And Freedom and Whisky finds more justification for leaving the State out of your arrangements.
And Freedom and Whisky finds more justification for leaving the State out of your arrangements.
Charles Moore in his inimitable style discusses why we don’t stop little old white Caucasian ladies at airports.
We as libertarians all know that “the war on terror” is a machinery-device by the GramscoFabiaNazis. It is designed for “security-theatre” purposes.
The “Moslems” are merely an identifiable fall-guy-group, who can be blamed publicly. Of course, none (much) can be charged with anything, mostly because nearly all of them are not guilty of doing anything to hurt us, so it “does not stand” as a case. They ought not to allow themselves to submit to this sort of public vilification: mostly this can be done by allying themselves wholeheartedly with “Western Values”, _/In Public/_ , which is very easy and which requires no religious alliegance to anything whatever except an honest and checkable commitment to secular liberalism.
The “War on Terror” is here only and exclusively to control and enslave the populations of The West whose aspirations, lifestyle and values the GFNs hate, and want dead so they can inherit such power and wealth as is left undecomposed.
The GFNs are thus the ultimate harbingers of evil, wickedness and oblivion, although they themselves either don’t know it – or – more likely – they _/do/_ know it, but have no care whatsoever for the rest of Humanity which may not be party to their desires and impulses of death and solo-deliverance.
…llike Hugh Gaitskell who genuinely hated Anglosphere culture out of moral conviction (so Tony Benn loved him) and whom Margaret Thatcher most feared, out of all of them…(Wilson was just a Yezhov-policeman-imitation-character.)
…whereas David Cameron wants power so so so much that he can’t summon up the moral courage, the guardian-Angel-conscience, if you like, to cut and cut and cut again, and WIN the Party back to power!
What “baby-George” George Osborne can do first of all, at about 02:00 am on the morning of a general-election win – IF they get one at all which is by no means assured as the Labour-scumbags will try to rig the results – is this:-
(1) Lock-down and shut all “government buildings” containing such things as…
…”departments” of… education/skills/culture/women/communities/environment/farming/rural-affairs/more women/children-schools-and-families/media/sport/ diversity/health-protection-agency/UK-trade and investment/E-government-unit/Direct-gov(very very very sinister thing, this one!/The Greater London Authority/Info4local (whatever that might be?)/Better regulation Executive (even more sinister!)/UK resilience(er what?)/Department for work and pensions/Home Office Interior Ministry/Ministry of Justice (a tautology that one!)/Department for transport/ Department for regulatory reform (what’s the “better regulation executive” for then?)/Department for communities and local government/Department for children schools and families (this GramscoFabiaNazi government hates families and wants them dead, because they challenge its authority)/Department for comunities and local government (why is there another one?)
(2) Put all the “staff” on the street. Give them a bin-liner and 15 minutes to clear their desks and their lavatories of personal property.
(3) Burn ALL the records (and I include all hard disks, pen-drives, CD roms and servers) of all these departments. It must specifically include the pension records of all the people who have worked there. Otherwise there will become no stigma or even temporaray disadvantage attached to having worked for such places.
…looking after her Subjects’ sovereignty.
This actually upset me as well as making me realise that the Queen must have deliberately given assent to things like ROME, the SEA, Maastricht, Nice and Lisbon.
If a “Senior Adviser” to the Queen has asked for a meeting with the Asse-Hatte “Rowan” Williams”, then it must mean that the Queen asked for it to take place.
The Pope is perfectly entitled to try and “poach” “Anglicans” from England into the Universal Church, if he can. He’s a classic aggressive campaigning battling Christian Pope of the Old School, and good luck to him: he’s also fun to watch, and smiles often, which makes you want to like him as a person.You can imagine him on a destrier, in full armour, wielding his flanged mace (so as not to shed blood while killing) in the middle of the Battle of Hastings.
Equally, by sovereign constitutional precedent and settlement, the Queen as the Anglican Boss is entitled to try and hold on to her “farm animals”. She might also care to think about defending our liberties sometimes. But what she’s clearly doing right now is a harmless game that has no bearing on how we real individuals live our lives, which are our own: this is one of the few real comforts available to us in a darkening and less free world.
But the Queen – rather than get exercised about playing harmless games – ought to have spent most of the last 50 years resisting far far more dangerous and important threats, both to our status and hers: such as the encroachment of the fascist EU upon especially and in particular British Sovereignty – no?
Constantinople in 610 AD, three hundred years after Constantine the Great took the small fishing village of Byzantium and made it the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire; the city where Europe meets Asia; the City of Man’s Desire, where anything can be bought for the right price. But is the City of Gold a city of dreams or nightmares?
"Terror of Constantinople" marks the second outing for Aelric, a young Saxon nobleman transplanted to early seventh century Rome from England. Initially sent on a mission with his mentor, the priest Maximin, to collect books for the Roman Church in Britain, clever, cynical Aelric has proven a useful tool for the venal, power-hungry clerics of the Church in Rome, and is not planning on returning to his bleak, benighted homeland anytime soon.
His previous assignment as investigator and hatchet man for the Dispensator of the Church of Rome successfully completed, Aelric looks forward to settling into his nice new home in one of the few remaining suburbs of Rome still in working order. He’s coining it on the trading market, collecting books by the dozen for his library, and about to marry his pretty, ditzy mistress and become a father. Life looks good.
However the Dispensator hasn’t finished with Aelric yet, and blackmails him into accepting a new assignment, this time in Constantinople. Aelric soon finds that beneath its sophisticated veneer the city is suffocating in fear, controlled by a terrifying secret service which scoops up people at random on charges of treachery, sending them to torture and death in the cells beneath the sinister Ministry. Agents provocateur infiltrate all levels of society and citizens are encouraged to denounce each other at will. Wives tired of their husbands, sons wanting their inheritances in a hurry, business rivals, and envious neighbours all find a ready ear in the Ministry’s Black Agents. Divide and rule is the policy of Emperor Phocas, a paranoid megalomanic under threat of losing his position and his head to the next claimant to the throne. Danger lurks at every turn. Despite his overweening confidence in his own golden good looks, charm and intelligence, Aelric has to admit that even he might have stepped over his head into a cesspit this time. Will quick wits, a sexy smile and a sword be enough to save him?
Conspiracies of Rome was one of my historical fiction finds of 2008, and "Terror of Constantinople" is another winner. Blake’s erudition and political savvy create a convincing framework for an irreverent, bawdy historical thriller, written with élan and full of non-stop action, intrigue and suspense. The period is unusual and fascinating, as Blake himself says, "just at the transition between late antiquity and the mediaeval period," and Aelric makes a compelling protagonist. He’s conceited, ruthless, amoral and hedonistic. He also has a contagious zest for life, a passion for knowledge, and a distaste for narrow-minded religious dogmatism. He’s generous and protective of his motley mix of retainers as befits a Saxon lord, and has the Saxon warrior’s boundless capacity for alcohol, love of a good, brutal fight and zeal for blood-feud if he or his are injured in any way; a complex and contradictory character who always leaves the reader guessing.
Bring on "The Blood of Alexandria"!
Andy Thompson writes:
Hope you are keeping OK.
I refer to the abovementioned section of your excellent publication, “Cultural Revolution, Culture War”.
In this chapter you write,
“….millions watch the entertainment programmes; and these have been recruited as part of the hegemonic apparatus”.
“It is possible to fill up page after page with similar examples of the use of popular entertainment as a reinforce of the hegemonic ideology—the careful balance of races and sexes in positions of authority, the vilification of white middle class men, the undermining of traditional morals and institutions, the general attack on all that is targeted for destruction.
Any one example given may seem trifling or even paranoid. But, taken together, the function of much of the entertainment media is to subvert the old order”.
May I draw your attention to the attached video clip of an advert currently doing the rounds on commercial television. Unsurprisingly, it is a Government advert espousing the virtues of loft insulation in order to reduce our collective ‘carbon footprints’.
This advert is a classic example of what you rightly describe as “….the careful balance of races and sexes in positions of authority, the vilification of white middle class men….”
Three parts of this advert are noteworthy:
1. The use of a ‘mixed race’ young male as the boyfriend of the young, white girl. Not only a mixed race young man but a helpful one who offers to help out the mother without apparent fear of insulting the father.
2. The portrayal of the father as a weak, pitiful, figure of fun. Almost pathetic, he is patronised and ridiculed throughout – by his daughter and wife in particular.
