David Davis says it depends on the kind of idleness…
If the parent or parents is/are (a) GramscoFabiaNazi creation via deliberate-scumbag-non-schooling, then perhaps not.
David Davis says it depends on the kind of idleness…
If the parent or parents is/are (a) GramscoFabiaNazi creation via deliberate-scumbag-non-schooling, then perhaps not.
The 2010 General Election:
Advice on How to Vote
By Sean Gabb
There must, within the next few months, be a general election in England. I will not presume to advise my readers on how to vote. I will, instead, explain how I am at present inclined to vote, and will invite any comments that may arise.
My present inclination is to vote for the Conservative Party. I do not need to be told that these people are, for the most part, trash. I have been mixing in Conservative circles for thirty years now, and I have grown used to the idea of running home after most meetings for a bath. For the avoidance of doubt, let me admit what I think would be the nature of any Government led by David Cameron. It would not withdraw from the European Union. It would not roll back the multicultural elements of our police state. It would not require the police and other public bodies to behave with more humanity or common sense than they now do after thirteen years of Labour tyranny. It would not restore freedom of speech and association as they were understood in 1960. The identity card scheme might be cancelled – but not the national identity database that makes the scheme possible. Any cuts in government spending will fall on the services that are the excuse for such spending. None of the – often very well-paid – administrative and support jobs that are the real purpose will be cut. There will be no tax cuts. There will be no change to our external policy of slavish subservience to the United States. The “climate change” charate might even be become more scandalous.
This being so, why do I propose to vote Conservative? The answer is that a Conservative Government would probably continue with most of the suicidal or simply demented policies of the Blair and Brown Governments. But, at the end of five years, it would then allow a free election as these things have been commonly understood in England. A re-elected labour Government would not. When these beasts in human form lied their way to office back in 1997, they came in with the same assumptions as Hitler had in 1933. They did not regard themselves as having acquired a limited and renewable leasehold interest, but as having inherited the freehold. They and their clients would never again have to sell their services in any open market. They would reorder the State wholly to their own interest. No private sphere, no ancient and immemorial rights would stand in their way. 1997 was Year Zero of their Thousand Year Reich.
So long as it was reasonably plain that they could win the next few elections – if with a dwindling fraction of the total possible vote – they were willing to keep most of the old rules. Even so, they took steps to cartellise politics with party registration and “human rights” laws that now allow them, given courage, to shut down dissident organisations like the British National Party. For the past few years, however, they have lived in constant fear of losing the next election. And, if Labour does lose, that might cause the implosion of their Party. Therefore, if they do somehow win after all, we can be reasonably sure that they will never allow another free election. I doubt if they would go so far as abolishing elections, or openly rigging them. But they are already talking about schemes of “electoral reform” that would keep them permanently in office – even if office must be shared with the Liberal Democrats. They would also tighten the party registration laws, so that only those parties willing to guarantee the existing order would be allowed to run in elections. They might also extend their control over local politicians to Members of Parliament – setting up some system whereby Members who were too outspoken could be removed for “misconduct”.
For all their faults, the Conservatives would not do any of these things. Therefore, a vote for the Conservatives would be a vote for keeping the system open for a real party of national restoration – whatever that might be.
There is one other consideration. This is that, while a Cameron Government with a majority of less than fifty would be little different from Labour, a majority of more than a hundred would bring in new Members who had not been hand-picked for their willingness to obey. A big Conservative majority might force a Cameron Government to take a more liberal and patriotic line on the main issues.
Many of my friends assure me they will vote for the UK Independence Party or for the BNP – or, in one case, for an Islamic Party. I understand their frustration with the existing political arrangements. However, the main purpose of a general election is to send a majority into Parliament from which a Government will be drawn. Whatever individual chance Nigel Farage or Nick Griffin might have in their constituencies, the majority party after the next election must be either Labour or the Conservatives. I wish it were otherwise. But that is the choice we have to face. Do we want a pack of smirking hypocrites, who will leave office after another election? Or do we want what I have already called beasts in human form, who will never leave office thereafter, short of revolution?
Some of my friends insist that voting for minor parties will bring on a hung Parliament. This might be true. However, a hung Parliament would not give decisive weight to any of these minority parties. It would simply result in an auction between the two big parties for the Liberal Democrats. That would be about as bad as a Labour Majority. The choice remains Labour or Conservative.
Am I wrong? Is there some other viable option that I am overlooking? I look forward to hearing if there is. After all, if I do vote Conservative, it will be with forefinger and thumb clamped hard over my nose.
NB—Sean Gabb’s book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/ya4pzuh
NB:- Not a “racist” one, but a “racial” one….rac“ism” is being used as a weapon against us: but everyoone knows that different races react to different things in different ways….
I am now going to proffer wild suppositions and hypotheses.
It says on the BBC , via the UN (who else?) that Scotland is the “most violent country in the developed world”. Next highest are England+Wales, Australia and New Zealand. The USA, our first large child, today’s whipping-boy of leftist anti-gun-mums and “liberal” campaigners, and the home of beer-fuelled-pickup-driving-rednecks with-guns-in-their-trunks, is at a level about one-third of Scotland.
