Author Archives: Without Prejudice

E-Cigs To Be Classed As Tobacco

by Dick Puddlecote

E-Cigs To Be Classed As Tobacco It appears that the World Health Organisation has jumped the shark and is now entirely under the control of their pharmaceutical industry paymasters.

Via the Financial Times, I challenge any tobacco controller to say that this is a proportionate response to something which is helping hundreds of thousands of smokers to quit tobacco. Continue reading

Review of Dr Nigel Gervas Meek’s book on the Conservative Party

Review of Dr Nigel Gervas Meek’s book on the Conservative Party

Libertarian Alliance editor Nigel Meek’s book on the Conservative Party is favourably reviewed in the forthcoming issue of Political Studies Review, one of the four journals of the Political Studies Association, the UK’s leading academic politics association.

Buy it on Amazon: Continue reading


John Kersey to Perform Faure and Alkan

Forty Years in the Wilderness

by Keith Preston

Note: Mutatis mutandis, this is worth discussing for England.

For some years now, I have advocated for the anarchist movement in North America a change in direction from the course it has followed since the 1960s. Essentially, the general flavor of the anarchist milieu is one that expresses the same set of primary values as Marxists, social democrats and left-liberal Democratic Party activists, with the added qualification of “by the way, we’re also against the state as well.” A principal problem with such an approach is that it fails to distinguish political anarchism from run of the mill leftism. Furthermore, anarchism exists primarily as a kind of youth culture/subculture which focuses on a very narrow ultra-leftism and hyper-counterculturalism that inevitably has the effect of relegating political anarchism into a fringe ideological ghetto.

This is a situation that I have sought to change. I have done so by advocating a broader, more expansive approach for political anarchism than what the current mainstream of the movement will allow for. This effort has won me many highly sympathetic friends within the anarchist milieu, and many bitter enemies as well. In a recent and highly controversial essay, I argued for a “revolution within anarchism.” What I was calling for is the future advent of a “non-leftoidal” anarchist movement, meaning one that is more substantive, comprehensive and original in its approach, rather than simply championing the run-of-the-mill causes and issues favored by leftists and post-60s counterculturalists. Continue reading

Libertarianism: No Threat to the Ruling Class

by Keith Preston

In what way does the actually existing libertarian movement, anarchist or otherwise, threaten the existing political order? If anything, the libertarian movement is a microcosm of the wider society. There are the “right-libertarians” who extol the virtues of capitalism, Christianity, and the American way (kind of like, you know, the Republicans). And there are the “left-libertarians” who jump over the Democrats and even the far left to demonstrate their opposition to racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, “bigotry, “brutalism,” etc. There may not be anything inherently wrong with these ideas, but in what way do they threaten the state or the establishment? They don’t. Instead, they just reflect contending factions of the system. Continue reading


Rajandra Pachauri: Laughing Stock at Home

Further Comment on Clegg v Farage

by Robert Henderson

Note: We have a mature oligarchy in Britain. As oligarchies mature they become more and more exclusive – the Venetian council in the Middle Ages is a classic example – and the quality of their members becomes less and less. This failure of generational renewal is disguised from the oligarchy members by the sealed nature of the oligarchy and they all go around discounting the views of anyone outside the oligarchy and praising the oligarchies’ members lavishly. Clegg demonstrated how limited our political elite are as individuals. He did not even have the wit not to tell easily revealed lies.

As for Farage, he missed quite a few obvious points in the debates and he is poor at explaining the detail of policies. Time and again he starts making a point or a reply strongly, then two or three sentences later he fades noticeably. Ideally you want him exposed in situations where he can make his point quickly and get out. I could seriously improve his performance by preparing him to anticipate and answer questions in detail a Q and A, whereby you put down all the likely questions your opponent will ask and all the responses he is likely to make and then follow that with anticipated secondary questions and answers. You can go on ad infinitum, but my experience of using them when working for the Inland Revenue and questioning someone under caution is that an initial question or reply and one supplementary is all you can usefully create. Lawyers who have to cross examine often use such Q and As.
The other advice I would give Farage is (1) cut out the jokes because they are generally poor and he is not a natural comic and (2) never but never make the mistake of whining about how hard his job is, as he did in the first debate when challenged over putting his wife on the EU funded payroll – the general public really do hate that sort of thing.
It is important to understand that while the general public detest the likes of Clegg, Cameron and Miliband and have a strong dislike of the EU, that does not mean they have any great liking for or trust in Ukip or Farage. There is also the inertia factor whereby it is the devil’s own job to get people to vote for a party in Britain which does not have a Westminster presence. Moreover, most people will not to vote in UK elections – the turnout in EU elections is generally in the 30 per cents and only in the 60 per cents in recent general elections.

