Monthly Archives: September 2010

Another caption competition (sorry)

David Davis

I found this over at Legiron’s place, somewhere in Sunny Scotland, and I’m sorry but I just have to share the pic with you droids.

Let me quote from his piece:-

Anyway, the label informs me that it contains seven different nationalities of sulphite, but above that are the three little pictures of interest.

The first one obviously means ‘drink as much as you like, it won’t make you fat’. The second tells you what you can expect the room to do if you overindulge.

The third one looks like a one-armed man taking another bottle from a rather large wine rack and is an encouragement to open another one. How does a one-armed man operate a corkscrew? This and other deep questions have occupied many a booze-fuelled discussion in the past, and no doubt will in the future. (This para won’t go red, however hard I try, so bugger it.)

But I think we want some other captions too, people.

Extremely funny pic

David Davis

This came by just now over at Legiron’s place. Perhaps it deserves a caption competition: we don’t seem to have done one in a while.

Tha Man on the Stage Really Does Know Best

Michael Winning

Im old enough to remember “The Man In Whitehall” so this from Samizdata amused me. Some actroid person has given his views to the American MPs and whatever  their Lords is called over there, well so what?

Got a new pedigree boar coming later today so I may be busy for a few days getting new bloke settled in. Pigs are brighter than politicians I think. Have to show him which ones his new wives are. One at a time I think.

Must remember to ask some film stars about pig breeding. They’ll know.

Perhaps the “Labour Party” will split….

..into the “Party”, and the “Labour part”.

David Davis

Interesting times.

Obnoxio pretending to not blog any more

David Davis

Here….the usual widely-sprayed invective applies.

Interesting theory about the 2006 act

Michael Winning.

It says at Samizdata that some funny-bisiness about the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act may be going on behind the curtains. Wonder wgat you people think?

These Sheep Deserve the Wolves They’ve Got!

 Mario Huet

A shit-for-brains neighbour says: ‘I think there should be an investigation. I cannot help but think that whoever did this has caused her death. If it hadn’t happened, she would still be working in the market.’

Such a lukewarm response – and how typical of the bleeding sheeple! Working in the market? Not only that, love, but she’d still be alive. And THIS is why things are so bad for us. It’s not useless pigs or corrupt politicians or corporate greed or the EU or America or ANYTHING else. It’s a worthless degraded populace who for the most part would sooner watch their neighbours die horribly and then bleat feebly afterward than do anything to prevent it. I don’t believe this has anything to do with intimidation; I don’t believe more than a tiny minority of people are much afraid of this. What they are afraid of is of someone in authority telling them that they are ‘making a fuss’, and of their ‘friends’ and neighbours not approving. These are exactly the sort of people who tend to respond to people like us that we are unfeeling and that the things would see done would have deleterious effects on the ‘less fortunate’. But the truth is that they are the ones who have no faith in human nature, unless it is a faith that it is human nature that we should all live and die in the gutter.


Tormented to death: Pensioner, 80, dies after she falls into manhole trap set by yobs who made her life a misery

By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 12:51 PM on 24th September 2010

Jenny Ward, 80, from Blackpool, who died after she fell down a manhole when the cover was stolen and never recovered

Jenny Ward had been plagued by a gang of youths who smashed the windows of her home and taunted her for several months

An 80-year-old woman died after sick yobs removed a manhole cover from her driveway and she plunged into the hole in darkness.

Jenny Ward, who still worked on a market stall selling jewellery, had been plagued by a gang of youths who smashed the windows of her home and taunted her for several months.

The thugs’ campaign of harassment eventually ended in tragedy when the pensioner returned home and fell into the trap late one night.

Her cries for help went unheard for three hours until she was finally rescued by firefighters.

After spending a month in hospital and enduring an operation on her foot, Mrs Ward went to live with a relative, but took a turn for the worse and died in hospital on September 8.

Blackpool coroner’s office said Mrs Ward died after a blood clot formed in her lung caused by deep vein thrombosis.

However, friends and neighbours of the pensioner, who had run a market stall in Blackpool for 50 years, said she had never recovered from the campaign of torment and her fall into the manhole.

They have accused police of not doing enough to deal with anti-social behaviour and urged them to find those responsible.

They said that in the weeks leading up to the manhole incident she been scared to return to her home on Shetland Road, because a gang of around ten to 15 teenagers would gather regularly outside her home. Bev Lord, friend of Blackpool pensioner Jenny Ward, who died after falling down a manhole when yobs stole the cover

Bev Lord, friend of Jenny Ward shows a manhole cover in her garden similar to the one which was taken from the pensioner’s home

Bev Lord, who worked with Mrs Ward in the market, said: ‘I’m devastated. She was being tormented. She stayed out most nights and didn’t go back home until later because she was frightened of being home. She was getting verbal abuse and she had her windows smashed.

‘She was still working up to a couple of months ago when she had arrived home late one night and someone had stolen the manhole cover from her drive. She didn’t see it and got trapped down the hole.

‘At her age it must have been such a shock. She was well known, she was a real character.

‘I think there should be an investigation. I cannot help but think that whoever did this has caused her death. If it hadn’t happened, she would still be working in the market.’

Victor Granda, 46, who had known Mrs Ward since her family employed her on an ice-cream stall when she was a teenager, said: ‘She was a lovely lady. She’d talk to a lot of people.

‘These teenagers were making her life a misery. They were throwing stones at her, shouting things at her and taunting her.

‘She was staying out later and later at night because she didn’t want to see these youths.

‘The next thing I heard she had fallen down a manhole because a cover had been taken. A Google Street View shot of Shetland Road, Blackpool

Anti-social: Neighbours said Mrs Ward was afraid to return to her home in Shetland Road, Blackpool, because of gangs of youths hanging around

‘She’d been a very energetic lady, she would have had about ten years on her if this hadn’t have happened.’

Neighbour Ced Nortorn, an assistant manager at Blackpool Victoria Hospital, said: ‘Mrs Ward was being victimised by local children. It’s been a shock.’

Another neighbour, who did not wish to be named for fear of reprisals, said: ‘They were always hanging about outside her house and they’d give her cheek.

‘There was a gang of them. I’ve had hassle from them too. There should be an investigation. Someone took the manhole cover and she fell in it. I think that’s why she died.’

Another neighbour said: ‘They smashed her window once but Mrs Ward said she didn’t get it fixed because they’d only do it again.

Police said they were not aware of the antisocial behaviour and have not launched an investigation as the coroner’s office did not deem Mrs Ward’s death as suspicious.

But they say they are looking into the theft of the manhole cover and urged anyone with information to contact them.

PC Paul Michael said: ‘We regularly patrol this area, but we’ve not been made aware that antisocial behaviour is a particular problem.

‘We would encourage residents to report incidents to us so we can provide an appropriate policing response.”

David Miliband and the Labour Party: A Suicide Pact Made in Heaven?

 Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 197
23rd September 2010
Linking url:

 David Miliband and the Labour Party:
A Suicide Pact Made in Heaven?
by Sean Gabb

 I have written very little this year on politics. This is not a product of idleness. Nor does it show any fading of interest. The reason is that I have been hard at work on two other projects. These will, I hope, advance the cultural agenda of our Movement. I hope they will also help save my daughter from the trouble of having to work for a living. But they are now finished. Next week, or the week after, I must begin another, and this will again take me partly out of immediate circulation. For the moment, though, I have both time and inclination to write about politics.

Who Should Lead the Labour Party?

I will begin by looking at the election of a new leader for the Labour Party. The voting came to an end late yesterday afternoon, the 22nd September 2010. The result will be declared on Saturday the 25th. I am too late, therefore, to try influencing the outcome – not, of course, that my recommendations would have had any influence on those able to vote. What I can do is to explain which of the five candidates is most likely to serve the interests of England. To be specific, which of the five is most likely to diminish the chance that Labour will ever win another general election?

I will dismiss Ed Balls and Andy Burham out of hand. There is no point in denouncing them as sordid apparatchiks – as principals and as willing accomplices in treason and tyranny. All five are that. No one who has sat steaming for any length of time on the dung heap that is New Labour can be regarded as other than a beast in human form. Their disqualification from our point of view is that they are both white and English. This means that, with careful presentation, they can be dressed up as champions of the common man. Since, even with a better government than we currently have, the next few years will be difficult, we cannot afford a credible Labour response to the inflation and unemployment that are the results of the artificial boom engineered by Gordon Brown.

I will also dismiss Diane Abbott. Many people tell me that a black woman cannot become Prime Minister in England. I am not too sure of this. There is, I have no doubt, much more colour prejudice in this country than fear of the law and fear of informal penalties will allow to be expressed. At the same time, I doubt if there is enough colour prejudice to stop her from being an effective party leader. We must consider that, unlike all the other candidates, she does look like a normal human being. Her opinions may be both stupid and malevolent. But she always manages to look good on television. At the same time, she could count on the undivided support of non-white voters that Mr Obama found so useful in America. And there are just as many middle class fools in this country as in America who would think that supporting a black politician was atonement for the past five billion years of white racism. We cannot afford Diane Abbott. She may be less dangerous than Messrs Balls and Burnham. Still, she is, in terms of her own abilities, and in terms of the coalition of forces that would gather round her, too dangerous to consider.

This leaves us with the two Miliband brothers. And these are certainly worth considering. They have the great advantage for us of being Jewish. Now, while there are Jewish organisations that get money and support by insisting that England is two steps from our own Kristallnacht, I doubt if many English people have even noticed the shape of the Miliband noses. Of those who have noticed, I doubt if more than a few thousand think ill of it. Native anti-semitism is so rare that it has to be hunted out, where not actually fabricated. And do bear in mind that the British National Party, which is our largest white nationalist organisation, welcomes Jewish members and is vaguely pro-Israel in its foreign policy. However, the non-white population is solidly anti-semitic. Moslems, black Christians, whatever – they largely hate Jews with a ferocity not known in England since the middle ages.

It may be disagreeable that we must share a country with such people. But it would be rather funny to see Labour hoist by its own petard. After 1997, Labour Governments knowingly encouraged the immigration of between seven and ten million non-whites into this country. They did so because it accelerated the upward redistribution of wealth to which modern ruling classes are all committed. They did so because it helped break up the solidarity of the ruled that is another ruling class project. They also did so because they believed that the new arrivals, once they had been waved through the citizenship formalities, would mostly vote Labour. And they will – so long as an English or a Scotch man or a black woman is in charge. They will not vote, I think, for a Labour Party led by a Jew. And this is regardless of how seldom either Miliband goes into a synagogue, and regardless of how little public enthusiasm either has shown for Israel.

This will be still more the case if the Liberals get the electoral reform that the Conservatives may not be able to deny them. So far, the two main parties have been held together by the iron logic of the first past the post system. I, for example, voted Conservative in this year’s election not because I thought David Cameron would be a good Prime Minister – but because the Conservatives were the only force able to get Labour out of office. I normally vote for the UK Independence Party. I would, in other than general elections, and if a candidate were to stand where I live, vote for the Libertarian Party. But I voted Conservative in the general election because not to vote Conservative would have risked another Labour Government.

It is the same with non-white electors. They might swallow their prejudices and vote for a Labour Party led by a Jew if the alternative was to let in a Conservative Government. But the alternative vote system will allow them to give their first preferences to Islamic and black nationalist parties. Their second preferences might be enough for Labour. But the loss of first preferences might be enough to keep Labour from ever winning a majority of the English seats. And the accompanying redistribution of seats would make Scotch votes far less important than they have been.

And so, my prayers are with the Milibands. I should now say, though, which of the two brothers I prefer. My preference is for David. His brother, Ed, has several disadvantages from our point of view. He was not in Parliament when his Party voted to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has distanced himself from these atrocities. He has also accepted that identity cards and other police state laws were not entirely good things. Worse, he was Environment Secretary in the Brown Government, and always gave the impression of believing the drivel he was given to read out in public. He looks thick – but a visible lack of intelligence has never been a disadvantage in English politics. Apparent sincerity has always weighed more than cleverness.

David Miliband, however, is irremediably tainted with all the horrors of the Blair and Brown regime. He supported those wars. He supported every police state law that was brought forward. And he has all the commitment in his speaking manner of a Kremlin teleprinter. He looks thick. If we leave aside his ability to crawl nearly to the top of the Labour dung heap, he probably is thick. But, where his brother does not, he also manages to look like a supercilious fraud. I do hope he wins. Indeed, I am so convinced he would be the right man for the job, that I did briefly think of handing over a £1 joining fee to the Labour Party in order to vote for him. With David Miliband in charge, we might hope for a repeat at the next election of Labour’s 1983 performance.

The Worthless Conservatives

Now, here I must say, as clearly as I can, that, I do not want a melt-down of Labour support because it might give a clear run to the Conservatives. The reason I want the Labour Party to vanish up its own bottom is because this enables our own attack on the Conservative Party.

I welcomed the present Coalition Government in May because it was not Labour. I am grateful for the limited return since then to constitutional government. Of course, I was pleased when the new Home Secretary told the police that they could not stop people at random in the street for searches and questions. I am delighted that the Government has abolished identity cards and shut down the National Identity Register that was supposed ultimately to store every last details of our lives – including DNA samples – so we could never again live privately in freedom, and never again remake ourselves. I hope that the unequal extradition treaty with America will be amended, and that the European Arrest Warrants will be made harder to enforce that has so far been the case. I look forward to many other retreats from the Labour police state.

