Category Archives: Blogroll

Tom Paine returns

David Davis (reblogged from The Last Ditch)

It’s interesting to see Tom’s personal discussion with himself, about the effectiveness (or otherwise) of what libertarian bloggers do.

The future

Quite a few readers have kindly told me how much they missed my trip updates since I returned from the USA. Some of them however only started to read this blog to follow my American journey and would be surprised and perhaps even shocked if I returned to my old subjects.

I rather embarrassed myself at dinner at a friend’s house last week. Another guest was a retired senior civil servant and now a substantial London rentier on his savings from the money extorted for him over decades from taxpayers. Predictably, I laid into him about how out-of-control the British State has become.There was some Continue reading

Sean Gabb on the Thatcher Police State (May 1989)

The Full Coercive Apparatus of a Police State:
Thoughts on the Dark Side of the Thatcher Decade

Sean Gabb

3rd May 1989, Published as Legal Notes No. 6, by the Libertarian Alliance,
London, 1989, ISBN 1 870614 39 9

Ten years ago (1979) I gave way to one of my rare bursts of enthusiasm. I was at the time, I’ll grant, still a schoolboy; and these things are always more permissible in them than in others. But, even for a schoolboy, it was a very great burst of enthusiasm. I seriously thought that, along with Mrs Thatcher, the second dawn of classical liberalism had arrived. This was it, I thought. No more socialism. No more national decline. No more Road to Serfdom. Oh, even as lads of my age went, I was naïve. Continue reading

Speaker, it’s time to resign. Douglas Carswell tells it like it ought to be

David Davis

In the midst of all this Tulkasian levity, which we seem to be able to generate as is right and British about our travails, it’s time for the Scumbag-Speaker Michael Martin to do the right thing and resign. Nothing very much will change, about our Enemy Class, at least not this decade, or the next, but a point can have been made.

In time, people who feel the need to “enter Parliament” will be rather older than is now usual. Gordon Brown for examploe is much too young to know how to behave, and David Cameron is a mere boy who has done nothing whatsoever that had value as a way of givng value for reward received, before he “entered” Parliament. David Davis’s contributions are not quite so marginal, but he is still a bit young to be taken quite seriously, specially as he had a portico built onto his house.

The right people will have already completed the bulk of the great actions of their lives, in Classical liberal occupations.

They will feel no need to gain more money from the Treasury, since they will have more or less enough to do what they need, and they of course will want only to offer the benefit of their wide world experience and wisdom to those of us who know what should be done in a minimal State: a State whose function is to prepare and possibly provide only against “preventable evils”, but we outside this groupare busy, and have not the time or the resources to help it out.

These people will have the leisure time to do their Good Works by authorising monies for the building, say, of a Public Park with statues of Great Historical Figures who discovered The Universe, and the like. In it, perhaps, there will be a full-scale model Coal Mine, down which primary school children can descend on Saturdays and Sundays, for no money.

The LPUK offers hope here.

What they have done will be such as:- (in no special order)


soldiering in reality, with guns, while States or Quasi-Religious-Pre-Capitalist-Conqueror-Memes  (such as socialism and some “religions”) yet threaten humankind,

selling things that people would like to buy,

or epic Scientific Discovery, and the endowment of free and independent institutions of Learning and Philosophy.

We want, insofar as these people are prepared to give up time in the evening of their lives to help direct the small and ample resources of a State, to what we can still regard as “the common good” (even as the libertarians we are), to be able to respect them, and not to despise them for petty Wireless Tele Vision type venality about things such as money.

UK General election called – stop press Drudge Guido Iain Dale Huffington Landed Underclass Devil

David Davis

That got you. Yes. But sadly,

…there’s no UK election. Sorry. Go back to bed.

We are currently, for foreign readers who live in sunnier climes and more benign polities such as Venezuela or Russia, and who don’t know what it’s like here,  living under an administration which has done these things as follows:-

(1) Deliberately gone about the stealthy and also overt destruction of lots of free voluntary institutions which “represented the forces of conservatism” (such as firms, schools, charities,  local festivals, the Scouts, youth clubs, food hygiene, how people joke with each other in private, and the like)

(2) Deliberately monkeyed with the “constitution”, whatever that may have been, so as to change the sort of polity we are for ever (they did not have a mandate “for ever”)

(3) Handed over whatever “sovereignty” Parliament had in 1997, to the EU, a phantasmal construction in the minds of fascists, which   __/was specifically designed to undo totally, in time, /__   the work of the Anglosphere Coalition in Europe, between 1813 and 1945,

(4) Deliberately card-sharped the constituency boundaries so that any other party would have to win about 70% of the vote to get an overall majority in the Commons (they’d have done more but just could not get away with it)

(5) Deliberately destroyed what was left of sensible, hard (which is to say “crunchy” or containing stuff you’d want and need to know about in order to understand the Universe or to get empoyed by someone other than a quango) interesting and rigorous curricula in education, so as to create on purpose a very very very large class of uncritical persons, who watch “BBC TV News”, and “Big Brother” and believe what the variously featured ephemeradroids say.

The MSM is saying increasingly that this government is inept and cack-handed. Here’s an example from Simon Heffer, an angry old red-haired-man who has better credentials to be a liberal Prime Minister than Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, John Major or Michael Heseltine (remember – we nearly got saddled with that bugger with hair, over Westland and other matters – anybody remember what Westland did, or might now do?)

The Libertarian Alliance thinks that it does not matter if there is an election now, later or at any time in the forseeable future. The point of elections is now lost on many people, who also now face different problems from those that governments think they ought to solve. If there was an election now, which Gordon Brown might call in return for an hereditary-Vicountcy later, then either ZanuLieBorg will win slightly owing to the monkeying and falsifying with postal votes which it will certainly indulge in as it is their right so to do as taught by Al Gore their hero,  or else David Cameron will slilghtly win with about 13 seats, which means he can’t do anything, much, to undo the Police state created by his predecessor.

This is because the ZanuLieBorg government of the UK right now is not at all cack-handed. It knows, has known and will [as neither we nor anybody else civilised will expunge it properly] know, even after defeat at any election it can’t rig and when it is temprarily not called the “government”, exactly what it’s been doing for decades, if not at least a century, and why. GramscoMarxiaNazis, and their clone [singular as is proper] the GramscoFabiaNazis, will continue to operate in the shadows, under cover of academia and quangocracy. We shall not “service” them, nor even “re-educate” them or “re-settle” them, because we have nailed our colours to the mast and said that we agree that they have rights to express their views. These they will express, you bet 50p.

But in the end, we have to decide what to do. The threats to liberty will not just go away because a more “ept” crew of inept statists such as the Tories gets to be allowed to take over, for a bit. Individual liberty will still roll slowly and sadly downhill, to the cesspool ultimately.

Libertarians ought to start thinking about what to do about the sort of people whose individual freedom to upend mass liberty they defend right now, and who, in the end, may not be able to be persuaded to come onside. As Auberon Waugh would have said … “I’m not saying yet that we should pack them in fours in white W-reg Vauxhall Astras and propel them over Beachy Head” … but…

…what safe jobs could they be allowed to do in a Libertarian polity, so that they can’t get the even potential ability to destroy it? They certainly can’t mind their own lives being controlled in this way, since they have been advocating it for all others, all of their lives, so they need not be consulted. But it is a problem that troubles me.

Help, anybody?

Paul Staines – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sean Gabb

Paul Staines – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guido Fawkes, never let it be forgotten, is one of us.

The video he linked to this morning, from some people called “don’t panic”, is humorous:-

If he showed it, he’d get poison-umbrella-tipped –  but we can put it up.

The Friday ranting non-extraordinaire

Peter Davis

I am going to try and make this a regular (and probably fail): every week I will aim to rant about something and (trying to) get thouroghly angry about something  (and failing), and basically turning the post into a message board to let other people also write about something that pisses them off in the comments.

Let everybody know what has pissed you off about our “leaders”, each week.

Now, what’s with this Ian Tomlinson thing: what exactly did he do to deserve that cheap blow from the police? From what I can tell, he was walking around with his hands in his pockets.


Has walking around with your hands in your pockets suddenly become illegal? What kind of a nation is this that lets the police kill people for just walking around with hands-in-pockets?

Please feel free to write about what pisses you off in the comments.

F A Hayek: the 1978 UCLA interviews….