With my evolutionary-paleobiologist’s hat on, a hat which I sometimes wear in bed (while reading such things as Richard Dawkins as is natural for a human) I think here and there about the selection-pressures acting on early hominids. Then one also wonders about the survival-related-usefulness, or otherwise, of genes which confer intra-specific aggressiveness as a strategy for survival, as opposed to whatever its opposite might be called. But then one comes up against a difficulty: aggressiveness, which can lead to you braining another hominid with a large nearby log (or a special one which you’d previously shaped in the dead of night) for such things as “looking at a couple of your own five current breeding-females in a funny and sexy way and then saying “Ugg-Ugg-Ugg!” while pelvic-thrusting” or “trying to pinch Sea-Buckthorn-berries from your huntergathering-patch of duneland”. Or, tell it not in Gath to the paleoFabians, for “throwing his sharp stick at the wild-bison’s jugular-vein more successfully than you did”, so his children would enter the forward-Gene-pool at higher frequency that yours will, and your breeding-females would “go to him” in his cave each time just after the Full Moon, rather than stay in yours…
Is it that the “Anglic type” peoples have been more successful at settling “foreign parts” and turning them into things such as “Dominions” _because_ we might be more naturally aggressive as individuals (as suggested circumstantially by the BBC report on Scotland – remember that there are more places on the earth called “Mackenzie” than any other place! – or is the opposite? Is it that _because_ we have been so successful at sidelining the problem of individual aggressiveness in an emergent modern civilisation through notions such as the Rule Of Law, Minimal-Statism, Individual Liberalism and the like, that other places bearing lots of people with our genes have also proved to be successful and orderly places?
If it is the latter and not the former, then is GramscoFabiaNazism, home-grown sadly and home-nurtured through our failure to stamp it out aggressively at the first appearance of it, then to blame for our terrible standing at the top of these personal-violence graphs?
Just been doing a bit of rooting, and i found this:
I want one…
Of all the things the EU has done over the years, i have to admit that this one suprised me.
The EU is now going to be producing a comic book, detailing the crimefighting shennanigans of two European Commission bureaucrats.
Take that free market capitalism! *BLAMMO!*
Eat this civil liberties! *THWAP!*
Wave goodbye Freedom of speech *KLONK!*
It says in today’s Daily Mail that Gordon Brown has been told off by his most senior Civil Servant to “curb his volcanic temper”. You wonder what else is not stated and what else was told to hm. Where there’s smoke there’s fire or willl be soon.
If the election (if, not when) goes ahead and we are stuck witht his fellow, I don’t fancy five more years of this lot. Prime Ministers even lefty-fascist ones, ought to know how to behave at least to their nearest conspiratoors. We;ll be laughed at even by bemedalled African dictators in sunglasses, at least they wastes no time killing their opponemts.
Why does it matter to the world, what these men do? Does it matter if the golfer-chappy lives or dies? Not really.
But also, to help us from being assailed by this sort of news-rubbish-stuff too often, I agree with what Celia Walden (who is that?) said earlier today about sportsmen. They ought to be forbidden to marry until age 350 or somethng. And trying to sit their animal passions with what “sponsors” whatever those are want them to seem to be, is just mad and silly, it will end in tears as it has done with Tiger Woods and John Terry and who knows how many more.
And this is really realyl funny, you have to have a laugh, please have a look! It’s sort of a bit related to the guys above.
It is very nice – and I have no objection at all to these inconsequential models and celebs amusing themselves at “charity auctions – that Sir Philip Green (more consequential to our fortunes than the others) can afford to pay £100,000 for some bits of blueish cloth. Especially as the money will go “to Haiti”. I wonder, though, how much Kate Moss’s “women and children” will see of it after the UN has got its fingers round the swagbag. I admire Sir Philip Green: he is a smart businessman, insofar as these still are these days, and knows what he is about. And so does cunning-Kate Moss – so aptly positioned for the camera so she could cry in public…..(I blame the wicked and evil woman “Princess” Diana)….still “reeling” from the death of Alexander McQueen (who he?)
It’s a nice little minidress, though. If I had a 20-y-o girlfriend, I’d probably get her mates to run one up on a sewing-machine for her. Shame about the leather bra-restrainer that the poor dead-bugger saw fit to apply to the top of it, though. She’d look better without it.
When the world is sliding towards the cesspool, the Falklands are about to “brew up” again, Brown’s spent all our money, and even Polish satellite TV finds it more important to report on China, the Greek-State crash bailout, Iran and French Internet-censorship, one of our leading MSM papers finds space for this kind of tosh.
When I drive around, usually in a hurry to do tasks and chores, I am often struck (not literally, thankfully) by the use of Municipal waste-collection vehicles, and the effect they often have on surrounding traffic.