3. The portrayal of the mother as a strong, independent, modern and intelligent woman. Clearly the ‘leader of the house’, she is the one at the top of the ladder carrying out the DIY whilst the husband is relegated to the landing to look up (in every respect) at his dominant spouse.
I am wary of being castigated as paranoid or a conspiracy theorist but this advert astonished me in it’s anti-conservative, anti white, pro-ethnic minority, pro-feminist and pro-liberal left audacity. No surprise I suppose given the hand of this Marxoid government in it’s production.
The worrying thing is, the brain-dead majority of the country watching the advert would see it as normal fair and would not give the issues I have highlighted a second thought.
Worrying. Very worrying.
Keep up the good work.
…catspaws and fall-guys for the GramscoFabiaNazis.
The living man currently purporting to be one of the audio-voices of Osama bin Laden (who will continue to remain dead) comes out on the side of greens, dollar-dumpers, anti-Americans and other types of droid opposed to liberalism and the maximisation of energy-use to benefit humans.
This is of course no surprise: indeed, I wonder why the fellow purporting to be bin Laden did not actually orate about this matter during Copenhagen, which would have had more effect.
The effect of this voicover-tape on ordinary people who follw Islam may be the main worry. Ultimately, they and Islam cannot be the real or even a very substantial enemy of progress and emancipation for all people, although grievous harm has been done by some of them in the past in the name of destruction of secular Western liberalism and society.
I think in passing of the necessity for the medieval Crusades, for which an apology offered to existing European nations, as well as to obliterated ancient Christian countries, is long overdue – but which probably will never be forthcoming. Just like the deeply heartfelt and trans-global apology which is owed to Britain in general, and the Royal Navy in particular, over the little matter of “slavery”, which we here abolished in 1807. (Some questions to the French Government here might be in order, especially concerning Haiti and the position of slaves there after their rebellion and ejection of French colonial repressive interests…)
I also think of the frequent and partially-successful attempts by both Inperial Wilhelmine Germany and also by the Third Reich, to suborn latent Moslem enmity as an ally against “the West”. Buchan’s “Greenmantle” was partly based on fact. You could even say “it was all about oil”…..
Modern Moslems are far more in tune with Western values and liberalism than a small lunatic fringe of both “Islamists” and Western Multiculti-agitproptists cares to admit. They ought not to be taken in by stuff like “audio broadcasts”.
And so where is the fellow then? Repeated occasions of not appearing in public on live broascast media do tend to support the evidence that he is dead.
If Moslems allow themselves to be used as an anti-civilisation-weapon, then they will find themselves cast off and obliterated, as “useful idiots”, just like Lenin said about others such as Fabians and “socialists”.
I have to thank Tom Paine over at the Last Ditch who brought this droll little thing to my attention. Owing to strange and wonderful wireless-router-hiccups I have not been ablt to reach typepad blogs recently but it seems to be fixed now:-
Paul Marks writes about Otto von Bismarck in 1992, but the idea bears revisiting today.
The Church of England has finally begun to notice that the EU is a large pile of dog excrement, albeit a very clever and malicious pile of dog excrement. The Church attacked them on multiple fronts, both financially and politically, saying that “millions of pounds of public funds risk being wasted on redevelopment projects unless local people and religious groups are also involved to bring about spiritual regeneration” and that “The European institutional public sphere is largely a public discourse for elites, it is a sphere in which citizens remain uninvolved. This has in turn contributed to the EU’s democratic deficit.”
It’s nice that people are beginning to wake up to this sham of a “Union”, although I fear that the Churches will be found guilty of made up crime and shut down because they dared to speak out against this bureaucratic dictatorship “Economic Friendship”
Jeff Randall pulls the trousers off the Quangos and their cost to us.
….at about £100,000 per pound.
Even though the cheese slice was the Franchisee’s private property, you’d have thought they could let one go now and again. If today’s British A-level statistics papers are anything to go by, people called “Sameena” pack cheese slices in boxes of mean contents = 500, standard deviation = 3, and P( x < 496) = 0.001, P( x > 504) = 0.01 ….
I presume that Dutch McDonald’s outlets are also independently-operated franchises just like they are here? I do not know. Perhaps someone will enlighten me, If so, I can’t believe that the odd whole burger does not go “missing” fairly frequently.
It’s Happening There: Britain’s Emerging Police State
[Peter Brimelow writes: Nearly forty years ago, I was immensely impressed with The New Totalitarians a brilliant study of Swedish political culture by Roland Huntford, making the point that totalitarianism, in the sense of complete political control of society, can be brought about by bureaucracy as well as brute force. (To my amazement, this book’s influence on my own book on Canada, The Patriot Game, is cited—currently—in its Wikipedia entry.) Sean Gabb reports here that it’s coming soon to another common law country near you—Britain. Indeed, the British government’s current drive to force the anti-immigration British National Party to admit immigrant minorities to membership is the very essence of totalitarianism: no private sphere can be allowed; in Mussolini’s words “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state”. This is why the passage of the so called Hate Crimes legislation, lauded by President Obama in his recent State of the Union address, was such a disaster—yet almost unopposed by the Beltway Right. It’s happening there. It can happen here.]
By Sean Gabb
At the moment in Britain, the Labor Government’s Equality Bill is completing its progress through Parliament. The purpose of the Bill is to bring all the various “equality” laws and rulings made since 1965—race, sex, sexual preference, age-based, religious, etc—within a single statute, and to enable a single scheme of enforcement, the quasi-judicial Human Rights Commission. It also tightens these laws so that such “discrimination” as has continued to exist will be made illegal.
The exact meaning of any proposed law is hard to judge in advance. We need to see the final Act of Parliament. We need to see the hundreds of pages of regulations that it enables through its delegated legislation sections. We need to see how it will be enforced by the authorities, and how the courts will rule on its interpretation.
But outlines of the law are already reasonably clear. It is, for example, illegal for a Jewish school not to accept gentile children. It is illegal for a Christian hotelier to refuse to let two homosexuals share a bed together. It is illegal for an employer to exclude job candidates who belong to a group of which he might—for whatever reason—disapprove, or to confine recruitment within those groups of which he does approve. The same applies to landlords.
It is also illegal for the British National Party to confine its membership to those it regards as indigenous to the British Isles—an unmistakeably totalitarian violation of the principle of freedom of association.
After a recent rare defeat in the House of Lords, the Government will not be able to force religious schools to employ teachers who are outside of or hostile to their religious values. But this defeat may be reversed when the Bill returns to the Commons in the next few weeks. Or it may be reversed by separate legislation. As said, a law cannot be exactly understood until it is in force.
Even so, the Equalities Bill must be regarded as one of the most important measures in the consolidation of what can only be described as the British police state, which has been emerging since the election of Tony Blair and his “New Labor” allies in 1997. (For more details, see my monograph Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, downloadable for free here).
The problem with opposing this sort of law is that opponents can be smeared as opposed to equality in general, or even as bigots. This has completely cowed the opposition Conservative Party, which has offered only token resistance. (My own Libertarian Alliance’s opposition statement is here).
Needless to say, this is an illegitimate tactic. As with freedom, everyone nowadays believes in equality. The real question: what is meant by “equality”?
This means that everyone should be equal before the law. A married woman should not lose the right to own property, unless she agrees in advance. A Roman Catholic should not be prohibited from inheriting under his father’s will. An atheist or Jew should not be denied justice because he will not swear as a witness on the New Testament. Everyone should have the same right of access to the courts. Everyone should have the same rights to freedom of thought and speech and faith, and to freedom of association, and to freedom from arbitrary fine or imprisonment.
And that is it. The liberal tradition does not insist that everyone should have the same right to a job, or residential letting, or service in a restaurant or hotel. No one should have the right to be loved or accepted by others.
If the owner of a business puts a note in his window advertising that he will not deal with Jews or homosexuals, or the disabled, that is his right. As a libertarian, I would regard this kind of announcement with distaste, and I might refuse, because of it, to deal with that business. But that is the limit of proper disapproval. It is not a matter for interference by the authorities.
Now, I have argued so far as if I assumed that the projectors of the Equalities Bill were people of good intentions but limited understanding. But I do not assume this for a moment. The people who rule my country are best described as evil. They have not been led astray by bad ideas. Rather, they are bad people who choose ideologies to justify their behaviour.
