Monthly Archives: November 2009

…Next, they came for the British Alcoholic Elephants…

David Davis

…and I did not speak up, for I was not a beer-drinking Elephant…

They are playing with us

David Davis

I don’t much care if the Iranian government wants to have nuclear weapons or not. I don’t think it’s worth going to war over…..yet. Not unless they actively threaten Israel, which is the primary point of the things.

A firm, well-morally-grounded and self-confident libertarian foreign policy, actively Jihadizing liberty everywhere regardless, is the enemy of any wannabe “rogue state” which gets guns and stuff.There are no “rogue states”: all States are rogues and ultimately have to be re-rogued, and many simply dismantled.

But it does irk me that we as a nation are seen as a plaything-target by people like I’madasadinnerjacket.

I wonder to what extent Gordon Brown tipped off the Iranians to do this thing to us and ours, to take everyone’s eye off him.

Governments should not lead The People: they should follow

David Davis

Like this.

Bill Bailey and the Ger-Bills

How many Vietnams do the Enemy Class want to inflict?

On us, the West?

David Davis

I was always afraid this was going to happen, and now it has. We ultimately lost in Vietnam because our morale was sapped by the fathers and mothers of today’s Enemy Class at home. Even in short preventive cauterisations and dictatorectomies, such as Gulf-I and Gulf-II ought to have been, the well-orchestrated and articulate chorus of negativity, based as it was and is on our supposed non-socialist failings as a society rather than on how much better we are than our enemies, took centre-stage.

Today, we don’t even have for this the excuse of Enemy Foreign Powers paying people in our midst to say these things. Organisations like the Grauniad and the BBC would willingly badmouth Western Civilisation for nothing. Sometimes I despair.

As a libertarian, I’m not supposed to be in favour of wars, I suppose. I’m not, but in the end, if enemies of liberty ask for war, we ought to give it to them.

Get to see Roger Scruton on the telly while you can…

David Davis

Old Roger throroughly scrags “modern architecture” and rightly so.

To stop them getting in…or us getting out?

David Davis

BAe Systems (I thought it was on OUR side?) is developing UAVs (drones) to “patrol the coastline”, to deal with “smuggling” and “illegal immigrants”. Never thought I would hear the term “Police Aviation” used seriously and without irony.

Does not sound very libertarian to me.

If you have nothing to hide...

...then you have nothing to fear...

As the man said once… “very interrrrresting” …


Busy again today, but GOSPlan still stalks the Land

But some chimpanzee type writers may shamble into the hut later.

In the meantime, here’s a nice commentary about the blight of State Planning Laws over land use, and how it butchers people’s needs  for proper homes that can be lived in, by artificially inflating land values to the benefit of the Enemy Class.

Jesus this is hillarious…

Peter Davis

THIS is how you knock down a door…

And if this is what we are up against, I shouldn’t worry…

Lightish writing today

Duties are piling up; but keep popping in, for you never know which politicians may pile up humorously instead. Then if we can say something useful and instructive, we will.

Interesting graphic

David Davis

Now, I do apologise in advance to all our German friends and allies (and we have a few) who read this blog. All this sad business is not your fault, and I know it: and you were not personally born when the real wearers of this stuff stalked the Earth. It’s just that The Devil always picks the best uniforms for his minions, and they suit even Mandelson and Brown for the most obvious of reasons. I’m trying to help turn a whole planet’s population against the EU before it is too late, so I will use the most upsetting imagery I can find, just like the GreeNazis think they are doing with falling polar bears.

But just as you could have stopped the NSDAP in 1933 by failing to vote for it and voting for someone else other than the Communsists, you could also have stopped the EU by failing to vote for politicians who espoused it in the 1950s, when under the ECSC there was still a bit of time to react.

Oh, and the image came from here.

I think that this is disgusting

David Davis

Polar bears are also disgusting creatures, which deprive Man of fish, and eat baby seals without even clubbing them first. They do not even know how to do oil-prospecting in Alaska, let alone in their own habitat-range.

The Planet Has No Need For polar bears as failed aeroplanes and accidental-car-crushers. We should all “be sent a strong message”, and so thus drive instead.

Good Climate-change-Nazis fight back, and fast

Michael Winning

Andy “the Gau-leiter” Burnham has spoken.  So you do what he says, all right?

Climate change ‘poses real and present danger’

Climate change poses a “real and present danger” to the immediate health of millions of people, Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, has warned.

By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent
Published: 12:15PM GMT 25 Nov 2009

Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary: Climate change 'poses real and present danger'


Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary Photo: EPA
(What’s a “health secretary”? (ed.))

His comments came as a series of reports suggested that tens of thousands of lives a year could be saved in Britain alone by cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The warning comes less than a fortnight before international leaders are due to meet in Copenhagen for crunch climate change talks.

Cutting animal farming by a third could significantly reduce emissions and save around 18,000 lives a year in Britain because of the resultant drop in cases of heart disease if people eat less red meat, scientists estimate.

Another 5,000 early deaths from lung problems and other conditions could be prevented by better home insulation and reducing the use of carbon based fuels.

Reducing our dependence on cars could improve also health, as well as lower emissions, the studies found.

Switching to walking instead of driving for many journeys could also cut deaths from heart disease by up to 4,200 cases a year.

The move could also save around 200 deaths a year each from dementia and breast cancer.

The series, produced by the Lancet medical journal, calls on health ministers around the world to recognise the danger that global warming poses.

Scientists also called for a reduction in other greenhouse gases as well as carbon dioxide, such as ozone, which has been shown to cause lung problems. (I thought ozone was good? ed.)

Reducing emissions would also cut air pollution across the world, reducing deaths from heart problems, lung conditions and other acute illnesses, especially in large parts of the developing world which still suffer from high levels of pollution.

Mr Burnham said: “Climate change can seem a distant, impersonal threat – in fact the associated costs to health are a very real and present danger.

“Health ministers across the globe must act now to highlight the risk global warming poses to our communities. We need well-designed climate change policies that drive health benefits.”

Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said an ambitious deal to cut climate emissions had to be reached in Copenhagen.

