Category Archives: drugs

Psychology for Anarchists


by Chad Nelson
http://c4ss.org/content/27938
Psychology for Anarchists

Robert Anton Wilson’s 203-page mindbender, Quantum Psychology: How Your Brain Software Programs You and Your World, is more than meets the eye. The subtitle suggests a self-help book, and it appears to be just that in many respects. But twenty pages in, one realizes that there is no labeling this one. It is a psychedelic mix of pop-science, psychology, philosophy and politics all rolled into one. And if that doesn’t sound crazy enough, the book comes with exercises at the end of each chapter to be performed as part of a group-read. Wilson tells the reader throughout the book that he or she will gain much more from it if the exercises are actually performed. One of Wilson’s fan sites – www.rawillumination.net – joins readers together to discuss the exercises in a chat forum and, surprisingly, most are completely appropriate for remote participation. Continue reading

Introducing Big Bad Cannabis


by Dick Puddlecote
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DickPuddlecote/~3/pVGG7tYWnQ4/introducing-big-bad-cannabis.html

Introducing Big Bad CannabisVia the Guardian, it seems the left’s ideology is already getting a bit schizophrenic about cannabis.

Big Cannabis: will legal weed grow to be America’s next corporate titan?

The people who made a hippie dream come true do not look the part.

Instead of tie-dye T-shirts, the campaigners who masterminded the legalisation of recreational marijuana in Colorado wore dark suits and ties to celebrate the world’s first legal retail pot sales. Instead of talking about the counter-culture, they spoke approvingly of regulations, taxes and corporate responsibility. They looked sober, successful – mainstream. Continue reading

Somebody Might Get Hurt


Kevin Carson
http://c4ss.org/content/19461
Somebody Might Get Hurt

Every once in a while I’m inspired to write a column by looking through my feeds and stumbling across two items that dovetail together so well the column almost writes itself. This is one of those times.

There are several hard realities that most liberals — as opposed to those of us on the genuine Left — are constitutionally unable to admit into their “Why Mommy is a Democrat” view of the world. Among them are the following: First, any legislation they reflexively pass pursuant to a moral panic over people getting hurt will also result in people getting hurt. Second, the kind of society they desire can only be achieved through the large-scale, lawless exercise of power by the state. And third, the state is inevitably run by the kinds of people who enjoy exercising such power. Continue reading

The “War on Drugs” is Really a War on You


by Kevin Carson
http://c4ss.org/?p=8757

Hardly a week goes by without me seeing another think piece on the question: “Are we winning the war on drugs?” Continue reading

Nigel Farage on Drug Prohibition


Any Questions, 2nd April 2010:

“I have a feeling that prohibition in this whole area simply isn’t working. Every year we say that we are going to fight the war on drugs harder than we have fought it the year before. And I think this is one of those areas of life, and, whilst people may find this distasteful, I think we need a proper full Royal Commission on this whole area of drugs to investigate whether perhaps life might be better for millions of people living on council estates that are dominated by the drugs dealers, that are dominated by the crime that surrounds, the money that people raise, to get these drugs, let’s find out through a Royal Commission whether perhaps we should decriminalise drugs, whether we should license them, license the users, and sell them at Boots – because frankly if you add up the costs of drugs to society the big problem is the fact that they’re criminal and everything that goes with that. And I think there is an argument that says if we decriminalised it we would make the lives of millions of people far better than they are today.”

No comment needed!

Fifteen Benefits of the War on Drugs


by Kevin Carson
http://c4ss.org/content/17612
Fifteen Benefits of the War on Drugs

With American drug use levels essentially the same as — and levels of drug-related violence either the same as or lower than — those in countries like the Netherlands with liberal drug laws, public support for the War on Drugs appears to be faltering. This was most recently evidenced in the victory of major drug decriminalization initiatives in Colorado and Washington. Some misguided commentators go so far as to say the Drug War is “a failure.” Here, to set the record straight, are fifteen ways in which it is a resounding success: Continue reading

The War on Drugs is a War on Freedom


by Norman Horn
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/thelibertarianstandard/~3/HGo3edYIeTA/

The War on Drugs is a War on Freedom

http://mises.org/store/Assets/ProductImages/B1035.jpgBook review of The War on Drugs is a War on Freedom by Laurence Vance. Vance Publications, 2012. Orlando, FL. $9.95 at Amazon.com. Cross-posted from LibertarianChristians.com.

To many newcomers to libertarian ideas – especially Christians – it is not always perfectly clear why libertarians oppose the War on Drugs so strenuously. Some Christians even think that the only reason libertarians oppose government prohibition is so that they can get high legally. Nothing could be further from the truth. Simply put, we despise government prohibition because it is a power no government should have. Moreover, the War on Drugs is an incredible example of precisely how a government usurps liberty, destroys lives, and consolidates power unto itself. This short book by Dr. Laurence Vance, writer at LCC, LewRockwell.com, Mises.org, and the Future of Freedom Foundation, explains in great detail why everyone should oppose the War on Drugs . Continue reading

American Drugs in Egyptian Mummies


Note: This has no obvious connection with the work of the Libertarian Alliance. But it is undeniably interesting. The scale of the findings suggests local sources of the drugs in question. I find it unlikely that that there was a regular trade between the Old World and the New. Occasional contacts are not inconceivable. But the regular trade needed to explain how many bodies are soaked in nicotine and cocaine is neither likely, given the kind of ships available, nor recorded in any of the literature.