There are ideologies of the left
—mutualism, for example, or Georgism, or syndicalism—that may often be silly or impracticable, but that are perfectly consistent with the dignity and independence of ordinary people.
These are not ideologies, however, of which those who now rule us in Britain have ever taken the smallest notice.
These people began as state socialists. When this became electorally embarrassing, they switched to Politically Correct multiculturalism. To the extent that this is becoming an embarrassment, they are experimenting with totalitarian environmentalism. But whether in local or in national government, their proclaimed ideologies have never prevented them from working smoothly with multinational big business, or with unaccountable multinational governing bodies.
It is reasonable to assume that, with these people, ideas are nothing more than a series of justifications for building a social and economic and political order within which they and theirs can have great wealth and unchallengeable power. Their object has been to deactivate all the mechanisms that once existed in Britain for holding its rulers accountable to the ruled.
And that is what they have been doing since the Labour Party won the 1997 election. To a degree that foreigners do not often realise, Britain has, during the past 13 years, been through a revolution. This has been brought about by the Labor Government and by its collaborators in the MainStream Media, in the civil service and judiciary, and in big business.
They have swept away the constitutional settlement of the 17th century. Our Ancient Constitution may have struck outsiders as a gigantic fancy dress ball. But it covered a serious and very important fact. This was an imperfect acceptance of the claim by Colonel Rainsborough, leader of the radical Leveller faction in the English Civil War, that “the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he”. It allowed this country to be at once highly conservative in its institutions and, at the same time, free.
All this has gone. Since 1997, we have had a bewildering 4,000 new criminal offences created—many dealing with censorship of speech and publication. They are usually enforced by a summary—and often arbitrary and even corrupt—process.
The traditional courts and their procedure have also been transformed, so that no one whose legal education ended before 1997 has the faintest idea of how to enforce his rights. We have been made formally subject to the European Union. The country has been deliberately flooded with immigrants, as former Blair speechwriter Andrew Neather recently boasted. And the purpose of mass immigration has been to break up the solidarity of the ruled.
I was born in a free country. People could speak as they pleased and live without constant supervision. If a policeman knocked on my parents’ front door, their only worry was that he might have bad news.
I now live in a police state. Recent legal reforms have completely displaced common law protections and all offenses are now arrestable. If I am accused of so much as dropping a sweet [VDARE.COM: U.S. = candy] wrapping on the ground, I can be arrested and taken to a police station. There, I shall have my fingerprints and a DNA sample taken. Even if I am released without charge, these records will be kept indefinitely. They will also be shared with several dozen foreign governments, who will often regard presence on a DNA database as evidence of a criminal record.
The natural response is that sensible men do all that is needed to avoid any police attention. That means prompt obedience to commands that may have no legal basis. And what is that but a police state?
The Equality Bill is simply another step in the consolidation of this new order of things. It is a bribe to those groups—Muslims, Gays, racial minorities—whose electoral support is needed to keep Labor in power. It is one more excuse for making victims of known dissidents.
Above all, it is another message sent out to all of who is boss.
The only “equality” the rulers of Britain are working towards is equal fear of them—and of what they can do to us.
Dr. Sean Gabb [Email him] is a writer, academic, broadcaster and Director of the Libertarian Alliance in England. His monograph Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back is downloadable here. For his account of the Property and Freedom Society’s 2008 conference in Bodrum, Turkey, click here. For his address to the 2009 PFS conference, “What is the Ruling Class?”, click here; for videos of the other presentations, click here.
…but I found it by accident. Perhaps what it says in my piece below has a grain of realism in it after all.
Go to conservativehome and take part in the lively discussion thread about whether “Britain is becoming more conservative – or perhaps more libertarian?
It says in The Register that the gramscofabianazi scumbags are going to continue promoting uptake of ID cards by stealth: specifically to the astonishingly uncurious 16-24 generation, which they have deliberately made politically uninvolved in my opinion.
And to continue the Boss’s Day Of Small Things, I know it’s late but It says over at the Daily Express that “salt kills 40,000 people a year.”
Experts say this so it must be true.
Well I suppose we all have to die of something so it might as well taste nice. It puts the term food-fascism in a new light, and so why don’t we just send all these experts to a state-health-farm, in the far north somewhere, with nothing but boiled root vegetables to eat, that’ll fix them.
Personally I recommend tiny little wet-finger-touch-helpings of sodium monohydrogen-glutamate, as a hor-douevre. It actually tastes quite good. You can buy 500g and 1Kg shrink-packs of it at the local Chinese cash and carry in Manchester.
This is a day of minor observations about small things. I feel I want to say things about education this afternoon.
This matter which I will relate was commonplace in the early 1960s. Even in “State” schools, whose teachers still thought they were there to pass knowledge on, or at least some of them did.
When I was a young teenager at school, if you did a piece of either homework (it was actually called “prep” then by us, and you did some between 6.15 and 7.30 pm at school, before going home if you were not a boarder, to do the rest before tomorrow am) or classwork that fell below your recognized usually-achievable standards – and you were /told/ what these would be as required- you would be commanded to redo the work on “Green Paper”, perfectly, for resubmission to the relevant master. Otherwise, you would not be classed in your class ratings for the “Tri-Weeklies”. There were four of these per term. If you missed a “Tri-Weekly” in all subjects fully…..
“Green Paper”, which was of a particular shade and was lined and punched and of Foolscap size – so you could not buy it at Pullinger’s “the stationers” in the town – could only be collected, in individual sheets of the prescribed number for the work, from your Housemaster. He would note how many sheets you were commanded to ask for, which master it was for, and which subject, and by when (usually tomorrow) and would note your marks from the failed-piece. You had to sign for these sheets.
If you “got” three Green Papers (over all subjects) in one tri-weekly, you would then go on “Satis”. You might be beaten as well by the Housemaster or the House Tutor, at his or his discretion, especially if you were thought to be “intelligent and lazy”. (Boris Johnson types please note.) Potential officers in the Prussian Army would have jumped over the wall by this time and buggered off to their favourite peasant-girls, in disgust, at their views of this attempted humiliation. “
“Satis” meant that you had a brown _Blauschein_ thingy handed to you, with all the lessons you had to go to marked on it in a grid, for the next three weeks (tri-weekly) and each master (all of them, for all subjects) had to sign it to the effect that you had performed “satis”factorily in his lesson. Each time, it made you late as you had to queue up to see him at the end-bell of each lesson, before moving on to another building: (The boys moved and the masters stayed put then.) It identified you to the other boys as a person who needed watching. Some would withdraw the hem of their garment from you, especially the clubbable popular convivial not-very-bright-but-politically-able-boys, whom everyone wanted as their friends.These boys, who are now in their 60s all very rich and relaxed in their old age, did not want to be associated visibly with other people’s failures: that is only right and natural. It was a lesson in life.
It bloody made you perform.
If your “Satis” card was in order at the end, and you had not acquired any more Green papers, then the record of the previous Green Papers you had obtained was expunged.
I am not suggesting that a libertarian education system – if that is not indeed a tautologial notion – would invoke such a thing as this system for making people remember things learned. But if there was a Free Market in Schooling, then some places might go for this method, as in a “That’ll Teach-‘Em!” strategy. I fully expcet that the children of people like Tony Blair, the Milibands, Peter Mandelson (he has children, but he is just dissembling for the camerae) and Harriet Harman would go here.
The problem today of course is that there is no failure and no success. Everyone has to be equally “advantaged”, and as well the “curriculum” contains no content of actual factual use or relevance. So I suppose they don’t need Green papers then.
I don’t think so, thank you.
Newsreaders? Yes: Jeremy, James and the Hamster? No.
That lot are pretending to be slobs with terrible dress-sense, and they do it very well and it’s part of their brand, so they should look like slobs.
Have these people realised that these shows may be on, because it’s what British children want to watch?
The MSM providers are not a perfect undistorted market: far from it. But they perhaps more nearly reflect what our youth wants in their programming than does, say, the BBC for what (it thinks) adults want.
Personally, I’d rather there were many more factual science, history and engineering programmes. That’ll also do more to “empower the women of tomorrow’s Young Country” than any amount of Disney child-hotel-soaps, or multiculti-Noddy.
While this router is partially behaving (every machine that connects, even other people’s) can’t reach certain addresses) it is worth mentioning the even more intensive videoing of individuals going about their private business, under the excuse of reigning in “speeding motorists” and “reducing CO2 emissions”.