“To protect the world’s health we must stop dangerous climate change happening and limit temperature increases to no more than 2C.

“An ambitious and fair deal in Copenhagen will not only have major benefits in terms of reducing the climate change-related spread of infectious diseases and risks to food supply, but will also result in immediate green benefits in terms of a healthier environment and lifestyle (Baldur von Schirach) [he didn't say that, I did, and I also muttered "Walter Darré" under my breath] for a low carbon Britain – and a low carbon world.

“This is why we are going to Copenhagen to secure an ambitious, effective and fair deal for everyone,” he said.

Margaret Chan, of the World Health Organisation, warned that “no mercy” would be shown for humans’ mistakes over climate change.

Next, they came for your bread, “processed meats” and cereals…

David Davis

…”Experts said” (of course they are, of course they did.)

…and you did not speak up, for you were not a loaf, a sausage or a corn-flake

The Russians are Coming (And Thank God for That!)

Sean Gabb

How’s this for a conspiracy theory? The 61Mb of climate change fraud evidence was hacked by the Russians. They had the means, motive and opportunity.

Means and Opportunity: Just because the Cold War is over doesn’t mean the Russian security services have become any less efficient than they used to be – nor that all those connections with lefties in the universities have entirely lapsed.

Motive: Climate change is all nonsense so far as we are supposed to be the villains. However, the sort of funding poured by Western governments into developing alternative energy sources might actually get somewhere. Bearing in mind that Russia is kept afloat solely by its oil and gas exports, the Russians have every reason to want to shut this research down.

Add to this that the data was first put up on a Russian site, and I find the case most persuasive.

Good on you, Mr Putin. It’s too late for the KGB to apologise to all the people it murdered. But if it has now joined the forces of light in the climate change debate, there may be an element of redemption.

From Blogmaster:-

Some files from the lovely batch delivered up by the Russians:-

The following is a searchable database of the content of the Hadley-CRU emails and datafiles:-

Storm clouds gather over leaked climate e-mails : Nature News


Storm clouds gather over leaked climate e-mails

British climate centre reeling over Internet posting of sensitive material.

Quirin Schiermeier

The online publication of sensitive e-mails and documents from a British climate centre is brewing into one of the scientific controversies of the year, causing dismay among affected institutes and individuals. The tone and content of some of the disclosed correspondence are raising concerns that the leak is damaging the credibility of climate science on the eve of the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen in December.

The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich confirmed on 20 November that it had had more than 1,000 e-mails and documents taken from its servers, but it has not yet confirmed how much of the published material is genuine. "This information has been obtained and published without our permission," says Simon Dunford, a spokesman for the UEA, adding that the university will undertake an investigation and has already involved the police.

“There are apparently lots of people who really do think that global warming is an evil socialist plot.”

Many scientists contacted by Nature doubt that the leak will have a lasting impact, but climate-sceptic bloggers and mainstream media have been poring over the posted material and discussing its contents. Most consist of routine e-mail exchanges between researchers. But one e-mail in particular, sent by CRU director Phil Jones, has received attention for its use of the word "trick" in a discussion about the presentation of climate data. In a statement, Jones confirmed that the e-mail was genuine and said: "The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward."

"If anyone thinks there’s a hint of tweaking the data for non-scientific purposes, they are free to produce an analysis showing that Earth isn’t warming," adds Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist and policy researcher at Princeton University in New Jersey. "In fact, they have been free to do so for decades and haven’t been able to."

"There are apparently lots of people who really do think that global warming is an evil socialist plot, and that many scientists are part of the plot and deliberately faking their science," adds Tom Wigley, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and former director of CRU.

Alleged e-mails containing critical remarks about other climate scientists are merely proof of lively debate in the community, adds Gavin Schmidt, a climate researcher with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.

The title of the uploaded file containing the leaked e-mails — ‘’ — has led to speculation that the affair may be linked to the deluge of requests for raw climate data that have recently been made under the UK Freedom of Information Act to Jones (see Nature 460, 787; 2009). The source of many of those requests is Steve McIntyre, the editor of Climate Audit, a blog that investigates the statistical methods used in climate science. "I don’t have any information on who was responsible," McIntyre told Nature.

Nevertheless, e-mails allegedly sent by Jones seem to illustrate his reluctance to comply with these requests. "All scientists have the right to request your data and to try to falsify your results," says Hans von Storch, director of the Institute for Coastal Research in Geesthacht, Germany. "I very much respect Jones as a scientist, but he should be aware that his behaviour is beginning to damage our discipline." In a statement, the UEA said: "The raw climate data which has been requested belongs to meteorological services around the globe and restrictions are in place which means that we are not in a position to release them. We are asking each service for their consent for their data to be published in future."

However, von Storch believes that, at least until the affair is resolved, Jones should cease reviewing climate science for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Storm clouds gather over leaked climate e-mails : Nature News

RSPCA: a truly fake charity?

Michael Winning

A day or so ago we put up a rather frightening pic of some RSPCA “officers” Paramilitary People, which got some comments.

Now I find theres lots of people upset with and aghast at the RSPCA, some of them write over here. I didn’t know that, I thought I was the only one, and a pariah.

The comments say about some other places containing browned-off folks who lament the turnning of this once-useful org into what its become. It does not seem a very libertitarian organisatin.

Lots of us busy today

Keep looking in: one of the Chimpanzee Type Writers may come up with something and wave it at you if you poke a head round the Nissen-Hut-Door.

The Stars look down upon us at Christmas

Michale Winning and various celebirities, pop singers and film stars

Guess who is fighting climate change. No surprises I suppose.

“Copenhagen” will fail – and quite right too

David Davis

Today I unashamedly lift the text of Lord Lawson’s piece in The Times, regarding the staggering potential costs of implementing “low carbon” and “no carbon” strategies, allegedly to “fight climate change”. The text also bears significantly upon the effects of the “British” data released helpfully by some Russian Gentlemen (I presume they were male – those Russians that do shattering things unannounced to other people, are almost invariably male these days) and which originated in the CRU, a British outfit that purports to do “Climate Research” for people like the UN. ‘Nuff said.

