was said. My absence had not been noticed—or it had been ignored.

Certainly, it was noticed when I began to vanish for weeks on end. But a few lectures about my naughtiness aside, nothing was ever done to me. No one from the school ever thought to telephone my parents or to buy a postage stamp for any letter. Instead, I was used as the messenger between school and home, and it was easy enough to open letters given to me to deliver and to suppress anything that might be to my disadvantage. I made a point of delivering invitations to open evenings a day after the event, and grew rather good at censoring end of year reports.

Once in 1973, my Head of Year turned up at the front door to complain about my absence. However, on that day, my grandmother was the only adult in the house, and, bearing in mind what I had told her, she had so little regard for my school, that it was easy to ask her to suppress that message along with all the others.

However, though necessary, opportunity is not sufficient explanation. After all, I did sometimes go to school, even though I suspected my absences might be even less noticed if I never went at all—and I did eventually stop playing truant entirely, even though there was no improvement in my school’s administrative competence. So that administrative incompetence can be regarded as merely enabling behaviour that was prompted by other causes.


I was bullied at my secondary school with moderate persistence. I was fat. I wore spectacles. I spoke with an accent half Kentish, half middle class. I was popular—when present—with the teachers. I came from a family that was at the time in straitened circumstances. Had it not been for this last, I doubt I should have been sent to that school. But I was there. My secondary school was a boys-only comprehensive in South East London, about a mile from Tower Bridge. Many of the other boys there were the sons of dock workers, and their current pursuits and general ambitions were generally physical. One boasted in class that he had no need of education. Once he was 16, he assured us, his father would have him sponsored to join the relevant union, and this would get him a job in the London Docks, where he could obtain a total rewards package that included impressive cash earnings, further cash and goods had from institutionalised pilfering, and much time off through industrial action. He would be doing better than the teachers, and was only marking time till the end of his compulsory education.

It would be hypocritical if I now lamented the closure before the end of that decade of the London Docks, and the strong probability that this boy is now at best one of the porters sitting in the entrance to one of the blocks of expensive, serviced flats that have replaced the docks, and at worst in a prison or a lunatic asylum—or just dead. 30 years ago, he and his friends hated and despised me. They held against me my appearance, my poverty, and my conservative politics. This penultimate defect was evident from my shabby appearance and my inability to join in the mutual admiration of the material goods the other boys brought in to school. The last defect became sharply apparent in January 1972 when the coal miners went on strike for higher wages, and their own industrial action and picketing of the power stations, and the sympathetic action by other unions, led to power cuts and a three day week. I think it was in February that my class was taken on a trip to a local museum. I cannot remember the museum, but we passed by a groups of picketers. The other boys in the class shouted slogans of solidarity. I sniffily denounced the strikers as Moscow-inspired wreckers. This prompted a very heated debate that continued in and out of class for several days. One of the teachers joined in against me, explaining that I was a “deferential Tory”. I do not recall the phrase “false consciousness”, but it was assumed by all that someone of my evident poverty had no business to be other than a radical socialist. It was most galling to have my circumstances dragged into an argument over political ideology.

The other boys mostly showed their dislike by mockery and exclusion from any activities in which they were able to choose who took part. Whenever sides had to be picked in games for a football match or some other sport, I was always the last one standing in the middle, and had to be assigned to one team or the other by the teacher; and my presence—admittedly useless—was resented. But there were also bursts of unexpected violence. It was never the armed, unlimited violence that has now become normal in such schools—I was never in danger of serious hurt. But it was upsetting to be hated, even if it was a good preparation for the rest of my life.

“Bullies are all cowards” my grandmother once insisted. “Hit one and the others will run away”. I can say from experience that this is an untrue observation. I never went to extremes of retaliation, but I was a large youth, and could hit very hard if I tried. All I discovered was that the bullies I encountered were not cowards, and were only encouraged by resistance. They also had no sense of honour, and were not ashamed to help each other by coming at me from behind. Since the teachers were unable—though not always unwilling—to do anything on my behalf, I found that the best response was to avoid the bullies. Of course, the most effective means of avoidance was truancy.

This being said, bullying is not a sufficient cause of my truancy. I was bullied at school from my first arrival in London at the age of six. I well remember when I was nine how almost every boy in the class once surrounded me in the playground, and how I avoided worse than a black eye only because there was no room for anyone to do more than poke at me. I also had books stolen or defaced. But I did not then play truant.

Of course, I have said that I discovered that I could play truant only several years after this. But the bullying continued long after I had stopped playing truant. Indeed, for a while, it became almost dangerous at a time when my attendance was at its most reliable. In April 1977, I got into an argument with a Turkish boy over an umbrella. One of his friends had borrowed this from him and broken it while hitting me with it. The Turk was almost speechless with rage and expected me to buy a replacement. When I tried to explain the obvious difference between cause and instrument of his loss, he responded with his fists. “Don’t give me none of that poof talk” he yelled at me as he punched me in the face. Since I absolutely refused to hand over the £1.50 he demanded, he stalked me for the next few months with two very large and brutal friends. I was now in my upper sixth year, and my school had joined with a local girls’ school for the A Levels. I had the great indignity one day of having to rely on two black girl friends—I have always been popular with black women—for my preservation. My History teacher was absent from the class, when my three stalkers burst into the class room. “Come outside”, the Turk snarled at me. The girls jeered at him, and one put her arms around me, suggesting he should deal with her brother if he laid hands on her. The teachers did nothing about any of this, and the ordeal only ended when its authors left school without qualifications. Again, I hope I shall not be thought uncharitable if I reflect on their probable lives since then.

However, none of this prevented me from going to school. Its only effect was to make me get up earlier, so I could be out of their reach inside the school buildings when the bullies arrived.

Curriculum and Teaching

So far as I can tell, my true reason for playing truant was the curriculum and teaching at my school. I found most lessons boring or frustrating. In particular, I hated Games and Mathematics. The first I hated because I have always disliked most physical activity. For me, football was nothing more than an opportunity for getting dirty and wet or cold. Athletics were an opportunity for picking up sprains and bruises.

I disliked Mathematics for other reasons. I told myself at the time that I had no aptitude for it. I later discovered that I did have at least a modest aptitude, and now able, tough not usually willing, to teach it at a rather basic level. Really, it was the teaching. For my first three years at secondary school, I was taught by an old man from one of the non-English West Indies. He had, I was told, once been a headmaster in his own country, and had been an admired teacher of Mathematics. By the time I met him, though, he was in his late sixties, and was at least past his best. Certainly, his false teeth and thick accent prevented me from understanding a word he said about mathematics or much else. He would scribble a demonstration on the blackboard while mumbling an explanation. This done, he would turn back to the class and ask in a tone that did not invite denial if we had followed him. I would look around the room, wondering if it was worth putting my hand up. I now realise that no one had followed him. At the time, I thought I was stupid. I responded by avoiding his lessons. Even when I bothered attending school, I used to make a point of keeping away from his lessons.

It was different with other subjects. I avoided History and English and the sciences because I thought the teachers were useless. More than ten years of teaching in various universities and schools have given me the professional authority to say that they were useless. Even at the time, I could see they were incompetent. One of my English teachers was illiterate. My oldest friend used to sit beside me and sneer at the spelling mistakes on the blackboard. None of my English teachers was inclined to teach even the elements of grammar and composition. I was once thrown out of my History class for arguing with the teacher about the chronology of the Trojan War. A Physics teacher once had me permanently excluded from his class for arguing about the speed of light. He said it was 399,000 miles per second. I insisted it was 186,000. He was Brazilian, and I now realise that he had confused miles with kilometres, but the English system was still then largely used in science teaching, and our argument, I clearly recall, was about miles. In any event, he was a useless teacher of the sciences. He believed in witchcraft and sympathetic magic, and once scandalised me by teaching this in a lesson about variable resistance.

Even then, I loved music, Sadly, I despised the Music teacher; and I cannot actually remember hearing the records of Berlioz that he played to us. I do remember a lesson he gave about microtonal internals, but this was neither preceded nor followed by anything that would have given it the context to be called teaching.

French was an ordeal. I had three years—rather, I should have had was I there—of copying down tables of irregular verbs from the blackboard. No one who even bothered attending could at the end of that time read a newspaper in French or order a meal in a French restaurant.

Another of my teachers—it would be kind not to specify the subject, as he may still be alive—had what I now realise was a drinking problem. When we paid him no attention, he would shout himself into a frenzy: we were all useless swine, and he would get his salary regardless of whether we paid attention, and so on and so forth. Then he would go into a large stationary cupboard in the classroom and shut the door, leaving us to ourselves for a few minutes. He would then come out in a better state of mind and continue with what passed for a lesson. At the time, we would make lewd comments about what he was up to in there. It now seems obvious what he was doing. I suppose I should have some sympathy for the man. It was a dreadful job to teach at that school. On the other hand, no one forced him to teach there. And I learnt nothing from him.

The End of Truancy

From the September of 1974, I found myself with generally better teachers. One of my English teachers was a published writer and was enthusiastic about the subject. Another was one of those rare people who can inspire his students with a will to learn. He eventually moved to a school in Cornwall, and we corresponded on and off until I graduated from university. My Mathematics teacher was an Armenian Marxist with a beard and boots spray-painted green. We used to argue in class about politics. In the intervals, he managed to persuade me that Mathematics was a useful subject that gave true knowledge about the physical world. History teaching continued rather poor, though there was a six week period during which a wonderful supply teacher took over. His preferred manner of instruction was to read long patches from original sources. I shall never forget his reading on the murder of Rasputin from the Memoirs of Prince Yussopov. Sadly, he left at the end of his six weeks and never returned.