It is perfectly obvious that these devices can be connected to whatever data-harvesting device one pleases.
Why do they need UAV drones in the sky AND these things as well?
It’s times like this that makes me sure that Mr. Orwell got his dates a bit wrong.
I’ve now heard that the Police are using UAV’s and the government is planning on getting even bigger ones. This means that, in addition to all the CCTV cameras dotted liberally (no pun intended) around the landscape, you can also be watched from 50,000 feet.
All this goes on without you knowing however, so you will be able to expect parking, speeding, and, knowing this lot, littering fines dealt out like a bolt of lightening from the gods above. Shortly after this, we, knowing our luck and their determination, will be seeing these things being armed with missiles and smart bombs. Indeed, health and safety will take a sinister turn, for you will be driving along without your seatbelt on, by accident or on purpose, then BOOM! a streak of fire will rain down upon you and end your criminal ways, for you have to remember:
“Driving without your seatbelt on is dangerous.”
Norman Tebbitt gets it right here. The only fly in the ointment for libertarians, most of whom would be cool about the idea of the UK leaving the EU right away, is that we still here have our own sadly home-grown gramscoFabiaNazi enemy-class, which habitually gold-plates everything the EU decrees before foisting it upon us.
These people would have to leave office by force, in a “great burning” of their work-premises, records, filing cabinets, pension-entitlements (sorry, Sean, I cannot view them with such equanimity as you sometimes do) hard disks and the like. A rebirth of British let alone English sovereignty and liberty would be still-born while such organisations staffed by such people remain in being.
The thing is worth quoting in full:-
It may well be that Mr Cameron regards any discussion of the EU as “banging on about Europe”, but here in the Telegraph blogosphere – to judge from the over 350 comments on my last blog post – it does seem to be a matter of some interest.
However, I should first say to Gary 4 that I certainly did NOT tell people “to get on their bikes”, I am not, and never have been a “Monday Club politican”, although I see nothing shameful in being one. After all, it is not like being a Fabian. Nor have I ever urged people to vote UKIP.
On the other hand, ZigZag says he cannot understand the logic behind my view on the EU since he thinks that “the English are just a European Nation” and “the EU is simply an institution to which most European nations belong”.
So let me explain. The English are, of course, a European nation, but we are different by virtue of our history from the others. And I suppose that at this stage I should come clean about my own background.
Yes, we are all immigrants, since during the depth of the most recent ice age Britain was not inhabited by man. Even since the land bridge to the mainland was submerged there have been a good number of new arrivals, not least the Scandanavians, Romans, and Normans. My paternal forebears probably arrived here sometime in the 16th century from the continental lowlands. Indeed had they not got on their bikes, so to speak, I might have been born a Belgian. Happily they passed the cricket test with flying colours and integrated into the East Anglian turnip taleban of their time.
They, and most of us who came here until recent times, adopted the history and culture of England and the English. We were much infuenced by the Scandinavian practice of the folk moot, wherein lie some of our democratic ideas and which had a part in the thinking which led to Magna Carta.
It saddens me that in the bastardised ruins of what was once an educational system even children taught the importance of what happened at Runnymede are often told that the barons forced King John to grant rights, such as free speech, freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment and the right to a fair trial. No, not quite so. The King was forced to sign a declation that he would not interefere with, nor abridge, those rights which were were the inherent rights of English freemen (and women too, Harriet) according to rank.
Our fellow Europeans may well enjoy similar rights, but they are rights which have their origins in constitutions and laws. The right of a German or Frenchman to free speech is a grant by law – essentially an entitlement rather than a right. Here, it requires a law to set limits upon that right, which in this Kingdom is (I’m sorry Professor Dawkins) the God-given right of an Englishman or woman from birth.
What I discovered during many days (and not a few nights) negotiating and dealing around the table in Brussels was that my colleagues were, with a few wonderful exceptions such as Count Otto von Lamsdorff, not just corporatist by nature, but inclined to the unspoken assumption that man was made for the state rather than that the state was made for man. At its worst, that became an assumption that whilst the citizen must obey the law and his rights were limited by the scope of the law, the state could do whatever was not specifically forbiden to it.
The basic assumptions underlying the two systems of law, English Common law and European law, are such that they cannot exist side by side. While we are members of the EU as it is constructed today, wherever the two clash on a matter within European competence, European law is superior.
Nor is it just a matter of law. Our history has shaped our society to be different. We have suffered no invasion nor conquest since 1066 and no civil wars, revolutions nor military dictators since Cromwell’s time, and we have stopped one attempt after another to create a pan-European state. Philip of Spain, Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin have all been frustrated by the people of these islands. In short, we have form as a destructive force against European political and military union.
Churchill was right. We should wish European union well – so long as it does not seek to cross the Channel. Certainly I have no ill will towards our friends on the mainland, but I think it is time the British dog got out of the federalist manger. I could live happily on the mainland as a foreigner. I believe that we should have a treaty relationship with other European nations covering matters of mutual interest, but that our Parliament should remain fully sovereign.
Divorce is never easy, but it may be better than persisting in an unhappy marriage. The question should not be whether we part, but what sort of relationship would follow.
“Green Taxes”, on “motorists”…to “fund cuts for families”. Yep, families don’t do any motoring: these proposals will really, really wow them on the remaining reservations where Mondeo Man can still be found clinging onto his natural habitats. People will be wetting their pants with delight, and will get killed in the rush to vote out the gramscofabianazis.
“Zak” Goldsmith, or whatever he’s called right now, ought to be made to live, all the time, in a cottage halfway up a mountain in mid-Wales. No electricity, no gas, no piped water, an “AGA” (whatever that might be), shickens for making methane for the gas-lamps, oh, and I’ve just spotted that he’ll want BROADBAND to talk to forehead-Dave.
You’d really have thought that a “progressive” party would want to withdraw the hem of it’s garment from all this “Green” nonsense, specially after Climategate.
Here come the real knocks to the Banking sector. Clinton made then swallow poisoned pills, and now the Obamessiah’s blaming them for fabricating said pills…
The little of RBS that we once had is now lost.
If it falls over again, it’s probably the mesolithic router, which may have to go.
God help you all, if it stays working.
Even though everyone’s realized that they don’t like him any more, Mr. Obarmy is still trying to push through his healthcare bill. Even after the seat of no other than a Kennedy, was given to a rebublican, removing Obama’s 60 seat majority and meaning in praticality that he cannot pass any bills he wants. I just don’t think that its twigged yet, either that or he’s in denial.
By request, i’m here to tell you that the duty-nissen hut has been struck afoul by technical mishap and tomfoolery. So David may be having trouble posting in the near future.
The problem will be resolved as soon as we’re finished severly malleting the gremlins that are causing the problems.
Guess you’ll have to put up with me for a while….
Sex was invented in 1963 – roughly when he was born – in order to put him in power in 2008. 45 years is all it took, to bring down The City On The Hill (You idiots! Asleep! Isolationism! You let the GramscoFabiaNazis into your patch, when you might have got away with locking them out just on ours…):-
But at least human beings can bugger these FabioDroids up. Listen up, people: it matters to us in other nations who is the President of the USA. The right one, and we shall be all right – the wrong one, and we shall all fail including you:-
You people in North America clearly did not get it right in 2008.
I shall be writing, in the next few days, perhaps, or perhaps not, about why the next US President, and subsequent ones, should be chosen by the Executive Committee of the Libertarian Alliance, UK, London-Kent-Scotland-and-Lancashire, England.
I spotted this here, and thought the following (don’t all, please, get killed in the rush…)
There is intrinsically nothing wrong with the idea of people installing wind turbines on a small scale if they want to, and if some idiot’s prepared to go to the trouble of fabricating the monstrosities for them. The concept that the wind is (sort of) free for the taking is an old one, and successful nations have risen and prospered, such as the Dutch, by using the stuff on a large scale by pre-medieval standards.
But to pretend that the electric power requirements, at high Amperage all the time and everywhere, of a large First-World Economy, including stuff like Aluminium-smelting-works and steel-foundries, can be thus provided by such machines, is flim-flammery.