Clegg v Farage: Report and Analysis

by Robert Henderson

BBC 2 Farage versus Clegg debate 2 April 2014
Chairman David Dimbleby

The full debate on IPlayer can be found at It will only be up until 10th April so catch it while you can. If I can find a permanent recording of it on YouTube or suchlike I will post the url here.

The re-match between Farage and Clegg resulted in an even more humiliating hour for Clegg than the first debate. YouGov and ICM polls taken shortly after the debate had Clegg and Farage scoring as follows:

The YouGov poll gave Farage 68%, Clegg 27% Undecided 5%

As last week, this YouGov survey for The Sun questioned just over 1,000 people who viewed the debate. We weighted the data to ensure that it was representative of Great Britain as a whole by voting intention and attitudes to the European Union, but did not weight demographically; it therefore reflected the actual audience by age (older than average), gender (more male) and social class (more middle class). It was a fresh sample: we did NOT re-interview people we questioned after last week’s debate. Continue reading

With “Kenyan anti-colonialists” like This, Who Needs Imperialists?

by Kevin Carson

Note: A further requirement for majoritarian democracy is a belief that being in the minority doesn’t carry any risk of being robbed or murdered or stripped of identity however conceived. Take away that belief, and the most likely political outcomes are despotism or civil war. Continue reading

In Praise of “Thick” Libertarianism

by Sheldon Richman
In Praise of “Thick” Libertarianism

I continue to have trouble believing that the libertarian philosophy is concerned only with the proper and improper uses of force. According to this view, the philosophy sets out a prohibition on the initiation of force and otherwise has nothing to say about anything else. (Fraud is conceived as an indirect form of force because, say, a deceptive seller obtains money from a buyer on terms other than those to which the buyer agreed.)

How can libertarianism be concerned with nothing but force? This view has been dubbed “thin libertarianism” by Charles W. Johnson, and it strikes me as very thin indeed. (Jeffrey Tucker calls it “libertarian brutalism”; his article explains this perhaps startling term.) Continue reading

A Seedy End To A Seedy Campaign

by Dick Puddlecote

A Seedy End To A Seedy Campaign I suppose the campaign for plain packaging – riddled throughout as it was with cronyism, corruption and lies – could only possibly end with the same tawdry values being exhibited in the House of Commons itself.

Yesterday’s post-statement debate has been well reported and can be read in full here, but a couple of contributions stand out for their jaw-dropping gall. Firstly, Jane Ellison in reply to our Phil. Continue reading

Thomas Knapp re Hoppe and Carson

by Thomas Knapp

I’ve never been very enamored of Hoppe, but that piece not only offers a pretty good summation of “class struggle” but also a pretty good explanation of why I disagree with Kevin on the fate of wage labor in a free market.

Vis a vis libertarianism, “class struggle” is and always has been an element that libertarians consider important, regardless of school. Comte and Dunoyer described the “productive class” versus the “political class,” and that continues to be the distinction that libertarians make (Marx forked the class distinction, erroneously in my view, into “proletariat” versus “bourgeois,” and his analysis was so faulty it had to be continuously re-forked, e.g. “lumpenproletariat” vs. “industrial proletariat” and so forth).

The difference between “right libertarians” and “left libertarians” is their analysis of what kinds of actors belong to which class, “productive” or “political.” At both ends of the libertarian right/left spectrum, the analysis tends to admit of mixed claims. Even right libertarians will generally admit to the existence of “crony capitalism,” while holding that most of the employing class is part of the productive class. And left libertarians support markets (productive class activity) even though we hold that existing markets are highly distorted by political class affiliations of the employing class and the attendant state subsidies/privileges.

With respect to wage labor and “exploitation”:

Hoppe explains that latter in terms of time preferences — the “capitalist” works on a longer time horizon for greater rewards, the “worker” accepts discounted rewards in order to get them on a shorter time horizon. The only thing I’d add to that is that wage labor shifts RISK as well. The “capitalist” may make bank or go bankrupt over the long term; the wage laborer makes small bank in the short term, so even if the company goes tits up, he’s already reaped real rewards.

The only real disagreement I have with Hoppe is on whether or not wage labor is “exploitative.” Of course it is — in BOTH directions. The employer exploits the worker for profit, and vice versa. And there’s nothing at all wrong with that.

Carson’s view is that in actually existing capitalism’s wage labor milieu, a political employing class uses state power to extract a greater discount from a productive working class than it could extract in a free market, in various ways, including using the state to bar competition and steal property so that some workers are de facto forced into wage labor versus self-employment. I agree. But I think he over-estimates how many people would give up lower risk and short term discounted rewards in favor of higher risk and long term greater rewards.

I think one precursor cause of Kevin’s position versus mine is that he subscribes to a Labor Theory of Value, and I don’t.