(NB I can only find ONE USA blog that’s picking up this story – please wise up over there, gents, for it affects you and your somewhat strange president also.)

Copenhagen will fail – and quite right too

Even if the science was reliable (which it isn’t), we should not force the world’s poorest countries to cut carbon emissions

Nigel Lawson


Recommend? (35) div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited { color:#06c; }

Exactly a fortnight from today, the United Nations climate change conference opens in Copenhagen. Its purpose is (or was) clear: to agree a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Under Kyoto, all those developed nations that ratified the treaty (all, in practice, except the US) agreed to cut their carbon emissions to 5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. The successor treaty, to be agreed at Copenhagen, was intended to secure a cut in global emissions, from the developed and developing world alike (and China has now overtaken even the US), of 50 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050, leading to more or less total decarbonisation by the end of the century.

As Gordon Brown declared in his Guildhall speech only a week ago, Copenhagen must “forge a new international agreement … [which] must contain the full range of commitments required: on emissions reductions by both developed and developing countries, on finance and on verification”.

This is a pretty tall order; and, needless to say, nothing of the sort will be agreed. Even if the Kyoto 5 per cent cut is achieved, it will be only because the developed world has effectively outsourced a large part of its emissions to countries, such as China and India, without Kyoto constraints. Not only is 50 per cent rather more severe than 5 per cent, but (except in the unlikely event of world industry migrating to Mars) a global target removes the escape route of outsourcing emissions.

Moreover there is a strong moral argument, too. The reason we use carbon-based energy is simply that it is far and away the cheapest source of energy, and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

Switching to much more expensive energy may be acceptable for us in the developed world. But in the developing world, there are still tens of millions of people suffering from acute poverty, and from the consequences of such poverty, in the shape of preventable disease, malnutrition and premature death. So for the developing world, the overriding priority has to be the fastest feasible rate of economic development, which means, inter alia, using the cheapest available form of energy: carbon-based energy.

Mr Brown’s Copenhagen objective will, happily, not be achieved. But the meeting will still be declared a great success. Politicians do not like being associated with failure, so they will make sure that whatever emerges from Copenhagen is declared a success, and promise to meet again next year. This will at least give our political leaders the time to get themselves off the hook.

The greatest error in the current conventional wisdom is that, if you accept the (present) majority scientific view that most of the modest global warming in the last quarter of the last century — about half a degree centigrade — was caused by man-made carbon emissions, then you must also accept that we have to decarbonise our economies.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I have no idea whether the majority scientific view (and it is far from a consensus) is correct. Certainly, it is curious that, whereas their models predicted an acceleration in global warming this century as the growth in emissions accelerated, so far this century there has been no further warming at all. But the current majority view may still be right.

Even if it is, however, that cannot determine the right policy choice. For a warmer climate brings benefits as well as disadvantages. Even if there is a net disadvantage, which is uncertain, it is far less than the economic cost (let alone the human cost) of decarbonisation. Moreover, the greatest single attribute of mankind is our capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. By adapting to any warming that may occur over the next century, we can pocket the benefits and greatly reduce the disadvantages, at a cost that is far less than the cost of global decarbonisation — even if that could be achieved.

Moreover, the scientific basis for global warming projections is now under scrutiny as never before. The principal source of these projections is produced by a small group of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), affiliated to the University of East Anglia.

Last week an apparent hacker obtained access to their computers and published in the blogosphere part of their internal e-mail traffic. And the CRU has conceded that the at least some of the published e-mails are genuine.

Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.

There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.

It is against all this background that I am announcing today the launch of a new high-powered all-party (and non-party) think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (, which I hope may mark a turning-point in the political and public debate on the important issue of global warming policy. At the very least, open and reasoned debate on this issue cannot be anything but healthy. The absence of debate between political parties at the present time makes our contribution all the more necessary.

Lord Lawson of Blaby was Chancellor of the Exchequer 1983-89. He will be speaking at an Institute of Economic Affairs debate on climate change at the Institute of Directors in London today.


Why do the RSPCA have stab-proof vests?

And why are they rescuing animals and not people?

I’ll make this a caption competition. Truly, the state of the UK in 2009 is disgusting.

Obviously, people should centre on their priorities:-

And Gordon himself will ensure more devastation:-

Daniel Hannan and the reigning-in of the EU

David Davis

Read DH’s latest blogpost here. Fine stuff, but as he says, it sadly won’t happen.

Sod it: I might as well put it up anyway:-

Daniel Hannan: EU is ‘in a democratic mess’

The European Union is an economic, demographic and democratic mess, writes Daniel Hannan.


Published: 11:42AM GMT 21 Nov 2009

Comments 103 | Comment on this article

“It’s all very well to criticise, Hannan, but what would you do if you were in Van Rompuy’s shoes?” So asked a euro-enthusiast friend when I had finished tearing into Thursday night’s stitch-up.

It’s a fair question, and it won’t quite do to answer that I wouldn’t be starting from here. The EU is in an economic mess: its share of world GDP will fall from 26 per cent to 15 per cent in 2025. It is in a demographic mess: 40 years of low birth rates have left it with a choice between depopulation and mass immigration. And it is in a democratic mess, with turnouts plummeting.


Related Articles

So what would I do? Step one is easy: I’d abolish the Common Agricultural Policy, thereby giving a greater boost to Europe’s economies than any number of bail-outs and stimulus packages. Food prices would fall sharply: the average family would save more than £1,000 a year in grocery bills, with the greatest savings being made by those on the lowest incomes. Scrapping the CAP would also be the single greatest gift Europe could give the Third World. It would remove the main barrier to a full WTO agreement. Oh, and it would take a penny off income tax into the bargain.

With the CAP out of the way, it would be easy enough to dismantle the rest of the Common External Tariff. I’d phase out all structural, cohesion and social funds, releasing armies of consultants and contractors to more productive work. Ditto the staffs of dozens of euro-quangos: the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs, the European Food Safety Authority, the European Chemicals Authority, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions and so on.