Private wind-turbines are toys. There is no need for them to have expensive electronic nonsense, designed for “load regulation” or whatever, if they are not connected to the Grid. The people who will want them will be rich: therefore they should be connected via old car-alternator-rectifiers (about 40 sets in parallel is a good start for safety reasons) to stacks of lead-acid scrap batteries in the cellar: about two tons of the same, say about 120 batteries, will do for an average 2kW turbine. Good new car batteries can be had for about £2 each at any local Soviet mobile home park for Travelling People.
No wind? No charge.
You will be able to run an average _/House In Notting Hill/_ with five bedrooms, two kitchens with AGAs, nine laptops for the three children and five for the parents and nanny, plus the XBox and two “Wii” thingies, for at least four hours on a full charge of two tons of six-year old batteries.
Get some geek to build you a 12v=/230V^, DC/AC inverter using about 100 scrap power MosFets and transformers from old laptop adapters, and you are home and dry. Any amount of these can be had for under £1 each from your local computer repair shop, just like gunpowder was from your ironmonger in the 1950s. If the assembly catches fire, simply let him build you another one.
…and that they really really did mean him to be released on account of bad justice and law.
About time this happened, and all.
Watch for excitable PR announcements delivered by newcasters called things like “Kirsty” or “Shan”, and coming from the Home Office Interior Ministry about “Gordon Brown today announced that he has demanded a review of the laws about people defending themselves against intruders…here’s Candy Linkwoman at the Court of Appeal with the the latest…..etc etc etc etc etc….”
It is reported that a “leaflet” has been issued for the benefit of the Police, about how to tell if a human person is a “legal shooter”. Here are some tips for the Glorious People’s-Armed-Police, metropolitan politicos who regard the countryside as a theme-park peopled with cardboard characters, and for other Occupying Armies:-
(1) The “countryside” contains all sorts of humans not typically represented in the People’s Ecotowns of Young Britain, which is a Young Country of multicultural people living in harmony with Nature and the People’s Countryside which is a theme park. Some of these humans are caled “local yokels” or “local people” or also may be “Bankers” out for a day shooting small birds and animals which is a traditional “banking” past-time.
(1a) But sometimes, the “Countryside” also contains dangerous or irritating animals and birds which have to be discouraged and controlled, and sometimes killed with guns, and other useful quaint “Countryside-friendly” objects such as Potassium Cyanide, big sharp spades, gin-traps and snares. This is so that children and hard-working-families can buy local produce in season, for local people, at little shops and not at Tesco where everything has to be flown in from Peru.
(2) A human being with a “gun” is almost inevitably not dangerous: humans who wave knives do it in Young Britain’s People’s Ecotowns usually. They typically wave knives at humans, and display the normal shiny clothing of scumbags. Humans with “long thin guns” are almost always dressed in browns or dirty greens of matt reflectivity, and are pointing their “guns” at animals and birds not people. It is not considered polite among humans to point guns at people.
(3) You can easily spot a scumbag. His trousers are made of plastic and have two white stripes down the side, and are normally too long and tucked into two objects called “trainers” which look like a sort of plastic boot without the normal long top piece. Female scumbags wear all-over bright pink towelling pyjamas during the daytime. They can be confusing, because they do not usually have guns or knives, only phones held out as if for offering, in the right hand.
(4) If you get a report from a human about another human in a field or some bushes with a very long thin gun, ask the reporting human if he/she lives in “the countryside” him/herself, or inhabits a People’s Ecotown. If he/she does not live in “the countryside” or instead inhabits a People’s Ecotown, discount the report. If the reporting human does live in “the countryside” ask if the gun is a shotgun, a .22 rifle, a .303, an MP5, a Bren, an AK47 or a Barrett .5″, and what bird the shooter was aiming at and whether he/she brought it down.
(5) If it is carrying or using a long gun, it is almost certainly not a scumbag but a human: see (6) below for clarification.
(6) If you point your MP5 at a “local” “human” dressed as described, shouting “ARMED POLICE!!” then he/she will drop the “gun” and put his/her hands up. If on the other had it really is a scumbag, it will turn to face you with its gun (unlikely as it does not normally carry one, and certainly not a long one) pointed rather absently and indefinitely at or near you, an will say “Yer-wha’?” or “Pardon?” or something similar.
So you will always be able to tell the difference before having to open fire.
Observe Health and Safety Best Practice!
Always check first!
I may think of more during the day…
Student arrested for protest at army base
Jan 12 2010 By Adam Courtney, Staines News
Jeremy Moulton was arrested under anti-terror laws after protesting outside an army base
IT WAS a show of force usually reserved for suspects on the radar of MI5.
But when police used a helicopter, armed officers and dogs to swoop on a Staines home on June 28, 2008, it wasn’t to arrest an Al-Qaeda operative.
Their target was an 18-year-old politics student who had put a poster outside the home of the town’s Army Cadet Force, a youth organisation for 12 to-18-year-olds.
Jeremy Moulton, now 19 and in his first year at Hull University, went home after making his stand.
He said: "I heard the helicopter and then could see a torch shining near the house and I jokingly thought to myself, ‘They’ve come for me’. But they actually had.
"Four policemen knocked on the door, my mum answered, and they came into my room. I was sitting in my boxer shorts and they asked me what I had been doing that night. They then arrested me under the Terrorism Act for inciting hatred.
"They spent two hours looking through the house, they took my bag, which had all sorts of things in it, my computer, my student books and then I was taken to the police station by about four others, who were armed."
Jeremy, of Ruskin Road, says he has been anti-war all his life and describes himself as a pacifist.
He was spurred into action after discovering the cadets learned to shoot by firing at human-shaped targets.
The student went home and created a banner that read, ‘Stop training murderers’. He printed each letter on a separate piece of paper, laminated it and
went back to the cadet building in Langley Road.
He says a neighbour came out and asked what he was doing and after an amicable conversation, during which the man pointed out he had got a couple of letters the wrong way around, he went home again.
The teenager thought that was the end of the matter – until he ended up in a cell.
"I can’t explain what it was like in there," he said. "I felt totally powerless and it made me completely aware of the powers of the state. I am totally against violence. All I wanted was to get my opinion heard."
Scared of what his parents would say and anxious to get out, he took the duty solicitor’s advice, accepted a caution for breaching the peace, and was released.
"I didn’t think I had breached the peace at all, but all sorts of things go through your mind in there and I thought I’d go out and that’d be the end of it."
However, Jeremy is starting to discover that having a police record can cause complications.
He has already been refused an internship at the Houses of Parliament and he says it is unlikely he will be allowed to the US because he will have to apply for a visa and attend an inter-view at the US embassy.
He says he regrets accepting the caution and believes he was badly advised. "It is not right I should have to live with this because the implications are huge and I am not a terrorist," he added.
Staines lawyer Alex Tribick said: "Jeremy feels that he has been the victim of heavy-handed and over-zealous policing. The taxpayers of Spelthorne may well wonder whether this is an appropriate use of the police budget.
"There is still a basic right to freedom of speech in this country and my client feels that those human rights have been infringed. At the time it was given, Jeremy did not appreciate the serious impact that this caution may have upon him for the rest of his life.
"With the benefit of legal advice, Jeremy is now considering his position in seeking to have the caution overturned, making a complaint against the police, and whether his rights have been infringed under the European Human Rights Act."
Police confirmed they used eight units and the helicopter to arrest Mr Moulton, but refused to confirm or deny his intial arrest was under the Terrorism Act. They confirmed he was later cautioned for a public order offence.
Can a Libertarian Also be a Conservative?
Political Notes No. 195
ISSN 0267-7059 (print)
ISSN 2042-2776 (online)
An occasional publication of the Libertarian Alliance,
Suite 35, 2 Lansdowne Row, Mayfair, London W1J 6HL.
© 2010: Libertarian Alliance; Antoine Clarke.
Antoine Clarke graduated in Philosophy from Birkbeck College, University of London, and completed his Baccalauréat in Economics and Social Sciences at the French Lyçée Charles de Gaulle in London. He is currently studying for a Masters in Business Administration at The Open University. Has written about currency competition and free banking for the Libertarian Alliance and the Adam Smith Institute. He is a former member of the Slovak Republic Prime Minister’s Policy Unit in Bratislava and economic and political advisor to the Finance Minister of the Slovak Republic in 1991. A journalist and communications expert, he has worked for media outlets in the UK, France and Spain, and is fluent in English and French. This essay is a slightly edited version of the winner of the Libertarian Alliance’s 2009 Chris R. Tame Memorial Prize: “Can a Libertarian also be a Conservative?”