Brexit: the Open Europe/IEA propaganda nexus

by Richard North

Brexit: the Open Europe/IEA propaganda nexus000a OE-001 report1.jpg

From the press office of Open Europe yesterday came a brazen attempt to control the “Brexit” agenda, with a tendentious evaluation of how Article 50 cannot work, leading to a predictable call for EU reform.

Having now opened a Berlin office, it does seem that the organisation is learning from a previous denizen of the city, offering a Goebbels-like claim that it is an “independent think tank” which is “seeking to contribute new thinking to the debate about the direction of the European Union …”.

Yet, it far from being independent, <i>Open Europe</i> is a front for the “EU reform” wing of the Conservative Party. And, rather than “seeking to contribute new thinking to the debate”, it is seeking to close down the “Brexit” debate and concentrate attention on the EU reform. It is not a think tank. It is a propaganda operation.

So desperate is the Goebbels Institute to stake its claim that it has issued a 24-page booklet purporting to be the “real Brexit debate”. This reports on its fatuous “war games” last December in which it managed a bizarre simulation of Article 50 negotiations, devised to produce a messy failure and thus demonstrate that reform was the better option.

So weak was the argument that the Goebbels Institute finds it necessary to distort the exit options, maintaining its classic stance that if the UK adopted the “Norway Option”, it would have “no say over EU decision-making”.

This has been addressed so many times, that even Open Europe director Mats Persson can’t pretend he doesn’t know it is a lie, but still the Muppets continue with it. They have little alternative because they know that, if they acknowledge the truth, their game is over, Their vision of reform is bankrupt.

Thus the Muppets contrived a simulation which had pretend “colleagues” expressing concern that allowing the UK to join the EEA would establish a dangerous precedent. They were wary of allowing member states to “cherry pick” access to the single market without actually being an EU member. Not a word was said about the “colleagues” offering precisely that to Ukraine and the rest of the “Eastern Partnership”.

Keen on what they call a “reality check”, the presumptuous Muppets then tell us that the EEA “was designed as an improvised measure for governments seeking closer integration with the EU, but whose electorates had rejected full membership”.

This gives them another opportunity to inject a dose of poison, concluding with the a scary tale of a dismal future. This is the one where the UK has to accept “many of the existing tenets of EU membership”, and expensive EU law, “with no way of influencing it”. The net effect, goes the narrative, “would be less opportunity to hold Brussels to account, not more”.

Underpinning the Goebbels Institute are analyses of several different exit options, but they contrive to offer just sufficient detail to make their evaluations look plausible, but the options never quite manage to be workable. They cannot be allowed to provide a better alternative to their preferred option of reform.

Article 50, the Muppets then tell us, is a one way street. Once triggered, there is no going back, they say – as if that was a disadvantage. This, they actually say, “it is likely to put the UK on the back foot in any negotiation”, then whingeing that the UK will not take part in the final qualified majority vote on whether to accept the new deal, sounding for all the world like and out-take from a Gerald Batten video.

But, having stacked the decks against “Brexit”, they then come to the stunning conclusion that Article 50 is “best kept as an implicit threat, as in practice it cedes more control than it provides. However, “any leader negotiating new membership terms must clearly be ready to trigger it”.

So that’s the Open Europe game plan: EU reform of an unspecified nature, backed up by a threat, implicit or actual, that if the “colleagues” don’t do exactly what we want, we threaten them with Article 50 – without actually using it, of course, because it doesn’t work anyway.

In offering this scenario, we are of course seeing a fundamental failure of imagination and nerve. <i>Open Europe</i> is staffed and supported by timorous wee beasties who haven’t the wit to devise a proper exit plan. But, confronted with the inherent impossibility of achieving meaningful EU “reform”, they have to rig the debate in order to offer anything that looks even remotely workable.

Oddly enough, in this endeavour, they claim one Martin Ricketts, a registered supporter of Open Europe. By pure coincidence, he is also a Managing Trustee and Chairman of the Academic Advisory Council of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), and a member of the judging panel for the IEA’s “Brexit prize”. In another of life’s coincidences, so is Roger Bootle a registered Open Europe supporter.

And in yet another complete coincidence, the IEA now looks set to pick an exit option straight out of the Open Europe play book – one that looks superficially plausible, but which cannot possibly work. Thus does the Open Europe/IEA propaganda nexus keep the faith.

Farage Defies Clegg’s Lies on Televised Debate

by Stewart Cowan
Farage Defies Clegg’s Lies on Televised Debate

Like Frank Davis, I too watched Round 2 of Clegg vs Farage on BBC iplayer, seeing as I don’t pay the TV tax. I mention Frank, because I left a long comment on his blog that I thought I would make into a post here. As he says,

The battle was between two visions. On the one hand there was Farage saying that the British should govern Britain, and on the other hand there was Clegg saying that we had to find “strength in numbers” by being a member of the “world’s largest economy”.