For the rest of that year, however, I continued to play truant as much as in the past. Once established, habits are hard things to break. This said, I suppose I can justify the absence. I had spent two years avoiding school, but not education. When I played truant from school, I used to go to the local library and read. I read hundreds of books there and turned over thousands. I went through encyclopaedias. I studied history and the non-mathematical parts of the sciences. I read about law and politics. I read masses of historical novels and most of the English classics. I taught myself Latin and basic musical theory. I bought a telescope and sat up all night looking at the stars. I learnt how to build and repair wireless sets. It was an undirected, patchy kind of learning, and I arrived at the critical time of my education erudite in some areas, utterly ignorant in others. I could explain the atomic theory of Epicurus, but could not divide seven by four.

But I did eventually give up on truancy. Just before the Christmas of 1974, my Armenian Mathematics teacher got hold of me and read me a tremendous lecture about the need to pass my O Levels, otherwise I might end up like the other boys in worthless careers. He told me I should be thinking about university—no one else from that school ever had gone to university, nor ever did, but he was sure I could. I rather liked him. More importantly, I respected him. And, though he was full enough in class about the equality of man and the horrors of the existing class system—the Soviet Union, he once assured me, would overtake America economically in the 1980s! -, he put me into a terrible of snobbery —so much that I stopped playing truant and began to apply myself to the approaching examinations. It was now that I moved to the top in every class, even in Mathematics.

The first result was that I confused the other teachers. They had been used to regard me as an occasional presence in their classes, but did not expect anything of me. When in the April of 1975, I handed in a 30 page analysis of the rise of German national socialism, I was accused of plagiarism. Even after I had produced my sources and made a long oral presentation, the teachers remains suspicious. It was only after I did well in the examinations of that summer that they decided to put effort into my education at school. By now, as said, my attendance was exemplary, and so it remained to the end of my time there.

What Truancy did for Me

What does all this say about truancy? I am speaking here only for myself, but several conclusions seem clear. The first is that I played truant in the first instance because I did not feel there was much point in being at school. I much preferred the education I could get for myself in the library or at home. I stopped when I found I had teachers who were not ignorant of their subjects, and did not have to learn beside other children whose time would have been better employed crawling up chimneys or picking oakum. I then continued to play truant for a while because of habit and because I positively enjoyed being in charge of my education.

The second conclusion is that truancy may often be not merely a rational but also a wise choice. It would be false modesty to deny that I have done well since leaving school. I owe this success overwhelmingly to the fact that I was hardly ever present for nearly half the time I was enrolled there. I dread to think what would have become of me had my school possessed the efficient administration and powerful means of coercion that most writers on truancy regard as desirable. It is a serious defect of most writing on truancy that schooling and education are regarded as one and that same thing, and that to miss out on the first is necessarily to miss out on the second. They are not necessarily the same, and in many more cases than mine, they are not actually the same.

Speaking purely for myself, I found that there were benefits and disadvantages to the education I had. The chief benefit was that it developed parts of my character that might otherwise have remained less developed. I arrived at manhood with a strong belief in my own judgement, even when I was in a minority of one. I distrusted official authority, and had no respect for opinions just because they were held by those in authority. I also found learning by myself the easiest approach to knowledge.

This helped me greatly at university. I went to York University, where self-teaching was regarded as the norm. In those days, attendance at lectures was optional, and the lecturers saw their whole duty as encouraging students to fine things out for themselves. At the beginning of each term, lecturers would publish lists of recommended reading, then would hand out essay titles. Throughout the term, students would be called individually to very long tutorials and expected to justify every controversial statement. Many of the students fount it hard to adapt to this system. They had attended schools where they had been taught in class. I spent three wonderful years in the J.B Morrell Library there, reading whatever I liked, whether or not relevant to my course—though I could usually persuade that it was relevant.

Another advantage is that I have become a very good teacher. I am good in a conventional class room, because I remember all the teaching faults that helped drive me away in my own time there, and try to avoid them. But I really specialise in the private tuition of clever children who have done badly in school. I know what it is like to hate school, and know how to get students to learn and to write without making it look like work. There are several of my old students on my mailing list, and they may care to respond to this claim.

The main disadvantage was that learning by myself magnified an already existing tendency to personal coldness. I have always had trouble making friends. I often repel people with my dead eyes and flat voice, and by my inattention to the usual niceties of friendship. For example, I seldom call people, instead waiting to be called. Every so often, I make an effort to overcome this defect, but it has become second nature and is not easily to be thrown off. This comes, I am sure from having spent so much of my teenage years in frequently intense communion with dead writers and with almost no one else. The dead, after all, may continue giving richly of themselves for millennia, but, unlike the living, do not observably demand anything in return.

Is Truancy to be Encouraged?

Returning to my second conclusion, just given, and speaking more generally, I am inclined to think compulsory state schooling a bad thing. I do not believe that education is in economic terms a merit good—that is, something that will be under consumed relative to its utility. I grant there are positive externalities to be had from education. But most parents will want their children to have some education simply for its direct benefits to the children. We know this from those poor countries in which parents will make heavy sacrifices on behalf of their children. Professor James Tooley is the main expert on this. We know also from the history of England that most children received an adequate education long before the State intervened with its own subsidised and then free schools and with compulsion to attend them. The late E.G. West is the expert on this. We know that state education is grossly inefficient and horribly wasteful of resources. Professor Bruce Cooper is one of the relevant experts on this. Then there is the wider libertarian claim that compulsory state education is an assault on the rights of those compelled to attend and on those compelled to pay.

I also believe that compulsory state education is an evil that goes beyond these objections. If education itself produces positive externalities, the addition of the two adjectives compulsory and state balance and even overbalance these with negative externalities. There is a strand of neo-Marxist thinking— Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis are the main experts here – that claims schooling to be the means by which capitalism reproduces itself: it instils in working class children a set of values hostile to their true interests. In its specifics, this is an absurd claim. It is true, however, in its generality. As with most neo-Marxist theory, it says little about what is being attacked, but much about the intentions of those making the attack. State schools do not turn out adults who believe in the rule of law and in free enterprise. But they do turn out adults who are inclined to believe in the opposite. Though state education has now been so thoroughly ruined that little seems to be taught either good or bad, and the Establishment media has largely taken over the job, state education has for as long as it has existed been the reproduction mechanism for various kinds of statist ideology. Until the middle of the last century, it was the means by which people were made into good nationalists: would ten million young men have marched semi-willingly to their death in the Great War without the prior conditioning of state education? Since then, it has been captured by the radical socialists.

I read John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty when I was 17. One of the passages that most struck me then was this on state education:

A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation, in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body.
(Chapter V, “Applications”)

I had a very frosty response when I quoted this in an essay for one of my teachers. I will now say that the homogenising effect of compulsory state education is so dangerous that truancy should not be regarded as wholly a bad thing. Certainly, when children absent themselves from school and make a nuisance of themselves in shopping centres, that is a problem. But when a child is getting something that approximates to an education outside formal schooling, I do believe that the authorities should at least connive at the absence.

Concluding Remarks

Now, I could leave my readers with the impression that I attended a comprehensively dreadful school in the company of violent barbarians. This is not so. As said, I did find good teachers, and I shall be forever grateful for all they did on my behalf. And, in Mario Huet, I found as good a friend as anyone could wish for. We have spent the past 30 years swapping moral support that has made us closer than brothers. And the contempt of intellectual things was not universal. I got on very well with the girls from the neighbouring school. We spent one very happy afternoon reading by ourselves through Antony and Cleopatra. I took the part of Cleopatra to general amusement. It is worth noting here that these were working class South London girls. They had trouble neither with the verse form nor with Elizabethan grammar and vocabulary. Unless ethnic patois and MTV have had a more corrupting effect than I can imagine, I do not understand those teachers who say Shakespeare is above the heads of modern children.

However, I must conclude. Had my school bothered with a curriculum that involved subjects worth learning, and had it employed teachers able or willing to do their jobs, I might not have played truant so often. But I return to the beginning of this article. For over a decade, I have been involved in a research project that is trying to establish that truancy is neither delinquency nor illness, but a response to bad curriculum and bad teaching. That is what we have learnt from looking at the results of our questionnaire surveys and from the interviews we have conducted. That is what I know to be the case from my own experience.

LAMP POST ELECTROCUTES DOG (you can guess how.) Health and safety Nazis go to town with parody of life and art and themselves.

David Davis 

It’s very droll. Here.

Reading the text, positively dripping with honeyed lamentation (by real humans apparently) for this poor dog, and the daily-heard, formulaic regrets by the head-Honcho of Scottish Hydro (or whatever) I at first wondered whether it was an “April Fool” journo-spoof (they have been known!) which had got out too early and was written by a good libertarian journo in the act of satirising the nazi safety lefties.

 But no, it is apparently true.

His thoughts are “with the family of the dog”.

AYN RAND ….. SHE knew how they would do it. “Liberal” destroyers and their wimpish “Conservative” hangers-on.

David Davis

I came across this quote today: “The basic and crucial political issue of our age is: capitalism versus
socialism, or freedom versus statism. For decades, this issue has been
silenced, suppressed, evaded, and hidden under the foggy, undefined
rubber-terms of “conservatism” and “liberalism” which had lost their
original meaning and could be stretched to mean all things to all men.
The goal of the “liberals”—as it emerges from the record of the past
decades—was to smuggle this country (USA) into welfare statism by means of
single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a
step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into
principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic
issue to be named. Thus statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but
by slow rot—by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption,
leading to a fait accompli. (The goal of the “conservatives” was only to
retard that process.)
“‘Extremism,’ or The Art of Smearing,”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Page 178 A good read, is “Capitalism, the unknown ideal.” It wonders me, often, how and why the word “Capitalism” ends up being so lynched, so….well….er, unsuitable to use in “polite company”.  Whereas “Socialism” gets you invited to the chi-chi-est metroland dinner-parties, given by the Stars.

