Libertarian Alliance Appeal


The Libertarian Alliance has had a bill for £700 for Internet services. I can pay this out of my own pocket, but would rather not. Would anyone like to contribute towards payment? Any excess will be spent on posting some of our books to public and university libraries.

We are the oldest and most prominent libertarian movement in the United Kingdom. Our blog is filled with interesting and original essays. Our spokesmen are on the radio at least once a week. In the past year alone, our Officers have published four books. My obituary of Margaret Thatcher was reprinted in full by The Independent. Our material is republished in newspapers all over the world. Whether to get someone on air, or just to talk something through, we are the first point of contact for much of the British media.

Our only failing is our inability to ask for money. We are far too polite to join in the competitive begging of other organisations. We get round this by keeping our total costs to about £2000 a year, and by covering all shortfalls in funding from our own resources. Our total income is probably less than other less active organisations spend on tea and biscuits. However, my wife is angry with me today. She says she doesn’t expect the Libertarian Alliance to make a profit – but that I should do something to make it cover its main operating costs.

So here is my appeal for donations. You can send cheques to our London maildrop – Suite 35, 2 Lansdowne Row, London W1J 6HL, England. Or you can send money directly, via credit card and PayPal, to here.

Oh, and here is our general page by which we solicit donations: http://www.libertarian.co.uk/?q=node/220

Every little helps, and will be privately acknowledged. Anyone who gives us more than £100 will get a signed copy of my new book in defence of freedom of speech.

Regards,

Sean Gabb

About these ads

6 responses to “Libertarian Alliance Appeal

  1. Sean,
    I’ll foot the entire amount in exchange for a ‘Thank You’.
    Only one requirement is that I can’t use paypal.
    If I can wire to the UK account directly, then let me know, and consider it done.
    Cheers
    Affections
    Curt Doolittle

    (Hope to see you in Bodrum.)

  2. Curt Doolitle is a very very kind fellow, and I hope one day to be able to shake hands with him.

  3. First link appears to be broken.

  4. Enoch's Eyebrow

    Anyone who gives us more than £100 will get a signed copy of my new book in defence of freedom of speech.

    If it were truly a defence, Mr G, you’d be in trouble for it. Anyone who threatens the Slave-Staters is persecuted, from Enoch Powell (a Professor of Greek at 25) through James Watson (a Nobel Laureate) to Tommy Robinson (a dim prole who leads the EDL). From the fact that the L.A. is not persecuted, it is possible to conclude that you are no threat to the Slave-Staters.

    FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN ENGLAND: ITS PRESENT STATE AND LIKELY PROSPECTS: TWENTY ESSAYS WITH AN INTRODUCTORY OVERVIEW, Dr Sean Gabb

    Sean Gabb is chairman of the Libertarian Alliance and holds the Peter Mandelson Chair of Post-Gender Theory at the University of West Hartlepool. His discussion of free speech has two great virtues: clarity and erudition. It also has two great vices: dishonesty and pusillanimity. Someone who wrote a book about the weather and never mentioned the sun is either ignorant or heliophobic. Someone who wrote a book about the tides and never mentioned the moon is either ignorant or selenophobic. What are we make, then, of someone who writes about the loss of free speech and never mentions the Jehovah’s Witnesses? Or rather, who mentions them only to dismiss their importance?

    [cont. pg. 96]

  5. You are, of course, welcome to your opinions. However, let us suppose for the sake of argument that the present attacks on freedom of speech are largely the fault of “The Jews,” and that they would bring about my complete political and professional destruction if I dared breathe a word of their involvement. This being granted, your denunciations would surely be hypocritical. You operate from behind a mass of continually-changing false names. Everyone knows who and what I am. Before demanding that I show courage, why don’t you set me your own example?

    Turning to other matters, can I take it that you’ve settled on Enoch’s Eyebrow as your preferred name? If so, please stay with it. Having to guess whether you are also Desmond Obongo et al gets most sorely on my tits.

  6. Enoch's Eyebrow

    Sean Gabb wrote: You are, of course, welcome to your opinions. However, let us suppose for the sake of argument that the present attacks on freedom of speech are largely the fault of “The Jews,” and that they would bring about my complete political and professional destruction if I dared breathe a word of their involvement.

    Yes. You know they would. They are powerless victims who destroy anyone who dares suggest otherwise. I don’t blame you for being frightened of them. A peek into St John’s Gospel will reveal that metus Iudaeorum has a long history. However, if you are conscious of your fear and pretending it isn’t there, I think you are blameworthy.

    This being granted, your denunciations would surely be hypocritical. You operate from behind a mass of continually-changing false names.

    Another supposition for the sake of argument: I am a hypocrite. That would not alter the facts of the assault on free speech. If the chief culprits are as I suggest, my hypocrisy does not alter the need for you to recognize this and act on it. See VDare and Paul Gottfried on the topic of free speech and its greatest enemies. He makes exactly your point: that there are Jews on both sides. But he does not pretend that this makes their cumulative effect neutral:

    A Jewish Conservative Wonders: Is Free Speech Really A Jewish Tradition?

    [...] Note that I am not saying that all Jews always behave in the way I’m describing. There are Jews who clearly do not. For example, Jewish libertarians Murray Rothbard, Robert Weissberg, Ilana Mercer, Michael Levin, Byron Roth and Alan Kors have equaled any Christian in their support of traditional freedoms.

    I could also add to this admirable group some Jewish Marxists or quasi-Marxists like Noam Chomsky, who to my knowledge have never refused to debate those holding opposing views.

    [...] But, despite these admirable exceptions, Jews in public life pose a special problem in the US and in other Western democracies to the extent that they overwhelmingly follow a certain behavioral and attitudinal pattern. The problem is not only that these Jews work collectively to discredit any traditional gentile way of life. They also work reduce the possibility of debate about what they condemn, because they associate (and get others to associate) open discourse with bigotry and anti-Semitism.

    [...] This brings me to the heart of my Politically Incorrect argument. Jews in public life and in academe have trouble living in an intellectually open society, because it would allow those whom they fear and/or loathe to be heard in open forums. This is something that Jewish organizations and Jewish intellectuals seek to avoid at all costs, through “Hate Speech” laws, academic speech codes, and associating dissent with the Holocaust or anti-Semitism.

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/a-jewish-conservative-wonders-is-free-speech-really-a-jewish-tradition

    In other words: they are the single most effective and important enemies of free speech. That’s quite beside the way they promote mass immigration, which brings in other enemies of free speech like Muslims and blacks. I won’t need to remind you of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and her views about what the white British would do if they weren’t kept strictly in line. Minorities are paranoid and vengeful and are excellent tools of the Slave State.

    Everyone knows who and what I am. Before demanding that I show courage, why don’t you set me your own example?

    I’ve already said that they — NSA, GCHQ and MOSSAD — know who I am and are watching me. This may be because I have not been a hypocrite. My false names are a safeguard against amateur thought-police like Paul Marks, not against the professionals. However, if the L.A. wished to publish an essay or book of mine on the topic of free speech and its greatest enemies, I would happily put my real name to it. But you won’t do that. You could issue all the disclaimers you liked about merely wishing an alternative view to be aired that it might be demolished, but the disclaimers would not protect you from the wrath and revenge of the powerless victims.

    Turning to other matters, can I take it that you’ve settled on Enoch’s Eyebrow as your preferred name? If so, please stay with it.

    Yes, if it’s Enoch’s Eyebrow, Enoch’s Eggnog, Enoch’s Edelweiss, it’s me.