Of course, it might have been those Space Gods at work….SIG

American Drugs in Egyptian Mummies
S. A. Wells
http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/ethnic/mummy.htm

Abstract:

       The recent findings of cocaine, nicotine, and hashish in Egyptian mummies by Balabanova et. al. have been  criticized on grounds that: contamination of the mummies may have occurred, improper techniques may have been used, chemical decomposition may have produced the compounds in question, recent mummies of drug users were mistakenly evaluated, that no similar cases are known of such compounds in long-dead bodies, and especially that pre-Columbian transoceanic voyages are highly speculative.  These criticisms are each discussed in turn.  Balabanova et. al. are shown to have used and confirmed their findings with accepted methods.  The possibility of the compounds being byproducts of decomposition is shown to be without precedent and highly unlikely.  The possibility that the researchers made evaluations from  faked mummies of recent drug users is shown to be highly unlikely in almost all cases.  Several additional cases of identified American drugs in mummies are discussed.  Additionally, it is shown that significant evidence exists for contact with the Americas in pre-Columbian times.  It is determined that the original findings are supported by substantial evidence despite the initial criticisms. Continue reading

The Real Summit of the Americas Scandal


by Thomas Knapp
http://c4ss.org/?p=10160

To call the Summit of the Americas “prostitution scandal,” in which at least 23 US Secret Service and military personnel are now “implicated,” a tempest in a teapot is to vastly over-estimate its impact and importance. Continue reading

Pig Flu and the “Expert Advice”: Plutocracy in Action


 

Conflicts of interest and pandemic flu

WHO must act now to restore its credibility, and Europe should legislate

The world should of course be thankful that the 2009 influenza A/H1N1 pandemic proved such a damp squib. With so many fewer lives lost than had been predicted, it almost seems ungrateful to carp about the cost. But carp we must because the cost has been huge. Some countries—notably Poland—declined to join the panic buying of vaccines and antivirals triggered when the World Health Organization declared the pandemic a year ago this week. However, countries like France and the United Kingdom who have stockpiled drugs and vaccines are now busy unpicking vaccine contracts, selling unused vaccine to other countries, and sitting on huge piles of unused oseltamivir. Meanwhile drug companies have banked vast profits—$7bn (£4.8bn; {euro}5.7bn) to $10bn from vaccines alone according to investment bank JP Morgan.1 Given the scale of public cost and private profit, it would seem important to know that WHO’s key decisions were free from commercial influence.

An investigation by the BMJ and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, published this week (doi:10.1136/bmj.c2912), finds that this was far from the case.2 As reported by Deborah Cohen and Philip Carter, some of the experts advising WHO on the pandemic had declarable financial ties with drug companies that were producing antivirals and influenza vaccines. As an example, WHO’s guidance on the use of antivirals in a pandemic was authored by an influenza expert who at the same time was receiving payments from Roche, the manufacturer of oseltamivir (Tamiflu), for consultancy work and lecturing. Although most of the experts consulted by WHO made no secret of their industry ties in other settings, WHO itself has so far declined to explain to what extent it knew about these conflicts of interest or how it managed them.

This lack of transparency is compounded by the existence of a secret "emergency committee," which advised the director general Margaret Chan on when to declare the pandemic—a decision that triggered costly pre-established vaccine contracts around the world. Curiously, the names of the 16 committee members are known only to people within WHO.

Cohen and Carter’s findings resonate with those of other investigations, most notably an inquiry by the Council of Europe, which reports this week and is extremely critical of WHO.1 It concludes that decision making around the influenza A/H1N1 crisis has been lacking in transparency.

One of its chief protagonists is Paul Flynn, a UK member of parliament and a member of the council’s Parliamentary Assembly. He and others raised concerns last year about the lack of evidence to justify the scale of the international response to H1N1 (as also covered in the BMJ in December3), and the lack of transparency around the decision making process for declaring the pandemic.1

WHO’s response to these concerns has been disappointing. Although Margaret Chan has ordered an inquiry and WHO has stressed its commitment to transparency, her office has turned down requests to clear up concerns about potential conflicts of interest.2 And at a hearing of the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly in January, WHO denied any industry influence on the scientific advice it received.1 Such a knee jerk defence before the facts were known may come to haunt the organisation.

This response is also disappointing given WHO’s track record of standing up to industry. In the late 1970s WHO sparked two iconic clashes with multinational companies over the marketing of breast milk substitutes in the developing world and the setting up of the Essential Drugs Programme.4 Both issues set WHO at loggerheads with the United States where these industries had major holdings. Partly in response to WHO’s position, America withdrew contributions to WHO’s budget.

More recently, in 1999, when the forced disclosure of confidential tobacco industry documents alerted WHO to possible interference in its anti-tobacco activities, its then director general Gro Harlem Brundtland quickly set up an independent inquiry. She then published and press released its shocking findings—of an elaborate industry funded campaign to undermine WHO—without any attempt at interference or spin.5 The report recommended that all staff, consultants, temporary advisers, and members of expert committees should be required to declare their conflicts of interest, with well enforced penalties for those who failed to do so.6

As Cohen and Carter report, WHO subsequently published in 2003 new rules on managing conflicts of interest. These recommended that people with a conflict of interest should not be involved in the part of the discussion or the piece of work affected by that interest or, in certain circumstances, that they should not participate in the relevant discussion or work at all.7 WHO seems not to have followed its own rules for the decision making around the pandemic.

WHO will not be the only body to come under scrutiny for its handling of the pandemic. The coming months will see a spate of reports, from the European Commission, the European Parliament, and from national bodies including the French Senate, and the UK’s Cabinet Office. This soul searching takes place against a backdrop of hardening attitudes to conflicts of interest around the world. Last year’s report from the Institute of Medicine8 has been followed by new guidance from groups such as the World Association of Medical Editors9 and the American College of Chest Physicians,10 which stress that declaration alone is no longer enough. To quote the Institute of Medicine report, "Disclosure is the essential though limited first step in identifying and responding to conflicts of interest." The big question is what to do about the conflicts.

On the basis of our own investigation and those of others, the answer is now inescapable. As Barbara Mintzes says in Cohen and Carter’s report, "No one should be on a committee developing guidelines if they have links to companies that either produce a product—vaccine or drug—or a medical device or test for a disease." The same, and more, must apply to committees making major decisions on public health. Where entirely independent experts are hard to find, experts who are involved with industry could be consulted but should be excluded from decision making. The United States has made important progress with its Sunshine Act and other legislation. European legislation on managing conflicts of interest is long overdue.