Indeed. Guido Fawkes thinks that socialists even worship the “stars” themselves. He wonders, here, what business Gordon brown had inviting the Beckhams to Chequers ….. perhaps they are his new “Special Advisers” on “state-television-programming policy”…..

(For newer or younger readers, who may not know who Ayn Rand was, or who have not yet experienced her writings, click here.)

(NOT) defending a DNA database in the UK ….. Why do people want this monstrosity?

David Davis 

Yesterday Sean Gabb published a rollicking press release from the Libertarian Alliance, laying out the prime reasons why such a state database is a dangerous object, and some mild thoughts as to what ought to be done about it. No other nation on the planet, so far as I know, is having public discussions about this idea, or is having them at such a seemingly advanced stage – nor has such a large existing database…..nearly 4 million people….what for?

We ought to examine the reasons why, in Britain today, there is so little popular AND principled opposition to this idea, or that nobody is rioting due to there being so many, many individuals already on it.

“Tools” such as a DNA database – or indeed any state-run database of private information, ought not to exist – or if they do, should not be left lying about. They exist because if information is able to be collected, then bureauphiles will demand its collection. Perhaps it’s something to do with a bureauphile’s mindset; Samizdata had something worthwhile about this problem a few weeks ago.

We can bet at least 40p, moreover, that a disproportionately large number of these poor listed sods are “young black males”. But where is the supposedly inevitable chorus of howls from the “race relations” industry, or from these people’s “community leaders”? Not a peep. Not really, not interested. Told you so ….. 40p please! There is something fishy going on here. Granted that we all know why these poor young “black” chaps seem unfortunately to draw the Gestapo’s and the Kriminal-Polizei’s attention to themselves – due mainly to Nazi-imposed multiculturalism and deliberately-Stalinised education in the UK, they get into trouble with the “FUZz” rather a lot – but that is another (related) issue. (From “first principles”, the “Fuzz” are supposed to detain villains – if you become a villain due to being desocialised by socialism, then in the first instance it is your problem….in the second it is ours, for we have to get rid of the socialists who have enabled you to feel it is right to be the way you are ……this is another post later.)

So!  What data could a state hold, justifiably, on ALL its subjects/citizens (whichever you prefer)?

In a minimal state regulated by classical liberal tenets, it is reasonable to suppose that a state ought to be allowed names and addresses for taxation purposes. This is not ideal, but conservatives, which is to say liberals (I do not share the US definition of political “liberal”, finding it as I do rather unhelpful since it defines specifically lefties such as the awful Clintons and Michael Moore etc) know that we do not live in an ideal world. But I suppose we could allow it, under condition of a limited bureauphiliac establishment, which is itself disenfranchised out of legal and manichean necessity – a condition of being paid to administer a state.

In a world in which Western civilisation is under mortal assault for the forseeable future, defences need to be organised, enemy personnel need to be watched, thwarted or preferably killed silently, frequently and in ways designed to discourage further attacks. All this costs money, for not everybody can be eligible to be in the SAS or become James Bond – it is probably less inefficient to perform the tasks with collective funds raised by taxations. I don’t agree wholeheartedly with taxes as a principle, but there it is for now; presently we live in an emabattled real world, bounded by practical politics, and beset by enemies.

Insofar as a state is still “responsible” for providing what passes laughably as “health care”, I suppose that some “records” ought to be kept. But this again is not ideal – both for confidentiality reasons and because states have no business ultimately in interfering in the health of subjects, or their habits. The monster can all to easily mutate into a machine for coercion, such as interfering in smoking, drinking, eating, walking/driving habits, and the like. The proper custodians of one’s medical records are one’s doctors, but in a degenerate state-directed system one does not know who these are, and whichever one is seen has no obligation to know one closely or at all – so the status of the records is necessarily public, for all practical purposes So no, state medical records won’t do, I guess.

Education records? States have no justifiable interest in these at all. As the badge used to say, “people should not learn about the government in schools taxed-for and run by the government.” End of story.

Crime? Everyone knows that the strongest drivers of crimes are the criminals’ individual decisions to commit them. I suppose one could justify letting the Police bring prosecutions on the basis of fingerprints found, but what then happens to these things? I hope they are destroyed when convictions are spent, but I guess not. The compulsion to hold onto such potentially useful stuff must be strong, and given that 99.9% of criminals are under about 30, and a few % may go on to re-offend after this age (thought I guess not many, since crime is a young man’s profession) it is tempting to hold onto the dabs.

But enter “SCIENCE” ….. along comes a new technology, supposedly allowing us to know “all about our own genes”, and to allow people seemingly to be distinguished absolutely one from another. Enter now the state!

“We ought to collect this data, on people, don’t you think, Tristan?”…..

…..or whatever your chum at Oxford was called, before you both sat and passed the “Civil Service” with those flying colours and glittering prizes! Both of you probably had the odious, self-regarding Terry Eagleton as your Tutor.

With rampant new biotech firms springing up out of the grass, eager to get fudgepacked by the state, so as to get money to develop and sell it quick DNA-recovery and amplification techniques, it seems a simple and cheap matter for tristan and his chums in the “Home Office” to get the Police to collect DNA from every passer-by who has the bad fortune to enter the “Station” after a good night out, and a bit of slapping.

So, the thing grows. And grows.

Then, since the weeping, distraught parents of murdered underdressed pretty young things who insist on either walking home at 3am after snubbing someone in a “club”, or getting lifts with strange guys, or (worse!) jilt their rough-tough unsocialised boyfriends, make “GOOD TELEVISION”, personal tragedy gets translated into “public calls for” a universal DNA database.” I am sorry, but I deem such weeping parents – WHO AGREE TO BE WIRELESS-TELE-VISULAISED WHILE IN THE ACT OF GRIEVING (which ought to be private) – to be utterly without personal pride or self-respect, and to be a detrimental instrument in the body-politic. Being a parent, I would not begin to want to undergo the same grief they suffer – I can imagine exactly what it would be like, and I wish fervently, under God, never to be in their position. But their grief is a private matter into which the grotesque, evil, smarming, Godless and hell-begotten Wireless Tele Vision monsters ought not to intrude, for it to be broadcast to millions who do not know them, and which is definitely NOT anyone else’s business but their family’s and friends’.

(Why is it always the dead girls who make it so very publicly to the News?) DISCUSS…….. 

“If the database saves one life, it’s worth it” is what we hear, from the Tele-monster journos. Chris Tame’s “safety Nazis” have indeed now struck, in a big way, and the public acquiescence to the idea of a DNA database is being built up.

Then, people in the West are these days not much interested in defending individual rights. This much ought to be obvious from the reports of daily encroachment on normal abilities to do almost anything that did not cause harm to others – coupled with the blurring of the boundaries of what criminals are allowed to get away with.

This is what they’ll say:

“DNA database? And so…? What’s it to me? I’ve got nothing to hide, so I’ve got nothing to fear!”

And so the monster will creep on, and on, and on, until it’s too late and someone has to go in and take it down.

LA News Release: Shut Down DNA Database

Sean Gabb 

In Association with the Libertarian International
Release Date: Saturday 23rd February 2008
Release Time: Immediate

Contact Details:
Dr Sean Gabb on 07956 472 199 or via

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

“Close Down the DNA Database” Says Libertarian Alliance

The Libertarian Alliance, the radical free market and civil liberties pressure group, today calls on the British Government to close down its DNA database and wipe the records.

The murder convictions of Steve Wright and Mark Dixie within the past few days – both allegedly as a result of DNA evidence – have led to calls for all British adults to be forcibly included in the DNA database.

Libertarian Alliance Director, Sean Gabb, says:

“These calls are not prompted by the recent convictions. The convictions are being made an excuse for rolling out plans that have long existed in the Home Office.

“We do not need a database state to fight crime. That needs real punishments for real crimes and efficient policing. These things alone could take crime back to the levels of the 1950s.

“We are told these two murders were only solved by using DNA matching. This may be true – though the police are notorious liars. Even so, catching two murderers, though important, is not worth a database state.

“Give the Government samples of our DNA and it will have potentially tyrannical powers over us. You may insist you have nothing to fear from a database of your DNA. After all, the authorities keep promising how much safer it will make you. But do you want your children to go on that database? Can you be sure that some demented government scientist two decades from now will not decide that the surest way to heaven on earth is to stop certain people from breeding? Can you be sure that your children will not show up negative on a DNA database that will have enabled an old authoritarian fantasy to be made into bureaucratic reality?

“Are there no criminal tendencies somewhere in your family background? No racial or sexual characteristics that may one day be again be as unfashionable as they have been in other times and places? No bad eyes or flat feet? No predisposition to obesity or illnesses that it will for the foreseeable future be expensive to treat on the National Health Service?

“Bear in mind that, with a certainty not known since the 1940s, the relevant scientists are proclaiming that your destiny is in your genes. This may be true. Whatever the case, it is and will remain the consensus. Can you believe it will never be attractive to politicians ignorant of the science, but struggling with the problems of crime control and ballooning health budgets?

“Do you want grandchildren? Or do you want to risk seeing your genes scientifically combed from the general pool?”

The Libertarian Alliance calls on the British Government to reject all proposals to expand the existing DNA database, and to wipe all records so far gathered.


“Water bottles morally wrong anti smoking” ….. lovely search-engine string! We are hitting the (blog) spot.

David Davis 

I can’t think of anything worthwhile to add to the title above, so I won’t.

It says everything about the neo-Stalinist control-freaks with which we are currently plagued here in the home and birthplace of liberalism.

They’ll be categorising foods next, for content of “prohibited” stuff such as “fats” and “salt” – everything that makes it taste of anything at all…..

Tungsten or “Incandescent” light bulbs. MORE. Chris Taylor says he will do WHOLESALE amounts!