Let me explain: I am not in principle against many parts of the GreeNazi-recycling terror currently oppressing us. It would be preferable if we were incentivised to recycle rather than threatened. Some things like metals can be recycled rather simply, and often have been until socialism lent a hand. And I have always tried to recycle metals, even in the past befriending Gypsies who used to recover about 40% of British Steel’s volume input before they were turned en-masse into Accredited-State-Mendicants, Local-Authority-Authorised-Neighbourhood-Modifiers, and “travelling people”, in the hope of votes for apparatchiks.
Municipal waste-collection vehicles have become recently enormous. Moreover, they spend large time-segments occupying the entirety of a street to the effect that traffic can’t pass either way, while the “refuse disposal associate operatives” and “neighbourhood recycling co-ordinators” stride about in high-visibility-jackets, tipping nugatory amounts of metal, paper or plastic into compartments on their juggernaut, which proceeds at a pace bearing no relation to the street traffic.
I can’t help thinking that the nett contribution to atmospheric CO2 – if that is what the GreeNazis really care about or say they do – is increased due to these recycling activities. You have a large slow-moving diesel truck (indeed, in each Soviet there are many) plus the stalled traffic, engines idling for some minutes, either end of it. The amount of fuel burned while not going anywhere must be high, surely. The later savings in CO2 production due only to the recycling activities must be small in comparison.
Perhaps the whole thing is a gigantic Marxist-Leninist scam-trick, designed to load the economies of MEDCs*** with cost-burdens, so as to keep as large a proportion as possible of the world’s humans on or below the poverty-line…..so the same Marxist-Leninists can have a captive slave-brood to talk about….
says I saw this on Man Widdecombe, its quite funneh…enough work today, and I fell in a ditch and a pig fell on me.
How can these co-exist, you might ask?
Obnoxio the Clown has answered it very tightly in about 500 words. Wish I could do it that fast. I think this is such a good essay that, as well as putting is link in, I’ll reviralise it here:-
There was a vote held at the House of Twits about whether or not Britain should abandon the constitutional monarchy. Contrary to what one might expect from a libertarian and, even worse, an Anarcho-Capitalist, I voted no. In fact, if I had my druthers, I’d undo that shameless huckster Blair’s “reform” of the Lords and re-instate hereditary peerage as well!
It’s crucial that I explain why. A constitutional monarchy is not the endgame objective of any Libertarian. It is profoundly unlibertarian that someone can rule over you by accident of birth. However, through happy accident, it transpires that having a ruling monarch that is required to give assent to laws, along with two strong chambers of debate is a pretty good mix for reasonable governance in a democratic, rather than an anarchic state.
And while a lot of libertarians resent the land-ownership of the hereditary peers, the fact that they weren’t all from the grasping, venal classes actually made them quite good custodians of our rights. If you look at the regime of New Labour, for instance, the official opposition was utterly useless in the Commons and all the serious defence of the common man ironically came from the Lords. And if we look at the rapid increase in common petty theft in the Lords, is it any surprise that it has all come about since Labour started throwing the money out there to be taken and then appointing people from the grasping, venal classes?
I’m not saying the Lords were saints before, but because they were disinterested and there wasn’t really anything in it for them, they tended to either not bother at all or take it seriously for its own sake. Sure they could influence big deals for their own back pocket, but they weren’t inspired to enact draconian laws because they’d get a chunk of cash for pitching up and then being “whipped” to vote.
Whether you regard it as class, or breeding, or just some kind of good sense and disinterest, the peers have acquitted themselves much better than our elected representatives, who do not represent us, but rather the interests of their party. And really, for this to work properly, you do need a stronger monarch. Unfortunately, Brenda has really screwed the pooch here and I positively fear Charlie. We need a monarch who would not give Royal Assent to draconian laws, or bad laws. The ideal situation is where all three are strong, because then it’s difficult for any one of them to overwhelm the others. At the moment, the party in power has a toothless opposition and the Queen just gives the nod to any old shit. In fact, she doesn’t even need to rubberstamp anything, as they can now just implement a statuatory order without debate or anything. Not that there’s ever any debate anyway.
Anyway, I’m rambling now. Ultimately, I didn’t really have a problem with the pre-’97 constitutional monarchy, because no one group of the government had too much power. Blair screwed that completely by abolishing hereditary peerages and every other “reform” he did. Now the Commons dominates and is only held in the vaguest of check by the Lords.
Having seen any number of elected-only government models around the world, the UK’s odd mixture of Crown, hereditary peer and elected thief was a very good one. If I had to endure a government, I would rather it was that one.
I would rather endure no government at all. But that wasn’t what was asked.
Tickle Cock Bridge has got its proper name back, after “local people” objected en masse to the GramscoSoviet renaming it “Tittle Cott Bridge”….the excuse for the Gramsco bit was that…oh… “a Councillor spotted it and wrote it down like that”…
It shows that the GramscoFabiaNazis _can_ be browbeated in their own front yards – which are in any case ours – and so it shows how they will be made to go without our having to resort to war.
As to criticisms of my term “GramscoFabiaNazi”:-
(1) They apply Gramscian political conflict theory to how they go about undermining and replacing our value systems with theirs,
(2) They are Fabians, in that they know how to boil frogs, very very slowly, and this is what makes them, in the British context, especially dangerous, for we as a nation are inclined to laziness in maintaining defences, and this has always been a serious and potentially mortal failing on our part,
(3) They are Nazis in that Green-Leftist-State-Fascism is what they propose to impose.