Now the biggie: deregulation. According to the Commissioner for Enterprise, Gunther Verheugen, the benefits of the single market are worth around 180 billion euros a year, while the cost of complying with Brussels rules is 600 billion euros. In other words, by its own admission, the EU costs more than it’s worth. The solution? Heap the bonfire with pages of the acquits communautaire: the EU’s amassed regulations. Scrap the directives that tell us what hours we can work, what vitamins we can buy, how long we can sit on tractors, how loudly we can play our music. Return power to national governments or, better, to local authorities – or, best of all, to individual citizens.

I would confine the EU’s jurisdiction to matters of a clearly cross-border nature: tariff reduction, environmental pollution, mutual product recognition. The member states would retain control of everything else: agriculture and fisheries, foreign affairs and defence, immigration and criminal justice, and social and employment policy.

The European Commission could then be reduced to a small secretariat, answering to national ministers. The European Court of Justice could be replaced by a tribunal that would arbitrate trade disputes. The European Parliament could be scrapped altogether; instead, seconded national MPs might meet for a few days every month or two to keep an eye on the bureaucracy.

You will, of course, have spotted the flaw in my plan: it would put an awful lot of Eurocrats out of work. Which, sadly, is why it won’t happen. For, whatever the motives of its founders, the EU is now chiefly a racket: a massive mechanism to redistribute money to those lucky enough to be on the inside of the system.

Daniel Hannan is Conservative MEP for South East England. Read his Telegraph blog here

Sunday caption competition

Climategate and CRU: The Devil updates some more


and this is more comprehensive.

Can a Libertarian also be a conservative?

David Davis

As readers will recall, this was the title briefed for the Chris R Tame Memorial Prize submissions, requested for the 2009 LA/Libertarian International Conference which took place in London in October. The prize was won by Antoine Clarke, but there were other submissions, one of which I reprint her below by one of our occasional visitors and guest commentators, Peter Watson:-

“Can a Libertarian also be a Conservative?”

For the purposes of answering this question, it is necessary first to define the terms used.  As the question is posed using capital letters for both Libertarian and Conservative, it can be assumed that the words in this context are intended to mean specifically party political allegiances, and therefore the short answer would be “No”, since political allegiance distributed over two parties is meaningless.

Membership of a political party presupposes that the party manifesto and general ethos is such that by and large, the member can realistically lend his support to it.  Traditionally, the Conservative Party has also been “conservative”, in the sense that it has advocated limited authority for central government, and expected the individual citizen to use his own judgement in making such decisions about the direction and conduct of his personal life as are not specifically forbidden by the law of the land.

In the sense that this approach meant a limiting of government authority, the Libertarian would have approved.  But this limitation only worked when there was a general acceptance by the public at large of known and familiar customs and mores, and a commonly agreed view on principles and morality.  If there is self-discipline, there is less need for government to prescribe or to legislate behaviour in specific situations.

But for a considerable time now, the Conservative Party, in common with the two other main parties, has so relaxed the legal framework that has for generations governed personal behaviour that it can scarcely be said today to qualify for the term “conservative”, which implies the maintenance of and support for traditional, time honoured, tried and tested mores and morality.  In this respect, the Conservatives have gradually come much closer to those aspects of Libertarian principles and beliefs relating to personal behaviour.

Because of this, it is today possible for a member of the Conservative Party also to hold Libertarian views.  Owing to the wholesale ditching of traditional values, the prevailing belief by most of our political leaders seems to be that people should be allowed to indulge themselves even in areas where that indulgence is dangerous not only for their personal character, morality and principles, but also often for others and consequently for society in general.   Such matters as the preferential treatment of ethnic minority members in employment law, certain aspects of the treatment of homosexuality, where it is now considered positively beneficial to treat this subject in reading materials for school children, the ludicrous “all have won and all shall have prizes” approach to education, which has in short order reduced the British education system, once the best in the world, to a level where more children than ever emerge from school unable to read or write competently, all contribute to both increasing the divisions in society and the gradual disintegration of society itself.

The determination that regardless of competence, women, simply because they are female, should also receive preferential treatment in employment and other areas of life is a further illustration, if it were needed, of the folly of abandoning principles, laws and practices that have for decades given us in this country an reasonably peaceful, fair, and unified society.  It was until comparatively recently a social order that allowed for individual differences, without those differences causing the fragmentation and sectionalism of today’s special interest groups.  Today, there is in addition to the aforementioned, a growing feeling that there should be a more relaxed approach to drugs and drug-taking, the results of both of which contribute to and hasten the fragmentation and ultimate collapse of a once cohesive and orderly society.

In these matters, the Conservative Party, along with the other two main parties, is coming very much closer to Libertarian views.  So perhaps we might say that yes, in all probability it is now quite possible for a member of the Conservative Party to hold Libertarian views, without greatly contradicting either present-day Conservative principles, or those he holds as a Libertarian.

The Baron Report — a report that is in no sense libertarian – oriented —points out: libertarianism — (is) “the philosophy that argues against government intervention and for personal rights.” The report adds that libertarianism has an appeal to both ends of the political spectrum: “Conservatives welcome that trend when it indicates public skepticism over federal programs; liberals welcome it when it shows growing acceptance of individual rights in such areas as drugs, sexual behavior, etc., and increasingly reticence of the public to support foreign intervention.” (1)

But by appealing to both ends of the political spectrum, Libertarianism cannot fully satisfy either, and the Libertarian will most certainly sit uncomfortably with real conservatives.  Equally, aspiring Conservative politicians will find that their desire for progressive social change, which inevitably requires a continual expansion of state authority and power, will run directly counter to the Libertarian desire to restrict the size and consequently the power of government.

It is evident that Libertarian and conservative systems are dynamic, not static.  Compared to today’s Conservative Party, the Conservative Party of the 1950’s far better reflected true conservative beliefs.  The Conservative Party is now so far to the left of conservatives and so liberal in its social mores, that no true conservative could be a member of the party.  Talk about devolving power from the centre is pointless because impossible, due to the structure of the European Union, by which we are now governed, which was imposed upon us by the Conservative Party itself.  Basic tenets of liberalism, personal freedom and minimal State interference are now ignored by a Conservative Party which can no longer legitimately claim to be conservative.  In conservative philosophy, social order draws strength from the Christian principles which are its foundation.  The liberty-approaching-license approach of Libertarianism would be rejected by most conservatives because of the inevitably disastrous consequences of a wholly Libertarian society based on that principle.