David Davis

See our earlier post on this one.  Chris says he is pleased, while the opportunity lasts legally, to supply large quantities of any still-available tungsten light bulb. He does all sorts of funnies, pygmies, oddities and the like.

Bugger the darkness-droids, for a start. As one commenter on the past one said “the light bulb is an icon of civilisation.” it is sheer moonbattery to suppose that  a free man can live not only freezing, but in the dark. And think of the carbon footprint required for all that Indium/Gallium Nitride for those high-bright LEDs that are the only reasonable alternative in the long term!

Chris Taylor Electrical, Shakespeare Street, Southport, Lancashire, tel 01704-544047

Addition to blogroll: Freiheit und Zivilisation


Robert Grözinger seems to be a German libertarian. The more such people there are on the Continent, the better.

Nazi control freaks, new labour, Dawn Primarolo, binge drinking, crime, teenagers. Do go and have a look, it is so funny.

David Davis


The comment thread is also brilliant, in its extended wittiness and insight into the minds of tyrannical idealists.

Is the City of London Good for England?

Sean Gabb
Free Life Commentary
A Personal View from
The Director of the
Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 168
19th February 2008
postCount(‘flc168′);Comments| postCountTB(‘flc168′); Trackback

Are the non-Domiciled Rich and the City
Good for England?
by Sean Gabb

On my way out of the house this morning, I was called by a BBC researcher to discuss my opinion of non-domiciled tax status. As my opinions were not the ones expected, our conversation did not lead to any broadcast. But I was rather pleased with what I said, and I might as well spend the rest of my railway journey writing it down.

For my readers who live abroad, I should explain that resident foreigners in this country enjoy significant tax privileges. I, as a British citizen resident in the United Kingdom, pay tax on my income earned here and elsewhere in the world. A foreigner living here, who can persuade the authorities that his permanent residence is outside the United Kingdom, pays tax only on what income he earns in this country and on what income he brings in from abroad. Whatever he earns abroad and leaves abroad attracts no tax. That is why so many rich people have moved to London.

This privilege is now under attack. During the past eleven years, the British State has almost doubled in size. The Ministers have justified this by an endless chant of “investment in essential public services”. In truth—whether to a few white proles, or to Shopping Coordinators for Bearded Men with HIV, or to the various Tarquins and Jaspers who get the contracts to redesign logos and headed paper every time a Ministry name is changed—our tax money has gone on raising up an army of Labour voters. So far, most of us have not paid attention to the systematic looting required for this. Some of it was cleverly disguised. Much of it was enabled by an expansion of the world economy that brought in more revenue without increases in the rates of tax.

This may now change. If we go into recession, the amount of tax paid will fall at current rates. At the same time, there is no room left for imposing taxes that will not be noticed and felt. Therefore, if the payroll vote is to be kept on, let alone expanded, the Government must now openly increase taxes or inflate or both.

That is why the non-domiciled are to be hit with a poll tax of £30,000 per year. This will not put off the fiscal crisis. At £800 million, the sum projected is barely a fifth of one per cent of total government spending. Nor will it last very long. The non-domiciled are already threatening to leave. That means a farewell to Madonna and to Roman Abramovich. More importantly, it means a farewell to some of the most dynamic people in the City of London. To raise barely enough cash to run the National Health Service for a week, the Government is prepared to lose people who contribute billions in employment and indirect tax, and to damage a vast financial machine that generates more than a third of the national income.

But when a state is hungry, every little extra can look tasty. That it may not last beyond the next election is not something at all likely to worry our present set of politicians.

I think the lady from the BBC expected me to run out of breath as I denounced the scheme. She had me listed on her database as Director of the Libertarian Alliance, and took it for granted that I opposed taxes and supported the rich in general and the City of London in particular.

Well, I did denounce the taxes. They were bad, I said, because they stole the produce of a man’s labour: taxing is enslaving. They were bad, I added, because they enabled government spending that, even when not obviously wasteful or oppressive, tended to corrupt both direct and indirect recipients.

Her problem started when I moved to the rich and all those City people. Good riddance to the lot of them, I said. If it needed a tax to get them out of England, I might almost find something nice to say about taxes.

That was the end of our conversation. The BBC lady made her excuses and rang off. I imagine she then did a search in her database for Tory Boy Intellectual, and was soon hearing a lecture about London as “the Jewel in the Crown of the British Economy”.

I suppose I should explain myself. There are those who think libertarianism involves a defence of riches and of the rich. Some libertarians seem to agree. I do not. A libertarian is someone who wants to be left alone, and who wants to leave others alone, and who wants others to be left alone. People must be taken as the owners of their bodies and of what they create in or appropriate from the external world.

Given that all exchange and other association needs therefore to be voluntary, we move to an endorsement of what is called the free market. If some people do better in life in others, so much the better for them. If they contrive to pass on some part of their success to their children, so much the better again.

This is not, however, an endorsement of actually existing capitalism. A free society is not Tesco minus the State. It is a place of small craftsmen and farmers and traders, of artists and of unlicensed doctors and lawyers, and of others needed if individuals and free associations of individuals are to live well. We cannot say much more than this about the arrangements of a free society. But we can be sure it would have no place for big business as it now is found.

Big business corporatism, I would never seek to deny, is the best economic model humanity has known in over a century. It does generate vast amounts of wealth, and does ensure that much of this is distributed with some approximation of justice. Give me a choice between what we have and any of the state socialisms tried or recommended since Plato, and there is no doubt what I should choose. Nor is there any doubt, though, that the civilised nations made a big collective mistake around the middle of the 19th century. A system of scientific and industrial progress that might have grown into an unmixed blessing was partly hobbled and made into a new instrument of class domination by laws that allowed firms to incorporate and that gave shareholders limited liability for the debts of firms.

The result was a channelling of investment into firms that would never have been trusted had investors continued to face the risk of joint and several liability for debt. As these firms grew to enormous size, they monopolised or cartellised whole markets. They accepted and often quietly called for schemes of tax and regulation that harmed them, but harmed them less than their smaller competitors. In Britain and America, they demanded the underwriting by the State of their foreign expansions.

To ask whether big business bought or were colonised by the political class is irrelevant. All that matters is that we live in a world where political power and corporate wealth are possessed by different wings of the same ruling class. It is a ruling class that presides over whole nations of people transformed by brainwashing and mild but continuous discipline from human beings to human resources.

More than any other financial centre, the City of London stands as the heart and mind of the global corporate system. Every statistic the BBC lady was hoping I might drool on air—that there are more American banks in London than in New York, that German banks employ more people in London than in Frankfurt, that over a third of all currency conversions take place in London, and so on and so forth—is further condemnation for me.

Anyone who regards the City as identical with free market liberalism is deceived or trying to deceive. It is a place where markets clear, and where profit comes from working out returns in fractions of one per cent. It is one of the few places where reality and the textbook world of perfect competition nearly merge. It is, however, a place maintained in being by the scheme of state-granted privilege that is limited liability. At the very best, its activities are useful to protect us from high taxes. But in a world of free societies, there would be no City of London or anything like it.

A further evil of the City brings me back to the non-domiciled rich. Whatever their immunity from income tax, these are people who pay large amounts of indirect tax. They hand this over without much resistance or complaint, and they hand over large amounts. Political quietism plus great wealth is always dangerous to freedom. When the quiet rich are also foreigners, or at least highly mobile, is still worse. They will not protest at any use of their tax money to oppress other people than themselves. The moment their own freedom is infringed, they will retreat to somewhere more congenial.

For all the airs and graces they try to assume, this is what makes the non-domiciled rich different from the old landed aristocracy. Though tiresome in their defence of legal privilege and unearned wealth, these latter were incidentally useful in slowing the rise of big business corporatism. Like the rest of us, they had nowhere to run to, and were by training and inclination the natural leaders of resistance. Roman Abramovich and Madonna are none of these things. They live among us, but are in no sense with us. The same is true for the more anonymous bankers and fund managers who have for the past generation found this country useful as a trading platform. The same is true of the rich in general. Unlike the workers, who may have little else, the rich have no country.

Just about the only very rich foreigner possessed of any public spirit is Mohammed al-Fayed. He expresses that spirit in what may seem an eccentric cause. But he certainly cares something about this country. He is also domiciled here and is subject to the same taxes as the rest of us. Not surprisingly, he is hated and reviled by the establishment media, and has failed to obtain a British passport in an age when these are handed out to any parasite who can hold his place on the underside of a lorry.

In closing, Gordon Brown and his Ministers do not intend to do well by us. They are traitors to us in their external policies, and rapacious tyrants in all their internal dealings. But their desire for short term gain may set us on the path to a better world. And if they are not to be thanked for this, I am not inclined to join in the chorus of disapproval.

 NB—Sean Gabb’s book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded free from You can help by contributing to publishing and distribution costs

Tungsten or “incandescent” light bulbs. Did you know the EU has “phased out” supply of 150-watt bulbs or greater? 100w will go this year, then 60w, etc etc.

David Davis 

The Green-Nazis have now decreed that not only are we to freeze due to “global” “warming”, but that this must now take place in the dark. Tungsten-filament bulbs available for sale are to have their available power reduced rpogresssively until banning utterly.

However, non-moonbats will be PLEASED TO KNOW that you can still buy large quantities of 200-watt Tungsten bulbs, from Chris Taylor Electrical, of Shakespeare Street, Southport, Lancashire, tel 01704-544047. I don’t know if he can get any more, so buy them while you can, for about £1.49 a shot. The specific bulbs he has right now are made in Slovakia which means they are probably perfectly good for the usual 1,000 hours+ . 

Tomorrow I am going to lay in a case of them, for the Long Dark Age ahead. 

The food and water nazis are increasing their reach. Now, “Bottled Water is Immoral”.