David Davis

….with main portal to them on the Ludwig von Mises Institute blog.

Here is the archive in pdf.

For newer readers who may not have swum in libertarian, or in Austrian-School-economic waters for very long, you can find out about Friedrich Hayek here, and why he was a key classical liberal/libertarian philosopher.

Here also is stuff which some of you might like about Ludwig von Mises.

More on Sean Gabb speech to Conservative-Future: trenchant comment

David Davis

I take the liberty of using this comment (freely available on the thread for this post) as a new post:-

And here’s me been trying to impose a commenting moratorium on myself. Oh well, here I go again.

Sean’s prescription for what to do when power is gained, while perhaps or perhaps not perfect in the detail, is a good one, and is the kind of thought experiment which may bring one temporary cheer. However it does not (nor, one must absolutely acknowledge attempt to) answer the question of how such a position may be gained. As such it is much like discussing which stars to visit in a starship, while ignoring the hard problem, which is how to build a warp drive.

The problem is that by not discussing in the same breath the gaining of that position, we overlook the fundamentally recursive nature of the discussion. If a government of libertarians, or of “the right” (I dispute that label, but let us let it pass for now) or of “real conservatives” (I dispute that even more as I said before) has gained office in our thought experiment, then the war is already won. That which should be done by such government then becomes a trifle, as it will have the authority to do whatever it wishes.

Unless it has gained power by subterfuge, rather than gained office by honest campaigning, this imaginary government has already told the populace that it will slash government to ribbons, immediately leave the EU, abolish the BBC, hound the enemy out of local government, strangle all the quangos and so on. It can only thus gain office if it has the support of the majority of those citizens who care. To achieve that, it must have gained a cultural hegemony and, more significantly a moral hegemony.

It will have become moral to support small government and immoral to support big government. It will have become moral to support tax cuts, to despise the enemy class, and so on.

To achieve the initial conditions for such a libertian cultural revolution, the public morality must have already become libertarian, rather than the current secular evangelical statism.

This is the Hard Problem, and it would seem at this juncture to be entirely intractable, since altering the moral hegemony requires cultural hegemony, while the cultural hegemony is driven by the moral hegemony.

What is oft mistakenly believed is that the statists/Left/whatever invaded the institutions- government, education etc, from outside. This is not true. There were always socialists inside the elite; indeed it is an elite project and always was. We, on the other hand, have no insiders; and the defenders against whom we wish to move are entirely alert to the possibility of any counterhegemonic entryism and are thus able to nullify it before it gains purchase. The Hard Problem is thus profoundly hard. 

Sean Gabb has often said that…..

…the “war on terror” is a thinly-veiled excuse to set up a Police State in the UK.

David Davis

I was initially not agreeing with this, thinking that the “terror” does actually exist, and was, is now and will in future be real, and is spoken of in public, with disarming frankness, by our civilisation’s enemies: often on the BBC in the name of even-handedness. But I am now coming round to Sean’s point of view.  However, IMHO the “terror” has not gone away, and anyway is just a tactic of a certain kind of war which is cheap to fight against the civilisation of a sleepy and drugged enemy, like the British population.

The problem is that most people, most of the time, don’t care enough about “terror”: in the absence of a real and immediate war, on the doorstep or overhead, it’s not really possible to keep up a sufficient state of stress in this day and age. I blame the government, its education policy (a real one, to dumb down people truly and on purpose), their friends in the broadcast media who work to this objective also, and i blame “people” themselves, for falling for it all and lying back (not) thinking of England.

Regarding terror, this state subsists for so long as they have been drugged into the statist stupor of thinking that “The Government” is “doing something” and “bringing in tougher laws”…it all sounds so as if someone is “in charge”… we can all get back to the latest Jade Goody stuff (poor woman, she’s dying, can’t be long now…please please put us all our misery out-of quickly, will someone (Yoda again)) and “Big Brother” and the X Factor, whatever that is.

The Devil, Peace be Upon Him, quotes from an article by Chris Dillow of Stumbling and Mumbling, focussing on the British Police State issue which is where I meant to come in. From tomorrow, it will be an offence in the UK to take photos of the Police.

(So you’d better not or else you’ll get your computer(s) seized. And your DNA forcibly taken and reverse-engineered – this I think is much worse than what it would mean for you children….who knows if they’re not going to try to clone suspect “extremists”, so they can then security-theatre-arrest them, in the years to come, thus reinfocing the fear of terror?)

There is a very interesting comment thread on the Chris Dillow article.

Jacqui Smith (Miss Piggy) and accommodation expenses. We have to ask ourselves – do people really care any more?

David Davis

Guido does it best, but…

…..from the blog’s mud-begrimed, isolated and black-earthed fastness in Lancashire, I feel a wave of collective public ennui approaching. Not merely about Miss Piggy’s six-figure-claims for staying at her sister’s house (pretty rich and brass-necked I admit, even for a  Gramsco-Marxian) but about the entire notion that there is soemthing extraordinary about what these political scumbags are doing. (Tipped by The Landed Underclass.)

Perhaps politicians in the UK have got so much like African “big men” (whom they have always brown-nosed anyway) that they can’t help helping themselves to what’s in the Treasury, genuinely thinking that it’s their property. True, they haven’t got round yet to killing us and our male children, and then shagging our wives and daughters after burning our kraal and then eating our cattle, but I guess it’s only a matter of time.

But since most socialists have had their hands in the till since God was in short trousers, and most Tories have had their trousers down in the wrong woman’s bedroom for almost the same time, perhaps people have got innured to it.

All we can do is keep a log, and get the dosh back form the buggers when the time comes.

Derek Draper is funnier than the music we were going to put up. Modifications.

I forgot I’d put something like this up before. never mind, Derek can fume twice.

Friday night was supposed to be music night… and we missed that, and we even missed today, but…

David Davis

The whole “achievement” of the topic and also – more importantly – the comment thread, is really quite astounding.

Truly, there is no humour in socialism: there are no jokes: everything is utterly serious. Like Islam.

Oh, and Iain Dale better jolly well stop linking to Guido, or he’ll get spanked. For the children.

Derek Draper is funnier than the music we were going to put up.

David Davis

The whole “achievement” of the topic and also – more importantly – the comment thread, is really quite astounding.

Truly, there is no humour in socialism: there are no jokes: everything is utterly serious. Like Islam, whatever that may be. Perhaps both will actually have to go, after all.

Ummm…..which one did I mean, that should go…??

Fake Charities and the British “New Labour” State; now for a real one instead.

David Davis

A couple of days ago, The Devil (bless him, and may God’s Face shine upon him with radiant mercy and goodness for all ways) brought this to all our attention. For those busy chaps who have not time to click the link, it transpires that the British State under the Stalinist Gramsco-Marxians in Westmonster is setting up what appear to be “charities”, and which are accountable under Charities Commission rules, but which use treasury money, extorted by taxation, to achieve Stalinist Gramsco-Marxian lobby-goals laid down by the Westmonster-Gramsco-Marxians themselves.

That’s the kindest and most euphemistic way I can think of, to put across what they do.

I came across this just now, and I think all us here-buggers ought to give them at least £2 each at this address. This guy is exactly not like the bastards who cream off taxpayers’ funds in quangos, shagging and being shagged by their nasty Gramsco-Marxian friends in the UN, the EU, governments and “aid agencies”. I did not realise that about £9 would feed a poor Nyasaland child, who has nothing, for about a year. So I think we all ought to help him feed these poor buggers.

It is the business of libertarians to promote the growth and scope of private charity.

You can take comfort that none of it, God willing, will go towards Mercs-4-Jerks (like the jerk Mugabe for example, or many many others, some in “aid agencies”):-

We’ll do the Lifeboat people too in a minute or tomorrow, as that’s also a proper Charity, one of the diminishing few, and we even have one (a lifeboat) here. But ours is paid for entirely out of private subs, and although credited to the RNLI does not have to be subbed by them. Hat tip to the RNLI stuff  landedunderclass.

Really, this stuff ought to put ZanuLieborg to shame.

But I guess it won’t.

Lefty “anti-racist” bastards are at it again…this time they’re lynching Prince Charles.