An honest Libertarian cannot be a conservative because it is impossible to bridge the chasm between the liberal idea that man is basically good and evolving ever higher (all progress is good, on this basis) and the conservative recognition that man is an imperfect and fallible creature, by nature answerable to a Higher Authority.  The first of these views of man automatically removes most Conservatives from the belief system underpinning conservatism.  Because today most Conservatives view man as do the Libertarians they can no longer be considered to be conservative.

Consider the following observation from Malcolm Muggeridge:

“Had discussion with Bill Deedes on Liberalism, which was, I said, an attractive doctrine, but which I increasingly abhorred because false.  Its great fallacy, I pointed out, was the perfectibility of Man – i.e. the assumption that left to himself he would be humane, orderly and industrious.  My experience has been the exact opposite – namely that, left to himself, Man was brutish, lustful, idle and murderous, and that the only hope of keeping his vile nature within any sort of bound was to instil in him fear of God or of his fellow men.  Of these two alternatives, I preferred fear of God – an authoritarian Christian society to an authoritarian materialist society, fear of Hell as a deterrent to fear of human brutality.  And, as a matter of fact, more potent and wonderful is fear of being cut off from the light of God’s countenance and living in darkness – this fear the only deterrent which is at once effective and ennobling.” (2)

Philosophical conservatives regard it as necessary to regulate pornography and sexual activities and would utterly reject permitting incest, pederasty or bestiality.  But the number of “progressives” who would countenance such behaviour is rising.  This is not an extravagant claim – it is noteworthy that “progressive” political lobbyists in Europe already have not only sanctioned child sex and one Party leader has committed it, (3&4) but some also called for incest and bestiality, masquerading as a legitimate relationship, to be legalized all in the name of tolerance and progress. (5)

There are many amongst both Conservative Party members and Libertarians who presently back the call for voluntary euthanasia.  Past experience clearly shows that once the principle is established, it is only a matter of time before it is extended to cover more situations than originally either envisaged or intended.  Sooner or later in the name of progress the State will assiduously begin to apply euthanasia to those it deems suitable candidates.  This may be contrary to the intentions of both Libertarians and Conservatives, but it will be the inevitable result.

There is no logical reason for the Libertarian belief in the absolute autonomy of the individual to supplement the desire for this freedom with a caution  “avoid harming others”.  A conservative belief in an authority beyond the self, a spiritual authority, has for centuries been instrumental in forming the laws by which our society functions.  In this context, man is not considered “the measure of all things”, nor is he thought of as the final arbiter.  Without this underpinning, there is no possible reason why everyone should not do exactly what pleases him regardless of the convenience of others, or, as Alistair Crowley puts it, quoting Rabelais: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”.  What is presented as a call for liberty is actually an excuse for license, blurring the distinction of what is and what is not morally acceptable.  Anyone acknowledging a morality, external to himself, will find that the requirements of that morality are not always in accord with his natural inclinations.

Robert Bork identifies the impossibility of a Libertarian being a conservative in this extract from his book being a short essay on both pornography and drugs where he wrote:

“Modern liberals employ the rhetoric of ‘rights’ incessantly, not only to delegitimate the idea of restraints on individuals by communities but to prevent discussion of the topic. Once something is announced, usually flatly or stridently, to be a right –whether pornography or abortion or what have you– discussion becomes difficult to impossible. Rights inhere in the person, are claimed to be absolute, and cannot be diminished or taken away by reason; in fact, reason that suggests the non-existence of an asserted right is viewed as a moral evil by the claimant. If there is to be anything that can be called a community, rather than an agglomeration of hedonists, the case for previously unrecognized individual freedoms (as well as some that have been previously recognized) must be thought through and argued, and “rights” cannot win every time. Why there is a right for adults to enjoy pornography remains unexplained and unexplainable.” (6)

It is not possible for a Libertarian to be “conservative”, using the word as it used once to be understood by the Conservative Party, but is no longer.  The conflict between the old conservative beliefs that there were certain aspects of human behaviour that could and should not be indulged, encouraged or legally permitted, allowed, and the present-day practice of “letting it all hang out” does not allow a Libertarian to claim to be “conservative”.  Neither does it allow a conservative to claim, still less to want to claim, to be a Libertarian.  The two approaches are simply diametrically opposed to one another on matters of behaviour; the conservative wanting to retain as far as possible an orderly and civilised society where self-discipline is encouraged and expected and the Libertarian, however well-intentioned in theory, adopting principles which both discourage and radically undermine self-discipline, and eventually lead to a disintegration of society.

What Libertarians may fail to realise is that if a range of behaviours previously unacceptable within a society are now to be permitted, as they appear to wish, it becomes increasingly necessary for government to legislate on all manner of matters as a direct result of the growing disorder developing because of the now-permitted behaviours.  If the population is self-disciplined, this problem does not arise.  But when there are fewer and fewer people who observe the rules that used to govern civilised behaviour, more and more laws are required to make good the deficit.  And this is something Libertarians do NOT like!

Libertarians can not have it both ways. Either society is self-disciplined and intelligent enough to accept and observe an unwritten code of conduct, within which everything that is not expressly forbidden by law is allowed, or society under the pressures of each individual pursuing his own selfish interests, gradually disintegrates.   No amount of legislation will compensate or rectify the resulting chaos.

In summary – A Conservative (party member) may certainly be a Libertarian, and a Libertarian should feel reasonably comfortable (if not entirely at home) in today’s Conservative Party but a “conservative” does not hold Libertarian beliefs, and a Libertarian certainly doesn’t hold “conservative” beliefs.


(1) – return15.7 The Baron Report (February 3, 1978), p. 2. [p. 322]

(2)     LIKE IT WAS – A selection from the Diaries of Malcolm Muggeridge

excerpt dated July 20th 1950.