David Davis

This from today’s Sunday Telegraph. Although the wheels are coming, scientifically and logically as they must anyway, off the global warm-mongering-bandwaggon, these interfering Stalinists not only don’t learn and don’t say “sorry”, they keep buggering on. Some of it is worth quoting for its breathtaking pomposity:

Drinking bottled water should be made as unfashionable as smoking, according to a government adviser.

“We have to make people think that it’s unfashionable just as we have with smoking. We need a similar campaign to convince people that this is wrong,” said Tim Lang, the Government’s naural resources commissioner.

  Bottled water generates up to 600 times more C02 than tap water
Bottled water generates upto 600 times more CO2 than tap water

Phil Woolas, the environment minister, added that the amount of money spent on mineral water “borders on being morally unacceptable”.

Their comments come as new research shows that drinking a bottle of water has the same impact on the environment as driving a car for a kilometre. Conservation groups and water providers have started a campaign against the £2 billion industry.

A BBC Panorama documentary, “Bottled Water: Who Needs It?”, to be broadcast tomorrow says that in terms of production, a litre bottle of Evian or Volvic generates up to 600 times more CO2 than a litre of tap water.

If semi-state-supplied tap water, provided by (not really free market) water “companies” did not taste and smell so utterly disgusting, then perhaps more people would drink it. But then, in a Nazified socialist paradise with no available or permitted plastic bottles (your carbon footprint, sonny), how do you take it with you on a sunny day, or indeed any other kind of day?

Good News! Supermarkets to get planning permission for more out of town sites…..but…..isn’t the free market being distorted here?

David Davis 

Today’s oily Torygraph had a piece here, about the “competition commission” (WHY IS THERE ONLY ONE?) and its report on whether to let Multiple Grocers (this is what these outfits really are) acquire more sites.

As our readers know, I have never failed to be the defender of “supermarkets” – especially out-of-town ones, which help poor overworked middle-class workers and families to have cheap nice food, frequently flown from all over the world even out of season (which helps 3rd-world growers too) in five minutes flat, with free parking.

The torygraph didn’t publish my comment, probably because I said in it “we have not time to scratch our bums, let alone get on park-and-rides, and walk about with sagging bags to to shop in nice little chatty grocers….”, and I foolishly failed to save it in Word. Never mind.

But why are o-o-t supermarkets so popular, and why are “independent town-centre” grocers and others going to the wall? The government has done the following things to bring this about:

(1) It has almost criminalised private driving into towns and city centres. If not criminal yet, it is seriously expensive and circumscribed. And families need large tonnages of stuff, not a hand-basketfull.

(2) It has almost criminalised farming (we all wait to hear what baleful regulations and costs DEFRA – or whatever it’s called this week – will load onto the surviving English farmers soon. This means there is seemingly redundant land which nobody is allowed to do anything with. Building brezze-block-and-cardboard houses cheek-by-jowl? Four million of them, for Brown’s dependency-votariat? Or two thousand supermarkets? Which is more useful and puts less strain on the drainage and sewage systems? Your say!

(3) To pay existing taxation levels and yet live, people have to work so hard, especially if unemployed. there is no time to wander about quaint towns in search of what you need, probably from 125 diffent shops, while not being allowed near your car.

These market distortions are chiefly responsible for the situation that the state has got itself into. If farming was still allowed in England in particular, and largely deregulated, then green belt land would be too expensive for “developers” to play with, and state planning departments would have nobody to be schmoozed up the arse by, would lose importance, and would go on permanent sick leave due to “stress” – a good thing overall.

If driving and parking in town centres was allowed or much cheaper, “little independent shops” which Green Nazis and Friends of the Earth masturbate about in public, would do better. More rich people (who have no time) and poor people (who might) could patronise them.

I quote form Sir Terry Leahy here, from the torygraph article;

However, the supermarkets have frequently argued that their success has come from offering an ever wider and increasingly cheap range of goods.

Moreover, by opening their stores for longer, they have helped make their shoppers’ lives more convenient.

Sir Terry Leahy, chief executive of Tesco, last week launched a passionate defence of supermarkets.

“There is always a divide in society between those who trust people, and those who say people cannot be trusted,” he said.

“Well, I put my trust in people, in consumers. Supermarkets are their creation. We prosper and grow by delivering what they want.

“That is our role in society. And our success is a shared success, one that benefits all.’’

Political Correctness, Hitler, Stalin, Mao-tse-Tung, Gordon Brown, and culture.

Yesterday Simon Heffer (Simon Heffer for Prime Minister!…..except he’s unsound on drugs – he doesn’t want them legalised) said this in the Daily Telegraph.

Every school child will be “entitled” to “five hours of culture per week through school, and vast shagloads of money (some hundreds of millions) are to be spent on “People’s Ecological Street-Dance-Theatre” type projects, and “Avant-Garde” films including a setup to produce more.

For those of you who went to sleep in about 1940 and have just woken up, “avant-garde” films are badly-shot films about not very interesting stuff, in which everybody has emotional problems and then they all die; the cuts are unsteady and very long, the film “grosses” £1,549.60 in Islington, it goes straight to the bin, not straight to DVD, the characters are “tormented by challenging emotions” (and then they all die) and then they all die – or at least those with whom you most sympathised. And of course the West is to blame, chiefly America, and it’s all about oil or homophobia.

Even Hollywood makes appreciable amounts of this pointlessly self-regarding shite, mainly because the producers:

(a) live under the American Missile Umbrella, so it’s never raining where they are, and

(b) it’s a good way (if you’re rich) to show how (very NOT George W Bushitler-Halliburton) you are, and how (very NOT trailer-trash redneck) you are.

The thesis as read by me out of it is that Gordon is trying to do two things;

(1) pretend to be on the side of uplifting high culture, as a way to mitigate the effect of useless socialist state schools, in their national-curriculum-syllabus-directed mass-production of completely deculturalised teenagers,

(2) give lots of extra employment to luvvies who will then continue to vote for you, in return for paying them to make politically-correct cultural objects so that they can feel important.

The problem is that Brown is confusing “culture” with Culture.

Culture has objective value, whereas “culture” is subjectively defined by the socialist ruling elite, in accordance with what they want what they used to call (while at “Uni”) “the masses”, to think, believe and emulate.

All real socialists end up by nationalising and therefore corrupting culture, art and private creative achievement. Marxism-Leninism showed the way in Russia. Distribution of the products of the graphic arts was poor before then, so that’s when the buggers really got going on the world. Hitler, a most energetic and self-admitted socialist, did the same in what I like to term R-3 (R-x….R-whatever-you-want….R-3 is not the first or the last in this series of murdertroid imperialist structures.) 

What Brown’s “initiative” will achieve is in effect the nationalisation of art and culture in Britain. I wonder what they’ll do, since we have no smoking-chimney-factories, nor even farms of any note any more, in which to depict craggy-visaged workers, er, working?

Today we got……

…..seen by:

“Nazis + Green Police”

“Green police + nazi”

“Why you should smoke”

I love the smell of Google in the Morning! (What was that Vietnam movie called again? I can’t remember just now – oh, “apocalypse now”, yes?) I never watched it in full, but it is so famous that I can imagine exactly what it would have been like, such as if I had been shagging (a somewhat younger) Elizabeth Taylor.

Chris Tame would be proud of these search strings.

Political Correctness – more on this and the enforcement thereof. Degrading of property rights in the UK by stalinist government

In today’s TIMES, we have this;

Here is a summary if the link breaks;

Greater powers for official ‘snoopers’
Jill Sherman, Whitehall Editor
More than a dozen Bills going through Parliament extend

the powers of state inspectors to enter
people’s homes, the Government has admitted.
Despite a pledge by Gordon Brown last October
that he would limit powers and introduce a liberty
test, he has extended the right to enter property in
planning, crime, environmental, education and
health legislation.
A parliamentary answer obtained by the
Conservatives shows that nine Bills and one draft Bill contain
new powers of entry, with three others entrenching
existing powers.

“The fact that Gordon Brown is entrenching and
extending powers of state bureaucrats to enter
people’s homes makes a mockery of his so-called
review into powers of entry,” Eric Pickles, the
Shadow Communities Secretary, said.
The Counter-terrorism Bill and the Criminal Justice
and Immigration Bill, for example, allow entrance to
properties to enforce “social disorder” and
anti-terrorist laws. The Education and Skills Bill
allows the State to inspect private schools and the
Climate Change Bill allows officials to enter homes
to enforce black bin charges and to monitor
carbon-trading schemes.

Mr Pickles, who said that there was a need for
measures to tackle crime and terrorism, added:
 “Yet this uncontrolled extension contradicts Gordon
Brown’s empty promises on liberty and is another
worrying sign of the surveillance state.”
A survey of state powers to enter people’s homes
by the Centre for Policy Studies last April highlighted
a significant expansion of entry powers under Labour.
The spokesman from the Home Office said that all the
Bills would be included in the review of powers
of entry. The spokesman added that it was inevitable
that some new powers had to be included in the Bills
to ensure the laws were enforceable.

[This is a typical response from a person stripping you of your
liberties, and a somewhat lazy and casual one at that -Christina Speight] (see her blog)

There comes a point where, if we consider what property rights are, the line dividing them from the “rights” (temporal) delegated by consent to a “state” becomes stepped-over, and not by us but by the “state”.

We have to begin putting the word “state” in parantheses, to indicate our further and further sundering from it and its now avowed objectives. This is despite however in favour we were formally, even slightly, of a minimal “state”, as minimal-statist libertarians (there really are such people!)

We ought to consider what remedies can be taken, against this increasing tide of forced entry and (inevitable) turning-over of our private possessions, including our rubbish (which ought also to be private, for quite sound reasons.) So you green-nazis you can go stuff this new stuff up your jacksis – look it up if you don’t know what a “jacksi” is (and I bet you won’t find it on any wiki either.)