Don’t get me wrong, for I hold no brief for poor tormented Prince Charles. He talks to his plants: he refers to nanomachines as “grey goo”: he supports the thesis of anthropogenic climate change…..I could go on. Superficially he is not really a mentally tough enough person to be a constitutional Head of State, where the prime libertarian responsibilities of such a man ought to be to take the side of the people, and rip down the enlarging police-apparatus being built behind his and our backs.

On this blog and elsewhere, I have been regularly got at by people who don’t think a British-style constitutional Monarchy is needed if we are to move towards a libertarian or minimal state – if that idea is not an oxymoron. But I think something like what we have got would be the best interim defence against violent reactionary leftist statist forces – and they WILL be violent, just watch – while we undertake the libertarianisation of public life in any society which is fortunate enough to have our services in this task.

This is probably why the “Royals” are coming increasingly under attack. What you have to do each day is see what the lefties are assaulting right now, and decide to do exactly the opposite of what they say.

David Davis

But not content with hauling Prince Harry over the coals (their phrase) “Give Racism the Red Card”, described as a “charity” (I bet it’s a state-funded quango in reality – in fact it’s the PR wing of the British Council! How could I have not guessed!) has a go at Charles: why?  Because the affectionate pet-name for one of his oldest friends, a 58-year-old Indian property developer, near neighbour and fellow-Polo-player, is “sooty”.

Ah, I remember Sooty! I wonder, if Sooty (the Indian property magnate, not the teddy bear) has a wife? If she was called “Sweep” in private by Charles and Camilla, because she had long hair or floppy ears, would the News of the World investigate in the public interest, and would the (anti) British Council object? I think we ought to be told!

Here’s a googlesearch on “Give Racism The Red Card“.

We did the Harry thing a couple of days ago.

The left laments its lack of “big” or interesting blogs. (it has just launched “labourlist“…..really catchy title isn’t it…..same old dreary stuff – Tory cuts etc etc etc) This is a classic manifestation of why they’re aren’t many, and why reading what’s there is like chewing unsalted sawdust and rat-droppings – unlike Guido for example, or The Remittance Man. The left, and most illuminatingly the British left, who whine and lament the most, are all humourless totalitarian thought-controlling bastards and c***s; consequently, nobody wants to listen to their whingeings or read their dour drivel. Ordinary humans without dangerous leftist brain-disorders have all got better things to do. (This of course leaves the more midly-mentally-tormented of us, who hold quite opposite views to the fascist left, to blog about them, irrittaing them even more.)

Either this new series of attacks on the Princes is a publicity stunt by the left to get attention, or more sinisterly they really mean it and are gearing up to destroy even more Free Institutions.

Just go read this drivel, it’s soooooooooooo wonderfully replete with all the leftist clichés.

“Britain” by Ayn Rand

David Davis

See this, on Coffee House.

Hamas does not need to attack Israel: discuss.

David Davis

The pointless slaughter being described, although no different qualitatively from all other pointless socialism-induced-slaughters of blameless civilians which have ever occurred and will ever occur in the future – as they will – is the result of just one thing: a Stalinist outfit deflecting our gaze from its own deliberate uselessness as regards the supposed requirements of “its” citizens captives, and towards instead a pretend-enemy: in this case Israel.

Israel is an increasingly vulnerable target of course, as memory of three things as follows: the historiographic-philosophical reasons why Jews think they exist as an identifiable entity (largely un-understood), the Holocaust, and 9/11, all recede into folk-legend….or, worse……..cease to be aired on British mainstream “Wireless Tele Vision”.

In the minds and dark hearts of people such as Hamas, whatever that might be, and its friends, whoever they may be at any given time, it is easy to demonize Israel. Israel , seen across a barbed-wire fence, represents the negation of all their deeply-held beliefs about how rights and duties work. Israel has made the Hamas-driven poverty in the Gaza strip hideous, because Israel, just a fence away, has shown what can and will be achieved instead in a pluralist democracy. Israeli democracy is not perfect, but then neither is Gordon Brown’s, Nicholas Sarkozy’s or Tony Blair’s. But it is a galactic distance improved from that exercised by Hamas, if they do at all, inside Gaza.

I cannot think of a war, in those centuries of history which I have studied, in which either or both sides did not accidentally or even deliberately kill “women and children”, or even civilian non-combattants generally. I’m not sure either what today’s British lefties are silent about the fact that there’s a poor woman trying to save her “nine children” from Israeli shellfire.

Rather than blame the Israeli Navy for threatening her children with its shrapnel, should they not ask why Hamas has not arranged doctors to prescribe her the “Morning After Pill”, to be obtained at any secondary school “student services office” near her home?

Why should she have nine children, but any of my teenage students, if they wish, ought not to? She probably started when she was 14 or 15. Why ought they then not to? We ought to celebrate diversity and adopt it surely? No?

Where is the moral equivalence that we seek from these lefties, when we need it the most?

Hamas is saying it’s going to do a Stalingrad:-

A Hamas delegation travelled to Egypt to discuss ceasefire terms but its leaders vowed to continue the rocket attacks and said its were committed to attack Israeli troops “in every street, every alley and at every house.”

So what do “ceaefire terms” mean, then, when you say you’re going to do FISH to the end regardless?

I thought Israel was (a) suppling electric power, (b) sending in “aid” (consisting of food and medicines etc) and (c) had evacuated the Gaza Strip of Israelis some years ago?

What do the buggers want? Spaghetti?

it also does not look to me, a bumpkin from Lancashire, that the Ghazis are doing much growing of stuff. look at this Googleearth image:-

Don't grow stuff if the enemy gives it you!

Don't grow stuff if the enemy gives it you!

Frightening, scary, State food stuff. We also discuss breasts and their relationship to state planning, so watch it.

David Davis

Here. read the whole bloody thing, it will make you tremble.

There is an extraordinarily large number of useful outgoing links in this article, to other resources you can use to blog with yourselves, and show up some of this Nazi statist nonsense about food and diet.

One corollary of this project, sadly, is that girls’ breasts will get smaller if they are forced at prepubertal and pubertal ages to eat unsalted lettuce and boiled pasta, any other similar tastelessly-pointless crap like that and nothing else. (Just read a standard good biochemistry book. And lettuce and pasta need salt: you KNOW it makes sense.) Giving a developing woman enough sugars and fats will increase the probability that her “chest” will become satisfactory for the purposes it was intended for, when the State decrees she is old enough to have sex: this, worryingly, seems to be about age 11, since many secondary schools now dole out “morning after pills”. “D”, “DD”,”E” or even “F” cups (if you get lucky) or thereabouts seem to promote reproduction of humans. “A” (or worse, poor girl “AA”) I think, do not.

We shall be back to the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s, when as a student you actively tried not to get a shag, since you knew you’d be disappointed when her clothes came off in your student-digs later. (I didn’t know what these things called “boobs” were before about 1962 so I can’t tell you about breasts under rationing, sorry.)

Perhaps that’s what the lefties are really after? Do they really think we are overpopulated, and is the auto-erotic/visual repression of the male sex drive part of “the project”? Perhaps the Enemy Class really really does not even want any slaves? Does it merely want to inhabit the planet on its tod? Really? Really alone? Discuss.

Food, junk food, and health-Nazis: 2009 will get worse.

David Davis

The whole of this post from Junkfood Science is worth reading, for it perspectivises the more or less articulate refutations which a lot of us have suspected and been trying to focus for all you lot, over the last couple of years.

If libertarians are at all serious, then I’m not suggesting that we should shoot all State-food-bansturbators immediately – in the way Stalin accused an obsequious IRA delegation of not being “serious” because the IRA “had not shot any bishops yet”. But…..we ought to make more of the point that if a human being owns his own body, then it’s surely axiomatic that he can place whatever foodstuffs – or anything else whatever for that matter –  that he chooses, inside it. If certain foods are to be “banned”, then this negates that principle and we have become the State’s Farm Animals in very truth. Cigarettes, (any) alcohol, tobacco and (all) drugs, too, are part of the same argument.

Part of the problem of course is that modern pithed people do not understand the economy of, the present dynamics of, and the ultimate reason for, the DHSS. They think that “it costs” the DHSS money to treat people. No analysis is done of where the money has arrived from. Of course, if you are a DHSS bureaucrat, then it “costs” you some of your ultimate yearly bonus if you have to irritatingly spend some of it on some doctors or beds or medicines, to treat the people who supplied the taxation-take in the first place. But if you pith the population, employing techniques such as “good television”, then they won’t realise the conjuring trick you have performed. Furthermore, they will go about supporting you, saying that “smokers are selfish ‘coz they cost the NHS money” and other similar witticisms which televise well on the Wireless Tele Vision thingy machine.