As for WHO, its credibility has been badly damaged. Recovery will be fastest if it publishes its own report without delay or defensive comment; makes public the membership and conflicts of interest of its emergency committee; and develops, commits to, and monitors stricter rules of engagement with industry that keep commercial influence away from its decision making.

In a briefing at the end of last year, a spokesperson for WHO said, "Given the discrepancy between what was expected [from the pandemic] and what has happened, a search for ulterior motives on the part of WHO and its scientific advisors is understandable, though without justification."11 The implication is that, had there been a huge death toll, the process behind WHO’s decision making would not have been subject to such scrutiny. This is almost certainly true. But it does not mean that we are wrong to ask hard questions. Neither does it make the answers we have found any less troubling. And nor does it remove from WHO the urgent need to restore its credibility and public trust before the next pandemic comes along.

Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c2947

Conflicts of interest and pandemic flu — Godlee 340: c2947 — BMJ

Libertarian Alliance Statement on the New British Government


Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 193
16th May 2010
Linking url: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc193.htm
Available for debate on LA Blog at  http://wp.me/p29oR-3p4

Two Cheers for the Coalition:
The Libertarian Alliance on the New British Government
By Sean Gabb

I have been asked, as Director of the Libertarian Alliance, to make a response to the forming of a coalition government last week in Britain by the Conservative and Liberal Parties. In making this response, I do not claim to speak in every detail for the other members of the Executive Committee. But what I will say is broadly the opinion of the majority.

Briefly put, we welcome the new Government. However dishonest the individual Ministers may be, however bad may be their ideological motivations, we believe that, in its overall effects, this Government may, by its own compound nature, be compelled to move the country in a more libertarian direction. We understand the dejection of our conservative friends. These regard the Coalition as a disaster. They were hoping for a Conservative Government led by conservatives. Instead, they have a coalition government that will not withdraw from the European Union, will be easily as politically correct as Labour, and that will push forward the Green agenda regardless of cost and regardless of the scientific evidence. This seems a fair assessment of how our new masters at least want to behave. Nevertheless, we believe that the Coalition – assuming it can hold together – is immeasurably an improvement on the Blair and Brown Governments that went before it, and that it may even be rather good. We may find much that is objectionable, and we have no doubt that there will be more. But there is no point in denying that we are quietly pleased.

The worst possible outcome of the general election would have been another Labour majority. The Blair and Brown Governments had created a police state at home, and had involved us abroad in at least three wars of military aggression. They had on their hands the blood of perhaps a million innocents. That had turned the police and most of the administration into arms of the Labour Party. They had doubled, or tripled, or quadrupled, the national debt – no one seems to be quite sure by how much, but the debt has undoubtedly exploded. Though lavishing huge taxpayer subsidies on the Celtic nations, they were far advanced to destroying England as any kind of recognisable nation. Their commitment to the European Union was solely for a procedural device for ruling by decree. They had abolished habeas corpus and the protections against double jeopardy. They were working to abolish trial by jury. It is impossible to find any other government in British – or, before then, in English – history that had destroyed so comprehensively and so deliberately in so short a time. When I saw that Labour had lost its majority, I rejoiced. When I thought it might cling to power in some coalition of the losers, I trembled. When Gordon Brown finally resigned, I opened a bottle of champagne

Nor, however, would we have welcomed a Conservative majority. David Cameron is – unless constrained – an arrogant and untrustworthy creature. Our conservative friends may have expected much of him. Or they may have thought they could extract much from him. But they were always deluding themselves. We knew, from the way he slithered out of his promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, that he had no intention of looking at British Membership of the European Union. We knew that he would never lift a finger against coercive multiculturalism, and that he would drive on the Green agenda. In these respects, a Conservative Government would have been no different in its actions – rhetoric being another matter – than the actual Coalition Government will be.

From our point of view, indeed, a Conservative majority would have been far worse than the Coalition. The Conservatives had promised to roll back much of the Labour police state. They promised to scrap identity cards and the national identity register. They promised to look at the thousands of new criminal offences created since 1997, and to restore many of the procedural rights taken away by Labour. We always regarded these promises as worthless. Conservatives – Thatcherite or Cameronian – have never had much commitment to civil liberties. They know something about economics, and have some regard for the national interest. But they have never been enthusiastic about substantive freedom and its procedural safeguards. If they denounce police states, it is usually because they think the wrong people are in control of them. The Labour police state, after all, was built on foundations laid down by the preceding Conservative Governments. The commitments on civil liberties were simply intended as bargaining counters between Mr Cameron and his traditionalist wing. He would deny his traditionalists any shift in European policy. He would buy them off by shelving the abolition of identity cards, and by cancelling any efforts to bring the police and bureaucracy back under the rule of law.

And an outright Conservative win would have strengthened Mr Cameron’s position within the Party, and the position of all the worthless young men and women who had attached themselves to him. They would have regarded this as a mandate for their own remodelling of the Conservative Party. The purges and centralised control that began when Mr Cameron took over would have been carried ruthlessly forward.

But, thanks to his general dishonesty and to the particular incompetence of his election campaign, Mr Cameron did not get his majority. Instead of being carried in shoulder high, he and his friends were forced to crawl naked on their bellies into Downing Street. He was forced to enter a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. These, to be sure, are not as liberal or democratic as they like to claim. Their belief in liberty is often little more than political correctness. Many of them are state socialists. Their cooperation with the Brown Government to deny us our promised referendum on the European Constitution shows what they think of voting when its result might not go their own way. No one can blame them for threatening Mr Cameron that they would go into coalition with Labour if he did not give them what they wanted. But we can doubt the sanity and goodness of those who continue regretting that there was no “progressive” coalition – a coalition, that is, with tyrants and murderers. Even so, the Coalition Government has now been formed; and there is some chance that it may compel each party to behave better than either might have by itself.