Government internet regulation: this is how it will be here, and soonish I guess. Harriet- Harmonisation, Corpus Juris and all that.
Speaking merely personally and very generally, I don’t think we will ever return to a state of even partial liberalism, like what existed for some decades aaround the turn of the 19th Century and a little after. WE’d better try to enjoy what’s left, and make the best of the Endarkenment to come.
There will be local and passing opportuities for skilled people to keep stuff working, here and there, to preserve archives and libraries of knowledge where possible for the distant future, and to try to maintain something of what we might have had.
Saw this too. Privacy is a two way street, people! If thyerae afraid they aren’t worth it, then they ought to resign and do a job of work.
The British-State laments the fact that “Eight million people are economically inactive”. I quote:-
Public sector jobs increased by 5 per cent over a year to 6.09 million. In all, the state gained 290,000 employers (sic: he meant employees!) from September 2008 to Sept 2009.
During the same period, private sector jobs fell by 735,000 to 22.82 million.
They cna come and work here if they want, on the moor, pushing pigs around. But i could not pay them the minimumwage, so I guess they wont be allowed to come then…the job’s worth in reality about £2 an hour for the price i get for the animals…I cuould have queues of Afghan immigrants doing it and they’d be good too and feel rich, but it’s not allowed so I can’t.
I tell you, this socialism lark will end it tears, itwill. It always does. Can’t think why we rubb our noses in it willingly every election.
Sean Gabb says:
This is disgusting. No one should ever be punished for consensual activity. And a bad law is only half repealed when convictions under it are allowed to stay on the record.
By GREGORY KATZ, Associated Press Writer
– Tue Feb 16, 12:51 pm ET
LONDON – He was convicted of a crime more than half a century ago, but what he did in 1959 — have consensual sex with another man — would be perfectly legal today.
So John Crawford, 70, wants his criminal record cleaned up for good, so that he doesn’t have to disclose his conviction when he seeks volunteer work, and because of a deeply held belief that he should not be punished for his sexual orientation.
“I came into this world without a criminal record and I’d like to leave this world without one,” said Crawford, a retired butler. “The police beat me and beat me and forced me to confess to being gay, but I know in my heart I did nothing wrong.”
Crawford’s bid to clean up his record is backed by gay organizations looking to help others who were convicted under Britain’s once draconian anti-homosexuality laws, which only began to be eased in 1967, as social values changed, and sex acts between consenting adults began to be decriminalized.
“These laws were homophobic in the first place: that’s why they were rescinded, but the laws are still penalizing people,” said Deborah Gold, director of Galop, a gay rights group that has helped Crawford. “We’ve always had a regular trickle of people asking about it, how to get their records cleaned up.”
She said Crawford suffered horrific treatment from the police and should not have to disclose his criminal conviction when seeking employment or volunteer work.
His lawyers wrote to Justice Secretary Jack Straw last week asking that the law be changed so that Crawford and others in his position would not have to disclose their convictions during the job interview process.
If no action is taken by March 12, attorneys will seek a formal judicial review because the policy is not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, said lawyer Anna Mazzola.
“John Crawford wants to do it, to change the law for other people,” she said. “Others are in exactly the same position. The justice secretary has the power to do this, without going through Parliament.”
Mazzola’s firm has also filed a freedom of information request for data about the number of people convicted of consensual sexual offenses that would now be legal.
“I think there are quite a lot,” she said.
Crawford’s legal campaign has already been productive. In response to a letter from his lawyers, police have removed the record of his conviction from the criminal database, meaning it will not turn up during a computerized criminal records search.
“We are very sympathetic to Mr. Crawford’s concerns,” said a Hampshire police spokesman, who asked not to be identified under department policy. “We recognize that this is an exceptional case and have acted quickly to resolve it.”
The spokesman said the conviction is no longer relevant and has been taken out of the Police National Computer database. The special ruling applies only to Crawford, however, not to other gay or bisexual men with similar offenses in their past.
This welcome decision removes one substantial obstacle Crawford faces in his retirement as he pursues voluntary positions, such as hospital work where he would be helping to feed ill people.
He is not satisfied, however, because he is still legally required to reveal the 1959 episode when asked if he has ever been convicted of any criminal offence. This happens frequently on questionnaires when applying for volunteer work with vulnerable persons.
“I think it’s ridiculous,” Crawford said.
His lingering anger comes in part from the humiliation he suffered at the hands of police officers in 1959. He said they abused him physically and harassed him with vulgar taunts, then coerced him into pleading guilty by threatening to continue beating him if he did not cooperate.
As a result of that plea, he said he was saddled with a conviction that would not have been possible otherwise, especially since he was not accused of having sex in public.
“I wanted to plead not guilty, and the case would have been thrown out and I wouldn’t be talking about it now,” Crawford said. “Until the police drop it completely, I won’t be happy. I’ve got to be able to put my hand on my heart and say to the world, I haven’t got a criminal record, and I can’t say that now.”