Clegg was almost unbearable and spoke just like the very worst internet trolls type. Always banging on about “turning the clock back”. Progressives assume that conservatives think there was some bygone “Golden Age” to which we can simply go back. There was indeed a golden age for those who profited from the Empire. It gave us full employment (mainly slave labour) and Glasgow, where I come from, was transformed through trading with the Empire into a magnificent city, much of which was still evident when I last visited in 2006, but one-by-one, those fine-looking 19th century – and earlier – buildings are being replaced by monstrous carbuncles: proof that modern isn’t always better. Far from it. Continue reading

Watt’s big list of failed global warming predictions

by Jim

Watt’s big list of failed global warming predictions

Watt has a big list of failed global warming predictions. None have been fulfilled, many of them have been falsified.

Here is the subset of Watt’s list that has been clearly and obviously falsified.

May 15, 1989, Associated Press: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.” Continue reading

How Not to Respond to Charges of Hyprocrisy

by Kevin Carson

How Not to Respond to Charges of Hyprocrisy

More than a decade ago, neoconservative bloggers coined the term “Fisking” for the polemical device (originally demonstrated against left-leaning journalist Robert Fisk) of taking apart a commentary, sentence by sentence, analytically ripping each part to shreds. Although the neocon positions in this debate range from misguided to repugnant, the technique itself is a good one. And President Obama’s recent remarks on the Crimean crisis, in his March 26 address to European youth, are admirably suited to such deconstruction. Let’s take a look at the relevant remarks, point by point, and compare them to reality.

Moreover, Russia has pointed to America’s decision to go into Iraq as an example of Western hypocrisy. Now, it is true that the Iraq War was a subject of vigorous debate not just around the world, but in the United States as well. I participated in that debate and I opposed our military intervention there. But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. Continue reading

Welsh Minister Confirms It’s Never Been About Health

by Dick Puddlecote

Welsh Minister Confirms It’s Never Been About Health He may, to borrow a phrase, have the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk and the analytical thinking skills of a mackerel, but I suppose I should be thanking this creature today.

A provincial pratt, pictured recently

You see, he has helped to categorically prove my long-held assertion that smoking bans have never, ever, had anything whatsoever to do with health.

From the BBC: Continue reading

Latest Tory Law: Go to Jail for not Loving your Children

by Stewart Cowan

Latest Tory Law: Go to Jail for not Loving your

Future scenario…This poor child feels unloved after being refused a skateboard and is considering suing his parents for emotional distress because all his friends have one.

H/T to Anna Raccoon for news of this incredible new law about to benefit lawyers soon, whereby parents will face up to ten years in prison if they fail to love their children. As Anna writes,

This will set off a maelstrom of judicial activity, trying to define what exactly is ‘love’. Mr Buckland, who is, of course, a Barrister, would have known that. Jobs for British workers eh?

I found it hard to believe, so I had to double check after I had done a double-take and sure enough,

Parents who starve their children of love and affection face prosecution under a “Cinderella Law”, The Telegraph can disclose.

Anna informs us that it could get even more bizarre, nay unworkable,

‘Scape-goating’ a child is also to be made a criminal offence. Now ‘scape-goating’, for the benefit of Mr Buckand, is helpfully defined as the practice of singling out a person for ‘unmerited blame’. T’would be wise to only have one child in future – for to tell little Johnny that you don’t actually care which of his siblings left all the bingo balls at the bottom of the stairs, he WILL go and pick them all up before Grand-ma breaks her flippin’ neck, is likely to result in a swift call to Slater & “are you being scape-goated, we can help” Moron.

As all recent UK Governments have been following the Fabian agenda of family destruction as the only possible route to a totally socialist state, coupled with the ‘family planning’ eugenics to reduce the population, perhaps this is yet another arrow in their quiver?

Just when you thought it was impossible to concoct a law arguably more stupid than all the thousands of stupid laws which have gone before in recent years. This one again via a ‘Conservative’ MP, Robert Buckland.

robert buckland

Robert Buckland MP. He has ears – just – but what’s in between them?

Or maybe, it’s yet another method of gaining access to other people’s families.

“Children’s rights” is a term which sounds wonderful, but is in reality a way of removing parental rights and giving them to the State.

Peter Tatchell talks about “children’s sexual rights” so add the two together and one day soon, mum and dad (or both ‘mums’, both ‘dads’ or to borrow from Boris Johnson, “three men and a dog”), will get arrested for not allowing their 12 year old to sleep around.

You can imagine the ‘judge’ of the future declaring, “This degree of cruelty cannot go unpunished. I sentence both/all the parents to the maximum prison term allowable, being as it is at present, a paltry ten years. The dog shall be impounded in kennels for the rest of its natural life”.

It’s barking mad.

P.S. When can I marry my dog?