Even so, David Cameron does not preside over a government of reaction. Unlike in 1660, there will be no legislative voiding of the previous revolution. The multicultural agenda has been left untouched, and natives will continue to suffer official discrimination and censorship. The most malevolent agencies of the Labour State will not be closed down. There is no chance that we shall leave the European Union. As for the cuts in government spending we have been promised, these will not abolish the clientage to which millions of people have been reduced. I cannot be bothered to go through the numbers. I am, however, assured that, in real terms, the British State will spend more next year – after the Osborne “cuts” have begun – than it did in 2005, when Gordon Brown was bribing us with our own money to keep him and Tony Blair in office. If there are cuts, these will be felt by ordinary people, who will not get the state healthcare and pensions and education they were promised. The bureaucracies that meddle in the smallest details of our lives will be left mostly intact. Above all, perhaps, the new Ministers are at least as committed as the old to the “climate change” hoax. While enriching and legitimising the ruling class, this threatens ordinary people with impoverishment and slavery on a scale that makes the totalitarianisms of the last century almost benevolent.

Conservative Members of Parliament have told me, in private, that this is not a purely Conservative Government, and that nothing can be done without the consent of their Liberal Democrat partners. There is something in what they say. Like most other people, I had never paid much attention to our third party. Since it was never likely to get into government, there was no point investigating its stated or actual beliefs. I did think, nevertheless, that its economics were broadly mutualist, or even Georgist, with a dash of Keynes. I was wrong. I am not sure who does vote Liberal Democrat. But its Ministers are behaving in office as if they were just as much the representatives of public sector employees as the Labour Party. They are state socialists without New Labour’s stiffening of ex-Communists.

But, if there is something in what my Conservative friends tell me, it is also true that a purely Conservative Government would have been hardly any different to what we have. I never believed that a Cameron majority would result in a government of reaction. I did believe that withdrawal from the European Union would be firmly ruled out by Mr Cameron, and that he would buy off most complaints from within his party by keeping identity cards. At least this has not been necessary. It is, however, undeniable that the Government we have is committed to working within the terms set by Tony Blair before he went barking mad.

I repeat – I welcome many things that have been done, and that are yet to be done, by the Coalition. This does not make me a supporter of the Coalition. The lesser of two evils is less evil – but it is also still evil.

Do you remember the Thermidore Reaction? That was when the French Jacobins were rounded up and sent to their own guillotine or packed off somewhere nasty to die of yellow fever. Do you remember the Soviet de-Stalinisation of the 1950s? That was when the Gulag was slimmed down a little, and there were private mutterings that Stalin himself had gone a little too far. Well, to speak in these terms about England may seem hyperbolic. But we really are living through our own equivalent of these reactions. Labour’s revolutionary terror is being wound down. But the revolution itself remains the governing consensus. No one presently in or near office has the slightest inclination to return us to a situation where we can call ourselves the free citizens of an independent country.

I do not believe there is any chance in the short term or a genuine reaction. One commenter on the LA Blog tells me of his plan for a violent overthrow of the Establishment, to be followed by the trial and execution of perhaps ten thousand traitors and other class enemies. But I am not at all persuaded that violence is either desirable or possible. Other people tell me that we should give all assistance to some other party that may then get elected. But I am hardly more persuaded that any of the alternative parties currently on offer is up to winning a general election. If we are to get out of our present mess, it must be after a process of delegitimisation that will include destroying the Conservative Party. Only then will some other force emerge that may restore something like the old order – or create a new order that will serve something like the same purpose.

What Do We Want?

Oh – I see I have just used the phrase “new order”. I could change this to avoid the pointing of Marxoid fingers. Instead, I will make it an excuse to spell out what I actually want. I want to live in a country where everyone has freedom of speech and association, and where justly-acquired property is secure from confiscation and can be freely enjoyed. In such a country, such government as remains is limited in every exercise of power. It is limited, by a bill of rights, in the laws it can make. It is limited, by strict procedural safeguards, in its enforcement of the laws. There is a clear division between state and voluntary activity, and state activity is small in both nature and extent. In such a country, furthermore, every official is accountable, at one or two legal removes, to the people who pay his salary; and the nation as a whole is free from outside control.

We do not live in such a country. To what extent the old order – the mixed Constitution of Church and State, the hegemony of the landed interest, and so forth – secured these things is worth arguing about elsewhere. It is undeniable that the present order of things, that emerged during the twentieth century, does not. This order is one of growing administrative despotism – a despotism sometimes directed by those holding the traditional offices of state, but just as often by those whose names and even functions are unknown to the people. It is also an order, as said, where wealth is systematically redistributed upwards to those public and formally private interest groups that exist because of state privilege.

The new order that I want – and that I largely believe is wanted across our Movement – is one in which most state agencies will have been shut down, and in which the legal and administrative privileges that maintain big business, the credentialed professions, the centralised media, and all other sinister interests, in existence will have been revoked. This does involve a revolution of one kind or another – a revolution, or a counter-revolution, or just a reaction: call it what you will. But, if the people ever take to the streets to demand change, this will have been preceded by a delegitimisation of the present order of things – just as the ancient régime in France withered after the 1770s, and the traditional autocracy in Russia withered after the 1880s. Long before a visible blow can have been landed against it, this present order of things will have been made incapable of defending itself. Of course, it must – as will every order founded on a denial of human nature – perish from within. But this inevitable fall will have been hastened by our own relentless critique.

I want to live in this kind of new order. If I cannot have it for myself, I want it for my daughter. And if someone important wants to construe my definition of “new order” as evidence that I am a neo-nazi terrorist, that only shows how far we currently stand from achieving any of it

Certainly, though, no escape from the present order of things can be easily urged so long as the Labour Party remains a credible danger to what freedom we still have. I can already see the Ministers and their smug Tory boy assistants go about their business, challenging every objection by asking “You wouldn’t want Labour back – would you?” And my own answer is “No, I do not.” I do not want Labour back. Life under Khrushchev is better than life under Stalin. The jeunesse dorée are better than the sight of those hags knitting under the guillotine. Better the Stupid Party than the Evil Party.  And so, while another Labour Government remains more than an outside possibility, the work of counter-revolution cannot be pressed on. It is not to be put on hold, least of all forgotten. But it cannot reasonably claim all our effort.

That is why David Miliband must be our man. I think the worst choice the Labour Party could make – from our point of view – is Ed Balls or Andy Burnham. The best choice really is David Miliband, with his invisible moustache and jerky movements and his inability to do other than defend every monstrous act of the Blair and Brown Regime. Bearing in mind how we have shambled through the past thousand years of our history, England has been an astonishingly lucky nation. Let us hope, this coming Saturday, that our luck will hold.

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

Food as a weapon of mass destruction

David Davis

Michael should be writing about this, but he’s off elsewhere trying to borrow the dosh to buy another pedigree boar, as his one’s just died. Anyway, you all perceive I am sure the current trend in world food prices. My interest was triggered by this article today, clearly written by someone who knows what’s going on.

I say this because the author has skated egg-walkingly around the politically-charged issue of biofuels, which to my mind and in the view of most libertarians is a cleverly-cloaked way to export starvation – initially to those people that have the least ability, energy, resources and political clout to protest.

It has to be the correct conclusion, as the use of thsee wickedly and immorally-raised fuels serves no kind of “climate-related” purpose whatsoever. On Facebook I have just stated publicly what will happen to the politicos (and the directors and shareholders of firms which abetted their designs) as outwardly a little light amusement: but in reality, as our regular reader knows, you don’t know whether I am just joking or not.

Completely non-political advice

Mrs Gabb and I often have cause to go away from home for a week or so at a time. Sadly, we live in a part of the country where power cuts are not uncommon. This raises the fear that all our frozen food will defrost and then refreeze. This may be something you only find has happened after you have started vomiting.

What I do, therefore, when going away is to fill a coffee mug with ice cubes and put it into the freezer. If, when you come back, the ice cubes have become an even layer of ice, you know that the freezer has been off long enough to justify binning all the food. If, on the other hand, the cubes are more or less as you left them – and remember that, unless you keep your freezer at a very low temperature, gravity alone will cause some merging of ice cubes – you have nothing to fear.

There – not a word about politics, nor even about the many excellences of my friend Richard Blake, the critically-acclaimed and internationally best-selling author, whose novels are ideal for bringing smiles to all those hard-to-please faces this coming Christmas.

Green Slime Manifesto

This will send a shiver down the spine!

Paul Joseph Watson

Monday, September 20, 2010

A Finnish environmentalist guru has gone further than any other global  warming alarmist in openly calling for fascism as a necessary step to  save the planet from ecological destruction, demanding that climate  change deniers be “re-educated” in eco-gulags and that the vast  majority of humans be killed with the rest enslaved and controlled by  a green police state, with people forcibly sterilized, cars  confiscated and travel restricted to members of the elite.

Philosopher Pentti Linkola has built an enthusiastic following of  self-described “eco-fascists” receptive to his message that the state  should enact draconian measures of “discipline, prohibition,  enforcement and oppression” in order to make people comply with  environmental dictates.

Linkola’s barbaric and dictatorial philosophy has remained relatively  obscure but is now gaining traction as the mask of environmentalism is  lifted to unveil its true nature — a justification for 21st century  tyranny on a grand scale, characterized by eugenics, sterilization,  gulags, police states, and total government control over every aspect  of our existence.

Linkola’s doctrine is more extreme, repulsive, and threatening to  liberty than anything carried out by history’s worst dictators,  Hitler, Stalin and Mao — combined. Indeed, Linkola laments that such  monsters didn’t go far enough in wiping out many more millions of  people.

Under Linkola’s proposal to save earth from man-made climate change,  “only a few million people would work as farmers and fishermen,  without modern conveniences such as the automobile.” This system would  be enforced by the creation of a “Green Police” who would abandon “the  syrup of ethics” that governs human behavior to completely dominate  the population.

Linkola calls for forced abortions, while also adding that another  world war would be “a happy occasion for the planet” because it would  eradicate tens of millions of people. The environmentalist believes  that only jackbooted tyranny can help to save mother earth from “the  worst ideologies in the world” which he defines as “growth and  freedom”.

“Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy,” he writes.  “There cannot be so incompetent dictator, that he would show more  stupidity than a majority of the people. Best dictatorship would be  one where lots of heads would roll and government would prevent any  economical growth.”

Those who refuse to be enslaved by Linkola’s new eco-tyranny would be  abducted and sent to the mountains for “re-education” in eco-gulags,  according to the environmentalist, who says that the only solution  “lies in a centralised government and the tireless control of  citizens.”

 As part of his eco-fascist hell, Linkola calls for ‘killing  defectives’ by means of sterilization, licenses for births, tight  regulation of electricity, forcing humans to eat rats, the  confiscation of private cars, travel to be restricted to members of  the elite only, and businesses to be terminated as the economy is  entirely handed over to the control of the state.

The heart of Linkola’s dark philosophy revolves around the need to  slaughter masses of humans. “If there were a button I could press, I  would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of  people would die,” he writes.

“Who misses all those who died in the Second World War? Who misses the  twenty million executed by Stalin? Who misses Hitler’s six million  Jews?” asks Linkola.

It is impossible to accurately explain and quantify the sheer level of  depravity exhibited within Linkola’s belief system. If these words  were written by a crazed mass murderer then we’d at least be able to  dismiss their import, but these horrendous doctrines are embraced by a  prominent environmentalist whose popularity is growing as the putrid  tentacles of the eco-fascist movement grow into more areas of society  and public discourse.

“We will have toŒlearn from the history of revolutionary movements ˜  the national socialists, the Finnish Stalinists, from the many stages  of the Russian revolution, from the methods of the Red Brigades ˜ and  forget our narcissistic selves,” writes Linkola, firmly entrenching  his environmental activism in the political prism of Nazism and  Stalinism.

Indeed, Linkola’s policies make Hitler and Stalin look like  fair-minded humanitarians.

Read Linkola’s loving and human overpopulation analogy, which as we  have documented, is a contrived problem debunked by the UN’S own  population statistics.

“What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly  capsizes and only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who  hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those  who love and respect life will take the ship’s axe and sever the extra  hands that cling to the sides of the boat.”

 In reality, by 2020 population will stabilize and by 2050 the global  population will start to decline at an alarming rate, with the  replacement rate for humans dropping below 2.1. Linkola’s bloodthirsty  desire to see the human surplus brutally culled has more in common  with the discredited pseudo-philosophy of Malthus than it does any  basis in scientific fact.

As we have documented, although not going quite as far as Linkola, the  eco-fascist movement is attracting prominent advocates, including  James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia hypothesis. Lovelock told the Guardian earlier this year that “democracy must be  put on hold” to combat global warming and that “a few people with  authority” should be allowed to run the planet.

This sentiment was echoed by author and environmentalist Keith  Farnish, who in a recent book called for acts of sabotage and  environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in  order to return the planet to the agrarian age. Prominent NASA global  warming alarmist and Al Gore ally Dr. James Hansen endorsed Farnish’s  book.

Linkola concurs with Farnish and Hansen, writing, “Everything we have  developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed.”

Another prominent figure in the climate change debate who exemplifies  the violent and death-obsessed belief system of the movement is Dr.  Eric R. Pianka, an American biologist based at the University of Texas  in Austin. During a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in March  2006, Pianka advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the world’s  population through the airborne ebola virus. The reaction from scores  of top scientists and professors in attendance was not one of shock or  revulsion — they stood and applauded Pianka’s call for mass genocide.

The current White House science czar John P. Holdren also advocates  the most obscenely dictatorial, eco-fascist, and inhumane practices in  the name of environmentalism.

In his 1977 Ecoscience textbook, Holdren calls for a “planetary  regime” to carry out forced abortions and mandatory sterilization  procedures, as well as drugging the water supply, in an effort to cull  the human surplus.