I often wonder about what modern British people think teddy-bears are for. I thought that teddy-bears, as in “die Bährchen”, was a harmless toy originating in 19th-century Germany. But not now, and not here.
And jelly-babies are “Gummi-Bährchen”, or “little rubber bears”…..
41%/vol beer….well I’ll believe it when I see it drink it, but that’s the real thing.
I shall be researching how to do this stuff, for when the State clamps down in prohibition, upon you all. Soon, I will publish a general guide to brewing and distilling. On the other hand, perhaps I won’t include distilling information, as it’s technically illegal…
I’ll put up a shot later, of one I fixed earlier.
Here it is:-
Wish it was for ready money….
Coldsteelrain, heart in right place, what more can a man want? I cannot tell exactly, but I suspect it is written by a soldier.
Here is one good observation for a start – and yes I am being provocative here. And I share his dislike of the unloveable, un-nice and smelly Piers Morgan. if “Britain’s got Talent” is some sort of show in the Wireless Tele Vision, and the man Morgan is involved, then I don’t think that ordinary functioning humans ought to have anything to do with it.
Shun him, for he likes Gordon Brown. There will have to be an “Independent Safeguarding Agency” register of such people, and the Police will have to phone us all when one of them moves in nearby, in case we object.
Nelson thinks Gordon Brown is human, as massaged by Piers Morgan.
Jonathan Pierce says over at Samizdata that there’s a good quote from the estimable George Pitcher, about the public collective mourning for Alexander McQueen, the “fashion” “designer”. Of course any human death is sad and regrettable, for we ordinary people do not resemble Stalin in that way. Except of course for the deaths of self-made-scumbags like Kim Jong-Il, his pals Hitler, Castro and Pol Pot, and Jaques Derrida (not sure what this fellow is famous for except deconstructing things people liked, and influencing too many more.) No, these deaths are not regrettable at all, but are to be cheered to the rooftops.
The best bit for me was ” I had just flicked on the TV in my hotel room and there was some moist-eyed fashonista popsicle being asked about his legacy. “He changed the silhouette of trousers forever,” she replied earnestly, her voice almost breaking with emotion. “
Saw this just now, this is the way that tobacco went. Now it’s all yours turns!
This is intriguing, and supports my hypothesis that we were actually a powerful _exporter_ of bronze-age metals (as every geologist over the age of six knows) and that we didn’t need to be an importer. The neo-importatistas, hysteircally-climbing onto the anti-English bandwaggon for re-writing history, since this is needful for them to survive and get “research-grants”, are clearly revisionist-Eurocentric “historians” who want to pre-justify the EU and all its works. Bugger them, for a start.
All they have to do is an isotope-analysis of the copper and tin ingots found on board, to know whether the metals came from here (probable – it was in the South-West, after all, the copper-tin-silver-gold-zinc-lead-cadmium-mercury region of the UK, and why would you bring foreign coals-to-Newcastle?) or were coming from somewhere else such as Spain, France or wherever.
Too dakr to do the pigs now anyway, so,
David Cameron to take on the Trades Unions! Bring the boxing-match on man!
We cant admit it and we’ll get put in prison for saying so, but everybodyknow that “trades Unions” have been subverted by the Gramsco left [on purpose as the Boss says, and it makes sense to do it for you'd win in a liberal society that's kind and forgiving] to undermine and reverse the trend towards civilisatiion and prosperity for all. And to get it for those that threaten and fight most. Barbarians.
He’ll have to do it, but he’ll go down. Like that other guy. Not thatcher, he was a good guy.
Many decades ago, my father – a scientist – described to me as a small boy a kind of injury out of pure scientific interest, caused by a stiletto heel making a self-shaped depressed-skull-fracture. It was like a trepanning-wound only small and D-shaped.The injuree was invariably male, in the 1950s and 1950s.
It was called “somebody-or-other’s syndrome” (I can’t google it sadly) named after the usual obscure central-European-Physician who first described it. Not Kleinfelter’s, nor Münschausen’s, but something like that.
Clearly, today’s new-labour girls, fired up by GramscoFemiNaZism and enragement that “models” and “WAGs” have invaded their “partners’ ” text-messaging, have moved on. This poor man had his entire eye taken out, and the fracture-zone passed into his brain.
Stiletto heels are good. At least, on short-girls, which is the right sort to be, they are.
They make the female stance and walk more exciting to watch, which is their primary courting purpose, and also they bring her secondary sexual characteristics up nearer to yours when you have got her in a hug. This is the next most important objective, and ideally leaves her still shorter still than you, which is necessary or else you would need to stand on a box, which means that your name is Bernie Ecclestone (and that would not be good.)