Rowan Williams Warns of Climate Catastrophe

by Stewart Cowan

Rowan Williams Warns of Climate Catastrophe


In case you’d forgotten what he looks like.

Just what does a former Archbishop of Canterbury do to stay in the limelight? This one, who wasn’t a Christian as far as I could make out; he was more of a Druid; a Pagan, that I could see, joins a populist bandwagon, guaranteed to make him headline news.

This was the leading article on the Telegraph’s website this morning, Rowan Williams warns of climate catastrophe. The MSM has to keep the myth of ‘global warming’ alive so we sign up to treaties to deindustrialise and become impoverished to aid in global governance.

This is the importance Rowan Williams gives to Christianity and scripture, Continue reading

LBC Nigel Farage versus Nick Clegg EU debate 26 3 2014

by Robert Henderson

LBC Nigel Farage versus Nick Clegg EU debate 26 3 2014

(The full debate can be viewed here—26th-march-87667)

Robert Henderson

Farage walked the debate with a YouGov poll of 1003 people giving this result:

57% Farage

36% Clegg

7% undecided

It is rare in a two man debate on any subject for a win to be so crushing and that is doubly so when politicians with such polarised views are put up for the judgement of the public.

Continue reading

Canadian Immigration Authorities

by Natasha Petrova
Canadian Immigration Authorities

I had my first experience with the Canadian state this week. The immigration authorities questioned me about my trip to Canada. One dicey moment was when the customs officer asked about whether I paid taxes or not. I replied that I only pay sales tax. I haven’t made enough money to pay income tax since 2006. Another obnoxious question was about whether I had ever been stopped by the police. Both of which were answered for the purpose of smoothly entering the country.

Few aspects of the modern state are more irritating than the control of borders. Our movements are circumscribed by the nationalistic regimentation of migration and travel. This makes it more difficult to vote with your feet. One polity may be particularly oppressive, but the entrance requirements of another can be rather repressive too. This renders it more difficult to escape unjust conditions and reside in a more just area. Continue reading

Factory Farming: Who are the Real Statists Here?

by Kevin Carson
Factory Farming: Who are the Real Statists Here?

In the mainstream libertarian movement, accusations of “statism” typically focus on a fairly predictable set of targets. Anyone who complains of racism, sexism or other social justice issues, the economic exploitation of workers or degradation of the environment is reflexively accused of statism on the assumption that exploitation, injustice and pollution could only be problems for people who hate freedom.

Continue reading

This is Not Your Ancestors’ Collapse Scenario

by Kevin Carson
This is Not Your Ancestors’ Collapse Scenario

A forthcoming “NASA study” that predicts medium-term collapse has gone viral on the Internet, based entirely on Nafeez Ahmed’s advance writeup for The Guardian (“NASA-funded study: industrial civilisation headed for ‘irreversible collapse’?,” March 14).

To start with we should note, just in passing, that it turns out not to be quite a “NASA study” after all. It was the work of independent researchers at the University of Maryland, using analytical tools that had previously been developed for an entirely different NASA study. It wasn’t commissioned or funded by NASA. And on top of everything else, a lot of the authorities cited to support its premises aren’t all that pleased with the authors’ interpretation of their work (“Keith Kloor, About That Popular Guardian Story on the Collapse of Industrial Civilization“; “Judging the Merits of a Media-Hyped ‘Collapse’ Study.” Discover, March 21; ).

Continue reading

Have Politicians Ever Been More Vile?

by Dick Puddlecote

Have Politicians Ever Been More Vile? Via Snowdon, there is a marvellous piece at the Telegraph today by Peter Oborne which is a must-read. It’s all good, but this passage is especially pertinent.

Politicians of Right and Left have been transfixed by these anti-smoking campaigns. Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, has shown hardly any appetite to challenge the conventional wisdom of his own department, while Luciana Berger, the shadow health minister, is a breathless proselytiser for the anti-smoking lobby. No mainstream politician has dared to challenge the consensus, and only Rothmans-puffing Nigel Farage of Ukip really gets the point.

Continue reading


Seeing through the Lies

The Stark Truth: Robert Stark Interviews Keith Preston

by Keith Preston

The Stark Truth: Robert Stark Interviews Keith Preston Listen to the interview at Counter-Currents.Com Robert Stark welcomes back Keith Preston of Attack the System. Topics include: Keith’s article “Who am I? Left, Right, or Center”: How his anti imperialist views on foreign policy overlap with the far Left as well as Paleoconservative and New Right thinkers How he finds his critique of capitalism often overlaps with both those of the far Left but also those of Catholic distributists and social nationalists on the far Right How he shares some views on social issues with the Left, but swings back to the Right on decentralist, anti-statist or civil More…

Carson on C-Realm

by Kevin Carson
Carson on C-Realm

Kevin Carson, Senior Fellow and Karl Hess Chair of Social Theory at C4SS, was recently interviewed by KMO on the C-Realm podcast.