Suppose I wanted to dig a coal mine in my back garden, here? I will have to go quite deep, at least 11,000 feet as the “Wigan-Nine” – that great and renowned seam which drove the Battle of the Atlantic in WW1, and which probably does still yet underlie me here, had its shafts about 20 miles east, and tilts west at a gradient of about 1 in 11. Apart from the problem of disposing of the spoil (a simple matter of property rights and contract) why can’t I do it?

The boundary of property rights between the individual and the “state” stops at the individual’s fence. If we allow “states” to tax fixed property (and there are reasonably sound minimal-statist arguments for allowing a limited measure of this, as opposed to “direct taxation of income” which can be corrupted and get out of hand as is now the case) then in return we must have rights of limitation of allowing Nazi bureauphilia-crazed loons to trample unannounced all over our property. If there is no private sphere (the Englishman’s Castle) then we live in Cuba or North Korea and we might as well go there.

Libertarian blogger spanked. They don’t like me over at “strange maps”. I criticised a Grayson Perry map….

….which I thought was

(a) anti-English -a and I am a libertarian, and now perceive that “Englishness” as it is expressed popularly and “liberalism” are increasingly convergent, 

(b) made fun of people with disabilities such as Tourette’s Syndrome and agoraphobia, which are very unfunny conditions to have, 

(c) was just, er, well, not very good  as a piece of art…being my usual mealy-mouthed self, I used the word “crap”. I could have said more but that was somebody else’s blog and I don’t swear and curse on other people’s blogs (only here, and only sometimes, and devilskitchen does it better anyway,)

I also suggested that some of the voluble commentators who wetted themselves over it needed help. Perhaps this was over the top, but I was angry that seemingly otherwise-normal, articulate and intelligent people would wet themselves in a positive way, over, well, nothing very impressive or admirable.

Being a libertarian does not mean that I must not can’t make objective judgements about what is good or bad.

I got lambasted by various people who thought the map was the greatest thing since sliced bread. The Masterblogger of “strangemaps” himself indeed berated me, in public! (That is his right, for the blog is his property.)  But this blog got at least 44 hits it would not have got otherwise, so I guess it makes me what we called in the 1950s a “Yellow Journalist”. OK.

Thankfully I guess, I didn’t venture my opinions on Grayson Perry himself and his (implied) “artistic” proclivities, or else I would be banned from the internet, my computer would be seized by the police, and I would end up on the sex-offenders’ register for my beliefs about Perry’s “art”. (See “political correctness”, on this blog, earlier, about 2 days ago.)

Strange Maps is a great blog by the way. Everybody ought to go there from time to time, for you will learn things that astound you, and some things will even be useful. You can find the map in question by looking for “Every Englishman is an Island”.

The Lent Fast; is this a “Christian Ramadan”? Or is “Ramadan” a Muslim rip-off of the tormenting of Christ? so, did Mohammed get the idea from us, or what? Libertarianism and theory of “religion-ness”.

It’s not just us here, whose supposed secular prelates are losing their nerve against what they see as an unstoppable trend. A man described as an “Arch-Bishop”, called Rowan Williams, has got into hot water with the Devil recently.

So, if you are a Dutch catholic, what to do? Go with it, or resist? If the prevailing terms of discourse in your civilisation seem to be against you, then perhaps go with it…..for now.

But then, finally, when “they” (whoever they may be) come for YOU, and there is nobody to speak for you, what then?

I got this via Mark Steyn and his national-review/corner bitty-bit:

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

What’s in a name?   [Mark Steyn]

It’s not just Anglican Archbishops who are determined to make the transition painless:

Dutch Catholics have re-branded the Lent fast as the “Christian Ramadan” in an attempt to appeal to young people who are more likely to know about Islam than Christianity.

02/12 07:51 AM

I am not clear totally about this, not having been there in real time, but I think that Jesus Christ (is said to have) fasted in the desert for 40 days, about the year 28 or 29 AD. Mohammad must have finished honing his desert-survival-guide-cum-political-strategy-and-slave-handling-manual, for his various relations, conquered-and-subdued-populations-and-hench-people, about the year 632 AD, which is when he is said to have died. From my students, I infer Ramadan to be about as long, as Jesus Christ fasted, or about a “moon”.

Mark Steyn in currently in trouble with the Canadian (non) Authorities, called HRC’s, which is to say “Human Rights Commissions”, which are broadly anti-Western NGOs paid for by Canadian taxation, to indict people who say things that might offend PC-minorities. All he did is state that moslems in the west will outbreed ethnic “westerners”, and quite quickly. That seems to be a mathematical fact but he is under fire.

I find it very interesting that a “deep” European country’s “Catholics” (I thought they they thought that they owned the Citadel of Christendom – and Holland is “deep” European whereas we in Britain even are not) are defining deeply regular ( = ROOTED/RULED, or non-secular) aspects of “their” “religion” in terms of another, later one which has an arm which professes to need to exterminate all other religions on Earth.

Libertarians ought to be concerned here. Not because many libertarians are religious, and anyway I don’t think many Libertarians are Religious in the Formal Sense; old Chris Tame sometimes even described himself as “anti-religious”. I have heard him, and his first wife Judy, both saying that thing, and I was not offended and they did not expect me to be.  

I and other libertarians should be worried, because (religious and other) ideas which have underpinned the Enlightenment – basically that Man is rational and has sovereign thought and that some [religions] allow this – are being thrown away casually by people “in charge” who ought to know better, and who are “in charge” of temporal regions targeted by those who would not take a bright view of libertarian ideas, say about “gays” and “lesbians” for instance.

There must be several of these people in Holland for example. Indeed, I even came across a report in the “Sunday Sport”, “courtesy of a friend”, which stated that two “lesbians” “were beheaded in public in Saudi Arabia” on 1st February 2008, in Rhiyadh”, for having been “videoed on a mobile phone kissing each other” (I wonder who betrayed them? Hope it was not the ISP. Better find out which one if it was.)

The Shari’a Court admitted as admissible the video evidence, and “convicted” the two sisters (as they were, it seems.)  I had a better report, a few days ago, but I deleted the draft as it was too graphic. I think this is terrible if true – I don’t fancy lesbians at all, and being a rebid “hetero” muself, I think all that stuff is disgusting and I would not do it if you paid me (it’s almost as bad as smoking) but if they want to do what they say they want to do, then that is their affair and nobody else’s and certainly not mine.

I think that for most Libertarians, God is an “add-on”. As a scientist, for me He represents “order” or “Logos”, of which the Universe contains an enormously great deal, and it is very highly ordered and logical and beautiful, and it is not done by accident. (No I am NOT a creationist! God’s order is achieved, in the fullness of time, through His physical Laws which govern matter and energy. Darwin was perfectly correct.) Scientists and Lancashire mud-bumpkins like me believe in Him absolutely, and we seek to understand His Mind; that is our main job, and it is also why we hate the “political correctness” mob of killers, moochers and wastrels so much, for they obscure the big picture and delay Man in his quest.

Therefore, unhelpful interjections by temporarily-terrified people who ought to know better, are, er, rather unhelpful.

This also begs the question of whether I think the Judeo-Christian model of cosmology and hence therefore the philosophy of knowledge and Science and belief, is the correct one, or else any other competing one.

I bet you all 5p you can tell which one I go for. 

Natural England (a fascist pre-capitalist barbarian quango) gets money from the EU via DEFRA (department for Ending of Farming and Rural Affairs…not the sexy kind where you can f*** your near-neighbour’s wife and she won’t tell…)

This came From Outside today:

Original Message —–



Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 2:30 PM

Subject: Natural England (this is the Wiki-page – ed.)

All in SW

The issue of Natural England and its possible/probable funding from the EU has been raised, and Steve Reed in Brussels turned up what he thinks is the appropriate budget source – LIFE+

Have a look at these 2 links and see if any of it gels with your own knowledge/experience in this area. John Kelly

Hi Bernard, “Natural England (NA)” [THIS IS ITS OWN WEB PAGE - ed.] the quango that wants to turn England into a saltmarsh has received £2.9 billion from Defra to assist this aim and in turn DEFRA got this sum from Europe.  NA make the claim to be independent of the government but this is obviously a false claim and NA seem to be the masters of the Environment Agency. According to the website, NA also gets £400,000 a year for its administration. If this rogue quango of environmental anoraks is not restrained, it will have a very counter productive effect to rising sea levels and sink the population ahead of any natural consequences. It seems to me we are all sleeping while this quango is given excessive powers to interfere on planning applications as a statutory consultee etc. with a very prejudicial interest and objectives. In short, this quango needs to be discredited for what it is doing at our expense and I am hoping your colleagues in UKIP here and abroad can provide some further evidence that supports my perception. See the weblink

I feel I have to comment here. “Natural England” has been also doing stuff round here in the North West where we live. What it proposes is entirely destructive and you can get my views by looking at correspondence on this group, for earlier today (11th Feb 2008.)

If DEFRA really stands for the “Department for Ending of Farming and Rural Affairs” (and I think it’s now called “DERA” which indicates that it thinks that “farming” has ended in the UK or at least England, which is about right) then all this makes sense.

If you are a socialist, and an intelligent one in a liberal Western nation which you hate for what it did for the rest of humanity (so these people could not become your supplicant-clients, for they were already freed by your enemy) then you probably have an Apple laptop (and you hate Bill Gates – OK OK it does not matter, your friends have got their teeth into his ankles for his money and he will now learn better at your hands, while he and his wife are thinking they are doing “big charity” – you will waste his money for him while the poor Africans wait and die.) 

Moreover, lots of you type on an apple, (you guys will end up being made to type outside in the cold, or in the alleyway next door, by us Intel/AMD-Windows-PC-ers….. like the poor smokers, eventually, were made to stand outside by your lot.) Just you try doing the mouse-thing in a hurricane in Lancashire in January, in an alleyway, on an apple. 