If she injured him in a taxi, then although we do not know the circumstances, I suggest one of the following:-
(1) He is “NSIT” *** which means he made a pass privately in the taxi, was rejected, and was rejected utterly and suddenly (unlikely that she would react so violently)
(2) She discovered he’d given his phone to a mate who sent pictures of him (taken earlier) to a call-girl, while pretending the pics were of the sender (possible these days)
(3) She read his credit-card-statements and decided to injure him about the massage-parlour-stuff on the way home after a date (likely)
(4) She was annoyed that he’d posted pics of himself on Facebook, with a former girlfriend on holiday in Ibiza the year before (very probable in today’s climate of opinion)
(5) She was annoyed that he’d not glassed-up a dude who looked at her in the pub (also sadly probable).
*** “not safe in taxis”
Go to the island of Bute (Scotland) and find out. I don’t think Trudie Styler would qualify, for a start.
h/t The Englishman’s Castle
First, get to be the “government”. Then, get your hands on some shiny levers called a “ministry of education” or whatever: if necessary, build the machine with the levers on it and staff it with your fellow-travellers.
Next, make noises about “investing in people”, and that your priorities are “education, education, education”. (They are of course, just not in the way people think you mean.)
Then, get your digits round the windpipes of institutions that have flocked to your bait, of “money” and “funding”. Threaten them with cold turkey if they don’t admit who you say…
Finally, attack the already-struggling private schools, with threats to modify their “taxation status”, or with extra supernumerary burdens “in the community”.
I could go on: but you all know where this is heading.
Simon Heffer talks sense about our universities (too many) and history (too little and too truncated and deliberately-not-joined-up) as commanded to be taught by the GramscoFabiaNazis. The connection between this and misunderstanding the more serious parts of my post below, is obvious.
And “now”, as that not-very-nice-man John Cleese always used to say… “for something completely different.” Tomorrow if I am not mistaken is the 65th anniversary of the raids by RAF Bomber Command and the USAAF on Dresden, for which the poor Western Allies (unlike Stalin who demanded them) got to carry the can, and got to be made to feel really shitty and ruthless and cruel, for six decades and more. We can by now probably all agree that this actual raid was not strictly necessary: the war was effectively over, apart from clearing up the already-ample rubble, burying the corpses, trying and sentencing the villains, re-connecting up the Mains Services across Europe, and getting a functioning Market Economy running again.
But Stalin, bless the evil little bugger, wanted and demanded a show of “shock and awe”, loosely coupled to a less-than-needful wish of his Armies to have all enemy comms in front of them obliterated. He couldn’t range artillery that far – be there ever so many Soviet “Artillery Divisions” (which there were) – and his air force never quite had the heavy-lifting capacity ours did. So he got what he wanted: Roosevelt the scoundrel loved him anyway, and nobody was listening to poor old Churchill by then. The ally that bought the time in the first place, to form a coalition of allies, was by then regarded as the least important, and moribund, with a crumbling Empire to boot.
The result was the consigning down-the-memory-hole of chaps like this one in the video below. There has never even been a campaign medal for RAF Bomber Command, which suffered about 48% fatal casualties, around 56,000 men – a higher percentage even than the Merchant Navy.
The whole sorry episode should be a real object lesson to peoples who have some vestigial abillity to appoint and dismiss their governments.
You people all around and around, including us here, ought to be bloody careful who you vote for – you might get tyrannical psychotic murdering messianinc megalomaniacs, masquerading as caring liberal social democrats. I’m not saying quite out loud that Obama is one of that crowd, but you Americans who come and watch this page should tell your compatriots that they were not really thinking straight when you/they voted for him en masse, now, were you. He’s never been anything in his life except a gauleiter, after all – and look what a society surveilled by gauleiters brought to its people…
There’s not much time left here for us to avoid it.
I agree with Celia Walden on this one. The prevailing popular culture of course, under ZanuToryLieBorg, has forced ordinary people without much will-power, and of either sex, to have such events. They are invariably depressing, expensive and humiliating for the Principals.
My first wife and I, in 1973, decided to host a small dinner at a rather new and soul-less hotel in Winchester, for our parents and closest friends. (The hotel’s soullessness was not its fault.)
Thirty years later, my present wife and I decided to host a small dinner, a couple of days beforehand, at our flat in Battersea, for our closest friends, such as those who would be officiating closely on the Saturday, such as “witnessing”, or cooking the grub in the kitchen for everybody, and buttling, after we all shambled back from the Church round the corner. Most of our parents were then either dead, or geographically inaccessible such as my old-fella, who was birdwatching on the marshes round Antwerp, and thought that was more pressing.)
Liberal Classical education will destroy the need for these sad public-humiliation-events.
I dont know if that title makes grammar sense but the Brian Micklethwait article at Samizdata ought to be read.
Lords “fear the public is losing confidence in climate change science”.
Ha ha ha
Here on Captain Ranty. The Fascist Left never giving up.
Informers and Benefit Fraud:
A Libertarian View
By Sean Gabb
I have just been sent one of the most disgusting newspaper articles I have seen this year. It is from today’s issue of The Guardian, and describes how the British Government is considering a scheme to reward those who inform on benefit cheats. Astonishingly, the Ministers seem to think this will make people more inclined to vote Labour at the next general election. If they are right, I am not sure how much longer I want to live in this parody of a country.
But, now I have said enough about the proposed scheme, let me explain what I find so disgusting about it.