KMO talks with Kevin Carson, author of The Homebrew Industrial Revolution about the technologies that seem poised to end the dominance of capital-intensive production methodologies and break the stranglehold that capitalists and the government minions hold over our lives.

You can listen to the podcast here.

flattr this!

The “Progressive” Welfare State Fantasy

by Kevin Carson
The “Progressive” Welfare State Fantasy

Liberals are prone to conflate all forms of decentralism and self-organization with the right wing, framing the range of possibilities as a stark contrast between their own managerial-centrist approach on the one hand and Paul Ryan, Marvin Olasky and Newt “Culture of Dependency” Gingrich on the other.

A good example is Mike Konczal’s recent column “The Voluntarism Fantasy” (Democracy Journal, Spring 2014). Konczal repeatedly equates voluntary efforts with “alms given by the wealthy few to the poor” (Truman’s phrase). I know what he means by this. You can’t open up the “Community” or “Society” page of the local newspaper without seeing a bunch of Rotary Club yahoos attending “charitable fundraisers,” handing over giant checks and cutting ribbons. Guess what? I don’t like these people either. My idea of a “voluntary, private” welfare state is a lot closer to Pyotr Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid and E.P. Thompson’s Making of the English Working Class than to the United Way.

Continue reading

The Global Warming Scam: Texts and Commentary

by John Pittman

Historical Perspective of Why Yamal Matters

I can say conclusively that the hacked emails are just blips of information that will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the push to get policymakers to back the science,” said Anne Kelly, the policy director at Ceres, a sustainable business network whose members include PepsiCo, American Airlines and Bloomberg. Already the damage control is starting. The Monbiot is a classic. “”But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory?(8,9) Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed””. Continue reading

The UK’s Most Radical Revolutionaries are in Government

by Stewart Cowan
The UK’s Most Radical Revolutionaries are in Government

I look forward to reading Frank Davis’s blog every morning. Yesterday, he wrote that while the mainstream media paint UKIP as the revolutionaries, it’s actually the so-called mainstream parties who are,

After all, with a few exceptions, the political class is now fully signed up to merging the UK into Europe. After 1000 years or more of being a nation-state, it’s all going to be replaced with membership of the brand new European Union. And this is an extremely radical departure. It’s nothing short of a revolution. And it wasn’t being seriously contemplated just 40 years ago, when the EU was still the European Economic Community. Continue reading

E-Cig Ad Whac-A-Mole

by Dick Puddlecote

E-Cig Ad Whac-A-Mole Sigh, here we go again.

An advert for an e-cigarette brand has been banned after the advertising watchdog ruled that claims including that it was “the healthier smoking alternative” could not be substantiated.

Of course it can be substantiated. Even the tobacco control industry as a whole has had little option but to concede that e-cigs are safer than tobacco; only the certifiably insane amongst them are claiming otherwise. Continue reading

Reflections on the Left/Right Libertarian Culture Wars

Reflections on the Left/Right Libertarian Culture Wars 2

by Keith Preston

Recently, Jeffrey Tucker, formerly of the Mises Institute, published a piece in The Freeman, a publication of the Foundation for Economic Education, that has generated some controversy in libertarian circles. Here’s the original piece. Tucker is basically arguing there are two kinds of libertarians: the nice, friendly, touchy-feely, lovey-dovey, humanitarian “good” kind, and the hateful, reactionary, crypto-authoritarian, bigoted “bad” kind.

Having some experience with this question, I figured I might as well offer some thought of my own. Continue reading

LPR Activists Picket Dutch Embassy In Support of Toine Manders

LPR Activists Picket Dutch Embassy In Support of Toine Manders

Members of the Libertarian Party of Russia (LPR) organized a series of one-person pickets in front of the Dutch Embassy in Moscow in support of Toine Manders, the former leader of the Dutch Libertarian Party kept in custody since the end of January. In January 2014 Manders was arrested in Cyprus on vague and, we have reasons to believe, trumped-up charges and extradited to the Netherlands where he has been kept in custody all the while. On March 4, 2014, a Dutch court extended Manders’s detention by another 3 months – still on the slurred charges of ‘unlicensed consultancy activities’. The picketers also handed the following letter to the Dutch Ambassador Ron van Dartel from the Chairman of the LPR Federal Committee Andrey Shalnev. Continue reading

The End of Benn

by David McDonagh

Anthony Neil Wedgewood Benn (3 April 1925 – 14 March 2014), Tony Benn, is dead.