Linkola has outstripped even notorious murder mastermind Charles  Manson in his hatred for the human race. During prison interviews,  Manson routinely spoke of his belief that around 50 million humans  should be slaughtered for the good of the planet, whereas Linkola and  his fans simply believe that humanity should cease to exist in its  entirety. A fan site dedicated to Linkola includes links to his  articles which have headlines like “Extinguish Humans, Save the  World”.

Like Manson, Linkola has become a respected environmentalist guru for  a new cult of believers who feel that governments and global  institutions are not being ruthless enough in enforcing overdue  measures to save the Earth from ecological destruction.

“Linkola has built an environmentalist following by calling for an  authoritarian, ecological regime that ruthlessly suppresses  consumers,” writes the Guardian’s Micah White, adding that Linkola has  “opened the way for a wave of fascist environmentalists who reject  democratic freedom.”

 Another Finnish environmentalist writer, Martin Kreiggeist, hails  Linkola’s call for eco-gulags and oppression as “a solution,” calling  for people to “take up the axes” in pursuit of killing off the third  world. Kreiggeist wants fellow eco-fascists to “act on” Linkola’s call  for mass murder in order to solve overpopulation.

Linkola himself openly calls for violence to further the cause of  eco-fascism. “A minority can never have any other effective means to  influence the course of matters but through the use of violence,” he  writes.

While governments around the world continue to harass innocent  citizens and define peaceful political action as domestic terrorism,  people like Linkola, Pianka and others, along with their growing  legion of followers, are left alone despite their open call for  violence and genocide.

Given the fact that cult followers of these extremist fringe  environmentalists, people like Discovery Channel building gunman James Jay Lee, are now  starting to act out on their guru’s doctrines with violence, it’s high  time that radical global warming alarmists who are calling for mass  murder and fascism be investigated by the relevant authorities as  potential terrorists.

However, it’s a forlorn hope when one understands that Linkola’s  tyrannical and abhorrent belief system is merely an extension of the  eugenicist doctrines being promoted by some of the most powerful  people on the planet who, backed by an equally enthusiastic  establishment media, are now brazenly dispensing with tip-toe tyranny  and are openly calling for mass death and dictatorship under the guise  of stopping climate change.

The establishment points fingers all day long at all manner of  political groups to smear them as a threat, while monsters like  Linkola and Pianka who advocate the most dangerous and obscene ideas  imaginable are lauded and afforded respect by their peers and their  growing band of lunatic followers, who are all too eager to act out on  the barbarian “solutions” that are being encouraged in the name of  environmentalism.

*Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison

He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos.

Peter Tatchell on Homosexual Marriage

Stonewall undermines campaign for gay marriage

Ben Summerskill suggests marriage equality would cost too much

London, UK – 21 September 2010

Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of Britain’s main gay lobby group, Stonewall, has reportedly defended his organisation’s refusal to campaign for marriage equality. He was speaking at the Liberal Democrat party conference LGBT fringe meeting on Monday night, 20 September.

Leading Lib Dems at the meeting – Stephen Gilbert MP, Evan Harris and equality minister, Lynne Featherstone MP – spoke out in favour of legalising same-sex marriage. Mr Summerskill did not. He explained why Stonewall was not campaigning on the issue.

According to a report on the Pink News website (copy below), he cited the cost of implementing marriage equality, which he claimed could total £5 billion – a figure that other campaigners question.

A recent online survey of LGBT readers by the Pink News website found that 98% want full marriage equality. Stonewall does not represent LGBT opinion on this issue. It is out of touch.

“Although Stonewall does a lot of valuable, important work, on this issue it is wrong,” said Peter Tatchell, human rights campaigner and spokesperson for the LGBT group OutRage!  

“It is, in effect, actively undermining the campaign for marriage equality.

“While many straight politicians now support same-sex civil marriage, Stonewall is refusing to campaign against the homophobic ban on gay and lesbian couples getting married. Among other reasons, it says equal marriage rights could cost £5 billion to implement.

“It is shocking to see a gay equality organisation declining to support equal rights legislation because it might cost too much. No other equality organisation makes equal human rights contingent on the cost. It is deplorable to insinuate that we can only have equality if it doesn’t cost too much.

“Where does Stonewall get this £5 billion figure from? If civil marriage and civil partnerships are the same, as Stonewall has always claimed, how could marriage equality cost more?

“Every other comparable LGBT organisation in the world is campaigning to end the ban on same-sex marriage, but not Stonewall. It is out of step with the British and global trend towards equal marriage rights,” said Mr Tatchell.

OutRage! has campaigned for marriage equality since 1992, when it launched the first UK challenge to the ban on same-sex marriage. Five lesbian and gay couples from OutRage! filed applications for gay marriage at Marylebone registry office in London on 19 March 1992. They were refused. But OutRage! has carried on the campaign ever since, and plans to file appeals against the ban to the European Court of Human Rights later this year.


Ben Summerskill: Stonewall not fighting for gay marriage equality because ‘it could cost  £5 billion’ · September 20, 2010

The chief executive of LGB lobby group Stonewall, Ben Summerskill, this evening told a fringe meeting at the Liberal Democrats party conference that the group is not actively campaigning for marriage equality because it would cost a staggering £5 billion to implement. The charity have been stonewalling questions on its exact position on marriage equality for some time.

Zoe O’Connell, who writes the Complicity blog, described the meeting: “Of all the bizarre places to come out against marriage equality, an event run in conjunction with DELGA, the Liberal Democrat LGBT organisation, would seem to be the most odd. But that’s just what Ben Summerskill, head of so-called ‘equality’ organisation Stonewall did today.”

All of the other speakers at the fringe event; Lynne Featherstone, the minister for equality; Evan Harris, president of Lib Dem LGBT group DELGA; and Stephen Gilbert, the Lib Dem MP who will tomorrow propose a motion in favour of marriage equality at conference, all said they support full LGBT marriage equality. Just Mr Summerskill spoke in opposition.

Last year, Mr Summerskill told “There are lots of lesbians who actually don’t want marriage”. But, last month, a survey for revealed that 98 per cent of the LGBT community favour full marriage equality. readers at the event report that Mr Summerskill claimed that it would be too expensive to introduce marriage equality because of increased pension payments to heterosexual couples who may theoretically wish to take up civil partnerships, if allowed. He claimed this would cost £5 billion.

After the debate, Mr Summerskill told a contributor who did not want
to be named that there was also the risk that straight, same sex, platonic friends might seek to have civil partnerships in order to make tax savings. Lib Dem MP Stephen Gilbert argued at the fringe meeting that marriage equality should not be subject to a cost/benefit analysis and claimed that if South Africa had adopted Stonewall’s approach, they would still have apartheid. Mr Summerskill reportedly labelled this view as offensive.

Mr Summerskill reportedly also offered the argument that there is a feminist view that the institute of marriage is fundamentally wrong. He also argued that for as long as people are being murdered in homophobic attacks, it is not the right time to campaign for marriage equality. Mr Gilbert responded saying that there is a need to send a clear message to those in society “that would try to discriminate that we are equal and we will not settle for any less than equality. As long as LGBT people are ‘othered’ in any way at all, attacks will continue.”

Mr Summerskill also accused of running an “unethical campaign” against Stonewall after it asked every LGBT rights organisation/ political group to outline their stance on marriage equality. Only Stonewall refused to answer.

Last Friday, Stonewall received an open letter signed by hundreds of people including two MEPs, two MPs and a number of human rights academics calling on them to clarify their position on marriage equality.


Further information: Peter Tatchell 0207 403 1790

I thought you would like this

David Davis


How to win friends and impress America

Josie  M. Jordison (guest writer)

There could be trouble brewing, here in California. Someone called Joao Vale de Almeida has taken it upon herself to lecture the USA and this state in particular about the use of the death penalty.

There are of course libertarians who oppose it on fundamental objectivist grounds. There are moreover those who say it is jurisprudentially allowable in circumstances where sovereign individuals have the right of lethal force against intruders and those who would harm them and theirs. In this scenario they can delegate their right to punish lethally, to an externalised agency.

This interference in our businesses here will not go down well.

Addendum: Getting used to this dashboard. I now find that the Eudude is a man.

Lasers to be banned soon?

Michael Winning

This seems a bit worrying. Can’t see how a laser could bring down a helicopter pilot, I think they are over-reacting on purpose.

The New Feudalism

Michael Winning

Nothing much to do this morning, so I thought I’d cast around some other writers.

It says over at Mark Wadsworth that really we’re still all stuck in a sort of time-warp. The modern successors of the old feudal lords have still got us. Interesting take I suppose.  But for most people there’s little they can do about it. You are conditioned to grow up, get a job, go to work, get in hock to a bank and so on.

Macaulay on the Papacy

Quoted by Sean Gabb’sHistoryOfPopes.html

There is not, and there never was on this earth, a work of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. The history of that Church joins together the two great ages of human civilisation. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigour. The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustin, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila. The number of her children is greater than in any former age. Her acquisitions in the New World have more than compensated for what she has lost in the Old. Her spiritual ascendency extends over the vast countries which lie between the plains of the Missouri and Cape Horn, countries which a century hence, may not improbably contain a population as large as that which now inhabits Europe. The members of her communion are certainly not fewer than a hundred and fifty millions; and it will be difficult to show that all other Christian sects united amount to a hundred and twenty millions. Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul’s.

I just came up with this on bookface

David Davis

“The greens know they will have to break us on this planet, or lose the war”….!/profile.php?id=662052517&v=wall&story_fbid=149201721787089&ref=mf

BBC News – ID card compensation ruled out as MPs approve abolition


BBC News – ID card compensation ruled out as MPs approve abolition


Sean Gabb says: Anyone who expects this Government to roll back all the horrors of the Blair/Brown Junto will be disappointed. However, the total scrapping of Identity Cards – and of the National Identity Register – is to be welcomed.


As for the feral sheep who bought identity cards – they deserve a surcharge on their next passport renewal, not a rebate. Talk about holding up your arm for the tattooist’s needle!

Another Masterpiece by Richard Blake

Praise be! Praise be! If I had greater surety of His existence, I’d say praise be to God Almighty.
My friend Richard Blake – the critically-acclaimed and internationally best-selling novelist – tells me that The Churchill Memorandum is finished. Doubtless, anyone who thinks world history since about 1940 has been for the best will be aghast. The relatives of certain deceased persons of consequence will be outraged. But that’s all part of the fun.
Work must begin next week on the contractually-required Ghosts of Athens next week. For the moment, praise be!

UK Proposal for Banking Reform: Fractional-Reserve Banking versus Deposits and Loans — Mises Economics Blog


UK Proposal for Banking Reform: Fractional-Reserve Banking versus Deposits and Loans — Mises Economics Blog

Sean Gabb on the BBC again to defend smokers

This is an interview, not a debate, and is much more sedate than the previous evening’s enjoyment.

More Wonderful News for the Slovaks

Sean Gabb

Following the brilliant success of his translated novel Sprisahanie v Rime, my friend Richard Blake – the critically-acclaimed and internationally best-selling author – tells me that Slovart wishes to translate his Terror of Constantinople into Slovak.

In the past few months, the Slovaks have had one novel by Richard Blake put into their language; they have seen off a sub-Blairite socialist government; their football team did well in the World Cup. Now, they are to have yet another of Mr Blake’s novels.

Truly, they cup of joys runneth over….

Blast from the Past: Peter Simple after the Serbian War on the New World Order

11 Jun 1999 Comment: Symbols: The Daily Telegraph (Q1:22)    


‘WHAT has happened,’ crows an exultant writer in the Observer, ‘is a decisive and perhaps terminal defeat for an older Europe, a place of tribal hatreds, double-headed eagles, flaming swords and obscure martyrs. A better world order survives . . .’

Everyone to his taste. Along with those ancient, long revered but now execrated symbols of local allegiances, national pride, glory, honour, nobility and beauty, the last of our European civilisation is perishing with all its treasures, giving way to a new world order, a place of internationalism, scientism, heartless accountancy, rationalism, egalitarianism, false humanity-mongering and everything that belongs to the legions of the dull.

But no one should think this new world order will be without powerful symbols and methods of persuasion of its own. High above the clouds, as the state-organised pop festivals and democratic sports rallies proceed amid universal rejoicing, the continual murmur and drone of bombers can be heard.

They are double-headed eagles and flaming swords brought up to date for a prosaic people. They are the symbols of the new order, the means by which obedience will be ruthlessly enforced.

RIP John Gouriet 1935-2010

John Gouriet died last Saturday evening. I met him in the 1970s, when I was a naive schoolboy who thought Margaret Thatcher had come to save England by enacting J.S. Mill’s essay On Liberty into law. John did explain very gently that I was not entirely correct in my belief, but welcomed me into the Freedom Association as one of its youngest members. I never did that much in the movement. But it was John who indirectly led me to Chris R. Tame and the newly-founded Libertarian Alliance.

I lost sight of him after about 1985. But we renewed our friendship after 2004 on various conservative and Eurosceptic distribution lists. I was shocked to hear about the heart attack he suffered a few years back while he was speaking in a debate on the climate change scam. I think we are all diminished by his passing last Saturday evening.

Sean Gabb

Monday, 06 September 2010
John Gouriet (1935-2010): The Freedom Association’s greatest campaigner.

DSC_0105 We are shocked and deeply saddened to learn that John Gouriet, The Freedom Association’s first and greatest Director, died on Saturday evening, 4 September.