You think that “people ought to live off the land” (I have been told this by more than one of you)  and that “intensive farming” is “destroying the countryside”. You can say this and seem to get away with the falsehood, for you ……

(a) control the UK GCSE geography syllabus, and

(b) also you can afford to buy shitty, muddy “organic boxes” of mixed roots of indeterminate colour and dryness, covered in mud and rather shrivelled, delievered by a cheery lad in a van who knows the colour of your money and has an Apple-website like yours, or else you can get stuff flown in from Peru via Tesco (I LOVE TESCO! Strawberries in winter!) You even pretend you want to eat the stuff….and even feed it to your children (God help them) –  devotion to duty if ever there was.

(c) you have suborned all the “science” teachers under about age 42. (That was a clever move – I take my hat off to you. I now have to look to Chindia to save us from your efforts.)

If one wanted to abolish or emasculate an entity called “England”, then one plank of strategy would be to (a) remove its ability to control the extent of the coast line, and (b) to diminish the amount of productive farming that could go on anywhere. I rest my case.

Libertarians should be concerned, and oppose whatever DEFRA, or DERA indicates, since it seems designed to reduce this island to a state of food-dependency on some other outside agency – whether this be the EU, or “suppliers” (who can be leaned on). This island was the birthplace of liberalism – not a dirty word at all, just hijacked by the stalinists in the USA – and this supposed attack is just part of our punishment for doing what we did to free people. They want to demolish, or render unproductive, or at least inundate from the sea, our Land.

Perhpas they would just like to say they want to come and sow it with salt? Then, we will all know where we are.

“The Remittance Man”, added to blogroll. Very active English liberal blog. Also we welcom “The Bewilderness” who turn out to be friendly too


Can’t think why I didn’t spot the bugger before. A great read, recommended, interlaced (sorry for the pun) with nicely chosen crumpet.

I can’t imagine when he finds the time to do any mining.

Also see The Bewilderness

Wish I had the time to write as often as these people!

Sean Gabb and new multimedia files. Guy Herbert of No2Id, TODAY; George Galloway MP, 7th Feb 2008; Teresa Gorman MP (in 1991)

On Thursday the 7th February, Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian
Alliance, joined with Guy Herbert of No2Id and George Edwards to put the
case against identity cards. Here is a video of the event:

On Saturday the 10th February, Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian
Alliance, discussed the New Labour Police State with George Galloway MP.
Here is an audio recording of the discussion:

on the 30th November 1991, the Libertarian Alliance held a one day
conference on the rights of children. Among those speaking was Teresa
Gorman MP. Here is a video of the event:

Higher quality DVDs of all video footage are available on application to
Sean, at

Download my new book – “Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How
Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back” -

Political Correctness: the history of a Marxist effort to remedy its own failure and breathtaking unpopularity, now on the brink of victory: useful grand astounding video

David Davis 

Here is an excellent video on Google Video entitled ‘The History of Political Correctness’. It shows how it had its origins in the Marxist left of the 1930’s and was brought to prominence by Herbert Marcuse in America in the 1960’s. Also known as Cultural Marxism, it is a political strategy that aims to chip away at the foundations and structures of Western society and ultimately destroy it.

When ordinary, persecuted mortals say something in the press, such as “this is political correctness gone mad”, they know not what they do. They are  – quite unintentionally -implying that this machinery of tele-stalinization, called “political correctness” has a place in reasoned discourse, and can contribute to the goodness of all our lives. Nothing could be further from the truth.

“Political Correctness” is not and can never be “mad” or out of control – far from it. It is entirely disciplined, acutely thought out, and a finely-honed weapon used very effectively against the very civilisation that these poor old men and ladies have – in most cases fought for in peril of their lives. 

Nobody who is on the side of Good, against unutterably staggering evil, must ever, ever say the words “Political correctness gone mad” – it just plays into the enemy’s hands, gives him the credence and credibility that he is dangerously short of by making him look “sane”, and it abolishes his dangerous isolation and lack of suport. 

Shooting skills, young boys, and prostitutes. Learning to shoot, and defending the Free World against wankers, socialists and “extremists”.

General Peter Cosgrove (Australian) had a lovely exchange with a lady-fascist interviewer, here;


From: Joan Northam

To: Peter W Watson

Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 11:32 PM

Subject: Fw: Best Comeback line of 2007

Pete -Major General Peter Cosgrove should also be added to our very short list of modern heroes.  You’ll LOVE his response to the addle-brained noodle-witted limp wilted lettuce leftie here! Joan

—– Original Message —–

From: Stan Parr

To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;

Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 10:38 PM

Subject: Best Comeback line of 2007

THE BEST COMEBACK LINE for 2007… For those that don’t know him, Major General Peter Cosgrove  is an “Australian treasure!”General Cosgrove was interviewed on the radio recently. You’ll love his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns and children.  It is a portion of an ABC interview between a female broadcaster and General Cosgrove who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military headquarters.

So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

We’re going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.

Shooting! That’s a bit irresponsible, isn’t it?

I don’t see why, they’ll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

Don’t you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?


I don’t see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

But you’re equipping them to become violent killers.

Well, Ma’am, you’re equipped to be a prostitute, but you’re not one, are you?

The radio went silent and the interview ended


QUOTE OF THE DAY…. We don’t really do quotes of the day here as we have no staff, but this one by JOHN HOWARD (ex PM of Australia) is quite OK

As the two night-geeks who read this blog both know, we have not any actual bloggers here but a staff composed entirely of Ship’s Senior-Apprentice-Blogging-Chimpanzee-Typists. It will be remembered that, a few nights ago, their off-duty Mess was wrecked by an incoming-comment on the port side, not spotted in the (currently out-of-order) Palantir, and flinging (really quite modern) Remington Machine-Type Writers,  also (less modern) bananas everywhere, while the poor buggers slept in their hammocks.     

Minimal-statists and other Libertarians will of course have points-of-view about the legitimacy of a “government”, and its right (or otherwise) to state what the prevailing culture, religion and civilisation is in a territory. These strictures would also, I think, be deemed to apply to state-appointed “incantors” (perhaps I mean what used ot be called “precentors” or praecantors) and priests – such as the staggeringly comical caricature of the Devil Himself, Rowan Williams, currently impersonating, and described as, an “Archbishop of Canterbury”. I don’t know if the word “incantor” yet exists in the English Language but perhaps someone will wiki it.

However, if there is general tolerance – for now – of a state and its administration, and the vast majority of its taxees and farm-animals think they are – or ought – to be living in agreement with some defined set of memes, set substantially by themselves for historical reasons and therefore agreed to (willingly or no) by their bureaucrats, with whom they are stuck in a temporal sense, then that is what ought to be accepted by “other” “cultures”. This ought to be the case, be they ever so aggressive and malevolent towards the host one. Their supposed anger is irrelevant and is of course their problem, not the host’s.

This from Christina Speight: 

The United Kingdom Needs A Leader Like This!  He obviously doesn’t agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury ……..


Ex-Prime Minister John Howard – Australia

“Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims —– by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation’s mosques. Quote: ‘IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture.. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.’  

‘This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom’

‘We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!’

‘Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.’  We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.’

‘This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,


‘If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE. We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted’.

A man described as an “Archbishop of Canterbury” says “Sharia Law is inevitable” in the UK.

Here it was. As seen on the Booby-See.

I know what to do.

Let the Statist outfit that still thinks it’s in charge in the UK do the following thing.

Let it state that any aspect of “Sharia” “law” that accords entirely with the accumulated precepts of English Law as codified, and as updated by case law as is natural, shall be unofficially allowed. Any contrary procedure or jurisprudential opinions, emanating from “Sharia” “law” will be disallowed.

Individuals who don’t like this settlement are free to live in whatever country they choose or will have them.

Along with I expect other Christians, I’m not sure quite what this clearly very saintly man, a true socialist and (I am sure) sincere critic of English civilisation, is really doing in Lambeth Palace. He can’t be happy there, and is clearly a tormented individual. He may now be presiding over the dissolution of his Church, which is no longer my problem as I have been a Roman Catholic for some years – but it is his.

Interesting stuff from Al-Jazeera, from 21st Feb 2006 (I think it says)

I got this from a friend this morning. 

The strategic position that the female Moslem interviewee is taking seems to be one of strict individual liberty of belief.

Guess you ought to rip it while you can.

There is now a Libertarian Party in the UK.

David Davis

Here it is.

Here are all the Voices of Liberty Videos

Sean Gabb

There is a major (2 hours-plus) interview with Chris Tame (don’t worry, we don’t do boring fascist lefty Castro ranting-stuff here about “the people” and “the future”, for we want you all to be interested and involved - ed.) plus sessions with Tim Evans; Brian Micklethwait; prof Roger Scruton; Ralph, Lord Harris; Patrick Minford: Raymond Plant; Dr Robert Lefever;  Kevin McFarlane; Ian Anderson; Norman Barry; Phillip Loades; and many others.  

Experimental Video Posting: Chris R. Tame in 1991

In and around 1991, David Botsford recorded a series of interviews for a programme that he called “Voices of Liberty”. Those he interviewed included many in the British libertarian movement, together with several prominent critics of libertarianism.The programme was never made. In December 2007, however, handed the analogue tapes of the interviews to Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance. Sean then spent a week digitising the tapes and uploading downsampled versions to the Internet.Beyond making a few obvious joins, where interviews span more than one tape, Sean decided not to edit the footage. This means occasional comedy and much dullness. But these are now important video sources from the moment when some thought the libertarian movement was on the point of political breakthrough, but it was really on the verge of decline.

If you want higher quality copies of this or any other video, contact Sean Gabb via

Scissors beat paper. (The shortest headline in the history of the Libertarian Alliance Blog.)

scissors beat paper

David Davis 

Scissors beat paper.

You can learn more about this T-shirt from Kathy Shaidle’s blog.