I am afraid I can find no use for this machine at all these days, except to view videos of The Lord Of The Rings, a couple of times a year – that’s quite enough too. Or perhaps as a source for weird electronic parts suddenly needed to complete a project, and Maplin’s closed. Can anybody illuminate my problem please?

Liberty and tyranny: what non-violent and legal things could everyone do, every day, to upset and rile bureaucrats and “big-States”?

David Davis

I confess: the idea is not mine. Sean Gabb and I were discussing, in our inimitably pessimistic way, earlier this year, what kinds of things ordinary Subjects of the Crown could do, in their daily lives, to either annoy or make more difficult the lives of our political masters and their more lowly appointees.

The provisos were that:-

(1) We should try not to cause criminal damage. So 30,000 builders in 10,000 White Vans with 20,000 Stihl-Saws at 02.00 am GMT, all cutting down the posts of the speed cameras at one moment in time, will NOT do.

(2) We should not physically harm or otherwise assault bureaucrats, Ministers, MPs, their families, and the like. I recall that we could not decide what to do about “Traffic Wardens” or “Artificial Policemen“.

Please could ALL readers suggest something in the comments. Some things I can think of:-

(1) ALWAYS be seen to be filming the officers of the State, or else pretend to photograph them, while they are going about their “business” – even if you are not so doing. We all now carry little peanut-sized-thingies that not only film stuff but phone people, make tea, tell you whree you are etc. It is not (yet) a crime to make privaye movies in public places. this will increase their “workplace stress”, and with a bit of luck some of them will clock off “sick”. We will not be any the worse thereby, even though they still cost us.

(2) Place “Britain is leaving the EU: it is inevitable” stickers on State notices of all kinds. Also on the rear number plates of “official cars” and the like. Or, over the bar-code on their tax discs. This will cause inconvenience when the vehilces pass through ANPR camerae (now believed to be live) and does not cause any damage as they wash off.

(3) Place small but ostensibly accidental amounts of the wrong recyclable material (such as a large rusty steel automotive pressing like a flywheel or a Brake Disk,  into a plastic box for beer cans) into any State Receptacle designed for another sort. If what they say is true, this renders the entire bulk amout later, useless.

(4) ALWAYS ( or affect to ) smoke in the presence of a State Employee, ideally inside a building or a car (it becomes a “workplace” if there are 2 or more of you in it!) or if not, then in your house or on the street.

I would welcome lots more suggestions. I want 100 good ones by Christmas, to cheer you all up with on a special “ANNOY A BUREAUCRAT FOR THE CHILDREN AT CHRISTMAS” post………………..

Cuba and showing the world how to live: a window, or a wind-up?

David Davis

Here it is. I can’t tell. You decide. “Particularcuba”…weird. I spotted it using a thingy called alphainventions, which shows you loads of weird blogs about all sorts of inconsequential stuff which does not matter a monkey’s toss, but some gems also, now and then.

Like mining, really.

The Shadows on Thursday

David Davis

We may regret the coming Endarkening, and feel powerless to do much about the buggers who assail out liberty at every turn. But Western Civilisation has left an enormaous and unexcelled Canon: of giant science and engineering, immortal literature, unassailable philosophy, and shit-hot music.

The devil may have had all the best flags and uniforms, so as to reduce sovereign individuals to multiply-directed automata, who would then do his will, while thinking it was their own.

But who the f*** cares, when we can do this to his face, on a blog?

That's better, that's more like it, see if you can pick up  a St Hilda's chick while wearing that.

That's better, that's more like it, see if you can pick up a St Hilda's chick while wearing that.

This is rather important.

David Davis

I have been going on about it for years, privately.  Everybody (nearly) to whom I mention this thinks I am a deranged cretin. Never mind: that’s life, and then you die after it.

The risk of an asteroid collision is of course, in National Lottery terms, astonishingly small, but integrated over many centuries and millennia, it is uncomfortably large. If Liberty of the human individual means anything  significant, then it means that there have to be human individuals around to enjoy the sort of liberty, informed and also protected by the twin pillars of Science and Christianity (Gramsco-Marxianism, being an enemy of both, can go hang and take advice about foreign travel and procreation simultaneously) in which we – Gramsco-Marxians notwithstanding – live now.

The info that the UN is involved is very very very bad news. This outift has morphed, from loftily-moral and essentially good beginings, into an evil, wicked and anti-human organisation, peopled by dictators, and paid for by classical liberals: its only purposes are to keep Robert Mugabe in power, to promote slavery in the teeth of the Navy who try eternally to abolish it, to deify “Al” “Gore”, who makes disinformation-movies about “climate” “change”, and to authorise the slaughter of the South Sudanese by others. there may be other crimes that I will lay at its door later tonight, when I have devilled a bit more.

But something has to be done about a strategic asteroid defence shield. We can’t leave the matter to chance, such that the Universe could be, after all…..ending its life…..empty of life. Corporeal death cannot be the End of All Things, if we work at it.

Jeff Randall on Old Labour and Britain as a command-economy-in-the-making. As we are now so f****d, absolutely and relatively, do we really care to try and save the situation…..

…..or not?

David Davis

I have read this by Jeff Randall, with mounting depression. Of course we have known for some weeks that the state’s finances (which is to say, our money) are in this increasingly bad mess, but he tells it with such plangent clarity.

It is so embarrassing, to be a Subject of Her Majesty, and thus a person whose nation has taught the rest of the world how to live, and grow, and survive pre-capitalist-desert-warlords (and some worse ones), famine, un-knowing and Stalinism – and now to suffer what is going to happen to us.

In the process of getting here to where we could be pulled down in public and ridicule, we have incurred the undying hatred of “intellectuals” (this man wrote about how awful they are), Hollywood “producers”, “educationists”, “eugenicists”, absolutist-monarchists, other monarchists“journalists”, socialists (obviously), “sociologists” (whatever those might be), “Al” Gore, and others. w

We have even partially-survived Ken Livingstone, although most of his legacy still lives on under the nominally-conservative Boris Johnson.

The question that all libertarians have to answer, each for himself, is whether it is worth trying to save a now-substantially-destroyed Britain or not. Or whether we should all just keep our heads down, keep schtumm, and hope that what Enoch Powell calls “The Deal of Ruin in a Nation” will help us all to last out our time.

BNP: Lancaster Unity spends 10 out of 12 posts in last two days masturbating about it.

What we said about all this guff being socialists in-fighting with other socialists, is borne out by fact.

David Davis

If you go to Lancaster Unity, and view the post list back to 22nd November 2008, you will find that the attention of the New left is directed quite specifically. It is that just two posts, out of, I think, twelve (I am an unreconstructed liberal and so I may not be able to count) deal with stories other than the BNP and what is happening or may happen to its members, as a result of having been found to not have broken the law, and to belong to an allowed political party.

These guys just can’t let go. They __luuuurve the “people”__ but they just can’t move on and help them, by flagging up more interesting stories about State intervention, such as taxation trends. Guido can as you can see, so why can’t they?

Of course, we here excoriate the BNP, for, as we have explained here, it is socialist in essence and therefore not the friend of human beings at all (or if in Ireland….. “at-all at-all at-all”.) Those who bring it to power will find that they and theirs will still slide down into the cesspit – only just slightly more slowly, I expect, than if they elected Hitler or Castro or Pol Pot – who were by contrast quite serious about what they were doing. I don’t know which you would prefer, unity people – you as what Lenin called “infantile leftists”, will be put up against the wall either way. So you’d better think about coming out instead for (real) liberalism, and fighting for it.

We will never “grass you up” to the “papers”, to the sackers, to the brick-throwers, and to the house-torchers, for having once been “lefties”. Your free-will-decision to believe in that, was a sin, yes: but sins can be forgiven.

And again for Gordon Brown…

Just thought I’d quickly kick Gordon Brown downhill, an inch or so…

GM crop trials: from aftermath news….

…we have more info.

David Davis

I spoke about this stuff earlier.