There probably will now be a considerable rolling back of the Labour police state. Identity cards and the national identity register will almost certainly go. We do not believe that the extension of detention without charge will be formally reversed. But we do believe that it will be surrounded with safeguards that effectively reverse it. We hope it will be the same with juryless trials and the DNA database, and with police powers in general. There will be at least a limited return to freedom of speech as it was enjoyed before 1997, and of the right to peaceful protest, and of security of our homes from arbitrary searches and seizures. As said, we never believed any of the Conservative assurances about civil liberties. But the Liberal Democrats will demand their full implementation – plus a little more. They will demand this to settle their own consciences for supporting cuts in government spending.

Turning to the economy, here as well the Coalition may do good work. The Labour Ministers never understood economics. They were fundamentally Marxists in expensive suits. Intellectually, they never appreciated the nexus of individual choices that is market freedom as other than some aggregated box called “The Economy” into which they could dip as they pleased. What they described as their promotion of enterprise never went beyond trading favours with big business.

The Conservatives and many of the Liberal Democrats do seem to understand economics. They know that taxes and government spending are both too high, and that the objects of government spending are often malign. They believe not only that the current nature and scale of government activity is unaffordable, but also that it is immoral. They will deregulate.

Now, economics was always the Conservative strong point, and it may be thought that the Liberal Democrats have nothing of their own to offer. However, we in the Libertarian Alliance have never liked the Conservative approach to economic reform. Their tax cuts favoured the rich. Their deregulations turned those at the bottom into casualised serfs. Their privatisations turned state monopolies into income streams for their friends in big business. They were better in all these respects than Labour. But we are interested to see what the Liberal Democrats will now be able to contribute with their belief in raising tax thresholds for the poor at the expense of the rich, and their belief in mutual institutions to provide public services in place both of the State and of big business.

As for political reform, we hear the complaints of our conservative friends that the Constitution will be overthrown if the electoral system is changed, or if the lifetime of a Parliament is fixed. We are also astonished at these complaints. We are not about to suffer a revolution. We have already had a revolution. Since 1997, Labour has come close to destroying the whole constitutional settlement of this country as it emerged after 1688. However unwise or evil it may have been to do this, it has been done, and there is no going back to the old order. We need a thorough reform of our political institutions to safeguard such liberty as we retain, or such liberty as may be returned to us. We see nothing wrong with any of the changes so far suggested.

Our conservative friends defend the current electoral system as ensuring “strong government”. We know what they really mean. Their fantasy is that they can stage some coup within the Conservative Party and then get a majority in Parliament on about a quarter of the total possible vote. We are still waiting for them to take over the Conservative Party. While waiting, we have endured thirty one years of strong – and usually disastrously bad – government. If neither the Conservative not Labour Parties had got a majority since 1983, it is hard to see how this country would be worse off than it is. It might easily be better.

Another objection we hear to electoral reform is that it would put the Liberal Democrats permanently into government. This claim is based on the assumption that the three main parties would continue in being. In truth, all of these parties are diverse coalitions brought together by history and kept together by the iron logic of the first-past-the-post system. Give us some less random – or perhaps less biased – correlation of seats in Parliament to votes cast, and all these parities will be gradually pulled apart, and their parts may then be recombined into more natural groupings.

We will not comment on the proposed fixed term to the current Parliament, or on the enhanced majority needed to bring down the Coalition. We understand that these proposals extend to this Parliament alone. If they are found to be convenient, they may continue by statute or by convention. If not, they will not continue. But these are not libertarian issues.

In conclusion, the Libertarian Alliance wants more – much more – than all this. We want the full relegalisation of drugs. We want the right to keep and bear arms for self-defence. We want complete freedom of speech and association, and this includes the right of consenting adults to free expression of their sexuality. We want the removal of all corporate privilege from the rich and well-connected. We want the poor to be given free opportunity to make themselves independent of both state welfare and wage labour. We want taxes and government spending cut back to where they stood before the Great War – and that is only a beginning. We believe in freedom in the fullest sense. The Coalition will not come close to giving us what we want.

Nevertheless, we do welcome what we have so far seen of the Coalition. Its nature may force both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to do better than either would have done given complete freedom. The Conservatives may be compelled to deliver on their civil liberties promises. The Liberal Democrats may be forced to think seriously about their mutualist leanings now that their preferred state socialist option is off the table. The British electorate is not a single creature. It is only a singular noun that describes several dozen million individuals and a system that allocates votes to seats almost randomly. But we can understand those who claim that the British people, in all their wisdom, have stood up at last and given themselves the very best government that was on offer.

NB—Sean Gabb’s book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/ya4pzuh

Swine Flu Pandemic is Fake, German Magazine Reports


 

Swine Flu Pandemic is Fake, German Magazine Reports

A Libertarian Perspective on the National Health Service


by Sean Gabb

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 185
18th August 2009
Linking url: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc185.htm
|

The National Health Service:
A Libertarian Perspective
by Sean Gabb

 

 

 

During the past week, much of the English speaking world has been drawn into a debate on the merits of the National Health Service. For those unaware of this debate or its subject matter, I will say that the NHS, established in 1948, provides health care free at the point of use for everyone legally in the United Kingdom. It is paid for by the British State out of general taxation, and no account is taken, in treating patients, of how much they have paid or are likely to pay in taxes. The new American Government has proposed changes in the provision of health care that will move the American system to some extent in the direction of the British. This has been denounced by many Americans as a step towards an inherently sinister and inefficient system.