The first is that, while every respectable person has a duty to report crimes against life and property, and to bear witness if required, there is much difference between this and calling into being an army of paid spies and police informers. Such people are not needed to report genuine crimes. Their general use is to act as the eyes and ears of an oppressive state. Established for one purpose, their use inevitably spreads to other areas. There is a natural temptation for paid informers to become agents of provocation. There is an equally natural temptation for them to become blackmailers. The resulting culture is one in which friends drop their voices when discussing anything in public that might be overheard to their disadvantage – and where new acquaintances, and even old friends, are viewed with suspicion. My wife grew up in Communist Czechoslovakia, where all this was a fact of everyday life. It was this, far more than the police and security services, who were responsible for a collapse of trust between ordinary people that has outlived is cause by twenty years.
It may be argued, that unlike drugs and prostitution, benefit fraud is not a victimless crime, but is theft from the taxpayers – but that, while they may be expected to report burglaries, individual taxpayers have no incentive to turn in someone who is claiming while working on the side. This is true, but needs to be seen in perspective. No one knows how much benefit fraud actually costs – the figure of £1 billion is believed to be a gross underestimate. However, even if the cost were five or ten times this figure, it would still amount to barely two per cent of total government spending. Most of this goes on paying for services that, where not useless, are harmful to life, liberty and property. Look, for example, at Trevor Phillips. In 2006, he was appointed Chairman of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights at a salary of £160,000. Doubtless, this has since gone up. Even so, his initial salary was equal to more than 2,488 weekly payment of jobseeker’s allowance at the maximum single rate of £64.30. In return for this, his most famous achievement to date has been to hound the British National Party into not insisting that its members should be white – while doing nothing to stop the various Black Police Associations from insisting that their members should be black. As if his published salary were not enough, Mr Phillips was revealed in 2008 to be the majority shareholder in Equate Organisation, which offers a “discreet, customised service” on how to handle the sort of equality issues that are investigated by his Commission. Oh, and the man who is employed to make then nearest things acceptable in public to puking sounds every time the name Nick Griffin is mentioned apparently keeps a bust of Lenin on his desk.
But if more loathsome and better paid than most of the others, Mr Phillips is just one among hundreds of thousands of New Labour apparatchiks given our bread to eat in return for oppressing us. I have no doubt these people collectively earn more than the £116 billion that is paid out every year on benefits. According to the probably fake statistics that attended the informer proposal, benefit fraud may cost every taxpayer in this country £35 a year. Well, I for one, can live with that. Once all the excise duties are paid, it is much less than a single tank of diesel for my car. The New Labour State costs me upwards of half my income, plus my liberty and my sense of nationality.
The only people who are really harmed by benefit fraud are those committing it. They lose yet more of their self-respect. This being said, the benefit rates are so awful that I fail to see how anyone can feed himself and his children without some cheating. Certainly, those on public welfare should not be able to buy cars and flat screen televisions. But they should be able to pay their heating bills and afford Christmas presents for their children without putting themselves into the hands of loan sharks.
And I do not believe that this sort of benefit cheat costs me anything approaching £35 a year. Everyone knows that the benefits system is being systematically milked by gangs of – usually foreign – criminals. Everyone knows that key parts of the system have recently been captured from the inside by organised criminals. Twenty years ago, a friend mine worked behind the counter of a Post Office in South London. He told me at the time how workers from the local benefit office used to come round to cash cheques they had written out to each other. I shall be most surprised if this turns out now to be the worst manner of inside fraud. And these are frauds that can and should be detected by ordinary policing. They do not require the machinery of a police state.
This brings me back to the informer scheme. I cannot help mentioning that it has been by Jim Reid, the Scottish Secretary. He is said once to have been a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party. Trust a Labour politician to have dropped all his proclaimed ends of raising up the poor – but not the police state means these ends were supposed to justify. I hate everyone of my generation who went into politics. Thirty years ago, they sneered at me and people like me as “selfish” and “abhorrent”. They spent the next twenty years insisting to each other and anyone who was stupid enough to listen to them that, when they came into their own, ordinary people would live in dignity and want for nothing. They have since then matured into the worst ruling class this country has seen since the Normans assimilated. The expenses scandal is nothing compared with how they have governed the country in public.
Now, I suppose I should offer some positive recommendations of my own for dealing with benefit fraud. I doubt anyone important is listening to me. But let it be supposed that some political party were to consult me on welfare reform – what would I suggest?
In the short term, I would set the police on catching the organised gangs of benefit cheats. Once these were in prison or deported to their countries of origin, much of the problem would have been solved. For the rest, I would advise looking the other way unless some minor fraud came to the attention of the authorities in the normal scheme of enforcement.
In the longer term, I would try to make most of the state welfare system redundant by lifting the tax and regulatory burden that stops the poorest people in this country from looking after themselves. And this is not – let me say at once – some soft version of the neo-liberal gloating about forcing welfare recipients into work by cutting their already pitiful benefits. Though it may always exist in a free society, the wage system as we have known it during the past few centuries is neither natural nor desirable. It is a cleaned up version of the bottom end of the feudal system, transmitted to industrial society via the management of domestic servants.