(3)     Irish Daily Mail: Pedophilia and the dark heart of the EU’s parliament Irish Daily Mail
Monday, May 25th, 2009 – by-line Mary Ellen Synon

(4)     Wise Up Journal


(6)     Robert Bork “Slouching Towards Gomorrah” pp 151-152

Peter Watson

Cameron imitating Blair: huge mistake (all will come undone fully, in 2015)

David Davis

It is perhaps too much to hope that UKIP or even the LPUK will be returned to Parliament with a landslide majority in 2010. Other factors apart, ZanuLieBorg will certainly rig the results: it is the job of Jihadist-GramscoFabiaNazis to do just this thing: it is called participative democracy. If not in anti-Labour seats and other enemy-marginals, then certainly in their Rotten and Pocket Boroughs of which they have about  300, which is quite enough for a majority if well-stuffed, and with a bit of luck in others.

But Dave “the Prole” Cameron is storing up potentially-terminal trouble for himself and his party, to some extent right now, but definitely for 4/5 years’ time if he does what Simon Heffer is accusing him of.

Climategate: James Deligpole does a good roundup to the hour, and Bishop Hill reviews progress

UPDATE:- Big roundup (seven+ posts…) over at The Devil.

David Davis


It had to be expected that some (mercifully not more than a few hundred) scientists are GramscoFabiaNazis. Although it is very very hard for a true scientist to be dishonest so as to promote deliberate wickedness, it is inevitable and a sadness that some of these people, while young and impressionable, will have gone through “The Institutions” in the epoch when these were under attack by the Fabian Grand Long-term Strategy. This is a waste of ordinary human talent on dark, dark projects, which are now even more reeking of fathomless evil.

Here’s Bishop Hill.

Klimate Change

Fred Bloggs.

I recently found this on Englishmans Castle. As the story goes, the Watermelons at East Anglia university had their computers hacked by the Russians, and all their e-mails and stuff was “acquired.” The stuff contained within is really quite frightening, as they have set out “rules” so that they can brainwash people with ease, ie. target /these and these/, but forget about /them/ as they know we’re talking through our arses, ( and also they refer to everyone who doesn’t belive in Jolobial Warmin’ as “irritating”).

One other thing, I’ve ironically noticed that our biggest ally at this moment against the Greens is the former USSR: this just keeps getting better and better. (Us libertarians will be able to look to our Russian comrades for aid during the revolution against the Brown Führer.)

Here’s the PDF of the “Rules” I was talking about before:


Take a look at this

Michael winning

Over at The Englishman’s Castle it says that some Russian fellows have hacked into the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, and published all its files. I won’t put them up here in case its actionable but you can have a look for yourself. I’ve scanned down them and if it’s a hoax, it’s pretty convincing and very very detailed!

The people we are up against are very clever

David Davis

Watergate….ah, I hear you say: “that was 35 years ago”….

But they are raking it up, the enemy are. The rise and rise of Nixon’s reputation must be prevented, along with the crumbling into dist of those of the Kennedys, Clinton and Obama.

Some more marvellous news!

David Davis

Jean-Pierre Cafard, and Baroness Bentbint Torporsen, are the first new “Officers” of the United States of Europe.

These are not the kind of people who ought to rule popular culture

Certainly not these.

David Davis

I;ve seen a ghost

Sorry: the fellow is just beyond the bounds of ridiculosity – he does not even quite qualify as a properly-self-regarding prat.

His wife, bless the poor love, even jets around the planet saving it, while burning paraffin by the ton.

L is for Labour, L is for Lice

Labour scumbags

Michael Winning

Just chanced on this stuff which Guido Fawkes has done

Dont know if many of you international folk we have on here read Guido Fawkes, you should. You will find what we have to put up with here under the nasties that got in while we werent painting attention. The comments are huge, you simpley cant credit how many he gets, but ignore most oneliners for they are just narcissistic rants, and look for the longer pieces by regulars I think.

That Emily Nomates women, isn’t she on the News or something?

And what is YOUR favourite insect?

David Davis

Some fellow called Mariah Carey says “butterflies”. I will add other insights to this butterfly nonsense in a later posting, in which I will balefully regard the strategic damage done to humanity by butterflies and  by “butterflyness”. Later. “Health and Safety” have taken the right decision to block her “request for 20 white kittens and 100 white doves” to cavort about while she does something trifling, but for quite the wrong reasons.

I am sure you can see what the right ones are. They are cultural rather than safety-based. Now then, under a libertarian civilisational settlement, it may well turn out that certain people become what are commonly called “celebrities”.  But owing to quite different strategic slants in the sorts of education that most people will then want, and which schools and universities will have to provide or go under, I can imagine quite different sorts of “celebrity” cropping up.

The current lot are largely empty sounding-vessels, that respond in their creation to the LCD, broadcast-media-created “popular culture”: this takes minimal effort to engage with, to understand and to get gratification from. The MSM conjures up these phantasmal but otherwise material creatures, milks them in a sort of real-life docusoap for a couple of years, then ritually slaughters them, in public, on the Aztec-Sacrificial-Altar of “yesterday’s news”.

I am not saying that (in place of these poor ephemeral worthless creatures I talked of above) the service-lives, of  great and useful individuals who have just advanced the Western Classical and Scientific Canon in some notable way, will last any longer as newsworthy stuff. Probably, far from it! Unlike stuff such as the “X factor” whatever that is, the pressure to “perform”, such as being the engineer who designed – and against the efforts of governemts – project-managed the Yemen-Somalia Suspension Bridge for example, or the fellow that designed a practical Belt-Mining-Station (with ore-carrier-feeder-facility) for the asteroid belt, will be enormous.

It will only be sustainable by Individuals of a People that recognises, understands and glorifies in the astonishing degree of order in the Universe, and a People that is not deflected  – except by choice and decision to let its hair down occasionally – by dsplays of pointless self-promotion using massed goose-stepping regiments of white kittens accompanied by camera-wielding doves.

Health and Safety rightly put the kybosh on prattish and childish displays of self-authorised semi-divinity. But when the time comes, “Health and Safety” will go too, into the street, along with the jetsam of a tyrannical state which deliberately connives at the infantilisation of Teh People, for its own ends.