The debate has been joined by Daniel Hannan, one of the Conservative members of the European Parliament for the region in which I live. Speaking in America, he has said that to copy the British system would lead America towards bankruptcy “where we are now.”. He said further: “We have a system where the most salient facts of it you get huge waiting lists, you have bad survival rates and you would much rather fall ill in the US…. How amazing to me that a free people. . . should be contemplating, in peacetime, burdening themselves with a system like this that puts the power of life and death in a state bureaucracy.” ["Conservatives turn on MEP Daniel Hannan for anti-NHS tour in America, The Times, London, 14th August 2009]

These comments have, with some mild dissent, united the British political media and political classes in denunciation. The Labour Government of Gordon Brown has leapt to defence of the NHS. The Conservatives have joined in. Mr Hannan finds himself an isolated figure, facing accusations that range from a lack of patriotism to something that approaches blasphemy. Indeed, except no one has yet issued a fatwa, he is almost the secular equivalent of Salman Rusdie in his gleeful sneering at what many in this country regard as an object of veneration. Now, I am sure that he can do without my support. Even so, the scandal that his behaviour has raised in this country gives me the opportunity for speaking, as a libertarian, on the legitimacy and on the merits of the NHS.

At the most fundamental level of analysis, legitimacy and merits have no connection with each other. The NHS is funded by compulsion. I am forced, as a taxpayer, to contribute to a system that provides health care of a kind and at costings that, given any choice in the matter, I would never accept for myself and those who look to me. I am also forced to pay towards the health care of strangers. I have no objection to charity. I try to be generous to those I know. I am prepared to be moderately generous even to those I do not know, and whom I might dislike if I did know them. But so far as I am compelled, paying for the health care of others cannot be described as charitable. It is as much an act of theft as if I were to be robbed in the street. The whole present system, therefore, is illegitimate. If it were, as we are continually assured, the “envy of the world”,my opinion would not alter. It is in itself unjust. I resent its existence in my country. I join with Mr Hannan in warning the Americans not to accept it for themselves.

This, however, is the most fundamental analysis, and no discussion can be regarded as complete without some examination of its merits. And in examining these, I fell an obligation to be as fair as possible. I will begin with the quality of health care provided by the NHS.

Here, I must dissent from much of the American condemnation. There is no doubt that the NHS is inefficient, and that it rations health care by waiting list and by explicit refusal to provide certain kinds of treatment to anyone, or by refusal to provide certain kinds of treatment to those deemed unlikely to benefit from them given their cost. But rationing in one form or another is inevitable to any system of health care. The demand for health care is unlimited. There is almost no one so ill that his life could not be prolonged, or his condition while alive not improved, by some expensive treatment. The problem is always at what cost. In a broadly private system, demand will be rationed by price. In the British system, it must be rationed by cost and benefit analyses undertaken by the doctors. It is easy for American critics to point to how long someone over here must wait to have his haemorrhoids cut out, or that he may be denied some drug that will put off or ease his death from cancer. But their own system is hardly perfect.

In attacking the British system, these critics seem to argue that their own is based on individual choice and free from any taint of collectivism. I am not an expert on the American system, but it does strike me as so heavily regulated and cartellised as to have little connection to a free market. The professional associations have worked to limit the numbers of doctors and nurses, even as they have obtained the exclusion of the unqualified from the provision of medical services. The drug companies benefit from patent laws and trade protections that raise the price of medicines far higher than in neighbouring countries. The insurance companies are regulated in the interests of medical suppliers. I am told that forty million Americans cannot afford health insurance premiums, and that millions more cannot afford what most would regard as appropriate cover. These people, I accept, are not denied all treatment. But the treatment they receive is often rather poor. Even those who can afford to pay as they go find that it can take years for new medicines or medical procedures to be allowed by the authorities. In particular, I am told that many dying of cancer cannot obtain adequate pain relief. It is legal for opiates to be prescribed in America. But the regulatory framework is so ferocious that many doctors are frightened to write out the prescriptions they otherwise would.

If I contrast what I am told about the American system with what I know from personal experience about the British, the NHS is not really that bad. In December 2007, my wife needed an emergency caesarean. This was performed by the NHS. At all times, we were kept informed of our options and our legal rights. I was allowed to stand beside my wife in the operating theatre. I was then allowed to sit with my wife and daughter until gone midnight. My wife spent the next few days in a room of her own, and was left to make as many calls from her mobile telephone as her work and family duties required. While there were visiting hours, I was allowed to come and go as I pleased. The quality of treatment was first class. Apart from the flowers and chocolates and bottles of wine that I chose to lavish on the medical staff when we left, there was no final bill for any of this. About ten years ago, the father of my best friend died of cancer. There may be more effective cancer treatments than the medical establishment prefers to see provided. But within the terms set by the medical establishment, he had excellent treatment. When all else had failed, he was allowed to die in peace under a broad umbrella of opiates. Another of my friends was diagnosed with prostate cancer about seven years ago. He is a university lecturer with a good enough knowledge of statistics to discuss his chances on an equal basis with the doctors. He remains well and has no complaints about the NHS.

Perhaps these cases are exceptional. I am discussing the experience of articulate, middle class people. We know what we should ask for and how to ask for it, and we know how to show gratitude when we get it. Perhaps I should think of the newspaper reports of people suffering needlessly in filthy, open wards. On the other hand, perhaps not. Those who get bad treatment from the NHS are mostly poor and ignorant people. I pity them. But they are the sort of people who would also suffer in the American system. I do not think the American critics are comparing like with like. They are holding up the best aspects of their own system with the worst of ours. They also do not seem to have noticed that increasing numbers of middle class people over here do have private health insurance. This gives us the ability to switch back and forth to the NHS as we find convenient. I am writing this article on a railway train. If there is a crash and I must be cut from the wreckage, I shall be taken to an NHS hospital and be stitched up and reset as well as anywhere in the world. If, on the other hand, there is no crash, but, somewhere between Tonbridge and Charing Cross, I suspect the beginnings of heart disease , I can use my insurance and be looked at by an expert within two days. If it turns out that I need an operation, this can be arranged within a few days more. If, on the other hand, I need continuous medication, I can present myself and my private case notes to my NHS general practitioner, who will then prescribe the relevant drugs at a heavily subsidised price.