Middle class people often moan about the surly attitude of the working classes – about their unwillingness to do as they are told unless they are banned from union membership, or unless their unions can be taken over by middle class bureaucrats who then sell their members out. But I can think of no middle class person who would like working class conditions of work. I remember reading some years ago of a B&Q warehouse in Bristol. The casual workers employed there were electronically tagged. If anyone stopped moving for more than ten minutes, a computer shouted a message into his earpiece to report to the management office. No one does this sort of work unless he is desperate. No one who does it can have any pretensions to dignity. To say people have a choice whether to work for B&Q is a patronising joke. It is B&Q or Tesco, or some other demeaning job. It is like saying a man has a choice of meals if the menu shoved under his nose offers turd sandwich or snot pizza.
What I have in mind is letting poor people start their own micro-businesses in the manner described by Kevin Carson. Let someone start a coffee shop in the front room of his house. Let a family brew beer and sell it. Let people open little schools to teach reading and writing. Let them look after other people’s children. These things are currently not permitted. Or they are prevented by taxes and regulations that raise the fixed costs of doing business to the point where unreasonably large revenues must be generated year after year. Some people may get rich from doing this. Most will not. But enrichment is not the purpose. The real purpose is to give people the ability to survive without having to rely for all their income on salaried work.
It goes without saying that all subsidies to existing large businesses should be cut off at once – no more transport subsidies that allow goods to be moved about at less than full cost; no more interventions abroad to stabilise export markets, or secure access to artificially cheap goods and labour; no more taxes and regulations that can be carried by big business as cartellised costs, while flattening new entrants to the market; above all, no more limited liability laws that foster the growth of huge joint stock enterprises that are little more than the economic wing of the ruling class.
Where welfare is concerned, people should be enabled to join together in free mutual societies, accepting members and offering such benefits as may be agreeable to the relevant parties. This means no more taxes and financial regulation, and no more money laundering laws that, again, are little more than state cartellisation.
One of the failings of libertarianism – and I do not exempt myself from past guilt – is that we have too often argued as if actually existing capitalism was the free market. We may have conceded that business was too highly taxed and regulated, and that this frequently was turned to the advantage of the bigger firms in any market. But the assumption has too often been that a free market is effectively Tesco minus the state – that the wage system and big business were both natural and desirable institutions. As said, they are neither. The state capitalism that, in the 1980s and 1990s, we called Thatcherism or Reaganism was nothing approaching a free market. It was better than state socialism. But that is not saying very much. It has to some extent been our fault if ordinary people have been offered an apparent choice between a system in which a lucky few grow gigantically rich through connections and the ability to shuffle paper in the accepted ways, and ordinary people cannot buy houses and have children without going head over heels into debt – and sometimes not even then – and the present system of shadow boxing between multinational corporations and a huge superstructure of at best intrusive and at worst corrupt officials.
I might end by accusing the present Government of moral and intellectual bankruptcy. But this would be to absolve the equally if differently useless Tories. It would also be to concede that any of these people ever had anything good to offer. They are evil. Never mind the ideals they still sometimes ritualistically claim to guide their actions. All they have ever had to offer is a land fit for police spies and agents of provocation. They must all be destroyed – politically and financially.
NB—Sean Gabb’s book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/ya4pzuh
if I could afford a new car, then some Audis are pretty and fast. The Bugatti Veyron is nice, and it just screams “Audi” at you with its funny face. Also, I was specially impressed with a friend’s RS6 (450hp, 4.2 V8) a couple of years ago, when he got us from West Lancashire to deepest south South Wales in two hours flat, for a timed meeting (please don’t tell the Police.) But not after this:-
The British-State “history” “syllabus” is a current and festering disgrace, has been designed on purpose with a civilisation-erasing(ours) -intent, and will have to go.
“The English were responsible for slavery” (discuss the sources given to you. Do not refer to other sources.)
“The Tudors brought war, smoking and piracy” (discuss the given account by a Spanish monk.)
“The capitalists of the Industrial Revolution exploited workers deliberately, especially children” (discuss the sources given including the extract from a novel by a writer called Charles Dickens.)
“Haig was the Butcher of the Somme” (discuss the sources given.)
“The salt tax in India was the cause of Ghandi’s rebellion and was unfair to poor Indian people” (discuss the role of modern Quangos in forced dietary-choice-editing by New Labour…(I wish))
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-3042-3047-3-W-MS-JUN08.PDF (its “mark scheme”)
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-3042-3047-1-W-MS-JUN08.PDF (this paper’s “mark scheme”)
Here’s some serious papers for British 16-year-olds, concerning what “educationists” think that these people ought to think about “The American West 1840-1895″:-
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-3041-3046-2A-W-MS-JUN08.PDF (its mark scheme)
“British social and economic history” … the assumption that Trades Unions are innately a good thing, and that opposing them as infringements of property rights is bad, is taken as read:-
http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-3043-1-W-MS-JUN08.PDF (its mark scheme)
More to come…..