The views expressed in this publication are those of its author, and
not necessarily those of the Libertarian Alliance, its Committee,
Advisory Council or subscribers.
FOR LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY
“At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has sometimes been disastrous, by giving to opponents just grounds of opposition.”
Lord Acton, cited by F.A. Hayek1
INTRODUCTION: THE COLD WAR ALLIANCE
An informal alliance between conservatives and libertarians, especially in the United Kingdom, can be said to have started with Winston Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech in March 1946, and ended with the abolition of the Federation of Conservative Students in 1986 because of its take over by libertarian activists and the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1989 to 1991. The abolition of the FCS marked the moment when the Thatcherite part of the Conservative Party preferred to abort its own intellectual future, rather than continue what had been a fairly successful alliance against the idea of big government, at home and abroad.
The alliance, as often in history, was based on the perception of a common external enemy, Soviet imperialism, as well as the internal threat of socialist economic policies of nationalization and central planning. There was also the sense in the United Kingdom at least, that the social engineering experiment of the welfare state was an assault on freedom, whether liberty was valued for being ancient and traditional, or for being the expression of individual freedom of self-actualisation.
There was some disagreement on what to do about the Cold War. The British Conservatives were often more opposed to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation because of the subservient position that the UK was placed in relation to the United States of America. British libertarians, in stark contrast with most of their US counterparts, tended to be more favourable to fighting a global crusade against communism.
On the welfare state, conservative paternalism was reluctant to “abandon” the poor to their own initiative. Chris R Tame, the Libertarian Alliance’s founder put the conservative view of libertarianism thus:
“The average classical-liberal sympathising conservative puts our ideology in a liberty versus order straightjacket, where freedom is seen to be achieved at a cost in social order and security, and where those values can only be achieved at the price of liberty. This is a typically conservative viewpoint in which freedom and order are in tension with one another, and the remedy for social chaos is the state.” 2
In the USA, the experiences of isolationism, the Pearl Harbor attack of December 7th 1941 and the Vietnam War exerted diverging pressures on any libertarian/conservative alliance on foreign policy. However, a coalition of what two British commentators termed “Sun Belt conservatism” and a religious opposition to the secularist/welfarist “liberalism” from the 1930s’ New Deal to the 1960s’ Great Society, gathered pace from the dynamic but electorally unsuccessful 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign, to what became known as “The Right Nation.”3
GOD, THE ENLIGHTENMENT AND HOBBES: IS THERE COMMON GROUND FOR LIBERTARIANS AND CONSERVATIVES?
The modern libertarian movement is a fusion of several historic intellectual traditions, with a style that generally embraces human progress and the liberating aspects of technology. Traditionally, conservatism could be seen as the long struggle against the enlightenment, taking a sceptical view of human nature which is either explained in terms of Original Sin or a distrust of rationalism. Dr Tame, in an interview with the current LA President, Tim Evans, expressed the optimism of the libertarian position as: “We’re extreme rationalists… Death and Taxes, we’re against BOTH of them!”4 The libertarian tends to oppose God’s plan, sees the Enlightenment and its economic outcome—the Industrial Revolution—as the most tremendous liberating force in 2,000 years, and flatly rejects Thomas Hobbes’ scepticism about what free individuals will get up to without a night-watchman state to keep them in line.
Roger Scruton, formerly the editor of the Salisbury Review and Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck College, the University of London, set out the conservative objection to the Enlightenment’s humanism in a Wall Street Journal article in 1996, titled “Godless Conservatism.”5
Professor Scruton wrote:
“There is a growing tendency among American conservatives to blame society’s present condition not merely on liberals but on the secular and skeptical philosophy of the Enlightenment, from which modern liberalism descends. As conservatives see it, the constant questioning of established beliefs and authorities has set us upon a path that has anarchy as its only destination. Many conservatives therefore suggest that we must repudiate the Enlightenment and reaffirm the thing against which the Enlightenment stood: organized religion.”
“it is not hard to sympathize. Religious belief fills our world with an authority that cannot be questioned and from which all our duties flow. Yet there is something despondent in the search for a religious solution to the problems of secular society. All too often the search is conducted in a spirit of despair by people who are as infected by the surrounding nihilism as those whose behavior they wish to rectify. Their message is simple: ‘God is dead—but don’t spread it around.’ Such words can be whispered among friends but not broadcast to the multitude.”6
Professor Scruton and Dr Tame would have agreed on almost every issue of significance during the 1970s and 1980s: the economy, the harm caused by socialism, the Cold War, the “battle of ideas,” yet the philosophical underpinning of their positions was almost entirely opposite. This would not matter so long as the target for their attention was the same and the solution, if only by coincidence, was broadly the same: to support the underground civil society of Soviet colonies, to oppose socialism performed by Conservative politicians, the importance of the statement of ideas and their debate.
Yet as with such coalition projects as the French Revolution, harmonious relations would struggle to last beyond the achievement of power or the disappearance of the common enemy. Here, one of the striking differences between the British and US coalitions can be found. According to John Micklethwait and Adrian Woolridge, in philosophical terms, classical conservatism, as formulated by Edmund Burke, “might be crudely reduced to six principles.”
Micklethwait and Woolbridge argue that:
“to simplify a little, the exceptionalism of modern American conservatism lies in its exaggeration of the first three of Burke’s principles and contradiction of the last three. The American Right exhibits a far deeper hostility toward the state than any other modern conservative party. How many European conservatives would display bumper stickers saying ‘I love my country but I hate my government’?”7
The result is that American conservatives tend to display more openness to human progress, making an alliance with some libertarians possible (it may also help to explain the poor performance of the US Libertarian Party since 1972). The American conservative movement tends to take a classical liberal approach to Burke’s last three principles: hierarchy, pessimism and elitism. The heroes of modern American conservatism tend to be the same as for libertarians: rugged individualists who don’t know their place and defer to class status, the self-made businessman, or settlers on the Western frontier.
As Mickeltwait and Woolbridge put it:
“the geography of conservatism also helps to explain its optimism rather than pessimism. In the war between the Dynamo and the Virgin, as Henry Adams characterized the battle between progress and tradition, most American conservatives are on the side of the Dynamo. They think that the world offers all sorts of wonderful possibilities. And they feel that the only thing that is preventing people from attaining these possibilities is the dead liberal hand of the past.”8
A more modern representation of this cleavage can be found in the writings of Virginia Postrel, especially her best-selling work, The Future and Its Enemies.9 She replaces the left-right cleavage with one based on the notions of people as either “dynamists” or “stasists.”
Sean Gabb, the Libertarian Alliance’s Director, is perhaps the best known British advocate of “libertarian conservatism,” a body of beliefs that consists of harking back to the days when a British subject could spend virtually his or her entire life with no contact with government or its services except when visiting a Post Office. Although he did not use the term in his 1974 book, The Offshore Islanders,10 Paul Johnson remarked that English history can be seen as a succession of conservative revolutions, largely attempting to restore ancient liberties, in marked contrast with the French Revolution of 1789 for example, which aimed to create a new order, to the point of creating a decimal calendar with 10-day weeks and 10-hour days with new names for the months.11 The contrast between the ancient liberties of Englishmen (a near approximation of the libertarian ideal) is defended in the name of both its liberalism and its rooting in history.
One example of how these forces are fused in Dr Gabb’s activism has been the 15-year campaign against national identity cards, which has in no way been deflected according to which political party (Conservative or Labour) has held office in the UK.12
Dr Gabb wrote:
“I believe, however, that there is more to ‘rolling back the frontiers of the State’ than paying regard to economic indicators alone. It is not enough to control the money supply and deregulate the unemployed back into work. It is necessary to roll back the frontiers in social and political matters as well. My ideal England—the England that largely existed before 1914—is one in which individuals and groups of individuals are free to pursue their ends, constrained only by a minimal framework of laws.”
“I have no doubt that an identity card scheme would be absolutely fatal to the realising of this ideal—even the ‘voluntary’ scheme that Mr [Michael] Howard proposes for the moment. It would undermine the half-open society in which we now live. Given the technology that will soon be available, it would allow the erection of the most complete despotism that ever existed in these islands. I am astonished that such a scheme could be put forward by a government that dares call itself Conservative. It is a betrayal not merely of the libertarian and classical liberal wings of the Party, but also of the most reactionary High Toryism. I will not argue whether this is socialism by other means. But it is undoubtedly collectivist.”