He seemed to be confused all his life but he seemed very friendly and he never realised that politics was hostile to the people. When he left the House of Commons in 2001, his wife suggested that he could now spend more time on politics, so this is what he said to the media, but this mere propaganda is not so hostile but quite liberal as it may call for coercion but mere propaganda actually coerces none by itself. Continue reading

Recap on Warmism

by Jim
Recap on Warmism

I have been ignoring the issue of Global Warming for a while, because it is pretty much settled. Anyone who still believes in Warmism is stupid, crazy, or lying. Usually stupid.

But, a short summary: Continue reading

How Americans Can Help Ukrainians

by Sheldon Richman

How Americans Can Help Ukrainians

It can’t be easy living in Russia’s shadow, and I envy no one in that position. Given its long history and, consequently, the temperament of its leaders (and a good part of its population), Russia for the foreseeable future will be a regional power with an attitude. Thus it will ever be concerned with what happens on its borders. Like it or not, that’s how it is. America can’t change this situation, though it surely can exacerbate it. Continue reading

The Old Buffoonian treads on dangerous ground

by Robert Henderson

Boris Johnson has suggested that the radicalisation of Muslim children should be treated as child abuse and children subjected to such an environment should be taken into care. Continue reading

Evidence Free Zones: Irish Edition

by Dick Puddlecote

Evidence Free Zones: Irish Edition Last summer I posted two articles on the policies being adopted by train companies regarding e-cigs.

In Train Policy Spotting, we found that Eurostar didn’t have one, Scotrail banned them because they’re Scottish and that’s what the Scottish do, Network Rail said they were cushty and the East Coast line didn’t currently ban them but were cracking their knuckles and thinking about it. In This Is An Evidence Free Zone, we discovered that C2C Rail impose a ban because they look a bit like like smoking and South West Trains allow them because they haven’t worked out how to enforce a ban just yet. Continue reading

How Will They Kill Billions of People?

by Stewart Cowan

 How Will They Kill Billions of People?

By ‘They’ I mean the unelected, unaccountable elites who think of the rest of us as “cattle” and who consider that there are far too many of us already. Far, far too many and we need culled.

This is what ‘sustainability’ really means. It is what UN Agenda 21 is really about and I have been thinking for quite a while about how they could kill off billions of us and after reading this post by Leg-iron today, it occurred to me they could achieve it in many ways. Continue reading

Privacy And Sausages Are Unlike Laws

by Joel Schlosberg

Julia Angwin (“Has Privacy Become a Luxury Good?” New York Times, March 4), describes the difficulties faced by people trying to maintain the privacy of their personal data. Although an individual can purchase goods and services for the purpose, high cost mitigates their usefulness and availability, not only in the monetary sense but in the amount of effort, time and research necessary to find them and keep them running, and the lack of clear and verified criteria of their efficacy. Drawing an analogy with organic food, and conceding that in both cases market demand has made safer products more accessible and usable, Angwin concludes that the regulatory state is the only means to guarantee them to more than “those with disposable money and time”: “Our government enforces baseline standards for the safety of all food and has strict production and labeling requirements for organic food. It may be time to start doing the same for our data.” Continue reading

Haters Gotta Hate

by Dick Puddlecote

Haters Gotta Hate About three years ago, I attended an event in London which included some top notch grub and resulted in my being seated at a large table with people I mostly didn’t know.

As you can imagine in such a situation, much of the chit-chat over dinner involved introductions and small talk about occupations and hobbies as we all got to know each other. One of these people was a softly-spoken heavily-pregnant lady to my left, at the time a Conservative Councillor. I remember explaining to her that I ran a transport business and – expecting a negative response – that in my spare time I write a blog about lifestyle restrictions … especially on tobacco. I do like to drop that bombshell into situations occasionally because I find reactions to it very interesting. This lady wasn’t fazed in the slightest, in fact she agreed that tobacco control had gone too far and that the smoking ban was badly-drafted. Continue reading

What happens if Scotland votes NO to independence?

What happens if Scotland votes NO to independence?

Robert Henderson
The Scottish independence referendum is deeply flawed as a democratic process because (1) the terms of independence have not been agreed before the referendum is held so Scottish voters will be buying a pig in a poke; (2) the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland have been allowed no say in whether Scotland should be allowed to secede from the union or, if they are to be allowed to leave, the terms on which they may secede and (3) the political circumstances of the UK if Scotland votes NO to independence have gone largely unexamined.
Continue reading

A Monster Reawakens: The Rise of Ukrainian Fascism

A Monster Reawakens: The Rise of Ukrainian Fascism
A precedent the West will live to regret
by Justin Raimondo

With the eyes of the world fixed on Russia’s invasion of Crimea and the prospect of a wider war engulfing all Ukraine, our attention has been diverted from what may be the most significant aspect of this crisis: the ascension of a genuinely fascist mass movement into the corridors of power.