Simon Richards, TFA’s Director, said, “He was a delightful man as well as a brilliant one. Our young team here loved him and his wicked sense of humour. John was The Freedom Association. He was a great man and it was an honour to have known him. I am only pleased that I had an opportunity, at the Stanway Summer Party on 31 July, to pay warm tribute to him and his achievements. John was – and will remain – an inspiration to me and to all at The Freedom Association. We honour and revere his memory and give thanks to him for a lifetime dedicated to fighting for freedom. Our thoughts are with his widow and his family at this sad time.”

John was a campaigner of genius. Back in the 1970s, he masterminded Operation Pony Express, which defeated an illegal trade union move to crush the Grunwick photo processing company. He took on the unjust trades union closed shop and won. He paved the way for the great reforms introduced by Lord Tebbit and the Thatcher Government, which brought an end to the excessive trades union power which had brought Britain to its knees.

Right to the end, John was campaigning, with his usual style, panache and wit, for Britain to regain its freedom from the European Union.

Sean on the Beeb to defend Smokers

I did this last night on Radio 5 Live. I did it from a landline, and my own sound is pretty awful. Even so, I think I walked all over the silly woman who was put up against me.

Sean Gabb defends smokers

One day, art will take its proper place

David Davis

I never usually read movie reviews, not knowing or caring about movies apart from “The Dam Busters” and perhaps “The Lord Of The Rings”. But I just had to click on “Pay, Sit, Barf” – partly because I didn’t know what “barf” means and still I don’t.

But what this “movie critic” appears to be writing about – amusingly – is one example of the self-indulgent narcissism exhibited by some of the things called “movie stars”. I don’t know whether it’s the “stars” themselves who’d like to be thought of as thinking like what she describes a-propos of Julia Roberts: or whether it’s the generalised studio-corporate-direction, being as it is a projecting-part of the Western Political Enemy-Class, that causes films to be made that sound like the ones I would pay to _/not/_ watch.

However, Lindy West’s article is amusing and I wanted to share it.

I wonder if you know?

Michael Winning

I was looking as you do at stuff about farming and food production, and I woked out that the total of the world’s productuve acreage is a square, 2,500 x 2,500 miles. You could just about fit that into the Sahara desert, so this PR handout by greens and whingers didn’t impress me.

Perhaps the British State wants pubs to close

David Davis

h/t VelvetGloveIronFist

I’m not a conspiracy-theorist – really, honest, guv! But you wonder about the juxtaposition of the increasing rate of pub closures, coupled with a nationwide smoking ban in buildings used by the public and also with the feeling that “they” don’t want you to be able to plot gainst them and whinge about them to your friends, in places where “they” can’t bug you easily.

The pub closure stats make astonishing reading.

Here’s even more statistics from the same place.

Falcata Times: HISTORICAL FICTION REVIEW: The Terror of Constantinople and The Blood of Alexandria – Richard Blake


The second novel for me by Richard Blake and one that I really devoured after finishing the first. As with the original, its beautifully written with a great excursion from modern times that’s backed up with a seriously enjoyable writing style. Top notch entertainment and something of a guilty pleasure. I’ll definitely seek out other titles by this author and I really want to see what he has in store for his characters in future excursions.

Falcata Times: HISTORICAL FICTION REVIEW: The Terror of Constantinople and The Blood of Alexandria – Richard Blake

Letter from David McDonagh to Caroline Lucas MP

Dear Caroline Lucas,

On the Westminster Hour this evening you, repeatedly, said that you wanted to explain why the nation was distinct to a household economically, and you talked about economic illiteracy. However you did not explain anything.

Someone else made the same distinction and he too failed to explain it: J.M. Keynes. He had years to do it ,but he failed, So far, his epigones have failed too. I will tell you why they failed.

There is no difference that is sound. Adam Smith made many errors, but his ideas that a great economy is like a single household was not one of them. Now, Smith knew, as well as Keynes did, that there might be such a difference, that Aristotle was right that there can be a fallacy of composition. The eleven best football players need not be the best football team, for example. But it is also the case that they might be the best team too.

Similarly, it could be that if we look after the pennies then the pounds might not take care of themselves on empirical & logical grounds, but this old adage is, in fact, quite sound. It is contingently the case that there is no distinct macro level that has different actual ways in the economy. The idea that distinct policies are needed is a false one. That is the basic fact of the matter It might have been otherwise, but it is not.

Yours sincerely,

David McDonagh

Not Madness – Just Evil

Sean Gabb comments: This is NOT a waste of the taxpayers’ money. From the point of view of those spending it, the money is very well spent. The function of this project is not so much to stop people from disliking homosexuals and foreigners, as to make them feel ridiculous. They are forced thereby to acknowledge in public and to themselves who is boss, and that to resist the boss in anything is fatal. Also, once they have been bullied into such nonsense, the only way that many people will be able to retain any feeling of self-respect is to persuade themselves that it was all in a good cause.

Do you remember how Caligula appointed his horse as one of the Consuls for the year? Was this because he was mad, and he somehow thought the appointment would please his horse? Or was the act a deliberate humiliation of a still powerful and highly conservative aristocracy, the members of which now had to make public fools of themselves as they went about the business of consulting the horse on policy and fitting it into the traditional ceremonies?

There are similar stories about the victims of the French and Russian Revolutions. Indeed, I recall a case from many years ago, where some thugs caught two middle aged, middle class woman and murdered them. Before murdering them, they made their victims perform “erotic dances”. Again, this probably wasn’t because the thugs found simple pleasure in watching middle aged, middle class woman engage in lesbian sex. It was to humiliate the women and to break them into to whatever else was expected of them before they were murdered.

Going back to the present case, people who have abased themselves in the ways required before the altar of political correctness will be less inclined to protest at or to sabotage the tyrannical whims of their masters. Many, indeed, can be expected to join in with apparent pleasure. Some, no doubt, will file the humiliation away for some future time when the tables will have been turned. But most will go along with it.

If I am ever brought to power as the front man for a military coup, I will do many things. With regard, however, to the present outrage, I promise to identify which elected or unelected persons were responsible for hiring Aziz Associates, and then force them from their own resources to repay the whole cost. This, of course, will mean bankrupting all the relevant bureaucrats. It will also, however, bankrupt all the Councillors who failed to protest or vote against this spending of taxpayers’ money.

Read more:

Taxpayers fund council ‘adventures in Sindia and Lesbianandgayland’ as part of sessions on equality and diversity

By Chris Hastings Last updated at 1:57 AM on 12th September 2010 * Comments (0) * Add to My Stories

Razia Aziz: Organises the controversial courses and is described as ‘a coach, facilitator and performance and workshop artist’

Council bosses are being asked to imagine they are English economic migrants in the fictitious region of Sindia, or go on an ‘adventure in Lesbian-andgayland’ as part of publicly-funded training sessions on equality and diversity. More than 30 managers from Brighton and Hove City Council have been on the two-day ‘Leading on Diversity’ course in the past year – at a cost of several thousand pounds. In the session entitled Adventures in Sindia, the English Exodus, staff are asked to imagine that it is 2030 and the ‘world is a very different place’.

In this scenario, much of the South-East of England and East Anglia is under water. Millions of English families desperate for work have been forced to uproot to Sindia, an economic federation which is made up of China and India.  All the participants are asked to imagine that they are a seven-year-old child called

Sarah Hardy, whose family has just moved to Delhi. They are also warned that the English are largely despised in India because they have a reputation for ‘illegality, criminality, cultural conservatism and an inability to learn the host language’. The course material states: ‘Your seventh birthday was a miserable occasion. Your parents invited all the children in your class to a party.  All but one failed to turn up and none sent an RSVP.  ‘The only child who came was a Jewish girl from Hungary. Somehow you felt that she understood what you were going through, even though you never talked about it.’ The course attendees are told that while in Sindia they can expect to hear comments such as: ‘Why do you insist on eating that bland food? What you need is a good masala’, ‘Do your parents really force you to drink alcohol at the age of ten?’, and ‘What do you call an English virgin? A contradiction in terms’.  In the other session, staff are asked to imagine that ‘while asleep one night they have slipped through a wormhole in space’ and woken up in a parallel world where it is normal to be lesbian or gay.

They are told that they are now in a country where ‘heterosexual teachers are very reluctant to come out’, ‘the ideal family consists of a lesbian or gay male couple’, and ‘that conceiving a child by heterosexual intercourse is viewed with distaste’.

Brighton Town Hall: Officials there have been accused of wasting taxpayers money by sending staff on controversial courses They are then asked to consider how they would respond if people asked them: ‘What do you actually do in bed?’, ‘Don’t you think heterosexuality may be a phase you are going through?’, and ‘Is it possible that what you need is a good gay lover?’ The course for staff at Brighton and Hove Council was organised and run by Aziz Associates, a training consultancy founded in 1996.  The company is run by Razia Aziz, 45, a politics graduate, and clients include health trusts, local councils and Government departments.  Its website describes Ms Aziz as a ‘coach, facilitator, and performance and workshop artist’ with a ‘holistic style that embraces the intellect, body and heart’.

A Mail on Sunday investigation also found that other councils which ran equality and diversity projects last year included Preston, which spent £1,500 sending staff on three Journeys of Faith sessions, Kensington and Chelsea, and Test Valley Borough Council in Hampshire, which spent £2,800. Meanwhile, Hertfordshire County Council has produced a Making Our Mark On Equality And Diversity guide that says references to ‘girls in the office’ is inappropriate because it implies ‘dependence and immaturity’. The same council also has problems with ‘lady’ which has ‘over-tones of decorum and conformity’ and even woman ‘which has overtones of sexuality’. Officials at East Devon District Council have banned ‘little old lady, pensioner, youth and youngster’ and guidance to staff states: ‘White European people are also subjected to prejudice and stereotyping – Swedish (“porn and nudity”), Germans (“Hitlers who want to rule the world”), Irish (“thick”), Scottish (“mean, tight with money”).’ A spokesman for Brighton & Hove City Council said: ‘At a cost that is low by any comparison, our training role-plays are proven to do what they are supposed to do, which is to reduce inappropriate discrimination based on race, faith, disability, gender, sexuality or age.

Biofuels and barbarism

Michael Winning

I’ve found how to spellcheck my posts. Missus said I should do it in word first and then copy to here after the little red robot does his thing. Have to remember to do it thataway around though.

Today we see the cost of bloody biofuels, sicked onto the planet by big government and “Big Al” Gore, and big bribes to farmers. Who can blame them? Not me I guess but I don’t do arable, don’t know what the costs and downs are in that one.

There’s five of us up here in hills that employ nearly all the blokes in the village, in one way or aonther. We can’t pay them more wages to buy food for them and families than we can. If we was lower down hill, everyone might plant a bit more stuff but it’s too windy here.

You could be forgiven for thinking that biofuels are a giant conspiracy, to do the Mathusian thing on the world while people’s backs are turned. These people are more bad than I thought…

Meetings of the Other Libertarian Alliance

Sean Gabb

We meet on the second Monday of the month at 7pm at The Institute of Education, just off Russell Square – student bar, Room  S16, Thornhaugh Street, London, WC1B 5EA.   

It might be that we need to meet in the Foyer at the front of the building again this month, as we did last month, for Sarah Douglas cannot  guarantee that the buinlders will out of room S16 by Monday, but she hopes that they will.   

On Monday, 13 September Tim Evans will speak on ‘Thoughts on the UK’s Libertarian Movement’     

On Monday, 11th October, Detlev Schlichter will speak on  “Paper Money Collapse – The Folly of Elastic Money and the Coming Monetary Breakdown”.   

 Detlev is a long-standing libertarian who has worked for almost 20 years in the financial industry as a trader and portfolio manager. He has recently completed work on a book of Austrian Economics aimed at an audience in the City and the world of finance.”   

 On Monday, 8 November Anthony J. Evans will  present “A Proposal for Sound Money”   

 All are welcome, admission free. So do come along. DAVID McDONAGH

Libertarian Alliance Essay Prize – £1,000 to be won!

 The 2010 Chris R. Tame Memorial Prize
£1,000 to be Won

In honour of Dr Chris R. Tame (1949-2006), The Libertarian Alliance offers a yearly prize of £1,000 for an essay on a subject to be announced by Dr Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance.

By Monday the 25th October 2010, contestants are invited to submit essays to Dr Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance.

Essay Title: “Would a libertarian society deprive individuals of cultural roots and collective identity?” Essay Length: 3,000 words excluding notes and bibliography

Explanatory Note

Something that variously inspires and terrifies is that claim that Islam resets the clock in any society where it is widely adopted. For example, the ancient histories of Persia and Egypt were obliterated between the 7th and the 9th centuries – so much so that they were only revealed to the natives of those countries in the 19th century by western scholars.

Would the achievement of libertarian hegemony result in a similar wipe out? Is it possible that the libertarian inhabitants of a future British Isles would regard Westminster Abbey and Trafalgar Square with the same utilitarian indifference as, until recently, Egyptian Moslems did the Great Pyramid and the Temple at Karnak? Libertarianism, after all, is an ideology of personal rights. Doubtless,  libertarians will continue to get married and have children, and will form networks of friends. They will trade and cooperate extensively. Many will go to church or whatever. Most, one hopes, will take pleasure in charitable giving. But will they have the same cultural roots and collective identity as Englishmen and Frenchmen of our own day still have? Are these things actually valuable? Are they simply part of a discourse that keeps people enslaved? Or are they parts of a sedative that keeps us from seeing the full horror of death and taxes?