I will add that the NHS is probably not unsustainable in the long term. It costs about £90 billion a year to run. But this is about eight per cent of gross domestic product, and is about half the American level. There are more doctors per head of population in Britain than in America. British life expectancy is higher than American. [Facts: "The brutal truth about America's healthcare", The Independent, London, 15th August 2009] And much of this budget is spent in ways that even slightly better management could reduce. I recall attending a speech that Madsen Pirie of the Adam Smith Institute gave in 1986. For reasons that I no longer recall, but found convincing at the time, he predicted that the NHS would collapse under its own weight within three years. That was not far off a quarter of a century ago. And the NHS is with us still.

This should not be taken as a defence of the NHS. I am simply pointing out that is is no worse on balance than the American system. They are differently organised and differently funded. Each has specific advantages and disadvantages. neither has much connection with a free market. In both countries, however, the middle classes are able to get very good health care. In both, the poor and ignorant do not. The NHS is not a bad institution relative to the American system. It is bad for other reasons – and these may be bad reasons that apply in some degree to the American system.

What is so fundamentally bad about the British system – its compulsory principle aside – is that it nearly abolishes individual control over health care. Compared with the system with which we entered the twentieth century, all real power is centralised into the hands of the professional bodies. A hundred years ago in this country, the market in medical services was decentralised and diverse. The professions themselves were lightly regulated. Most doctors lived on the fringes of genteel poverty. Many sold their services directly to clients – rather as lawyers and accountants do still. Others worked for charitable institutions. A few worked for the State, looking after the inmates of the workhouses. These were the two extremes of the market. The British population of a hundred years ago was about thirty million. Those who could afford to buy medical services directly numbered a few million. Those who relied on private charity or the workhouse numbered perhaps another few million. Those in between relied on private insurance. This was provided sometimes by employers, but mostly by friendly societies and trade unions. These were strongly working class organisations. They were autonomous of the State, and prized their autonomy. Their elected officials had the job of picking and choosing among doctors and other health professionals, and stating the conditions on which they would do business. By modern standards, it was a very basic system. Most people died in their fifties, and of conditions that are often no longer listed in the medical textbooks. Then again, medicine itself was only just into its really scientific phase, and England was, by our standards, a very poor country. But the system worked and was improving.

The growing state involvement in medicine that began with the National Insurance Act 1911, and culminated in the establishment of the NHS forty seven years later, was largely a power grab by the medical professions. Doctors were relieved of having to do business with ordinary working class people, and could deal instead with officials and politicians of their own class. These officials and politicians had their own status enhanced by the ability to spend vast amounts of the taxpayers’ money. For the rich and for increasing numbers of middle class people, choice remained – if at a cartellised price. For ordinary working people, however, medicine became something that was doled out by their betters. This was attended by a great increase in the quality of health care – though this was improvement felt in all other countries regardless of how it was financed. But the result here was a growing apathy among the working classes. Where health care was concerned, they were no long active clients, able and willing to negotiate for what they wanted. They were passive recipients. They paid through their taxes for what they received. But their only input was to vote for politicians who promised better funding or better management of a system that was now insulated from direct pressure.

This contributed immensely, I think, to the decay of free institutions in England. Freedom owes much to historic evolution and to paper guarantees. It owes far more to a people who are accustomed to take responsibility for their own lives. The main difference between us and our free ancestors is that, unlike them, we find ourselves trapped within a system that provides the amenities of life but over which we have no personal control. If we want light or heat, we must rely on vast networks of energy distribution that interlock with other vast networks of energy extraction and transport. If we want our life and property to be secured, we must rely on agencies that claim a monopoly of force and that are only formally accountable to us. And for most people, it is the same with health care. Whether public or private – and there may be little real difference behind the names – these vast, impersonal networks do encourage passivity in the face of authority. When everything but housing and food shopping is provided in this way for most or all of a population, it is no surprise if these people stop being sturdy, self-sufficient individuals, suspicious of the claims of government.

Add to this the fact that the NHS employs over a million people. It is not the only bureaucratic mass-employer in this country. But it is the largest. These institutions impose values of hierarchy and obedience on those within them that are hostile to liberty. People who are regimented in their working lives – and who do not rebel against this – will tend to accept regimentation in their private lives. They will accept it for themselves. They will vote for politicians who promise it for everyone. They will spread these values directly to others so far as they have contact with the public as providers of services.

Paragraph here deleted. I don’t withdraw from the position advanced, but feel that it is irrelevant to the main point of the essay

Certainly, we are lied to and oppressed in ways that English men and women before about 1940 would have thought unimaginable. Let me return to the NHS. Last month, while in Slovakia, I was called by the BBC to comment on the case of a young man denied a liver transplant on account of his drinking. I was supposed to denounce this as more NHS fascism. When the details were explained to me, I had to give a less forthright response. Apparently, this young man needed a liver transplant if he was to live. However, the doctors had told him that the transplant would have little chance of success unless he could stop drinking for six months. Because he was not able to give satisfactory guarantees, the doctors decided to give the liver to someone else. Undoubtedly, this was not a pleasant choice. Even so, there is a shortage of organs for transplant. And given that the NHS does not ration health care by price, this was the most rational use of resources. For all I know, private insurance companies in America make similar choices by way of setting premiums or authorising treatment.

But this is not the limit of how the NHS is coming to ration health care. Superficially analogous arguments are being used to regulate general lifestyle. For a generation now, the anti-smokers have been arguing that smokers place heavy additional costs on the NHS. The reply has always been easy. Whatever inflated figures are fabricated to show how much smokers cost, they never match the amount of extra taxes paid by smokers. And there is the alleged fact that smokers die younger, and so save on pensions and long term care. But facts never get in the way of an argument for oppression. And what began as an argument for higher taxes on tobacco has insensibly changed into an argument for the creeping prohibition of cigarettes.