Our “mainstream” media shrugs off what it describes as the presence of “a few ultra-nationalists” at the Kiev protests, but this is nonsense: it is far more than a few. Indeed, the activists of the two main fascist parties in Ukraine – Svoboda and “Right Sector” – provided the muscle the insurrectionists needed to take over government buildings in Kiev and across western Ukraine. Continue reading

Resent Ignorant EU Interference? Please Sign Here Then

by Dick Puddlecote

Resent Ignorant EU Interference? Please Sign Here Thensupport-black-180x60.pngI have added a new link to the sidebar to the right which I hope you will all consider clicking through and signing (and sharing widely).

The European Free Vaping Intiative is a clever Europe-wide attempt to force the EU to rethink their dumb and counter-productive stance on e-cigs.

We’ve heard weasel words from the tobacco control industry about how they believe e-cigs are useful but that, you know, they just need a teensy-weensy bit of regulation, that’s all. Well, as I’ve mentioned previously, the terms of the TPD are not just a little bit of regulation – instead, they will ban all of the most effective forms of vaping and only leave the ones which don’t pose a threat to the pharmaceutical industry less effective ones. Continue reading


A Treatise of Modern Political Economy

Government Of The People, By The People, For Ignoring The People

by Dick Puddlecote

Government Of The People, By The People, For Ignoring The People And so it came to pass, as predicted here on Tuesday, that the EU Tobacco Products Directive – corrupt and disingenuous as it is – was approved overwhelmingly yesterday.

I’ll get round to writing more on that (I hope) when unusually demanding recent Puddlecote Inc pressures have eased, but for now it’s pertinent to say that the whole fiasco was a bastardisation of democratic process. Bypassing proper debate and objective consultation, the EU just steamrollered it through anyway. The snus ban was maintained despite being harmful to European health, and after ignoring overwhelming public disapproval; bans on tobacco flavours, smaller tobacco pouches and packs of ten were promoted on the back of utter piffle; and effective e-cigs banned from 2016 despite huge evidence of their benefits but only innuendo and lies in favour of the ridiculous regulations now inflicted on them. Continue reading

Downton on down

by Nick Land

Downton on down

Martin Hutchinson argues that — even after factoring in the crushing losses of WWI — the ‘Downton era’ did things better:

In certain respects — behavioral and otherwise — the “Downton Abbey economy” of 1920 was greatly preferable to the one we are experiencing today. [...] A move to a “Downton Abbey economy” should not imply a sharp increase in inequality, rather the opposite. It is interesting to note that almost 100 years of progressive bloat of the public sector in both Britain and the U.S. — supposedly undertaken to reduce economic inequality — have in reality tended to increase it. [...] Public spending (including local government) was around 25% of GDP in Britain in 1920 and about 15% of GDP in the U.S., compared to 40% plus in both countries today. It must be questioned what benefits the public has gained, either in greater equality or better services, from the massive rise in public spending since the Downton Abbey period, which itself was inflated from pre-World War I days. Continue reading

Response To Comments On We’re Not Conservatives: Part Two

by Natasha Petrova

Response To Comments On We’re Not Conservatives: Part Two

The Libertarian Alliance blog posted my piece on why libertarians are not conservatives. It wasn’t received very well. The poster of the article argued thusly:

Note: In my view, this is a silly article. The author does to conservatism just what the more brain dead conservatives do to libertarianism – that is, to pick out one strand from a cluster of movements, and to take that as representative of the whole. There are conservative objections to war and to moral regulation. Indeed, the moral regulation of the Victorian Age was mostly brought in by “liberals” against Tory opposition. And the most prominent calls for a negotiated end to the Great War came from within the Tory aristocracy. As for point 3), there are conservative defenses of tradition that are not at all incompatible with libertarianism. I give this one out of five on the grounds that the author got her spelling right. SIG Continue reading

Murray Rothbard: Libertarian Socialist

Murray Rothbard: Libertarian Socialist

by Keith PrestonEconomics/Class Relations

By Murray Rothbard

Karl Hess’s brilliant and challenging article in this issue raises a problem of specifics that ranges further than the libertarian movement. For example, there must be hundreds of thousands of “professional” anti-Communists in this country. Yet not one of these gentry, in the course of their fulminations, has come up with a specific plan for de-Communization. Suppose, for example, that Messers. Brezhnev and Co. become converted to the principles of a free society; they than [sic] ask our anti-Communists, all right, how do we go about de-socializing? What could our anti-Communists offer them? Continue reading

If You Don’t Want The Result, Look Away Now

by Dick Puddlecote

If You Don’t Want The Result, Look Away Now Tomorrow morning, the EU will vote to approve the new Tobacco Products Directive.

It was written by someone who has since been effectively fired over bribery allegations, and I do mean ‘allegations’ because there was – without doubt – a perfectly reasonable explanation for his jetting off to the Bahamas to scout for places amenable to stashing “sums of up to $100 million” just before being accused of soliciting €60 million via an intermediary. Continue reading