These notes are not to be regarded as exhaustive prompts. The winning essay may well take a different approach to the title. And originality is welcomed. Entrants may wish to find a similarity between our title for this year’s prize and the “Libertarianism and Racial Nationalism” essay contest run earlier this year by The Occidental Observer. While we are unlikely to give £1,000 to someone for arguing that libertarianism is part of a Jewish plot to destroy white racial identity, some familiarity with this type of critique may be useful.


  • Essays must be original and previously unpublished works.
  • Essays must be fully referenced.
  • Essays must be submitted in English and typed and in hard copy by sending to The Libertarian Alliance, Suite 35, 2 Lansdowne Row, Mayfair, London W1J 6H, United Kingdom.
  • Essays  must also be submitted by e-mail and in MS Word format to Sean Gabb – .
  • Essays must bear the name and full address of the author, including his e-mail address. The name does not need to be genuine, but work submitted under what Sean Gabb considers an absurd pseudonym may be rejected. Certainly, the prize money will be by cheque, and so must be made out to a real person.
  • Essays must have been received ain both hard and soft copy no later than Monday the 25th October 2010.
  • The winner will be announced on the evening of Saturday the 30th October 2010, at the banquet of the Libertarian Alliance Conference, to be held at the National Liberal Club in London.
  • The winner may be required to make a ten minute acceptance speech on Saturday the 30th October 2010, at the banquet of the Libertarian Alliance Conference, to be held at the National Liberal Club in London. This speech may be made in person, or by pre-recorded video, or may be read out by Sean Gabb, .
  • The prize will be £1,000, made out to the winner and payable in Sterling by cheque drawn on one of the United Kingdom clearing banks. No other form of payment will be considered.
  • The winning essay will be published by the Libertarian Alliance. All essays submitted will be published by the Libertarian Alliance.
  • In all matters of deciding the winner of the Prize and in all associated matters, the decision of Sean Gabb shall be final.
  • The act of submitting an essay shall constitute full acceptance of these terms
  • This prize competition is not open to any Officer of the Libertarian Alliance or of the Libertarian International, or to any previous winner of the competition.

For all questions, please contact Sean Gabb, though be prepared to wait for an answer.

Talking to ourselves

Michael Winning

I don’t know about you, but I don’t know nobody round here who reads this blog, or any other libertarian or liberal blog. Not one. My nearest reader is DD I think, and Fred Bloggs who live about 40 miles away. I hear that Freds gone to 6th form college somewhere in Leicestershire so he wan’t be doing much here for a while.

yes there are maybe lots of libertarians out there. Some of them blog, some blog regularly, some get high traffic, like The Devil, Guido and Legiron and so on. The LA here even runs a famous conference, which I guess I won’t be able to go to as it’s busy pigs time. Got a breeding run set to go about then.

Ok so what to do? DD and Sean say that the Enemy Class has got hold of all the media outlets and more or less controls what is said and even thought by “the masses”. yes its true, you just ask my farmhands and their families. They can’t even get their heads round the idea of a smaller state, let alone none, they just shake their heads sadly and look at the ground and think I’m a [paranoid wingnut. Go to the Post Office 3 miles down the hill and the woman there who runs it says “but who’ll pay all the Girocheques if there’s no government?” Talk to the schoolmums at the local primary about free dinners and they’ll ask you “but what about those too poor to pay for their kids dinners?”

This bloggin lark is all very well. We can keep each other’s spirits up I suppose, while the world darkens. But there isn’t much time left, we have to get this out either before we are all stopped, likely if Labour got back in, or the damage has gone too far to be repaired whether they do or not. I tend to agree that all this what we complain and whinge about was deliberate. the socialists aways knoew what they were doing, on what plan and what would happen to what by when. Som of them even pretended to be stupid tearful welsh windbags like Neil Kinnock, and threw an election on purpose, now there’s a thought! Clever guy to end up rich like he did now. Some pretended to be sceptical about the USSR like Wislon, while coying up to it in private. One even pretended to be an autistic psychotic, there’s Brown for you!

The time for talking to ourselves is past. Time to get back to something like we remember this place to be is running out. The LPUK appears to be dying on its feet, sorry chaps, I don’t think it’ll recover from the pasting Andrew Neil gace the Devil a while ago.

I’d advocate civil disobedience if I didn’t think the State was now so powerful we’d all get rounded up. Does anybody of you have any ideas?

Michael Portillo Sighting

Mrs Gabb tells me that she saw Michael Portillo and a television crew shuffling about in the railway station car park in Deal. They all looked very wet and bedraggled. She wonders, in her Daily Mailish way, if this will have a positive effect on house prices!

The best thing on telly in 1983

Sean Gabb

Most other people seem to have hated it. But this is the only television I watched in 1983, and I loved every minute. I even feel a slight influence on the writings of Richard Blake.

Latest Libertarian Alliance Publication

The Philosophical Genie: An Intellectual Fable
(Any resemblance to real politicians, living or dead, is entirely intentional.)
J.C. Lester
Philosophical notes, No. 83




Y: I have a problem.  What is it all about—everything?  That’s my problem.  I really don’t know what’s going on in the world.  I muddle along without really understanding anything at all.  And the more questions I ask, the more deeply I realise my fundamental confusion.  None of the people I ask have any adequate answers, and they even fail to understand or care that they don’t understand.  Perhaps I am at least less confused than they are by realising and caring where some of the problems are.

So why, I ask myself, am I talking to myself in the garden shed—again?  And I answer myself thus: 1) Because I have no one else to talk to properly about such matters.  2) Because talking to myself seems to help a little.  3) Because I don’t want to appear a lunatic by talking to myself somewhere that I might be overheard.  Especially, 4) because of the way I sometimes number the points I make to myself.  Oh, and, 5) so that I can have a cerebral smoke.


David Robert Gibson Reviews Sean Gabb on Popular Culture

What a fine talk! – clear, persuasive, full of content and relevant asides, succinct but unhurried – I enjoyed it, belatedly alas, and conserved it upon several disk drives. My own hope is principally for a catastrophic collapse of this truly evil Champagne Socialistic-Corporatist Regime, but as you said it is a delight one cannot depend upon in short order. I take you point, strongly, that while we are waiting/a workable alternative task is *to dominate popular culture*, just as the fashionable Left have done so thoroughly this past 60 years. That Was The Week That Was and Till Death Us Do Part are early examples.

I found it instructive that you mentioned the abysmal, culturally blind failure of the apparently so dominant Thatcher 1980’s government to sponsor relatively conservative/libertarian folk like Hill, Williams, and Everett (I did not know that Bernard Bresslaw took an interest in Chris Tame’s bookshop!). They could also have brought Hughie Green out of a retirement enforced by proto-PC types at Thames Television. I do not consider that I have any outstanding talent as a scriptwriter or entertainer, so I will have to leave the public delegitimisation of this nasty Regime to others. I do so hope they can achieve it as, for examples, in the French and Czechoslovakian Revolutions that you described. The Champagne Corporatists have left open goals a plenty – the EU, variations on Quantitative Easing, hidden externalities of the consumerist system, the gross unfairness and growing fallout from mass immigration, inverted crime policies, uncontrolled profligate waste, the relentless demoralisation of decent people, and so on and on.

David Robert Gibson

An apology withdrawn

An apology withdrawn, letter in Sun. Telegraph 22/08/10. 

SIR - Sir John Houghton (Letters, August 15), the former
IPCC Chairman, challenges the use of the quote, widely
attributed to him that: "Unless we announce disasters,
no one will listen." He insists he said (and the record
confirms this) that: "If we want a good environmental
policy, we'll have to have a disaster." This is a
distinction without a difference. Either way, he is
saying that the IPCC needs disasters to convince the
public of the need for climate mitigation. As someone
who used the slightly incorrect quotation (in my Bruges
Group book 'Cool Thinking on Climate Change'), I now feel
vindicated, and I withdraw an apology I made to Sir John
for misquoting him. 

Roger Helmer MEP (Con)
Market Harborough,

Mises OnLine University


The Mises University is offering online courses on a variety of topics, all reasonably priced.

Thought it might be of interest to some of you here

For this crowd I would recommend:

Freedom Versus Authority: Europe 1789-1945

The Political Economy of War

LA Conference – Book Now!

Liberty 2010


Saturday 30th October-Sunday 31st October 2010

Saturday-Conference: 9.15am-5.30pm
Saturday-Dinner: 7.30pm-10.30pm
Sunday-Conference: 10.00am-3.45pm
Sunday-Drinks Reception: 3:45-5.00pm

The National Liberal Club
One Whitehall Place
London SW1A 2HE
 Saturday 30 October 2010
09.00am – 10.00am Registration and Refreshments

10.00am – 10.05am Introduction Dr. Sean Gabb (Director, Libertarian Alliance)

10.05am – 10.40am Session 1: Humour, Freedom and Political Incorrectness
* Speaker: Professor Christie Davies (Emeritus Professor of Sociology, Reading University)
* Moderator: Dr. Tim Evans (President, Libertarian Alliance)

10.40pm  11.15am Session 2: Praxeology, History and the Perils of Historicism
* Speaker: Dr. Peter Mentzel (Associate Professor, Department of History, Utah State University)
* Moderator: Christian Michel (European Director, Libertarian Alliance; President, Libertarian International)

Coffee Break

11.30am – 12.00pm Session 3: Honest Money and the Future of Banking * Speaker: Steve Baker MP (Conservative Member of Parliament for Wycombe)
* Moderator: David Farrer (Finance Director, Libertarian Alliance)

12.00pm – 2.00pm Free time for Lunch in the local area

2.00pm – 2.45pm Session 4: Question and Answer Panel Session
* Speakers: Professor Christie Davies, Dr. Peter Mentzel and Steve Baker MP
* Moderator: Dr. Anthony J. Evans (Assistant Professor, ESCP
Europe; Founding Senior Fellow, The Cobden Centre; Senior Fellow, Libertarian Alliance)

2.45 – 3.15 Session 5: A New Playing Field – A View from the Next Generation
* Speakers: Kenli Schooland, (The Language of Liberty Institute)
* Moderator: Dr. Nigel Meek (Editorial and Subscriptions Director, Libertarian Alliance)

3.15pm – 3.30pm Coffee Break

3.30pm – 4.00pm Session 6: Anonymity is Not a Crime
* Speaker: Alex Deane (Director, Big Brother Watch)
* Moderator: Dr. Jan Lester (Senior Fellow, Libertarian Alliance)

4.00pm – 4.30pm Session 7:
Against Publicly Funded Science
* Speaker: Dr. Terence Kealey (Vice Chancellor, Buckingham University)
* Moderator: Dr. John Meadowcroft (Lecturer in Public Policy, Kings College, University of London; Senior Fellow, Libertarian Alliance)

4.30 – 5.00pm Session 8: Question and Answer Panel Session
* Speakers: Kenli Schooland, Alex Deane, Dr. Terrence Kealey
* Moderator: Dr. Richard Wellings (Deputy Editorial Director, Institute of Economic Affairs; Senior Fellow, Libertarian Alliance)

5.00pm – 7.30pm Free Time and Cash Bar

7.30pm – 10.30pm 2010 LA Annual Dinner and Awards
* Award 1 LA Liberty In Action Award 2010
* Award 2 LA Liberty in Theory Award 2010
* After Dinner Speech Mark Littlewood (Director General, Institute of Economic Affairs) “The Future of the Institute of Economic Affairs”

Sunday 31 October 2010
09.30am – 10.00am Refreshments

10am – 10.30am Session 9: Freedom and the Internet
* Speaker: Malcolm Hutty (Head of Public Affairs, London Internet Exchange)
* Moderator: David Carr (Legal Affairs Spokesman, Libertarian Alliance)

10.30am – 11.00am Session 10: On Mutualism
* Speaker: Jock Coats (Liberal Democrat Activist and Blogger)
* Moderator: David McDonagh (Libertarian Alliance)

11am-11.10am Session 11: Libertarian Alliance Update Report
Dr. Tim Evans and Dr. Sean Gabb

11.10am – 11.30am Coffee Break

11.30pm – 12.00am Session 12: Multiculturalism – Right or Wrong?
* Speaker: Peter Tatchell (Civil Liberties Activist)
* Moderator: Dr. Tim Evans (President, Libertarian Alliance)

12.00 noon-2pm Free-Time for Lunch in the Local Area

2.00pm – 2.30pm Session 13: Question and Answer Panel Session
* Speakers: Malcolm Hutty, Jock Coats, Peter Tatchell
* Moderator: Dr. Sean Gabb (Director, Libertarian Alliance)

2.30pm – 3.00pm Session 14: The Mirage of Climate Justice
* Speaker: Dr. Mark Pennington (Reader in Public Policy and Political Economy, Queen Mary’s College, University of London)
* Moderator: Christian Michel (European Director, Libertarian Alliance; President, Libertarian International)

3.00pm – 5.00pm Drinks Reception
Guest of Honour: Mark Skousen (Producer, FreedomFest – The world’s largest gathering of free minds)

3rd September 1650 – A Proud Day in English History

Sean Gabb

On this day, our gallant Lord Protector smashed a superior Scotch army and took Edinburgh. Obviously, this is not a victory our Government of Traitors will encourage us to celebrate.

Sword of Damascus

Sean Gabb

Richard Blake, the critically-acclaimed and internationally best-selling author of “Blood of Alexandria” etc, has now allowed me to read the copy-edited text of “Sword of Damascus”. It is with complete lack of bias that I pronounce this the greatest work of literature ever produced in the past 8,000 years of human history. The lady in the coffee bar where I now sit read but a single word of the title, and is still shaking as if from a religious experience. You will soon be able to reserve your copies on Amazon. For the moment, do see if you can obtain copies of “Blood of Alexandria”. The hardback edition sold out within days. But continued orders might prompt Hodder & Stoughton to order a reprint.