PIRACY: big discussion going on at Defencetech

David Davis

Isn’t it nice NOT to have to talk about the BNP membership list any more! Lancaster Unity is miking it for all it’s worth. I guess they have “nothing useful to say about anything”, as Duncan Money said about me, in his comment on this posting. (Of ours.) We’ll send you some traffic, Duncan, old chap, there you are, we’ll paternalistically toss you a penny as we pass.

But if you go here, hat-tipped by Samizdata, it’s quite illuminating what people think and why nothing much apprears to be being done. It’s a “Human Rights” problem, apparently. Hmmmmm…………..

Pirates are a problem, caused by Global Climate Change. If you go there, then you will see why. The “precautionary principle” of course shows why we really all ought to reduce our “carbon footprint”, and only burn chicken shit, in order to eliminate piracy.

As Auberon Waugh would say: “I am not suggesting that we should all shoot all pirates on sight, but it may help to reducde the problem”.

BNP membership: BNP: I’m sorry – I have to ask now…why do people get so worked up? Do they steal your clientariats’ votes?

David Davis

Yesterday, we posted this guff about the BNP membership list.

Yep. It’s old news now.

And by seeing this post, you will just inflate our stats becasue we have moved on. But if you call in here, it’s nice (you suckers and Chè-lovers) but anyway we were greatly pleased as we got shagloads of traffic from left-wing sites wanting to know why we were interested …go on….you WANT to know, you just WANT to, you student-activist Chè-JCR-“organiser”, you! You just orgasmically can’t keep away! You just might scoop the scalp of an “extreme-right-winger”! (Rare animals, those, ought to be protected by PETA, you know. Against hunting, and for “bio diversity”.)

Here’s a poll. YOU MAY TICK MULTIPLE ANSWERS. I need to  know some things. I want to ask lefties and others:-

For those who read this far, we are interested not because we like the BNP, for as it is a left wing party we of course do not,  but because we just want to know WHO would and WHO would NOT be prepared to stand up for freedom of conscience, in a Statist State, if put under fire.

Those of you who glibly slag off the BNP and want its people lynched, would find that, when real Stalinists (who are “serious” (or not) as Stalin said when he criticised the IRA delegation for refusing to shoot priests) catch up with you, you will have no time left at all.

The Monarchy, Prince Charles, and opinions. Very interesting risk-analysis by Paul Flynn MP

David Davis

Do read it here. Please….it’s rather important…!? Contains stuff and constitutional issues I’d never even considered.

BNP membership list: let’s see if this “government of all, for all” will prevent or officially outlaw discrimination against individuals for belonging to a political party.

It’s created a criminal offence a day since May 1997: another one can’t be that hard, surely? Or…are some crimes “more equal than others“…?

David Davis

Discrimination on the grounds of race, sex or religion is (rightly) illegal. Except for, of course, as regards the human rights of a person who, say would not want to employ someone for reasons best known to himself, but we’ll let that pass for now.

The Libertarian Alliance, I must first state, does not agree in any way with the policies of the BNP, nor does it support any of them. It supports no political party whatever, with the possible unofficial exception of the LPUK.

I’m sure we’d all not want to live in a society where, if you belonged to a certain political party, you could be persecuted, officially or otherwise, victimised, or lose your job, livelihood or home. That smacks of the worst days of nazism in the Third Reich, and of the days of Stalin and Mao – and many other hoodlums we could mention. And indeed we have done, and recently. Nasty, low “Chè” had people killed, even personally by him sometimes, for not thinking the right things. Keeley Hazell would not approve at all, at-all-at-all.


But now we have this. I was alerted to it by this in the DT just now. I have no idea what Lancaster Unity is, not having previously heard of it, but, given that we don’t view the BNP positively for the best of philosophical reasons, Lancaster Unity does not seem like the sort of people we would really like to share a nation with either. They are probably a bunch of students up the road from somewhere, who have more fire in their bellies than sense or wisdom about how the world operates.

The fact that they are a “left wing top 100 blog” is a dead giveaway, but the blogosphere is a truly Free Nation, and they have every right to say what they please, as do we.

The Global-left is scared shitless of the BNP, since it views that party as a direct and mortal competitor for the votes of the effectively-disenfranchised Old White Working Class and its heirs of the moment whatever those may be. Whereas we as Libertarians have no position on this either way, since we see this spat as mere extremist infighting within the envelope of the Left. We also regard everybody – including people like “Unity”, as disenfranchised by a single oligarchical Enemy Class – which happens outwardly to behave right now as if it was part of the “left” – but that is a mere tactical accident of current events.

Correct me if I’m wrong: but I don’t think this government, a left-wing government, cares about the fate of people who have decided to support what some of the left thinks of as the wrong left-wing party which cares a bit about the fates of some left-wing-supporters, against another but larger lot of left-wingers who don’t care about the first lot of left-wing-supporters.

It’s Germany in the 20s/30s all over again, isn’t it.

The British Left (can we call these outfits “British Internationale Parties”?) is wetting itself with delight (here’s a typical example) as I suppose can be expected. Although as I have said in the comments here, it’s strange that today’s leftists don’t exactly see themselves as friends of the BNP: we here certainly are not their friends, but the Left they share most of their objectives. Very strange really.

BBC: Oh, really? And which poor sad junior will be blamed?

David Davis

BBC “admits serious lapse” (of sanity or judgement I presume?) over Ross/Brand affair.

Perhaps the BBC is just another socialist-sausage-machine: it takes money from the terrified bourgeoisie, who are afraid of being prosecuted and destroyed as a result, uses it to fund pornography, such as people saying “f***” on live television, and then gives the product to the socialist-state-clientariat, for nothing (as it will not prosecute them for “watching without paying”.) If they do…. They probably do (watch without paying, a lot of them.

Who cares?

In a libertarian society, I fully expect that there’d be TV channels where you oculd say “f***” on live television. But you’d have to pay for them. I expect. They would not be especially mass-market. This is just not what Anglosphere people want to do or see. We are moral and liberal. (I DID say “liberal” yes.)

In return, nobody would force you to do so. No “detector vans” would come round, to pretend to see if your telly was saying “f***” without having paid the channel that transmits “f***”. All that the State would have to do (and not even that really) was to supply Courts which would discover if your telly had said “f***” without your having paid for it to do so.

The whole thing, as Auberon Waugh would have discovered long ago, is just an intellectual-property problem. If the monies collected by the BBC were regarded as collected by force, whether you used the service or not, then it was just stealing and doing robbery. If not, and it was regarded as consensual, just to fund sort of journalists and machines and stuff, then it could transmit, but could not also then charge you as well for receiving. Also it could not legally know who was receiving.

The corollary of this is the death penalty exacted by the Nazis for “receiving foreign broadcasts” or “having prohibited receivers”.

I think we all ought to start cutting off our BBC direct debits. Let’s see what happens.

Let’s call their bluff. I’m going to cancel our DD now, and see what happens.

An Open Letter to Polly Toynbee

Kevin Dowd

I have never liked the Guardian. Before word processors became the norm, the spelling errors for which it was renowned were at least entertaining. Now it is just irritating. I then lost all respect for the newspaper nine years ago when it falsely accused a friend of academic fraud and showed no interest in the truth of the matter. I see from yesterday’s (October 28, 2008) Guardian that its standards have not improved since.

I am referring to Poly Toynbee’s hysterical rant about a letter of which I was a co-signatory that was published in last Sunday’s Sunday Telegraph. The letter itself was a politely worded criticism of the Government’s decision to adopt a Keynesian public expenditure policy to try to offset the recession into which the economy is sliding. It reads as follows:

“Further to your interview with Alistair Darling (October 19), we would like to dissent from the attempt to use a public works programme to spend the country’s way out of recession.  It is misguided for the government to believe that it knows how much specific sectors of the economy need to shrink and which will shrink “too rapidly” in a recession.  Thus the government cannot know how to use an expansion in expenditure that would not risk seriously misallocating resources.

Furthermore, public expenditure has already risen very rapidly in recent years, and a further large rise would take the role of the State in many parts of the economy to such a dominant position that it would stunt the private sector’s recovery once recession is past.

Occasional economic slowdowns are natural and necessary features of a market economy.  Insofar as they are to be managed at all, the best tools are monetary and not fiscal policy. It is inevitable that government expenditure and debt naturally rise in a recession but planned rises in government spending are misguided and discredited as a tool of economic management.