The People will of course decide when, and if, displays of adoring white kittens are suitable adjuncts for  the Man Who worked out how to …Read p-53_ …

Stalin’s obituary form the New York Times, 6th March 1953

Michael Winning

It says over on a comment thread at Samizdata that this piece exists, and it does. It also shows that we in the West still don’t get the seriousness with which our own Enemyclass, as the Boss calls it, goes about its business of shoving us all back ot the Dark Ages.

Looking Back in anger

The following essay has been cross-posted from Samizdata to here, by kind permission of the author.

Adriana Lukas

It’s been twenty years since my firm belief in a better way of life was vindicated. 17th November was the beginning of the end of an era shaped by collectivism, brutality and industrialised inhumanity. I have written about my experiences of communism on Samizdata before. Today I’ll use someone else’s words to describe the wasteland communism leaves behind.

In 1992, Peter Saint-Andre has written a disturbing, brilliant and accurate description of what communism does to the soul:

…the hunger that I found most disturbing was not of the body but of the soul. [...] The socialist state cared nothing for the life of the individual, and this was driven home in innumerable ways.Yet the overall effect was not merely physical — it was a deeply spiritual degradation. It is difficult to put that degradation into words. To me, the most striking sign of it was what I called “Eastern eyes”. I could see and feel the resignation, the defeat, the despair, in the eyes of people I knew. It was an all-too-rare occurrence to come upon a person with some spark of life in his or her eyes (the only exceptions were the children, who had yet to have the life beaten out of them). If it is true that the eyes are windows onto the soul, then the Czech soul under socialism went through life all but dead.

It is tough for me to come up with something to say 20 years on that is not tinged with bitterness and disappointment and if not for the significant anniversary, I would have left this memory unturned. Despite the amazing change 1989 and its aftermath brought to my life I feel no closure over the past and a sense of proportion in the way the fall of communism has been ‘handled’. Today we should be looking back at the last 20 years counting the many communists who died in prison or are still rotting there… I can only hope that future generations will revisit the past and will have far lower tolerance of collectivism and totalitarianism. It may be a futile hope as today’s teenagers have little knowledge of the world my generation grew up and my parents lived in. And so I am bitter and disappointed that people can say the word “communism” without spitting.

I am also bitter and disappointed because those who opposed communism have not won. It is still with us, in the idiotic juxtapositions of Nazism and communism, or socialism and free-market, used by those who aspire to communism and justify it by positing Nazism as the greater evil. It still raises its ugly head in those who despise free-markets and attempt to put a human mask on socialism by pointing out ‘failures’ of capitalism. Rather hard as socialism, like all totalitarianisms, has no face. It is the ultimate denigration of humanity, destruction of individuality, and subjugation of human beings to the vast merciless machine of control and power.

Communism is still with us in China and North Korea. One befriended by the West, the other frowned upon… but neither is ever challenged because of the oppression of its people, and only when it manages to ‘inconvenience’ the rest of the world. Once it falls, it will be horrifying and beyond belief to examine the monstrosities committed by the communists in the light of day. Again, I can only hope that the world will be shamed and aghast at letting this happen for so long. Until then, we only have testimonials such as this: Undercover in the Secret State

I am grateful to those who remember, struggle to understand and explain communism, and especially to those who have managed to capture something of the nature of the beast. Here are the ones I found. Please feel free to share yours.

The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression – the reference book of the communist evil with a tag line “Revolutions, like trees, must be judged by their fruit”

Stasiland: Stories from Behind the Berlin Wall

The Lives Of Others captures the paranoia and danger of an Orwellian world where everyone is monitored and, unusually for such world, shows impact of the individual as making a difference. Here is my review.

Burnt By The Sun (Unaveni slnkom) from a sunny day to Stalin’s terror… One of the most powerful films I have seen for a long time. Possibly ever.

No End (Bez konca) – a complex, subtle and haunting film set in Poland 1981.

Repentance (Pokayanie) – for the more surreal amongst us. The first ‘anti-stalinism’ film I have ever seen and will never forget. I remember sitting through the entire credits at the end, stunned and shaken. For context, this was screened in Czecho-Slovakia, publicly, in a cinema in 1987!

The Voices of the Dead: Stalin’s Terror in the 1930s – from the book review:

It is impossible, of course, to undo the tyrant’s crimes. But one of the tasks writers have set themselves, in the last 50 years, is at least to preserve the memory of the dead, and so to resist the tyrant’s historical arrogance.

The book’s opening paragraph makes the history come the full circle, back to the suffering of the individual:

The dead cannot speak. Can one retrieve their voices? Death under I.V. Stalin, the ruler of the Soviet Union from 1922 to 1953, has been written about but the dead themselves remain elusive because their voices have been lost to us. The present book is an attempt to recover the voices of those executed under Stalin.

More good news, very surprising: what is going on?

David Davis

China looks to Adam Smith….

Well, we shall have to see. There’s lots of Police with guns there, and phalanxes of goose-stepping regiments of the People’s Army. But it’s hopeful.

Why do totalitarian armies do the goose-step? It makes them look like poncy twats, and it’s no effing use in the mud.

some good news at last

Michael Winning

6 deg C warming this century? Bring it on I say. Pay Chindia to burn more coal, and do it now, at Copenhagen.

Here come the HouseNazis

David Davis

You’d all better hide the guns, crossbows, explosives and poisons, then, in lockable steel safes. And fit window locks, stairgates, handrails in the garden and locking-drawers for kitchen utensils.

But what’s the point of all that, when The British State can break your own front door down whenever it wants to?

I forgot, of course: it’s for the children.

So was stuff  like the “Young Pioneers” and the Bund-Deutsche-Mädel.

LabourNazis “knew Chinooks must not be ordered for delivery now”…

…but “only for 2017″….otherwise we might win (and that would never do.) They could also delay the body-armour, for just long enough to demoralise the Army fully.

David Davis

(2017? Good, no earlier please, and as a bonus, after pulling out we can cancel the order! The benefits of this strategy are endless!)