Smoking bans are being justified on the grounds of saving money. And assuming the facts are as we are told – they are not, but let us assume they are – the argument may be a valid one, given the system we have in this country. The NHS involves a coerced pooling of risk. Given that the costs of the NHS are high and rising – and assuming that costs cannot be controlled by better management – it makes sense for those who spend our tax money to insist that those most likely to call on large amounts of that money should be required to change their lifestyles. Of course, by the same argument, homosexual acts should be recriminalised to reduce the incidence of AIDS and hepatitis, and all women over the age of forty should be sterilised to save on the costs of treating pregnancy complications. Equally, the athletic should be prevented from taking vigorous exercise, and  Asians should be forced to give up on spicy food. For the moment, political correctness stops these arguments from being put. But lifestyle regulation is a valid secondary principle to be derived from the primary principle of the NHS. Let there be a compulsory pooling of risk, and those who place themselves at higher than average risk become fair targets for oppression. Smokers and drinkers and the obese are current targets. It is only a matter of time before an increasingly degraded political culture allows other targets to be found.

I believe that similar calls for lifestyle regulations are being made in the United States. Many companies that contribute to the insurance premiums of their employees are already insisting on contractual agreements not to smoke or to drink excessively. Given that American political culture is hardly less degraded than our own – if for slightly different reasons and in different ways – this is a consideration for those Americans who oppose the changes currently proposed by their government.

Now, I have said what I, as a libertarian, dislike about the NHS. It should be plain what I am not proposing. But since misrepresentation of opinions is so common in any discussion of health care, let me be explicit. I believe that the NHS should be dismantled and replaced with a more diverse, private system. This does not mean that I want to cut off health care for millions of older people who have made no alternative arrangements. It also does not mean that I want to cut off state funding and leave the current system of cartellised and regulated health care otherwise unchanged. I believe in a radical attack on all state involvement in health care, and this includes an attack on all state-created and state-upheld monopoly in health care.

I believe that all drug patent laws should be repealed. These do nothing to encourage innovation, but are simply a means by which well-connected drug companies extract huge rents from the rest of us. I believe that there should be no controls on who can practise medicine. State regulation does less to weed out medical incompetence and fraud than to guarantee high incomes to middle class graduates who have learnt the approved techniques of medication. The common law of contract and torts is enough to deal with incompetence and fraud. I believe there should be no controls on the development and provision of medical products. The existing laws did not prevent Vioxx and Prozac from coming to market. Again, the common law is enough to ensure some standards of propriety. I believe there should be no controls on the advertising of medical products or services. The present restrictions simply prevent ordinary people from learning what options may be available to them. Again, the common law is all we need to deter inflated and fraudulent claims. I believe that everyone should have the right of self-medication. This means the right of any adult to walk into a pharmacy and, without showing any prescription, to buy whatever medical product he desires. If many people will buy and use recreational drugs, they can do that already if they know the right street corner – and it is not the business of the State to tell us how to live. Most people will have enough common sense to take some advice before swallowing or injecting their medications. The rest should have the right to experiment. If they fail, they will have themselves to blame. If they stumble across some truth so far unknown, they will deserve our thanks.

These reforms would bring down health care costs at once. They would also clear the way for the information technology revolution to transform the market in health care. I will not try to predict how all this will be funded, though it strikes me as reasonable that it will fall into the same pattern of direct payment, charity and voluntary mutual assurance as was common before the State took over. And when I speak of mutual assurance, I mean both for-profit insurers and not-for-profit organisations. The idea that only profit-seeking organisations are consistent with libertarianism is to take a shockingly arid view of the ideology. What libertarians should like about commerce is not its taste for profit but its distaste for compulsion. What legitimises markets, in libertarian terms, is that they are structures of voluntary association. This is what brings the friendly societies and much trade union activity, and so much of what in Victorian times was called “socialism” within the heritage of the modern libertarian movement. Health care reform should not be about providing yet more money-making opportunities for state-licensed professions and state-privileged corporations. It should be about disestablishing statist structures and allowing free people to associate for their mutual benefit. If some people make a lot of money from providing services that others want, good luck to them. But the key objective should be free association. Be assured – it will be the most solid foundation on which medical progress can rest.

I will repeat – cutting off state funding all at once, and leaving in place the present system of monopoly, would be cruelty and folly. It would easily result in a step away from liberty rather than towards it. But reducing this funding over several years, as part of a general attack on monopoly, would be a blessing, the fruits of which were plain even before it was complete.

And this would apply as much to America as to England. As said, the American system is hardly the sort of free market any libertarian would recognise. But if the Americans do follow our example, I agree with Mr Hannan that they would deserve to be pitied. Worse – we adopted our system before its faults had been fully realised. Anyone inclined to copy it now deserves as much contempt as pity.

NB—Sean Gabb’s book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3

 

 

The Smoking Goons, by L. Neil Smith


 

Big Head Press




THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 523, June 14, 2009
Clearly, no nation with a Bill of Rights that includes
freedom of expression has any place anywhere for
anything even remotely like the FCC.

[DIGG THIS]

Previous Previous
Table of Contents Contents
Next Next

The Smoking Goons
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@netzero.com

Attribute to The Libertarian Enterprise

I haven’t smoked a cigarette since 1993, when I had two mild heart attacks and had to quit. Before then, I had smoked two packs a day for thirty years, having started back when I was a freshman in college.

I had enjoyed smoking and was sorry I had to quit. In my time, starting in 1964, I’d happily consumed Winstons, Salems, Camels, Luckies, Pall Malls, English Ovals, Half & Half, Parliaments, Kools, Malboros, Gaulois, and Gitanes. Mostly it was Marlboros. I was smoking Nate Shermans in an attempt to cut down (because they’re extremely good but very expensive even then), when I experienced the first of my infarctions. I may be the last individual alive ever to smoke Sweet Caporals.

When I first came to CSU in 1964, a pack of Winstons cost 35 cents and there was a little store near campus where you could buy Mexican cigarettes (not that kind of Mexican cigarettes) in pinstriped brown paper for 20 cents. I hadn’t paid attention to prices for a while, so you can imagine my surprise and horror when I was in a liquor store the other day and discovered that the price of a pack of smokes is now $4.76!