If this recession has features that demand more active fiscal policy, which is highly disputable, taxes should be cut. This would allow the market to determine which parts of the economy shrink and which flourish to replace them.”

It was signed by 15 other economists and me.

It is, I believe, a reasonable position: the last time we tried Keynesian economics we ended up with stagflation and had to be bailed out by the IMF in 1976. Keynesian macroeconomics was then repudiated by Labour PM Jim Callaghan. In my opinion, it doesn’t work, but I recognise that there are others who do not share that view and I make no claims of infallibility.

Most of the Keynesian economists I know would disagree with this view, but they would not regard it as self-evidently evil or stupid. Ms. Toynbee, however, seems to think otherwise.

Some of what she wrote is given in italics below, and the comments after them are my responses:

The gloves are off, and an epic ideological battle has begun. The enemies of Keynesian economics are launching a fight-back.

We agree on this, at least.

Hardly pausing despite the crashing failure of their wild, free markets, the old forces of darkness are back.

The causes of the present financial crisis need to be discussed in a calm and reasoned way, but your referring to those who do not share your views as the “forces of darkness” is uncalled for, Ms. Toynbee. The people who disagree with you are not evil: they simply disagree with you. Why can’t you debate the issues on their merits without the need to give gratuitous offence?

Opening salvoes from the vanguard of neo-conomics came in a letter 16 economists wrote to the Sunday Telegraph attacking the Brown-Darling plan to borrow and spend to ease what threatens to become a recession at least as bad as 1981. “Occasional slowdowns are natural and necessary features of a market economy,” they wrote breezily. Laissez-faire is the best policy, but if something must be done, “which is highly disputable”, then “taxes should be cut”.

This gives the misleading impression that we suggested that nothing should be done in the middle of a crisis. Read the letter Ms. Toynbee: we didn’t suggest that. Why don’t you debate what we actually wrote?

These people know what they mean: they have been here before. It flatters some of these crude marketeers to call them anything as grand as Hayekians – but that was the ideology of those who devised the catastrophic Thatcher-Howe 1981 budget they seek to reprise. It cut spending and sent unemployment over 3 million. They turned recession into social catastrophe and now Sir Alan Peacock, Professor Tim Congdon and Ruth Lea, along with the chief economists of Lloyds TSB and Cazenove, advocate making the same callous mistake again.

I am not aware of anyone who is going around saying “Lets make the same callous mistake we made the last time” and would certainly not agree with anyone who did. So why the need to undermine your arguments with this sort of sanctimonious abuse? As for the actual issues, my view is that the 1981 budget was a good one, but that the Thatcher recession was an avoidable mistake due to botched monetary policy. Of course, whatever the cause, no-one wants us to go through that again and you have no grounds to suggest otherwise.

And I am not a Hayekian, by the way.

She goes on to make the patronising assertion that “The truth is, few have changed their mind, apologised for past errors or learned any lessons.”

I take it you haven’t?

Gordon Brown seems unable to stop saying things so blindingly untrue that you wonder how he gets the words out.

I have wondered this too. But how do you expect a man who cannot tell the truth to win the confidence of the public and lead the country out of its current predicament?

What’s needed now to win trust is unvarnished truth.

Indeed, and you should take your own advice: your readers will have more trust in you if you stick to the unvarnished truth.

I quote one last passage:

Meanwhile, Hayekian commentators are sharpening their knives against “Brown’s misty-eyed Keynesian adventure”. The argument has not been won yet: Labour has to make the case eloquently, as opinion polls show profound scepticism of government’s ability to spend money well. Conservatives may be wavering, uncertain which way the public will jump, but Labour would be rash to think pro-Keynesianism was a done deal.

Do you even read what you write? – “opinion polls show profound scepticism of government’s ability to spend money well.” So why do you think that is? Are the public just stupid or are they onto something that you haven’t noticed?

And, to repeat my earlier question, how do you expect Labour (and I quote your own words) to “make the case eloquently” whilst under the leadership of a man who “seems unable to stop saying things so blindingly untrue that you wonder how he gets the words out”. How do you expect Labour to square that circle?

With arguments of this calibre, you are certainly right that the case for Keynesianism is not a done deal.

Issues as important as these need to be properly aired. I would suggest you cut the sanctimony and don’t assume that people who do not share your views are callously trying to recreate the Thatcher recession or are secretly in league with the Antichrist. You would also earn some respect by not twisting their arguments or presuming an infallibility or superiority that I know you do not have. But if you really want to help the debate on economic policy, the next time you are thinking of writing something on it: don’t.

October 29, 2008

And some good news, belatedly…

…after I spotted it a couple of days ago, at least someone has had the sense to post about it.

David Davis

A Human Being’s body is surely His own. If not, then it is someone else’s by inference: property rights in it can’t be defined in a rightless void. Then, when they can, that means His rights in it exist. That means the human concerned can assign or dispose of it as HE wishes and NOT as someone else does…..


No: I am NOT EVER going to do the “he/she” Marxist nonsense on here any more, I have DECIDED, so people had better get used to that from now on. Human beings are to be described as Men, Man does things and stuff, a child owns HIS body etc etc etc. Of course we venerate women: we would not exist otherwise, so smoke that, for a change, you lefty Feminazi inclusive outreach multiculti Nazi oafs.)

If we could not state the proper disposal of our bodies, then our bodies must therefore belong to someone else. That of course cannot be. Unless the socialists come out in the open and say so. I wonder if they will?

I wonder what he’d have thought about it? Would he prefer a face-transplant, often carried out one-way-only by the Sendero Luminoso, without anaesthetics – as the wicked capitalist runnig-dog companies of the Boss Class would not send any – or just a simple skull-transplant….

That's better, that's more like it, see if you can pick up  a St Hilda's chick while wearing that.


This blog does not favour a Tory government…..(and WTF does “post-modern” mean? I do not know)

…..but it favours the continuation of a Labour government even less positively than that.

David Davis

What we would like is a LPUK government (despite the fact that the LA takes no party-political position on this matter) or, in default of that, a UKIP one which nasty Libertariano-Gramsistio-inverted-Marxists like me could, slightly possibly, subvert and direct into libertarian paths rather more easily than we could direct the policies of the LPUK or certainly of the Tory party (discuss….I relish the fireworks.)

However, there could be a General Election in 2009: but I doubt it. If there is, Gordon Brown could still win, or at least Guido thinks so. The risk is there.

Guido thinks that there’s a probability of another 3/4/5 (whatever) years of Zanulieborg. What libertarians have to consider, at least who think that the continuing existence of Britain not only as a (now failed but headless-chicken-walking) state but as a home of liberty and the birthplace of libertarian philosophy, er, matters, is whether it’d be better if Labour won?

Are there still enough active and angry liberals (call them Whigs, whatever, who cares) to make a difference the next time round, so that we could conceivably rescue ourselves by some revolutionary means which I cannot right now imagine, from another session of Labour/Nazi tyranny……..?

……..Or, would we prefer even a possibly short spell of “conservatism” – which we of course would view not very differently from full-blown Statism, which it will still resemble – in order to slow the slideage into the political/tyrannist cesspit enough for, say, the Indians or the Chinese to rescue us?

I know that when Chris Tame died, he said that didn’t think there were enough classical liberals left to make a difference any more, and that he was rather pessimistic about the prospects for liberty. I hope he was wrong.

But if the Tories lose, again, in 2009 or 2010, what then will YOU do? What will become of “Jacqui” “Smith” ?

I can’t believe that someone who looks like that and talks like that and says the things which it does, is a real personette. I just can’t. Sorry. It’s a construct; probably “post modern”, whatever that term means. I don’t know. Really. Really. I have not even looked it up, I am so terrified of what I might find.

What is “post-modernism? Please could the commentariat tell me for I do not know?

Douglas Alexander (who?) thinks Zanulieborg can win the next election, but the comment thread is very instructive.

…and make sure you read the comments too! There will be a short written test later….

David Davis

A Mr Douglas Alexander has written some stuff in the QuislingGraph today. It’s quite interesting how the supertanker changes course slowly, but change course it does. This is not the first such paean of praise to Obama and generalised socialism I’ve seen in that rag recently.