The problem appears to be that there is a type of modern Conservative who really does not believe in God, natural rights, the virtue of ancient customs, or spontaneous order. I came across this position in 2002, in a series of discussions on-line with Peter Cuthbertson, who at least has the credit of being one the very early pioneers of conservative blogging in the UK. One could argue that this was a continuation of the debate between a Lockean and a Hobbesian in the 17th century. Under the title ‘Is there an Act of Parliament for Table Manners?’13 I wrote:
“I don’t normally respond publicly to comments, but I will make an exception. Peter Cutbertson has a blog called Conservative Commentary, it is certainly better than the Conservative Party’s website. He thinks that this conclusion I made makes me insane:
‘The problem for British libertarians is that they aren’t really used to the idea that the state really is our enemy. This is one reason why I don’t think that the UK withdrawing from the European Union is an automatic recipe for joy.’
In the exchange which follows he appears to believe that ‘without law or government’ society cannot function, and those who disagree with him are ‘insane’ or follow ‘an incoherent, warped political philosophy’.”
“However, it amazes me that Mr Cuthbertson cannot see that law doesn’t necessarily derive from government. For a start, any conservative who believes in God ought to consider the possibility that there is a higher authority than the State. Assuming atheism (which isn’t very conservative, but hey, who’s being coherent?), I should have hoped that a conservative might believe in the organic, spontaneous order of common law. Assuming God doesn’t exist, and the common law is a fiction (sounds more like a French Jacobin!), what has Mr Cuthbertson done with civil society? Is it true that members of the Carlton Club only behave because of the fear of being arrested by the police? Does the members’ code of conduct depend on the State for its existence and enforcement? Is there an Act of Parliament for table manners?”
TRIBAL POLITICS: IS THERE COMMON GROUND FOR LIBERTARIANS OR CONSERVATIVES?
In presenting the major philosophical differences between conservatism and libertarianism, I am conscious of one potential fallacy to the negative prognosis: a marriage doesn’t have to be perfect to be successful. Within each of the tribes, conservative and libertarian, there are numerous differences of opinion, often underpinned by a complete opposite fundamental principle.
There is the obvious problem of abortion. To one school of libertarian, the woman’s right to choose is absolute and rooted in the idea of self-ownership of our bodies. Surely no one could argue against that! But other libertarians argue that there is a point at which a foetus is more than merely a type of cancer tumour, to be charged rent or evicted. They may root their argument in the concept of a natural right to life from the moment or conception, or 10 weeks, or 20 weeks of pregnancy. If it is wrong to kill someone who is in a temporary coma, or remove their organs without consent, and also wrong to do the same to a mute or a child who has not yet developed speech, why is it acceptable for a being that has some degree of consciousness and would surely develop all the human attributes of sentience and free will?
Another issue is the transitional state. Even if all libertarians were anarchists, and many are not, what of the national debt? Should it be defaulted in full at once? Should government promises of pensions be treated as the promises of extortionists and therefore have no contractual force? Are Bank of England notes to be rejected in the Libertarian Year Zero? Or collaborators with the “bureaucrato-feudalist régime”shot?
One starts doubting whether one can even properly speak of a libertarian position, given the multitude of factions (which have a tendency to denounce each other as “deviant” in a not always deliberate self-parody of the Popular Judean Front of Monty Python’s Life of Brian). However, it should be noted that the same cleavages exist in any ideological school, whether it be socialism, conservatism or liberalism, so it would be wrong to worry too much about libertarianism’s diverse origins and blueprints for a good society.
Conservatism can mean the support of a theocratic society, the restoration of absolutist monarchy, opposition to post-Leninist reforms in the Soviet Union, support for the use of tanks against student protestors, opposition to homosexuality, the support for free trade, protectionism, the abolition of drug prohibition or its resolute enforcement. Conservatives are split on abortion, taxes, the National Health Service and whether London should have got the 2012 Olympic Games.
Libertarians and conservatives have many vehement (not violent) disagreements and it is fair to say that each side’s vision of heaven on Earth could be considered hellish to the other. Yet within each tribe, there are people who have as much in common with each other as with their own tribes. One thinks of prostitution, abortion and the death penalty, to name just three examples.
Because both a conservative and a libertarian have a degree of scepticism about the power of the State “to make things right,” it is very likely that opportunities for defensive joint action will emerge from time to time. Conservatives will tend to see their role as reigning in the enthusiasm of libertarians for technology as a liberating force for humanity. Libertarians will see their role as giving the conservatives a kick up the backside for their passive acceptance of inevitable defeat.
However, it is probably worth keeping in mind the words of Lord Acton, concerning the challenge of ideological alliances which opened this essay:
“At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has sometimes been disastrous, by giving to opponents just grounds of opposition.”
Each party to the alliance, libertarian and conservative, regards the other as a sometimes embarrassing auxiliary.
(1)F.A. Hayek, ‘Why I Am Not a Conservative’, in The Constitution of Liberty, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1960.
(2) Chris Tame & Gerry Frost, Libertarianism Versus Conservatism: A Debate, Libertarian Alliance Pamphlet No. 14, 1989, retrieved 1st December 2009, http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/lapam/lapam014.pdf
(3)John Micklethwait & Adrian Wooldridge, The Right Nation: Why America is Different, Penguin, 2005.
(4)Tim Evans, Maggies’s Militants, video produced as part of a PhD thesis, published as Conservative radicalism: A Sociology of Conservative Party Youth Structures and Libertarianism 1970-1992, Berghahn Books, Oxford, 1995.
(5)Roger Scruton, ‘Godless Conservatism’, The Wall Street Journal, Friday, April 5th 1996, p. 8.
(7)Micklethwait & Woodridge, op cit.
(9)Virginia Postrel, The Future and Its Enemies: The Growing Conflict Over Creativity, Enterprise and Progress, The Free Press, 1998.
(10)Paul Johnson, The Offshore Islanders: England’s People from Roman Occupation to the Present, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1972.
(11) ‘French Republican Calendar’, 26th November 2009, retrieved 2nd December 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_Calendar
(12)Sean Gabb, A Libertarian Conservative Case
Against identity Cards, Libertarian Alliance Political Notes No. 98, 1994, http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin098.htm
(13)Antoine Clarke, ‘Is there an Act of Parliament for Table Manners?’, Samizdata blog, 30th November 2002, retrieved 1st December 2009, http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2002/11/is_there_an_act_of_parliament.html
NEWS RELEASE FROM THE LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE
In Association with the Libertarian International
Release Date: Tuesday 19th January 2010
Release Time: Immediate
Dr Sean Gabb, 07956 472 199, firstname.lastname@example.org
For other contact and link details, see the foot of this message
Release url: http://www.libertarian.co.uk/news/nr079.htm
“ALCOHOL CONTROL: BETTER ENGLAND FREE THAN ENGLAND SOBER,” SAYS FREE MARKET AND CIVIL LIBERTIES THINK TANK
The Libertarian Alliance, the radical free market and civil liberties institute, today condemns proposals to make it harder for poor people to buy alcohol. The proposals include higher taxes, compulsory minimum prices for drink, further controls on advertising, and power to close down retailers. The only disagreement between the three main parities is how far they wish to go.
Speaking today in London, Dr Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance, comments:
“These measures, if adopted, amount to an attack on the poor. The ruling class politicians who continually whine about alcohol will not be affected by minimum pricing or the abolition of special offers. I might add that none of them can be affected by such laws. Income aside, anyone who lies his way into Parliament can look forward to round the clock drinking in the Palace of Westminster of untaxed alcohol.
“But the measures will hurt poor people, for whom alcohol will become cripplingly expensive and hard to find. They have the same right to drink as the rest of us. Bearing in mind the problems willed on them by our exploitative ruling class, they often have a greater need to drink.
“The claim that drinking ’causes’ public disorder is nonsense. Alcohol does not run about the streets. People do. If people are making nuisances of themselves, the police should be instructed to stop behaving like New Labour’s equivalent of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and to start protecting life and property again.
“The claim that drinking makes people unhealthy is irrelevant, where not a lie. People must be regarded as responsible for their own mistakes. Anyone who bleats about increased cost to the National Health Service should consider that drinkers already pay more in taxes than the alleged cost of treating their specific illnesses.