THe BBC to be shut down

Michael Winning

THese Onion people seem to think they can put guns at the head of whoever they think they should be paid by, and whatever rate the think they ought to have. OH well, if the BBC shuts down it will be no loss.

AS Sean has said I think before, its archves and copyrights can be sold to whoever wants them, nothing wll get lost that was worth saving, and we can all save 4 billion a year. Im sure the techies will get jobs breaking rocks somewhere hot and nice.

Sean Gabb on Tony Blair and David Cameron

Sean Gabb

Several people have asked me to comment on the ConDem Coalition and on Mr Blair’s memoirs. Bearing in mind that Mr Blair approves so strongly of the present Ministry, you may find this article from five years ago worth looking at again. I think I rumbled these people pretty well!

Free Life Commentary,
an independent journal of comment
published on the Internet
Issue Number 142
14th December 2005

David Cameron and the Conservative Party:
A Farewell to the Quisling Right?
by Sean Gabb


Half a dozen times this year, I have promised myself I would not write again about the Conservative Party. I have nothing left to say about it. What I can say I have said perhaps too often. This being so, my Dear Readers, I write for my amusement, not yours, and I feel drawn to comment on the election of David Cameron as Leader of the Conservative Party.

I will say at once that I unreservedly welcome his election. Given our current political circumstances, it is about the most encouraging development which anyone of good will might desire.

In part, I say this without irony. Tony Blair is not merely a bad Prime Minister – he is also a profoundly bad man. He is driven by a hatred of England and its people. He is a liar, a traitor, a war monger. He has the blood of thousands on his hands. Not since the time of James II have we had a government directed so plainly to the abolition of our liberties. At no time in our history has an attack on these liberties been so sustained or so successful. So far as he opposes the continual forward drive of the Blair Government, and so far as he might be able to replace it, I welcome the election of Mr Cameron. This is not saying much. Let it be granted that they might combine, and that they might also be able to beat Mr Blair, I should probably welcome a coalition of George Galloway, Abu Hamza and Nick Griffin. The most important short term objective of anyone who cares about England must be to pull down Tony Blair and to execrate his memory.

The main part of my welcome, though, must be ironic. By his election, Mr Cameron has shown beyond reasonable doubt that the Conservative Party cannot be regarded as either actually or prospectively a party of conservatives.

Yes, he has announced his intention to withdraw Conservative Members from the European People’s Party in the European Parliament. This is regarded as a further hardening of the Conservative position on our membership of the European Union, and has gathered condemnation from all the usual suspects.

However, while it remains a threat, the European Union is no longer the most active threat to our personal liberties and national independence. Indeed, the standard Eurosceptic view of the European Union has never been correct. There has been no real conflict between an imperial project led by the French and Germans and our own matchlessly perfect system of government. From the beginning, our membership of the European Union has been mainly an enabling device for our own ruling class to evade the restraints of the old Constitution. From the money laundering laws to compulsory metrication to the relaxation of procedural safeguards in criminal cases, British Governments have used the machinery of the European Union to achieve ends that would have been at least much harder had it been necessary to argue for them as original legislation in a sovereign Parliament.

Today—and I always grant it remains a threat in the sense described—the European Union has outlived much of its usefulness as an enabler of despotism. As conceived by the other big member states, the European project lacks economic rationality. And for the avoidance of doubt, I will say that this is not the same as the system of voluntary exchange that is at the heart of liberalism: it is a set of heavily regulated markets within which state-privileged trading bodies compete for profit and market share. But if this is not what the liberal economists mean by a free market, it is far too “neo-liberal” for most political elites in Europe. And the costs of their opposition are beginning to outweigh the procedural benefits of membership. Besides, in the “war on terror”, our ruling class has discovered another enabling device to which continued membership of the European Union is increasingly a hindrance.

For this reason, Conservative withdrawal from a federalist grouping in the European Parliament—even a further hardening of opposition to British adoption of the Euro—cannot at the end of 2005 be taken as the victory we might have proclaimed at the end of 1999. Politics are not a tug of war, in which our allies and enemies are a constant, and success is measured in terms of feet gained or lost. Politics its instead a complex dance. For us, its successful conclusion may be fixed—this being our restoration as the free citizens of an independent country. But its progress requires a continual change of partners and of incidental direction. In such a view of politics, to be given now what once we dearly wanted is not necessarily to be given what we need now.

And against this one concession, we have the acceptance by the new leadership of virtually the whole of the New Labour settlement. Will a Cameron Government repeal the Proceeds of Crime Act, the Civil Contingencies Act, and all the lesser abolitions of procedural safeguards? Will it abolish any of the regulatory agencies that tell us what to say and read and eat and drink, and whom to employ and what to pay them? Will it argue against the fixed view that, while taxes may be undesirable, government spending is a good? Will it allow us to throw away the biometric identity cards with which the Blair Government is trying to festoon us? Will it lift the hand of political correctness form our lives? Will it end the racial and sexual balkanisation of the country? I think not. Based on what has been said, and on what I know of the people saying it, the Conservative leadership has not the slightest intention of undoing the revolution of the past eight years.

We have instead, a championing of the fashionable lies about anthropogenic global warming—a mass of self-interested falsehoods besides which the holocaust revisionism for which David Irving is about to be martyred seems almost common sense. Since I have in the past received funding form his relatives, and hope for more in the future, I am reluctant to say anything unpleasant about Zachary Goldsmith. But I can have no faith in any party that asks him to advise on environmental policy.

Above all, we have the promise of a Conservative Party that is “less white and less male”. Now, it cannot be denied that most present Conservative candidates for Parliament would be disbelieved if shown as a parodic sketch at the Edinburgh Festival. The best of them are corrupt liars. The others are incompetent, lustful sheep. They all look as if they fell from the womb with a pinstripe afterbirth. There can be no objection in principle to widening the search for candidates. There can be no objection in principle to widening the search for candidates beyond the white, middle class males who now get selected. I have black students whose opinions on every issue from Europe to hanging, by way of immigration and the importance of family life, would get them a standing ovation in any meeting of conservative activists. I have homosexual friends who would like to see Tony Blair swinging from a lamp post.

But let us be honest. What the Conservative leadership really wants is not a system of selection that would get such people into Parliament. It is instead a scheme to attract people who look diverse, but who are not. The new candidates will come out with the same ritualised utterances about freedom and the English way as we get at present. Their only contribution will be to add a fashionable obsession with “sexism”, “racism”, “homophobia”, and the need to counter these with a still more enlarged and active state.

And all this is to be welcomed. It is to be welcomed in the sense that a man in financial difficulties should pay more attention to his bank statements than to fantasising about the next lottery draw. What we shall have under Mr Cameron is a change not of direction but of rhetoric. The Conservative Party has never in my lifetime been a party of conservatives. It has at best been a party of corporatist privilege that spoke a vaguely conservative language. It has been the party of the Quisling Right—of men who implied promises of action without making them, or who made promises without any intention of keeping them. Time and again, they have been believed, only to disappoint. When was the last Conservative Government to leave office with a significantly lower burden of tax and regulation than it inherited? When was there one that expanded the sphere of personal freedom? Not in my lifetime. Not in yours. Not, I can think, in the past hundred years.

Had David Davis been elected Leader of the Party, I have no doubt he would have continued the Quisling Right tradition. He had all the right credentials to reach out to conservative opinion in the country, and to neutralise it by pretending to champion it. David Cameron has no such advantage. He will, I have no doubt, sound conservative on increasingly marginal issues such as Europe. But his main strategy seems to be an attempt to replace Tony Blair in every sense.

During the past few years, a vacancy has been emerging within the Establishment. This is a loose coalition of bureaucratic, big business, media and educational interests, and is held together by an agenda of economic rationality and gross authoritarianism. It emerged in the early 1980s and attached itself to the Thatcher Government. In the middle 1990s, it abandoned the Major Government, attaching itself instead to New Labour. Though never much constrained in practice by them, the Conservatives still contained social and ideological interests hostile to the new order of things; and there was a residual social conservatism about the leaders that held them from a public sharing of the regulated, politically correct hedonism of the new Establishment lifestyle. Tony Blair had smashed the true believers in his own party, and was socially and ideologically at one with the new order, and had a most useful charm when it came to reaching out to the masses.

It seemed for a long time that the preferred Establishment model for our politics was a one-party state. New Labour was to rule forever, and only enough opposition was to be tolerated to keep up the basic pretence of democracy. Since the disaster of the Iraq War, however, Mr Blair has lost the confidence of the Establishment. He has plainly gone mad in office. More important than that, his charm has worn too thin to sustain him in office by any reasonable help from the Establishment. His most likely successor, Gordon Brown, lacks any charm at all, and seems too close to the remaining core of true believers in the Labour Party. Certainly, his endless interventions and taxes have come close to damaging the prosperity on which our whole system of government now relies for legitimacy. With him as Prime Minister, there might be some return to an older and less profitable kind of statism. Even if he has himself forgotten the socialism he used to preach, he must give something to his natural supporter. The “Orange Book” tendency in the Liberal Democrat Party are making the right noises, but are hampered by an electoral base that may take several more electoral cycles to expand into credibility.

That leaves the Conservative Party. Its conservative and libertarian elements have already been purged by time and active malevolence to the outer limits of influence. Given a leadership that fully embraces the new order of things, it can be allowed—even encouraged—to recover. And this is what has happened.

If the Conservatives are recovering in the polls, this is only because it is permitted by an Establishment that once did all to keep the Party weak. Just notice how much money is now flowing towards them—and not money from lone eccentrics like Paul Sykes, but money from solidly Establishment corporatists. If Mr Cameron can only continue his so far relentless sucking up to the Establishment, he stands every chance of winning the next election.

But if there is to be another Conservative Government, this will not, even in form, be a government of conservatives. We shall be presented with a political system in which the two main parties differ from each other in the way that Pepsi differs from Coke. The next election, I am sure, will not be a contest between two parties, one of which might still frighten the Establishment by its need to deceive a dwindling core of conservative activists. It will instead be nakedly a contest between the two wings of a single Establishment Party. Those activists will then be like the unfortunates at the end of George Orwell’s Animal Farm:

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

Some of these, I have no doubt, will creep back to their stalls to await the next set of lies to jolly them along. Others, I hope, will go away and think what to do next.

So, thank you, Mr Cameron. Your honesty will be much appreciated.

David McDonagh on Advertising

The Risks that Adverts Must Run and an Authoress’s
Fear of Freedom

By David McDonagh

The jennyass, Felicity Lawrence, feels that it is a big mistake of the CONDEMS’ new Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, to dismiss the recent campaign of Jamie Oliver against obesity. Writing in the totalitarian propaganda sheet, that is so aptly named The Guardian, Thursday 8 July 2010, she protests that Lansley is overlooking the fact that it was only the nanny state could have recently saved the UK population from smoking. The Jamie Oliver campaign, backed by the state, has also worked in getting children to eat better at school, she says. Lansley was wrong to think it was all down to individual choice. Has he never heard of the power of marketing? Advertising can be used to get people to consume junk food. Andrew Lansley is not only facile, she says, but he is also clearly wrong headed in thinking that all social ills are down to individual responsibility rather than to the actions of powerful firms and their advertising campaigns.

This authoress wants to say, “Nanny does know best, Andrew Lansley.” She begins: “The health secretary’s belief that children should be responsible for their own diet choices would be risible were it not so scary” showing, thereby, a naked fear of freedom and responsibility, and a longing for totalitarian security and all round state

She indicates that Lansley is naïve to hold that “the captains of the food industry are decent chaps” who will choose not to sell junk food if only the state stops regulating them. “Lansley’s analysis of public health is so facile that it would be risible even in a prep-school debating society”, says this exceedingly stupid woman. It is unrealistic, she thinks, to expect schoolchildren to be responsible about their food.

She feels that Lansley has not even bothered to master his brief here “Figures out yesterday show that, far from putting large numbers off school meals as Lansley had claimed, Jamie Oliver’s campaign to improve school meals, and all the government work on nutritional standards that followed, has increased uptake of healthy hot meals at lunchtime. It turns out those in loco parentis, or to use that pernicious rhetoric of the privileged right, ‘nanny’, should decide what’s best for children. It works” she triumphantly exclaims.

Like so many Romantics, this is a tribal thing for the authoress. She does not seem to know that the pristine right of the French Assembly in 1789 was protectionist, as she is, and that the left was for the free trade, that she is so ardently opposed to. The Fabian Society called some old Tory ideas “socialist” in the 1890s, which was perfectly true, but they also said they were left wing. They did not fit in well with free trade, but this was widely accepted as being apt nevertheless. The dichotomy has been somewhat confused in common sense ever since.

Nor is Lansley even aware of the literature that shows that choice is a myth, she continues, as we are all ruled by the unconscious mind. He might begin his homework, she says, by reading up on Sigmund Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, he who wrote an essay on The Engineering of Consent. Advertising is more than just free speech; it is also a way of controlling those it broadcasts to, as the people all have an unconscious mind that any broadcast can enter to manipulate any one amongst the masses listening by using their modern techniques. Bernays was the first to realise that the public could be manipulated “into buying products they did not want or need by targeting their unconscious desires.” In the 1920s, he aided the large scale selling to the public of cigarettes and junk food. The state was needed to break the habit of smoking that such advertising had long built up, and it will similarly be needed to break the habit of consuming junk food too, says the authoress. With smoking, the adverts needed to be stopped first. Then the state was needed to put up taxes on the cigarettes and only later to ban smoking in public places. This long strategy alone could “quell the desires that had been so skilfully awakened” by the giant tobacco firms, she says. She writes as if there would be no smoking or eating of junk food at all if it was not for this tremendous manipulation ability of advertisements.