The sooner that the West’s mortal enemies learn that humour is actually one of our key weapons against them, and that that cannot, under any circumstances or conditions, ever, ever silence this one, the better. Individual human beings will have to be “chipped” and RFID’d, and wired, for sound, for this to be so.

Or is this what they plan?

Oh and by the way, your Che Guevara (nasty wicked fascist murdering bastard who deserved to die as painfully as we all hope he did; may he rot in Hell somewhere vaguely inside Stalin’s frozen orbit) T-shirt is even less cool than whan I had a go at you over it last month. So I wouldn’t bother to put in on any more. And I’m not sure that the nice old lady in the local charity shop really wants it either, so why don’t you just put it in the bin, walk away quietly, say nothing, and hope nobody and no vido-cameras noticed you there? As you socialist buggers well know, and tell us all the time, those who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear.

Are Biofuels starving the world ….. We might be getting some slight movement here, in the sysiphean struggle to move the boulder.

David Davis (in the starving uncultivated DEFRA’d fields of England) 

“Are biofuels starving the world?” I do get a little encouragement sometimes, from the search-engine-strings that come in to us here. This blog takes a position on this debate, which is well known. The way to help people to the truth is to say that whereas we in the (still, even now) fortunate West will be able to afford to pay more for what food becomes available, poor starving Africans will not.

I find that you have to say that, and in just that way: otherwise, understanding is not communicated. This is because New-Labour-disorientated populations all think that all starving people are Africans. That in turn is because they are forced by the Government to do nothing except watch the Wireless Tele Vision. The Wireless Tele Vision people tell them to feel sorry for immobile African children with flies on their faces, and with fat tummies, that the UN is God, and that they should immediately get on their phones and give money to “Sir” “Bob Geldof” and other pop singers and global-mega-charities, right away, since only these semi-divine beings can help the poor fly-tormented children.

Item: if there is nothing to eat, then there is not only no food but no excreta or waste. So, where do all the flies in the BBC-News-tear-jerk-movies come from?  Fly populations as large as would support the local concentration of flies seen on these miserable pitiable humans, would not be sustainable in an environment consisting only of the humans themselves. There are only so many eggs, as a female insect, that you can lay and that will go to full-term in a living, moving child, however weak it may be. 

I only ask because I want to know.

Perhaps it’s down to the dead bodies, there because the “EU” cancelled its “peacekeeping mission” owing to the prospect of “conflict”?

Here’s a prayer to what a misguided but very good and nice man, whom I know and who lives near me, and for whom I have driven white vans, call “THE LEADERS”; Please, please, as you just now have the power to do it, stop this biofuels catastrophe now, while there is time.

Libertarian Alliance Blog upsets reader. So, what shall we write about?

David Davis (on Bridge) 

This missile, a comment on the Guido post just under this one here, hit the port quarter of the Blog sometime in the night while the Senior-Apprentice-Blogging-Chimpanzee-Typists’ mess was off-watch. And some debris as follows was found clinging to the hull……

Dave, I’ve had about as much as I can take.

Isn’t there any chance you can piss off and pasture?

You’re shite. I mean, I know Sean’s just had a kid, but even if he only updated this once every three months it’d be better than your drivel. I mean, I fucking hate Labour, but I’m gonna vote for them because of you!

Well, you may vote for whoever pleases you; it’s not my decision. But…..the trouble we now have in Britain, was one which you did not address in your otherwise clear and very cogent comment. It is the excessive outward panoply and trappings of power, money and authority which “career” “politicians” (particularly Labour ones and other “un-conservatives” of course, as is natural and inevitable) purport to command for themselves, at the expense of doing what Western political theory states that they ought to do.

If we are stuck, for the time being, with a “Big Statist” state such as this one, and most others, then I just thought that we ought to ask what should be done to demolish all these shiny levers of power and wealth which “politicans” contrive to manufacture and get their mitts on.

That was my point.

Anyway, I should be so lucky. Mark Steyn gets far more negative stuff in his box than I do!

Guido Fawkes, the Pork-Barrel-mentality, and politicians who view their calling as a career only. What should minimal-statist libertarians do about this?

David Davis

Guido as he says himself is the political blog that we all love and the Enemy Class hates. You can read him with pleasure today, and for some time yet hopefully, about the politician buggers we suffer here.

If politicians stuck to what they did, say, a century and more ago – that is to say, actually serving the electors that put them there, and usually after a life of achievement in some other sphere – then Guido’s blog, other big ones, and even ours, might not be necessary. We could talk about the merits of competing private plans to build orbiting nuclear power stations, or would a Dyson Sphere round Jupiter have as much merit as a larger one round the Sun?

Although I am a minimal-statist and therefore see “war” as primarily a state-directed activity (evinced on account of the large amount of sensless destruction and loss of life usually involved) I do regard the Armed Forces (or at least those of liberal democracies, mostly in the Anglosphere) as basically sound institutions that tend to turn out sound worthwhile people who can serve as goodish politicians, or often teachers, in later life. You have only to review the military obituaries of the Daily telegraph to prove this to yourself. I note with some regret that no member of the front benches of any party in the UK has served in these, with the possible exception of my namesake.

I would not even mind if politicians had previously been members of any other profession or gang – except, possibly, “press relations” advisers, or “political lobbyists”.

So what ought we to think or do? I suggest that  a “politician” can’t exist until he/she has either reached a certain age, or done something worth recording, or both. Then, furthermore, “pay” or “remuneration” ought to be limited to legitimate auditable expenses, plus some small honoraium for turning up when you oculd have been doing something else that you preferred – rather like being a member of a jury. The ability to read and write would be an advantage, plus some good up-to-date knowledge of (real) science, and current affairs, and not the sort gleaned on the Wireless Tele Vision, CNN, or the BBC “news”. Retired Majors and Lieutenant-Commanders (maybe even the odd General,) old ladies who run charity shops, MacDonald’s franchisees, the owner of the local tobacconist/Post Office, Head Masters of the better schools, and most farmers, would make good politicians. I’m not sure anybody else would be of any practical use.

For sure, I’d never allow any “politics” “graduate”, from any University whatsoever, even the Two Ancient Ones, near any “public service” position whatsoever. (Until Terry Eagelton dies – and maybe not even then.)

Oh well, never mind.

Daniel Hannan, the “European Union”, freedom, liberty, Nazism (freely expressed by its “Parliament” last week) and strategy. What ought libertarians to do about the “European” “Union”?

David Davis 

Something must be done; this is clear, for ordinary rational humans cannot allow this organisation to carry on trampling over liberalism as is now does. The people of the nations of “Europe” (it does not exist but the people in them think that the nations do) have MEPs who can now get “expelled” from their (nazi-grouping) “parties” for “objecting” to suspension of the rules of debate in its supposed “Parliament”.

Daniel Hannan (see earlier post, and here is his own blog) was right to compare implicitly the action of the “Parliament” with the “enabling Act” ( die Ermächtigungsgezetz) passed by the Nazis in 1933, allowing them in effect to allow or disallow whatever pleased the Fuhrer at any time. At no time do I see that he called poor sad Hans-Gert Pöttering a nazi.

Speaking of herr Pöttering, who had the personal misfortune to lose his father in WW2, it makes you wonder what country the said father might have been in at the time, and why he should have been there. Statistically, Russia, I guess, merely going on mass casualty figures for the German forces.

Too much evidence has accumulated for the following hypothesis, for it simply to be swept away under whatever carpet the Praesidium of the EU tries to magic up:

Now, the EU is positioned, always, as a great boon, simply a level trading bloc, or something that makes travel, money and work easier in a large area. But the continual confiscation of previously national powers, and their irrevocable sequestering behind walls of unaccountability, is a suspicious pointer to a state forming, that behaves just like the 3rd reich would have done if it had succeeded in dominating a “New Europe” (its phrase, not mine.)

So, what ought Libertarians to say and do about the “European” “Union”? If it was my call, I’d dissolve it unilaterally, with the Rothbardian button in front of me labelled “European Union Dissolution”, which I will be pleased to press. At a stroke, the phalanxes of bureaucrats would take unplanned redundancy, their buildings would disappear, their records would vanish into thin air, and their salaries and pensions would be no more. Furthermore, all “National” “legislation” emanating from Brussels however indirectly, would miraculously evaporate from National Statute Books.

I have not the slightest clue what all these suddenly unemployed and impecunious dictocrats would do, to keep food in their mouths or roofs over their heads. I suspect many have loot stashed here and there so I will not weep for them; it will be too complicated to pursue them all anyway – we should just go for the ringleaders and the grand-larceny guys, who have fingered say more than the equivalent of £1 million.

VAT could be abolished immediately in the UK.

The slight technical problem of “National Governments” in the real nations of continental Europe would need sorting. It should be possible to find enough free-market-liberal or capitalist-conservative nationalists, of limited statist persuasion, in each country, to form administrations on the Old English Westminster Model (pre-treaty-of-Rome) and who could operate a low and bearable measure of government for as long as they were tolerated.

Each newly-liberated nation could adopt for circulation whatever Monies inhabitants are pleased to accept in their trades. The “Euro” might even survive; there is nothing wrong with it theoretically except that it is just another worthless “fiat” currency like all the others. (I believe it is backed to a higher extent by Gold however, than Sterling now is after Brown sold 60% of our gold reserves after carefully talking down the price.)

Other libertarians might think that the “EU” as it stands offers better prosects for individual liberty than are currently on offer or predicted for the UK. I welcome discussion of this point.

Daniel Hannan, a British member of the “European Parliament”, gets into hot water with it…also tries to be nice about it.

David Davis

Here he is in the Telegraph today.

He’s trying to get the buggers off the hook, nobly but futilely, by saying that they have not really done anything “Nazi” – because all they have done is torn up the rule book when it suited them so to do……..

……er, they did what ??