For Libertarians, whoever wins (unless it’s the LPUK, or, at a remote pinch, UKIP) the result of the next British general Election is rather academic. Even if Diddy-Dave-the Cameroon gets in (sightly less improbable than the LPUK, sadly) little or nothing is going to be done to address the real, structurally-political problems that a nation faces. These are such as a government that does too many unnecessary things, very badly, and mostly with menaces: and supported by a carcinogenically-enlarged clientariat bureaucracy which depends on the same government for the filling of its dinner-pail with pig-swill, paid for by others – voting automatcally for it in return.

Really the short and medium-term prospects for liberty in the UK in particular, and in the West in general, are not good. As one gets older, the contemplation of revolution fills one increasingly with horror – although it is not easy to see what else could be done now. If Auberon Waugh had been alive today, I doubt not that he’d have trenchant views on the problem. He correctly identified certain trends many years ago, such as his adumbration, presciently, of the “Police Terror” – this and other material even in the golden days, when we foolishly all thought that all was for the best in this best of all possible worlds.

Auberon Waugh would say: “I do not suggest that we all raid the Town Halls, drag all anti-smoking-coordination-of-delivery-and-outreach-workers into the street and beat them to death right away, but…”

What the left hysterically refers to as “High-Traffic Right Wing Blogs” are what they are because people are upset and angry. Moreover, it is transparently obvious that those who write them are not spinning lines but tyring to articulate what real people really feel about this nation and what’s been done to it. It’s not clear that many opposing blogs are doing the same thing: they have to rely on “rebuttal”….why? Discuss!

Baby P: Child Abuse, Social Services, and socialist boroughs. This is quite interesting in a macabre and sinister way. Guns and children. Let’s smell some rats.

David Davis

(Here’s what we are gong to say tomorrow, about Baby P.) This is what’s commonly and Stalinistically called: “a leak”.

I don’t quite know how far to come out in the open and risk enemy fire, here. But I am sort of intrigued in a Sherlock-Holmsian way, you know, sort of, by the seemingly endless trail of poor wretched children, mostly from inner cities and under the care of Stalinist New Labour Soviets boroughs, who seem to be left to die, by “Social Services” while “under their observation”. The news only gets out after the poor child’s terrible death at the hands of a violent male or some other feckless “carer”. there was the Victoria Climbié business some years ago, and now this, from Obnoxio, but also reported on Guido.

I decided not to pick it up as the issues are not strictly theoretical-Libertarian, but I do begin to smell a rat, and, er ….. and see it floating in the air.

Could it be that a regime of draconian State “Child Protection” (and State-child-databasing) is being engendered (and by whom?) through a series of “regulated and allowed” high-profile cases of the death of a small child, in which the “Social services” are instructed actually NOT TO intervene until it’s too late?

Are the “pretty children” who occur from time to time in these scenarios, (who of course will need to be saved immediately) being farmed off quickly somewhere (and by whom, and for whom?) which is why we never see any?

Or hear about them?

And why the poor dead ones have been those few who were really in the soup beforehand? And about whose deaths “lessons can be learned”?

Is this rather like the Dunblane business and guns?

Gotta be a wind-up, or else the buggers are more confident than we think

David Davis

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm…..sounds also like tye are back-tracking as soon as it gets published, so it’s probably real.

Also, our people MUST NEVER NEVER say “political correctness gone mad” – that merely legitimises “political correctness”, as I have always warned. It is not mad, and it can’t go mad. It is simply bad.

Mandelson: I’m sorry, Tony – but it’s TIME TO BUZZ THE TOWER

David Davis

Old Tony Hollick, my old rooming-chum nearly 30 years ago in Beckenham when we wozz both poor (I still am), thinks Peter Mandelson is a great guy, with whom you’d love to have dinner rather than Cameron (use a long spoon in both cases). Obnoxio the Clown tends not to be quite exactly so positive as that, and inclines more to my view.

As Libertarians, we view all the parties as Stalinist-Pork-Barelling-Shysters. Only, if there does really exist the notion of “right” and left wrong in the world, then the Mandyman is wrong less right than the Stalinist “Conservative” party.

So, let’s ask you lot!

If you had a gun at your head and had to choose, as a British Libertarian, which one you’d go into an election with against, which would you choose?

I’ve just put this on another blog but I have to share it with you here.

David Davis

Please go to Big Brother Britain, if you fell that you’d like to, for more good stuff.

Libertarian Alliance Remembrance Post 6: what ought Libertarians to plan for, and discuss, regarding what’s worth defending, and why ought we to defend anything at all?

UPDATE….and Tim Worstall does it better than I do as well….

David Davis

That’s it for this year, you’ll all be relieved to know…but first, I will direct you to the Devil, who writes all this quite important stuff, which ought to be noted and spread virally into the endarkening before it’s too late, far more effectively that I do. Then I’ll just make the point that this being the 90th commemoration of the end of World War 1, it’s probably the last one of any size: moreover, that it’s remarkable that we have any of what my old dad used to dub “the poor old chapsleft to witness it.

The centenary will probably have State-regulated fireworks compèred by Jonathan Ross. There will be scantily-dressed BBC-news-readerettes who will hand out strangely unfamiliar red flowers in the streets shopping prestinks, to bemused passers-by, the whole thing edgily-videoed by wildly-waving handycams. (“And now it’s back to you, Russell Brand, in the studio!”)

There are many strands of Libertarianism. Chris Tame used famously to say that “there may be two Libertarians somewhere who agree about everything, but I’m not one of them!” Of course he was just making a point theatrically, which he was good at, but he meant that, unlike Trotskyo-Marxian fascists and big-statists, we can amicably discuss a large range of ideas without pogromising each other.

For example, Sean Gabb and many others have always opposed British involvement in Iraq (and for all I know elsewhere too) as not involving any vital British interests and therefore totally unjustified. He may turn out to be right, but I have always disagreed. I think the West responded with much too little, and much, much too late after 9/11, dragged down and back (until it was too late) as it was, by internal traitors in the UN, the EU, on the Beltway especially, and elsewhere, from the easy and clean fulfilment of its essential and unitary objective.

Then, there are Libertarians who would restrict the Franchise on property criteria. Insofar as we have a State, and a government, and while this is unavoidable, then it should be a pluralist democracy and so therefore I support these people, Salisburianly speaking. But I risk scandalising others as a result. It does not matter: we will not bury ice-picks in each other’s skulls.

To libertarians like me, Western Civilisation, especially when conflated with all the popular externalities created BY free markets and minimal State-Planning and especially when un-influenced by what Sean Gabb calls the Enemy Class, offers the fastest and least-destructive path for all Men to improve their lives and be happier. We do not know what comes after this life, if anything (that can be perceived in a physical sense) and can’t ever so far as we know find out; although many of us – even among Libertarians – believe there is a God, and that He approximates to that Being hazily described in 1.Genesis and also in 1.John.1. Paul of course said that “for now, we see as through a Glass, Darkly”: all we can therefore do is what seems best, or least bad, at the time. Human existence is imperfect, but small bits of progress can be made, and accumulated, provided they are allowed to. It’s the “not allowing” bit that totalitarians do that causes the problem.

What distinguishes Western Christian (in the old pre-secular sense) Civilisation from those others it has had the bad fortune to have to oppose and defend against, is the gradual if imperfect rise of a notion of individual conscience and liberty of thought and action. The going has not always been easy or uninterrupted. But in the end, we arrived shakily, “darkly”, at something whereby one could go through life substantially without coming into contact with the jaws of the State (Sean’s words roughly interpeted, not mine) and a degree of liberty meant also that there was a degree of spontaneous order.

These poor old chaps now finally pass out into the sunset of history, soon to be followed by those left from a later and worse conflict. They thought through the prism of their time, rightly or not, about what was worth defending. It would be nice to think we didn’t have to, but what we face now is just another manifestation of the enemies of individual freedom, this time very sadly right at home inside the West. Yes there may be a few terrorists skulking about, but add up all the deaths and destruction they have wrought and yet could, and it’s a pinprick compared with what the Gramsco-Marxians intend and are incrasingly coming out into the open with. Terrorists can only kill people and blow stuff up: they can’t begin to erase ideas.

If individual people are strong in what they believe, and if they honestly believe it, then terrorists can only isolate themselves further. But if we all acquiesce in the deliberate and purposeful Gramsco-Marxian elimination of our culture and the freedoms it gave rise to, then there is no place for llibertarianism to hide.

Oxford Libertarian Society’s Blog added

David Davis

New blogroll addition. We get a mention here, which is nice.