“Why does Lansley think the food industry has fought tooth and nail to avoid restrictions on its marketing to children? It has to catch them young, to form their palates and create their desires” she says.

This woman thinks that the founder of the Jesuits, Ignatius Loyola, was quite right to think that what we learn young enough; we can never quite analyse, or reasonably check out for truth in any way. It is worth mentioning that Voltaire was the product of such a Jesuit college.

We may hothouse the brain by early education to enlarge the brain by dendritic growth, but we cannot realistically hope to build in a special protection for any particular doctrine by any advantage in early education. And, as the pristine Romantic propagandist, J.J. Rousseau, rightly said, any material will aid brain development such that we will be able to think all the better as a result. Any ideas at all will educate us but none will stop further consideration as to whether they are true or not; quite the contrary, any will aid us to think clearly. Having learned about things – any particular things or things in general – we will be better able to think about fresh ideas than we would had we not been educated. A developed brain will better be able to think critically rather than being merely made loyal to whatever doctrines was used during its development.

Thus, the taxi driver’s knowledge of London will be as good as an intensive course of philosophy to that end. Both develop dendrites in the brain that basically boost the learner’s general ability. In the 1930s the best schools in the world were those run by the Jesuits, but they all, very oddly, confined themselves to Aristotle on physics, owing to their Thomist dogma. But their pupils soon caught up with modern physics as adults. Learning any subject will aid us to learn other subjects. Even if we could all be taught actually true doctrines, anyone might rethink them and fall into adult error, despite the fact that the external world, presumably, gives the truth a lift. Our brains simply do rethink all things. That is why this brainwashing idea is false. It assumes that we can be loyal to ideas indoctrinated but there is no way that we can prevent automatically revising all that we behold.

Richard Dawkins on memes is partly right. One aspect of the meme idea is that we believe, or catch, ideas like we do a virus, much as we catch a cold. But his idea that it is no use reasoning about the ideas that we thus catch, or pick up, any more than it would be to reason about a cold is clearly false, for all ideas are subject to reason not prior to adoption but at any time after they have been adopted. Thus, it is no advantage to get an idea adopted if it can be shed with ease, and false looking ideas can be shed with ease. Our minds automatically search for error and the rejection of anything that looks like error to us is automatic. We can never deliberately err, as Plato rightly said.

Earlier the authoress, Felicity Lawrence, wrote “Free choice isn’t healthy for the food industry’s menu” The Guardian, Wednesday 23 June 2010. She fears the market, loves the state yet also fears that the state has no chance unless it is very careful. I rather think that she is right that the state is not up to much, but she seems to merely imagine her supposed dangers of the market. “Traffic-light labelling was voted down in Europe only last week, scuppered by food industry lobbying of breathtaking determination and expense“. European consumer watchdogs have said that up to a billion pounds was spent by giant multinationals to get the members of the European parliament by use of emails and meetings to sway their vote, she tells us. The result is that an industry-sponsored scheme of nutrition labelling that serves only to confuse the customers emerged instead of her hoped for version of state regulation. The authoresses beloved Food Standards Agency [FSA], that had upset the giant firms in the food industry by successfully naming and shaming manufacturers for use of excess salt in their products, but it may now be abolished in the CONDEMS cuts even before it can fully sort out the big firms. There is simply too much fat in the foods that the big food companies sell today, says Felicity Lawrence, but the FSA might have put them in their place had the new government not been recently elected. “Plans are well advanced to emasculate it by returning its role in improving public nutrition to the Department of Health, whose past performance on food has been lacklustre” she says. “Another success, then, for the food industry and its lobbyists, who were hard at work in the run up to the election.”

The giant firms that produce all this dreadful junk-food for profit will not worry much over the plans that the state is making to control the advertising to children before the 9 pm TV watershed, as it can now use the internet to bypass any such regulations. It can use its adverts to get the children to pester their parents to buy junk food regardless of the planned restrictions. “This is not a world in which individuals make free, fully informed choices about food” she tells us. Rather “it is a world in which children are targeted by junk-food manufacturers from the youngest age. We live in a culture in which adult appetites are shaped by marketing that preys on our insecurities and emotional needs. It is an environment in which understanding the labels on our food practically requires a Ph.D. in food chemistry.” So she feels that the state is badly needed to protect the public from being victimised by the big firms that exploit them for profit.

But indoctrination is not as powerful as she thinks, even if we grant the idea that the adverts can indoctrinate; which there seems reason to think is false, as there is not even the time in most cases. The old adage “use it or lose it” seems to be the rule for all ideas, for if we do not use any set of ideas then they will tend to be forgotten. The general development of the brain, the growth of dendrites, will have been achieved by the use of any ideas used in education in the past. Not so the belief that the ideas in question are true, as that will depend on what the beholder thinks is the case at any one time only; even if, in revising what he thinks, he does not amend the content. The fact is that at any time, he might amend the content if it seems apt to do so. To think is to revise, even if we do not change our minds. And to be alive and in normal health is to think. We think automatically.

However, Felicity Lawrence has the daft idea that there is something called the “unconscious mind” that is the irrational enemy within us all. It will ensure that we are unhappy. That seems to be its main aim. So it urges us to do things that are bad for us. So we all need the guardianship of the state, which is, presumably, manned by politicians that lack this unconscious mind. How otherwise could they know what is best? But the idea that politicians are special in this way seems to be rather far-fetched. More realistic is the idea that there is no such unconscious mind, or any other means of manipulation through adverts.

Moreover, almost any history of psycho-analysis will show a falling off of this idea of the unconscious mind within the very movement that gave rise to it: within psychoanalysis. Any history of the movement will tell the reader about how the unconscious was abandoned by many, if not most, of the followers of Freud. . J.A.C. Brown, in Freud and the Post-Freudians (1964), for example, tells his readers that first Alfred Adler, and then many others, the majority, indeed, of the therapist followers of Freud, after a time, dumped this ‘unconscious’ meme as irrelevant to anything they thought was real. I think they were right to do so.

Similarly, the Jesuit colleges have exactly no chance of making a Catholic for life, given the first seven years. If ever such a successful former pupil is later willing to debate at any time, then all the Catholic doctrines learnt earlier will thereby run the risk of being discredited. This would be so even if the doctrines were true. If any opponents of the fondly indoctrinated Catholic ideas can get the pupil to debate then they do have a chance of wiping out any beliefs in the Jesuit creed that he was indoctrinated in. The Jesuits have no chance at all with Christianity in open debate, as Catholicism is, objectively, such a silly creed. But even if it were true it would still risk being abandoned on being criticised. Brainwashing is a mere myth, like mental illness, or irrationality, or socialism [as an alternative economy to the price system for the mass urban society] or the idea of God.

Even though all those bogus ideas – mental illness, irrationality and socialism – do give fools lots of pleasure, no one can actually believe as they wish, so anyone who discusses those bogus ideas thereby risks either being disillusioned, or even understanding an actual refutation in some cases. Bias cannot crowd out criticism, even though many fools feel utterly certain that it can. We are free to say what we like, but never to believe as we like. The one thing that Freud got right was “the reality principle”. We may not want to re-think, but we do re-think all the time; indeed we rethink any time that we do think, even if this is usually only superficially done. Any attempt to manipulate people will need to stand up to the normal test of reason or normal thinking that we all automatically do. It is not foolproof but it is a test.

In any case, the giant firms would need to compete with all the others in their adverts, even if we granted the bogus manipulation theory via the unconscious mind; but that theory looks lame so there is no need to grant it. Yet if we did, it would not be easy manipulation. Competition would ensure that.

Peter Watson in Ideas (2005) writes that the German historian of science, Theodor Gomperz said, “Nearly our entire intellectual education originates from the Greeks. A thorough knowledge of their origin is the indisputable prerequisite for freeing ourselves from their overwhelming influence” (p148) . But this is mere hyperbole, in both sentences, but complete folly in the second cited sentence, as ideas cannot gaol us in any way at all. Influence tends to push us out rather than to suck us in, thus the wider educated mind is usually the more independent mind and a man with a degree in Greek is not likely to be limited to ancient Greece in his outlook.

That we often deliberately make assumptions obfuscates the fact that we often make many tacit assumptions automatically too. Indeed, the latter assumptions are the norm. To repeat, the biologist, Richard Dawkins with his meme idea has the merit of getting the fact that we adopt ideas automatically, rather like we pick up a virus, correctly but he errs, and he errs very badly, when he says that what we automatically assume is thereby immune from criticism. E contra, we will automatically drop any assumption as soon as we see it as bogus, even if we are not right in it actually being bogus. As Plato rightly said, no one can deliberately err.

Indeed, few will think that this current common sense idea of irrationality, at least in the buying of what they do not want as result of advertising, applies to themselves. It only pertains to others; only to the masses. People may foolishly grant that they are irrational in other ways. But only the gullible masses seem open to being duped by advertising; but the masses are only an abstraction. We all feel we are better than others. It is the sort of value that we need to have, as it is, maybe, basic to survival; or at least it will have been so for our ancestors prior to the rise of civilisation. We realise that most adverts fall on barren ground as far as we are concerned. Few males want to wear the widely advertised female underwear, for example. But adverts must affect the masses, we think; even though we can also see that most people are not affected by adverts for wares that are made for the opposite sex or for products that are otherwise not suitable to most people who see or hear the advert. But why not, if they can manipulate any of us at will? Because we think about them, and in doing so we realise that the broadcast is not even aimed at us, of course. But if we do think in this way, then why should we ever grant the manipulation theory that Felicity Lawrence thinks is so silly of Lansley to ignore?

Even road-sweepers, or men selling newspapers, realise adverts have never persuaded them to buy what they do not want, though they still often feel that the adverts must work this way on the masses. The fact is that adverts persuade none. They do aid distribution by merely calling the attention of the people who already want the wares on offer to wares that they already want. That is enough to boost sales. No persuasion is needed.

Most adult people will admit that they have long forgotten most of whatever they learnt at school. I myself remember learning nothing at school on the normal day. I was very pleased never to be asked what I learnt on getting home for I would have usually had nothing to say. Most pupils seem to learn nothing on most days at school today too. That is why most nominal Catholics, sometimes even enthusiastic ones, know next to nothing about their creed, despite all those years of RI lessons at school. Most people do credit the schools with learning them to read and write, but they would have, most likely, picked these skills up as they grew up in the mass urban society. As Stephen Berry says, schools are mainly providing a child minding service. There has been no real building up of doctrine at school, let alone by the giant firms through adverts for smoking and junk food on the media. Mass indoctrination is greatly exaggerated.

Felicity Lawrence feels Lansley overlooks that the various firms have no social responsibility, beyond doing well for their shareholders. Why should they not want to sell more junk food? Bigger sales means more profits. She here overlooks that the firms have no interest in selling junk food, any more than any other food, and that firms actually sell only what is selected by the individual members of the public whenever such an individual chooses to become a customer. In each case, there is the money that the individual will need to pay whenever one wants to buy what is for sale, and that is a built-in disincentive to buy any particular good. Does the ware match up to whatever else the customer can obtain with money elsewhere? Our alternative uses of money have far more impact than any advert could ever have in ensuring that we only buy what we want, even if there was some sort of manipulation. We all do want money so we need to want any good that we actually do buy a bit more than the money that we pay for it and any manipulation, even if we grant it as real, will need to be strong to counter that. But Felicity Lawrence does not seem to realise that fact.

However, she will have experienced it whenever she has to pay for whatever she buys. By contrast, she will not have experienced the power of manipulation from the adverts, for it is not real at all. But she might think that, as this influence occurs unconsciously, she need never expect to have any experience of it. This does not seem to be a very realistic line of thought; but neither do the main ideas she accuses Lansley of ignoring look one iota realistic either. In any case, if the adverts can get the unconscious mind to buy anything, then why not get them to buy healthy food? Presumably, anything the public buys will yield a profit.

In any case, if the adverts can get the unconscious mind to buy anything, then why not get them to buy healthy food? Presumably, anything the public buys will yield a profit. Or does it all depend on the unconscious desires, as most accounts of it seem to suggest? If so, it does not even claim to get people to do as it wants but instead it simply depends on what is wanted by the unconscious mind already. Things are not looking so good for the big firms after all. They are going to need entrepreneurship with its risk of getting what the customers buy wrong, and thus making losses rather than profits. In this line of argument, it looks as if the firms do not have the alternative of handy manipulation by advertising to dodge the risk of losses after all.

Many amongst the UK public have feared greatly, just lately, that the law on product placement within TV programmes is about to be relaxed and they see this as sinister. Like Felicity Lawrence, they fear that advertisements will manipulate them through their unconscious mind by the use of modern techniques of persuasion. I recall a class in which the teacher put a case against adverts as a sort of running joke to lighten up the lesson [it was a mathematics night school class]. Towards the end of the class, he came near the end of his case against the Guinness adverts.: “Then it is on your mind that you might buy a pint of Guinness!” he exclaimed. He was a Guinness drinker and so was I. About seven of us went for a drink after the class each week. “And then you recall that you do not like Guinness!” I retorted. The class laughed. Just getting the message over will never be enough to sell a good. The good, or service advertised, will need to be wanted beforehand.