Can’t we even rent some? If all that’s missing is helicopters, then Gordon should just print some money…

Their friends in British State Soviets are doing this today…

…even as we speak, cadres of crack GramscoFabiaNazi*** “élite district troops”, impersonating “Councillors” and “Deputy Directors of multicultural community engagement”, and “Community Includers”…

David Davis

are talking about variations on “Winterval“.

Libertarians probably on the whole are either atheistic, or else have no interest in how others wish to celebrate what are probably harmless religious festivals. However, there is a strong strand of liberal thought which argues the need for this: a strong conservative basis of morality and of generally-tolerated and supported institutions and customs. These have to have become generally established and have fairly universal support, before a real hard-liberal civilisation can evolve to be so durable that Gramscian-animated uprooters and deconstructors can gain no traction.

Why else would the NSDAP have spent so much effort trying to cut off or subvert the roots of the host-culture in Germany and then the world? Why, indeed, are our home-grown left (and it _is_ the “traditional left) trying to do the same thing here?

***(Reasons for calling the Enemy Class “GramscoFabiaNazis”:  no 139a/2 in a series)

Berlusconi Monday caption competition

The toys of rich and cruel men

David Davis

You cannot have one of these, because you Do Not Believe.

You, scumbag, will not even, soon, be permitted ot buy the water bottles which he can fill with CO2 (how?)

Ritual public humiliation: one of the staple decomposition-programmes, of GramscoFabiaNazis…

David Davis

First, persuade Teh Masses (which you have de-educated on purpose, by ruining the schools and then saying that Television is all that matters) that it is harmless fun. You do this by paying fingered and bribed members of the Enemy-Class to partake in simulations using insects etc. Then set up proper Stalinist Show-Trials, for those whom you really fear and want dead.

Aztecs knew what to do with celebrities. We are not only the same and no better, but our “masters” use them to further degrade us as a people.

As to GramscoFabiaNazis: Antonio Gramsci was a dietician, like Tony Blair: whereas Lenin, Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez (who has just died) Marx, Stalin and Hitler and Gordon Brown were all force-feeders. I am labasted here sometimes for use of the GFN term. I do no eschew the tactics of Gramsci – we ought to learn from them, pick them up, and use them to utterly overturn, for all time and for ever, the works of today’s British GFN Enemy-Class. Then, safe for a little time behind our waters, we can turn to the rest of the world that is currently enslaved, which is for all practical purposes all of it.

All over again. All still to do: what a waste of eight or ten, or twelve or twenty generations of Men. And, with hindsight, how deliberate was the plan to prevent that, and how astonishingly blind we have been, to not see it.

Our sovereign-space-miners and asteroidal-mineral-traders, and JovoSaturnian-Lunar-resource-extractors, whom we could have had by now, are nowhere to be seen. They might have been  prospecting for methane, water, Iridium, Gold and diamonds to just play with as Woolworths-jewellery-for-kiddies’-parties-and-goody-bags,more  Tungsten for proper light bulbs, and the like, could be At The Stars, by now.

Next, they came for the fireworks and flares…

and I did not speak out, for I didn’t have any…

David Davis

Watch it, people: cigarettes, guns, knives, cars, food, pyrotechnics…

I’m sure this was staged. Like Dunblane and Hungerford, and that one in Germany recently. Most airgun “accidents” are also staged by the authorities. I’m just waiting for these to be taken away from citizens soon. This one signals fireworks. “It is not illegal to possess distress flares, but they must not be fired on land”.

Incidentally, I’m not aware of any restrictions on carrying, say, a Longbow and its rounds, in public?

Boris Johnson on Taxation

David Davis

True words, but nobody will listen except the rich who can leave anyway.

WTF is a “parenting official”?

Michale Winning, annoyed

Guess you can find out here. It’s not the lesbian-business I object to. If women want to pretend to shag each other then they can, it’s no business of mine it’s not.

But “parenting officials”? Boss says we should eat them, after a good barbecue, if he’s right about what certain people are up to, then we might have to.

What the British State DNA database is for

Michael Winning

(Not too many tupos I hope,)

This article may disappear. No really. Apparently it’s done so once already* and may do again. Legiron who Ive just found has posted thispiece here, which tells of a woman, a lawyer in fact, who now can’t get a job as she’s “on the DNA database”. Just that it seems. She lost an employment opportunity (with the State no less, but wait till tesco and others get on the roller) because of a wrong accuastion, and even about something trivial.

So what’s in store then for those accused – also wrongly – of worse things like British-State-thoughtcrimes? They wont’t even get shelf-fillers’ jobs in Asda or Kwiksave – let alone Waitrose!

So this is what it’s for – and there are 6 million people on it nearly, the Police sure have not been idle, all those swabs to take by force, eh? Need personpower for that, you do!

*Someone called Longrider has got a link to the piece too.

Might as well quote this from Longriderer:-

Update: The Economic Voice has more.

This effectively creates a new class of criminal, the ‘guilty innocents’. We used to have a system where you were either guilty or you were innocent. Now you can be left in limbo for 6 years. Remember also that the government’s original plans, but for the intervention of the EU, was for indefinite holding of DNA! Food for thought.

Had she not been going for a job that requires police background clearances she may well never have realised the repercussions of these new rules. Most people will just dismiss this as an isolated case to be ignored, but it could easily happen to anyone by just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just because it may happen infrequently doesn’t make it right.

Quite. Remember, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

But to cheer yous all up I’ve found this:-

Now we see the skull, beneath the smile

David Davis

This set of “new rules”, whereby the British State (acting under New Labour) will “rip up” private contracts of “greedy bankers”, will of course really help to return profitability to the Banking Sector.

In the short term, everyone in banking who has some slight potential to earn bannking profits, will simply leave. We shall be left with a “National People’s Bank” which will in its top salaries and in its public service ethos resemble the NHS, will do no deals worth doing, and will cost almost as much.

Bankers ought to have thought more carefully about the kind of people they either called upon, or accepted “help” from, to bail them out. You couldn’t make up this script – it would have to be true…“a conspiracy of greedy bankers and international capitalists who planned to rob the People” – the only word missing is “JEWISH”….

It may be decades, if ever at all, before we can return to something like a Free Market in banking in the UK. I am not optimistic.