Libertarian Alliance Remembrance Day Post 4

David Davis

Thanks to Guido, we can spot stuff that we would miss. I don’t know how the old bugger does it: I have not mostly the time to scratch my bum as you all know. he must have, like hazel Blears fears, an army of blog-driven-researchers, endlessly fighting to the end of their strength and beyond, to distort what the Stalinist Labour left thinks of as the “correct” “terms of discourse”.

But, through the efforts of the great man and his army-corps-sized-stadium full of anti-Hazel-Blears-researchers, I’m glad I did not miss this, which is a moving and sad song. In this time of remembering “all the men whose names live on these walls”, we must not miss the point of what they – and perhaps we if we were less lucky – did (and do even today) for the only environment which has (or could) encompass liberalism and libertarianism.

The bugles calling from sad shires did not call because they wanted a society full of State-Cameras, health-and-safety laws, identity-cards, and the endarkenment of language by the removal of words and thoughts…

…the bugles called because they, and the men they fruitlessly called home never to return, wanted the opposite. Here they all are now:-

You must NOT sing from the same hymn-sheet any more….

….for it “could offend atheists”.

David Davis

A little while ago I published a reference to this nonsense, in which I got upbraided a bit in the comments by old Tony Hollick – for supporting the allusion to expressive abstratctions in Latin which everyone understands.

I can’t find a live link today, but Salisbury council Soviet says we must not “sing from the same hymn-sheet” any more as atheists could be offended. Can’t tell if it’s a wind-up but I sadly suspect it’s true.

I wonder if Hazel (chipmunk) Blears thinks that “Right Wing Blogs“, such as this one here, or this one here, are “singing from the same hymn-sheet”, and if so, what phrase she would use?

Jesus Christ help us, we are now really in trouble….

because of the Messiah and his FIVE MILLION GREEN JOBS (to be paid for, er, how?)

David Davis

Barack Obama is promising a $150bn “Apollo project” to bring jobs and energy security to the US through a new alternative energy economy, if his final push for votes brings victory in the presidential election on Tuesday.

“That’s going to be my number one priority when I get into office,” Mr Obama has said of his “green recovery” plans. Making his arguments in a radio address yesterday, the Democratic favourite promised: “If you give me your vote on Tuesday, we won’t just win this election. Together, we will change this country and change the world.”

God help us now.

Simon Heffer can see through Barack Obama too…

David Davis

It is good to find that I am not the only one who thinks the Obama Presidency will crumble into the usual dust, to the great unweal of all the rest of us fighting the coming of the New Dark Age.

Big Brother Britain: hot new minimal-statist blog focussing on the obvious…

…outward and also more covert signs of the Pan-Opticon State.

David Davis

I am pleased to have been asked to write for this blog, which is quite new and deserves support from all varieties of liberal and Libertarian. My objective is to put up something today to kick off, so watch this space, even though my access privileges over there don’t yet let me upload files. I do not intend to merely repeat posts from here onto there: different blog objective, different content.

Ideally, all committed free-marketeers and pro-liberty-people might try to visit it once a day, as they do ours here.

ITEM:- UPDATE…I can now put stuff up attached and embedded! So let’s all help it take off. The more bloggers we have, the harder it will be for the enemy class! And the more good stuff for all you lazy buggers to read !

Barack Obama: An English View from Sean Gabb

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the
Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 176
8th November 2008

Barack Obama and America’s 1997:
Welcome to the Club!
by Sean Gabb

I have been asked by several of my American readers to comment on their presidential election. I did think to ignore these requests. Having spent very little time there, I cannot be regarded as an expert on America. Nor am I particularly fond of the place. I think its war of independence was brought on less by the Stamp Act than by Lord Mansfield’s judgement on the illegality of slavery at common law. I also think its war between the states was won by the wrong side. It would have been better for humanity had the Union been broken up and its member states made into British satellites. Sadly, the United States survived, and was able to grow into the mercantilist oligarchy that took the most significant – because ultimately the most successful – place in the triumvirate of Soviet communism and European national socialism that ended the hegemony of English liberalism.

Having considered the request, though, I do have something to say. The range of opinion about Mr Obama’s election seems to be marked at its limits by the BBC and by organisations like Vdare and American Renaissance. The former believes he is a fusion of Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, and has turned its news broadcasts into a hymn of secular joy. The latter believes that he is indeed Messrs Mandela and Luther King – the real ones, that is, not the constructs of the politically correct classes – and that he will surround himself with Black Panther bodyguards and declare Ebonics the official language of America.

I think both opinions are wrong. The first is not worth commenting on. The second is wrong because so many American conservatives are still in shock at the thought of having a black man to rule over them. Mr Obama got his campaign funds in the usual way – from business interests that will now want their reward. He will need to operate within a system that remains dominated by whites. Within a year or so, the non-whites who are still celebrating his victory will have noticed that nothing much has changed as it affects their lives, and will be denouncing him as a white man with a black face.

This is not to say, however, that nothing important has happened. Something has happened, and it is both important and dreadful for the American people. America has just had its equivalent of our 1997 revolution. Looking at the eighty four years until then, power in England had become both more oppressive and less accountable. But the main features of our Constitution remained in place, and conservatives had been able to retain sufficient institutional power to slow down the drift into tyranny. The election of New Labour allowed the wholesale remodelling of the Constitution, so that little now remains around which conservatives can unite. I now live in a country where power is less restrained than at any time since the sixteenth century – where formal sovereignty has been passed to various foreign agencies, where the media is controlled, where civil liberties have been casually squashed, where the armed forces have been made into instruments of an imperial aggression that brings neither glory to their nation nor better government  to their victims.

So it is now in America. The American Constitution and Bill of Rights have always been a fraud. From slavery to civil asset forfeiture, they have never restrained any abuse of power on which the American ruling class has been determined. But the country is very large, and there has usually been strong local suspicion of Washington. Given a ruling class interested mainly in dividing up the profits of commercial privilege, and prepared to indulge any right that did not get seriously in the way of this, the American people were left with the appearance, and often the reality, of much freedom.

The new presidency is no more about having a black man in charge than New Labour was about having all those Scotch voices in government. It is about a change in the ruling class. This is the election in which those whose minds were captured in the 1960s and 1970s by the neo-Marxists have taken over from their parents. The Clinton presidency was largely a failure because the new ruling class was still too young, and because the old ruling class had not grown too old to cling to power – and because the Clintons were too easy to hate and despise. All is different now. The new ruling class has no political opposition but a group of neo-conservatives who disgraced themselves during the Bush presidency, and who are probably less interested in opposition than in a few compromises on foreign policy. And it has a figurehead that cannot be mocked or even criticised without risk of the most horrid accusations.

Mr Obama cannot be more stupid in his actions or more embarrassing in his utterances than Mr Bush has been. But his essential function as President will be to shield the new ruling class of America while it carries through a total transformation of American life. I do not know exactly how America will change. But I can predict that, come 2016, most Americans will no longer recognise their country. It will be less free. It will be less prosperous. It will be less American. What has happened in England, and what is happening in Australia, will now happen in America.

All this is to be regretted. I think increasingly, however, that if those who are transforming the English world are to be blamed, those who are being transformed are no less to be despised. In 1917, power was seized in Russia by men who were prepared to murder anyone who so much as raised an eyebrow at them. Whether they murdered thirty million or sixty million people is important in the obvious sense. Where ensuring absolute docility of the ruled is concerned, it is the first million who matter. No one can blame the Russian people for grovelling before Stalin. But none of the almost equally radical governments that have taken over in the English world has killed any of its own citizens, or is proposing to kill any. We have been enslaved by a small minority of intellectuals whose most potent weapon is words. Any people who can be so enslaved deserves to be enslaved.

But I am about to digress. I will only say for now that the American people deserve Barack Obama. To some extent, he is their punishment for tolerating, if not welcoming, eight years of George W. Bush. More generally, they are about to lose nothing more than they have long since abdicated their right to possess.

So, welcome, America – welcome to the New Labour Club.

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 Any American who wants to understand the nature of the Obama Revolution should buy a ocpy.

Goodnight all, for now…

David Davis

Good stuff from Leg-Iron: enjoy.

Barack Obama: let’s at least “give him a Big Hand” and hope to God it works out…

David Davis

but I fear that it will not. I am already on record with that.