“We oppose all controls on the availability of alcohol to adults. Better England free than England sober.”
The Libertarian Alliance believes:
* That all the licensing laws should be repealed;
* That all controls on the marketing of alcohol should be repealed;
* That alcohol taxes should be reduced to the same level as the lowest in the European Union, and that there should be no increase in other taxes;
* That not a penny of the taxpayers’ money should be given to any organisation arguing against the above.
END OF COPY
Note(s) to Editors
Dr Sean Gabb is the Director of the Libertarian Alliance. His latest book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, may be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3. It may also be bought. His other books are available from Hampden Press at http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk.He can be contacted for further comment on 07956 472 199 or by email at email@example.com
Extended Contact Details:
The Libertarian Alliance is Britain’s most radical free market and civil liberties policy institute. It has published over 700 articles, pamphlets and books in support of freedom and against statism in all its forms. These are freely available at http://www.libertarian.co.uk
Our postal address is
The Libertarian Alliance
2 Lansdowne Row
Tel: 07956 472 199
The Libertarian International – http://www.libertarian.to – is a sister organisation to the Libertarian Alliance. Its mission is to coordinate various initiatives in the defence of individual liberty throughout the world.
Sean Gabb’s personal website – http://www.seangabb.co.uk – contains about a million words of writings on themes interesting to libertarians and conservatives.
Hampden Press – http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk.- the publishing house of the Libertarian Alliance.
Liberalia – http://www.liberalia.com – maintained by by LA Executive member Christian Michel, Liberalia publishes in-depth papers in French and English on libertarianism and free enterprise. It is a prime source of documentation on these issues for students and scholars
Knowledge first: teaching will follow.
The problem with the British-State-Collective-Indoor-Relief-Initiative-plus-Childminders-and-Crèche, known colloquially as “state education”, is that the “syllabuses” contain almost no knowledge.
See exactly how far GramscoFabiaNazis have publicly and proudly regressed, even having themselves trumpeted in a News Paper, towards pre-capitalist-barbarian-warlordism and naked primitive tribalism.
Perhaps Brown would like to f*** the female employees too? After all, he thinks they are his. He is behaving like a pre-colonial African “Big-Man”.
I wonder which one will be the Great-Wife? Don’t yet form an orderly-queue, all you Cadbury employees, until you are safely employed by someone other than The Gorgon, who thinks he owns your firm…
Somebody, somewhere, may begin to take such suggestions seriously one day.
Most libertarians have for a long time stated that the sale, use and possession of all drugs ought to be decriminalised. You can go either on the absolute objectivist argument that a human being’s body is his/her own, not to be interfered with by Statists. Or you can merely refer to the increased order and social utility gained by not having all the associated secomdary crime that surrounds the illicit dealing and supply of drugs at very high prices.
It is most unlikely that the UK’s political parties will be advocating anything like this any time soon. The generalised Puritan-Enemy-Class view of “drugs”, and indeed any other way of gaining simple individual or group enjoyment such as beer or wine or sex, still lies too far to the fascist Left for quick change.
Since the modern British State-Police-Force has effectively declared an end to hunting actual villains, and now goes after vulnerable groups such as young male Moslems and “motorists” chiefly, increasingly in cyber-ways rather than actual hard-vehicle-chasing, it seems reasonable to take away all their gaily-painted squad-cars. They’ll only use them to kill innocent people , directly or otherwise, like this poor young woman.
See again how socialism corrupts: very few people I know still think the Police are your friends. A seatbelt, for goodness’ sake! And they wanted to chase the bugger?
I am getting too tired even to refute this sort of stuff whenever it appears, but you might like this for a little titter.
The “they” of the title line, of course, are very very dangerous, committed and unforgiving scumbags, who have long memories, also have all the time in the world to plot and plan the death of Modern Man, and who only have to win once.
…for the thought-Police. Perhaps they ought to go round in threes instead of twos: one will be able to read, the second can write, and the third wallah will keep a close eye on the two intellectuals.
Some poor sod has been arrested and “bailed pending further enquiries”, and all his usual deviced have been “seized”, for joking on “Twitter” about blowing up a closed Geordie airport…it’s clearly no longer safe to make the sort of joke that’d have been commonplace in a real war.
Concerning of course stuff like “Twitter”, it is an inherently unsafe mode of contact, rather like sharing dirty needles or used condoms. You have no idea who your “folowers” really are – even the word is sinister in these surveilled times.
And I copied this to the Daily Torygraph:-
Nobody who takes his anti-Western Terrorism seriously is going to want to blow up a nothing-airstrip in the British North East. This was a clear joke by an irate traveller.
In these times of hyper-State-hysterial-surveillance – not for “terrorism” but for ultimate control – something like “Twitter” is a very dangerous thing. You do not know the thoughts of everyone who “follows” you.
Furthermore, to want “followers” is vain and empty: you ought not to think that your life contains exciting news for unknown people: Get a proper life instead. (Twitter I predict will die.)
But the central fact remains: those who purport to have our “security” at heart have lost all sense not only of perspective, but of humour.
I hope “Robin Hood Airport” or whatever it’s called, goes bankrupt. With humourless attitudes like that, it deserves to lose all the passengers that can flee from it as fast as possible.
These unthinking security-droids will have to go.
…and “call for” it to be banned.
These bastards really mean to blight everyone’s life, which is to be long, pleasure-free and lives in State-stasis. It’s not enough to discredit them in print, saying that they are in the pay of vast global organic-farming-combines, or the Bilderbergers of subsistence-existence.
Eventually we have to consider a point at which, if people are right and these droids are wrong, they can be permitted to spread falsehoods.
See how corrupting is the presence of evil on the Earth.
“Ministers will say” that “the professions” should “stop recruiting young people in private education”.
I’m not sure what the duty-Chimpanzee type writers dislike more: the notion that the governmentists will “say” that people who have paid twice for their children’s education must now get nothing at all, or that this “government” has decided that it is a set of farmers, who farm animals called “The Middle Class”, that can be farmed for taxation-revenue as required by varying the size of said farm.
…when disaster strikes – as it will – is this.
I am not in the least surprised.
The UN, the GramscoFabiaNazis, and their Enemy-Class hangers-on, lackeys and running-dogs, need billions and billions of poor-people. Even better, they need them to die, horribly, from time to time, in natural disasters, preferably every three years or so on the telly, just to keep us on our toes. The street-theatre thus created, can be used profitably on the First-World MSM channels to make us all feel guilty for “not rushing aid”.
Howdy all, long time, no type. I have had a forced absence from the duty-nissen hut of late due to exams and other nefarious global warming questions.
Anyway, back on topic, (even though I haven’t mentioned the topic yet, but thats beside the point.)
This morning, due to fears of triple to quadruple pileups of cars, which then burst into flames and explode, leaving a crater 14 feet deep, The well loved (by some) cartoon character Peppa pig has been forced to wear a seatbelt due to health and saftey fears. The team is also going over all the old episodes and editing them to make it seem that she always wore one, much in a manner akin to Nikolai Yezhov, the water commisar (except that he was shot then removed from a photo, rather han forced to wear a seatbelt).
It’s fine to be honest about “cuts”, but it’s also not fine to shoot yourself in the foot in public just before a major shooting-contest.
We here all know that the Tories will end up being just as bad as Blairite Labour even if not Brownite (interesting mineral, that.) But one thing about dirty fighting which they clearly have not learned is that, if they are to threaten this group, or that group, with “cuts” (always for the best of reasons, mind) then they might as well threaten the groupuscules of the Enemy-Class’s creation, such as “Hospital Trust managers” and “delivery outreach co-ordinators” – since none of these are oging to vote Tory anyway, ever, for any reason.
These types of bureaucrat, and many others, all of whom are dyed-in-the-wool socialists, and who will never fail to be the Tories’ or libertarians’ foes whatever, can safely be threatened with mass sackings. It will also work out much more cost-effective and quicker and cheaper to implement – and they’ll have lots of buildings to let out afterwards to “new businesses” and “hard working families” etc etc etc.
“The Deficit”, which Cameroid keeps going on about on his poster ads, will be reduced much quicker. This has always been the problem with “One Nation Tories”. You can’t be “one nation” until you have got rid of the people who wanted via class-war to break us into many nations.
Sorry: but the duty Type Writers in the Hut might still find something on a scrap of paper somewhere.