The authoress knows, or she thinks she knows, that social class rather than individual responsibility decides those things. Class is still a major determinant of how healthy a person is, says Felicity Lawrence. Inequality is the big factor that causes a lot of bad health by sales of cigarettes and junk food. The fact that the crass ideal of equality is impossible, in any case, is, presumably, not realised by the authoress. She goes on about how salt is bad for our blood pressure. But any reader might think that her silly articles are not the best recommended reading for dodging high blood pressure, nor is a daily reading of that rag, The Guardian. It may help its readers if they take their daily reading of it with a small pinch of salt.

Felicity Lawrence finds the idea of individual responsibility, that she calls a Tory idea, to be “truly frightening”. This idea “which casts everything as personal responsibility – social injustice, like obesity, is indeed a moral failure, but only on the part of those who suffer it” she writes. Felicity Lawrence finds the idea of individual responsibility, that she calls a Tory idea, to be “truly frightening”. This idea “which casts everything as personal responsibility – social injustice, like obesity, is indeed a moral failure, but only on the part of those who suffer it” she writes. But, if we look at it historically, if we go back to what Tory and Whig meant up to the 1840s, or what Tory and Liberal meant in the 1850s and 60s, then she is, basically, a one nation Tory par excellence. What is more, she writes for a pristine Tory warmongering rag that campaigned against Cobden and Bright for opposing the Crimean War, and helped to get both of them thrown out of the House of Commons for opposition to that war. However, she seems to lack the historical knowledge to realise all that.

My guess is that she will be very confused as to what is social injustice. It will be linked to the rather arbitrary ideal of equality in her mind, as in the mind of anyone who writes for The Guardian, but justice bears no relation to that crass ideal in reality. There are many things that we are not responsible for – how the way the moon affects the tides or, less obviously, the earth daily. But it is plainly true that we are responsible for how fat we are at any one time. It is also up to each of us whether we smoke cigarettes, or not. Being a member of the proletariat does not mean that I have to smoke cigarettes and eat beef-burgers. Many such classified people do not follow the norm in that respect, if it is a norm. It will only happen in my case if I want to do those things. My social class has exactly no actual bearing on my choice there; none whatsoever. Ditto for everyone else. But Felicity Lawrence prefers to personify mere social class; for she writes as if she feels that a mere academic abstraction can refute a plain reality, the reality of personal choice. She is hardly alone in that folly. But only actual agents can be responsible [i.e. to be able to respond to blame] and those mere abstractions are clearly not agents. So it is merely futile to blame them. This is, basically, what Mrs Thatcher was saying when they cited her on there being no such thing as society, for when it comes to blame, society is not an agent [and it is not actually a thing either, but mere social interaction]. It does not make sense to blame society, as it cannot do anything at all. Similarly, social class does not decide who smokes or eats junk food. Abstractions simply cannot be responsible in that they cannot respond.

I do not think that there is much of worth in any plea that Lansley has in mind to make to the food industry. It would be better for him to do nothing at all.

The less state regulation there is, the better. Regulation is going to be dysfunctional. This is because the state is bound to victimise some when it taxes and to corrupt others when it favours people with handouts too. It is going to be negative sum on the whole transaction, as there will not only be the funds transferred from OY to McX, but bureaucrats will also need to be paid for the administration costs that will be involved.

Felicity Lawrence tells us that Edward Bernays had his main influence in the 1920s but the essay she recommends Lansley to read dates from 1947. Bernays brought out a book he called Propaganda (1928). It adopts the absurd idea that we have an unconscious mind. The plain reality is that what is unconscious is not of the mind, ipso facto. To be unconscious is exactly to be not of the mind.

“If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it?” – Edward Bernays

Many people who champion the idea of an unconscious mind credit the fact that things can often become clearer if only we sleep on it. To let the action of the unconscious mind work on the problem for us (for example, on a new bit of mathematics) overnight. This time, contrary to the normal idea that it is the enemy within, the unconscious mind is held to be a friend who helps us with our homework. But what has most likely actually happened is that fresh brain development has taken place overnight, in that new dendrites have emerged in the brain. This will be unconscious, but not really to do with the mind, any more than muscle development that can, similarly, occur overnight. This is not of the mind at all but of the body. Either may be owing to a decision made to exercise the mind, or the body, but the development will be physical in each case rather than being mental.

Bernays had the very widespread idea that people are irrational and he thought that this explained why they bought things that he, when considering them with his advanced theories, thought they did not really need, or even want. As we do not need most things, the former idea of Bernays looks realistic. But with the second idea, that the customer does not even want whatever is purchased, there is the built-in disincentive of parting with some money that, in each case, tends to refute the idea that we never want what we buy. Indeed, that the customer parted with scarce money for whatever was bought suggests that the customer wanted whatever was bought even more than the money that they had to pay for it, even if they did not need what they paid for. Many of Bernays epigones in marketing thought that firms made things and then got the customers to buy them by secret methods involving the unconscious mind. But that looks a little nebulous if we but think about it.

Felicity Lawrence, too, seems to think that the choice was made for people by the firms before the customers buy anything. This is quite true as far as it goes and it is simply the great risk of ordinary entrepreneurship, but Felicity Lawrence and the literature she so admires, usually written by silly psychologists and marketing experts, did not mean that the firms risked a loss in guessing what could sell. Rather that the firms might be able to cut out the risk altogether by simply manipulating what people want towards whatever they found it easiest to produce, that they might cut out the risk of making unwanted losses with the aid of Bernays’ advanced theories. They thought that the whole of the risk of guessing what the customers might buy, what they wanted enough to pay for, could be bypassed by modern techniques of persuasion. It seems clear that they did not do much conscious thinking on this unconscious idea.

Oddly, the followers of Bernays usually also thought that making a study of people was needed, to see how the customers felt. If one understood what those “unconscious desires” were, then one could use this to the firm’s advantage. It could be used to sell products the giant firms had already decided to produce, to greatly increase sales of well-established goods. One example was where they found that many housewives felt a bit guilty, in their unconscious mind, that they were having it way too easy in the home by making a cake from a popular cake mixture, so the firm recommended, on the packet, that adding an egg would be needed. That made the housewife feel that the end result was a bit more of her own work, thereby easing the guilt by quite a bit and greatly increasing sales of the product as a result.

This cake mixture example is given in a few internet accounts of those hidden powers of manipulation that I finally resorted to in an effort to find out whatever it could be that Felicity Lawrence was referring to. Yet this much repeated example is odd in at least two senses:

1) Why did the guilt need to ever be unconscious and, if it was such, how was it ever found out by the researchers? Clearly, the unconscious meme was only included as it was a beloved false idol, or a mere fad. That is its attraction for the likes of Felicity Lawrence, Edward Bernays and all the others who adopt it. It is actually a counter productive idea in the story they tell of the housewives guilt. Their love of the paradox leads them to overlook the absurdity involved.

2) Why was research, such as this on housewife guilt, ever needed when they claimed to have the advanced means that could be used to sell her anything in any case? We have been told and retold, that what is needed, or even wanted, by the mere individual housewife does not matter but that theoretical abstractions, like the unconscious mind or social class, decides whatever she does. So why all this research into what it is that she desires? If sales are to be achieved by manipulating desires on the unconscious level, why not just get on with it then? That the masters of the advanced techniques seemed to think that some research was needed suggests that they did not consciously believe in the power of their own advanced means of manipulation.

Many who dislike the market ironically greatly over-estimate the power of money. They think that state services always would work, if only more money was supplied to them, for example. They also think that adverts simply must have a great effect merely owing to the money that goes into them. If the adverts did not persuade people then lots of money would never be spent on them, it is claimed. But adverts aid distribution even when they do not begin to persuade people of anything. It is enough that they remind people of what they advertise. Most people who reject the market do so on the idea that it is about greed and selfishness, but the market is, ironically, where the workers are all institutionally geared to serving others. This is so clearly the case that it might be far more aptly labelled as institutionalised altruism. Profit is a sign that wide sections of the public have been served by the firm who reaps the profit. By contrast, I fear that the state invariability mucks society up. It is always a negative sum activity, which is intrinsically uneconomic and thus dysfunctional and wasteful. So the CONDEMS seem to be on the right track in their aim of replacing the state sector with private sector jobs.

Some people feel that adverts are propaganda, and that is indeed the case, but they think that propaganda is all lies,ipso facto. The state used what it called propaganda against other states whom it was at war with in 1914 and 1939, but this wartime use of words by the state was indeed a war of words, rather that an attempt to recruit or propagate, so it might have been more aptly called polemics than propaganda. Propaganda sets out to persuade rather than to alienate or to discourage or to demoralise. It is out of place in war. So “wartime propaganda” is something of a misnomer.

In a moment of rare candour Galbraith remarked “You will find that the State is the kind of organization which, though it does big things badly, does small things badly, too.”

However, it is not the case that propaganda has to persuade. There simply is not the time to persuade in most adverts, though there is the occasional lengthy advert in magazines, which may be mistaken for an article, and may be of a similar length. It might have an opportunity to break this advertising norm by successful persuasion. However, most adverts are merely drawing attention to the item advertised. The notice of the Libertarian Alliance [LA] monthly meetings is an example. They draw attention to the meetings in the hope that those who see the advert will already want to come along to such meetings. Adverts rely on people wanting the ware, the good or the service that they set out to promote beforehand. The LA adverts are part of the distribution in the making of those LA meetings. They act merely like the ringing a big bell, but ringing a big bell only works in the wake of the achievement of any needed persuasion. They work only on the idea that what they call attention to is already desired. The persuasion needs to have been, long since, done before any advert can have an effect. Entrepreneurship in general also does not set out to persuade but rather to guess what people will, or might, want. It similarly conforms to what is out there already, or to what might soon emerge out there, rather than attempting to get people to buy what is simply easy for the giant firms to produce.

Entrepreneurship embraces the unavoidable risk of error, but the likes of the late J.K. Galbraith, or nowadays his son James, tend to feel, with Felicity Lawrence and The Guardian readers, that this risk can be taken away by the sheer power of advanced modern advertising techniques. It is merely naïve to think otherwise, we are told.

However, the reality is that if the ware being advertised is not wanted beforehand then the adverts will merely be barren. Thus the adverts for junk food will be lost on those that think it is aptly named, that the food being advertised really is junk. Adverts do not usually have the time to persuade, even if such rejecters of junk food could be persuaded, and entrepreneurship is not about persuasion anyway. Rather it is about guessing correctly the likely desires of potential customers. The adverts merely seek to draw attention to the product they set out to promote. They can only help to distribute what the customers already want.

Adverts are propaganda, but they are usually also post-persuasion phenomena. They only work on the already persuaded. They are wasted on the people that do not already like the ware, or service, advertised. They aid sales greatly, but only by calling attention to wares that people already want. Recent adverts have been less widely broadcast, but rather more like narrow-casts, thus they are better aimed at the target people who are more likely to already want the product promoted. This is simply to cut out the realised barrenness of the older wider broadcasts. Why would firms bother with all this if they had known how to get anyone to buy anything, as the authoress, Felicity Lawrence, and many others seems to hold?

The facts concerning the wares or services on offer do not usually even matter to adverts, apart from occasionally the facts of access, as to where and when they are on offer; i.e. merely the facts saying “it is here!”

The whole aim, then and now, was simply to drawn attention to what was on offer. That is why they so often use women, those masters of drawing attention to themselves, and they will use them in advertising any ware at all. It is the ability to draw attention to themselves, mastered by women, that the advertisers seek to use. It does not matter one whit that the ware being promoted has nothing to do with women. It is not sex, but the arts of attraction that women have mastered, and that makes them so very useful in all sorts of adverts. Adverts really are still, in effect, rather like the pristine adverts in the seventeenth and eighteen century, that did actually ring a big bell to call the attention of people to the goods on sale. The whole aim, then and now, was simply to drawn attention to what was on offer. That is why they so often use women, those masters of drawing attention to themselves, and they will use them in advertising any ware at all. It is the ability to draw attention to themselves, mastered by women, that the advertisers seek to use. It does not matter one whit that the ware being promoted has nothing to do with women. It is not sex, but the arts of attraction that women have mastered, and that makes them so very useful in all sorts of adverts. They draw attention not only from men; for females are even better noticed by other women who, presumably, have no sexual interest in them at all [though the PC crew might object to that; how they still love Freud, who held by dogma that we were all polymorphous perverts.] Adverts are there merely to draw attention: nothing more. But that is enough. It is all that an advert ever seeks to do and it is all it needs to do. It is not about persuasion. Still less is it about any manipulation. It does not even need to be agreeable. It only needs to draw attention to the ware, or service, that it seeks to promote. Maybe to rub people up the wrong way will draw their attention even more successfully than to be agreeable. That is a point for any advertising firm to seriously consider. They will need to think about the risk of failure, for advertising can never remove that risk.

However, we liberal propagandists need to realise that it is best to inform people if we are to persuade them. We do need to win the public over to seeing that the state is a big mistake and that taxation is anti-social rather than a sign of welfare. But adverts do not need to persuade. They do not need to tell the public much about the wares being promoted, but there may well be a need to state the time and the place where access to the wares promoted may be had, though with many, or even most wares, this might be well known already. So most adverts will need only to draw attention to what is being advertised.

This theory of adverts as unconscious manipulation, as advanced techniques of persuasion that can get people to part with needed money to buy anything that the giant firms can easily produce is not very persuasive. But this is what the authoress, Felicity Lawrence, rather stupidly and unrealistically, thinks is so very realistic and she is brazen enough to say that Lansley is facile to ignore it. The very idea of it is absurd, as there can be no unconscious mind, ipso facto. Similarly, there are no means that the giant firms have to get people to pay for things that they do not even want. So the whole line of thought is a mere brutum fulmen. There is no reason at all for this authoress to fear freedom.