Now we hear that the Obama Administration, thanks largely to a round-heeled congress greedily spreading its legs to the proposition, and like the sanctimonious, hypocritical, power-hungry, dogwhistles that they truly are, will call upon the federal Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products as if they were narcotics, when the fact is that the FDA shouldn’t be regulating narcotics—and shouldn’t really exist at all, under the United States Constitution as written.

So much for the Democrats’ sympathy for the working poor who do most of the smoking in this culture. You union guys, remember this day.

Another day will come, sooner than you believe, when you will have to go to a government store, stand in a line, and when you finally reach the window, surrender your money, signature, and Social Security number to some slovenly-dressed bureaucrat smelling of sour, unwashed clothing, in exchange for a ten-pack of horrible-tasting generic cigarettes manufactured under the close supervision of the federal government.

As time goes on, they’ll want your fingerprints, DNA, and retinal scans, as well. As the filtered part of your cigarette grows longer, the part with tobacco will grow shorter. Ever see what they smoke in Russia?

It says here 21 percent of the American public smokes cigarettes. (I’d bet almost anything that the real number is higher; I’ve seen the same pollster lie about guns and the Vietnam war.) There being about 300,000,000 Americans, that means at least 63,000,000 of them smoke, a number comparable to that of gun owners, and half again the number of blacks or Hispanics, two minorities politicians pay close attention to.

The same pollsters say smokers are "too diffuse" a group to be useful to any party or individual candidate, and besides, most smokers say they want to quit. (That much is true; I spent most of my thirty smoking years saying I wanted to quit, and occasionally trying to, but it took the poleaxe of a heart attack to make me do it for once and always.)

Another reason it’s hard to organize smokers is that government, media, and the schools have been making them feel guilty about their habit for three generations and now the Gang of Three has them by the nads. Guilt is a solitary affliction and keeps people apart from one another.

What smokers need is a smokers’ union—I’d join up in a minute, as a "smoker emeritus"—to identify their common interests , provide certain benefits, and put a finger on the disgusting politicians who prey on them. It might begin as a smokers’ caucus of the Libertarian Party.

However that turns out, if you smoke—if you ever smoked—I want you to pledge with me, right now, that you will never vote for another Democrat again, for as long as you live. They are the ones who did this to you—FDA regulation, $4.76 a pack, no smoking even in restaurants that would prefer to allow it, huddling in the broiling sun or freezing rain outside your office building trying to get a nicotine break—and they are the ones who must be forced to pay for it.

Vote for any Republicans or Libertarians who will treat you with respect. I’d be interested to see where Dr. Ron Paul stands on all this.

In the end, there can be only one resolution: abolish the Food and Drug Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, as well. Both have murdered more individuals than they claim to have saved. Neither is sanctioned by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which makes them nothing but gangs of outlaws, bent on stealing our money and destroying the last tattered vestiges of our freedom.

Now if you’re gonna write to tell me smoking’s bad, or that people who do it—especially near kids and pets—should be castrated with a rusty chainsaw and baked in clay over a slow fire, save it. Better yet, stuff it. Having never been permitted to hear half of all the facts about tobacco, you are operating out of ignorance. Check out the connections it has historically with Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and asthma. Whatever the truth may be, my life is none of the government’s business.

How about it, smokers? You can get it started in our letters column.

Four-time Prometheus Award-winner L. Neil Smith has been called one of the world’s foremost authorities on the ethics of self-defense. He is the author of more than 25 books, including The American Zone, Forge of the Elders, Pallas, The Probability Broach, Hope (with Aaron Zelman), and his collected articles and speeches, Lever Action, all of which may be purchased through his website "The Webley Page" at lneilsmith.org.
Ceres, an exciting sequel to Neil’s 1993 Ngu family novel Pallas is currently running as a free weekly serial at www.bigheadpress.com/lneilsmith/?page_id=53
Neil is presently at work on Ares, the middle volume of the epic Ngu Family Cycle, and on What Libertarians Believe with his daughter, Rylla.
See stunning full-color graphic-novelizations of The Probability Broach and Roswell, Texas which feature the art of Scott Bieser at www.BigHeadPress.com Dead-tree versions may be had through the publisher, or at http://www.Amazon.com where you will also find Phoenix Pick editions of some of Neil’s earlier novels.

TLE AFFILIATE

Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates.
We cheerfully accept donations!

Next
to advance to the next article

Previous
to return to the previous article

Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 523, June 14, 2009



Big Head Press

The Smoking Goons, by L. Neil Smith

Acid House Parties Against the Lifestyle Police and the Safety Nazis


David Davis

I was alerted to this by Brian Micklethwait writing on Samizdata just now. Guido was a great writer of tracts long before scumbags like Damian McBride and Derek Draper were out of their pre-Enemy-Class-nappies, so to speak.

Probably Gordon Brown could not organise an Acid House Party even if he tried.

Brian “gets” the importance of what Guido has done, more than probably any other blogger at this time – to say nothing of the MSM. He also helps us understand that Guido is not “nihilist” or “right wing” – certainly not that latter calumny for sure! The Enemy Class just can’t yet understand what it means to be “anti-politics” – which is to say, “against the destruction of proper discursive politics conducted in a Classical liberal tradition.

There would never probably have been an “anti-politics” front in “politics”, if politicians had not set out on the gramsco-FabiaNazi road they have latterly, in the last 120-odd-years, taken.

The NHS: new Libertarian Alliance series: “A Doctor writes”


David Rønnqvist

No more “bedside manner”?

 

Interpersonal altercations were the sort of thing that it was once judged could usually be left to be negotiated by the people concerned. Increasingly, however, minor disputes are coming to be seen as requiring layers and layers of bureaucratic management, changing the nature of the public services we receive and altering the once-pleasant feel of England as a country to live in. We have all heard of the use of home-school contracts in the state education system and of councils that refuse to take away rubbish where the bins cannot be pulled with two fingers. This sort of thing is becoming the norm across society, and I want to focus on how it is altering the National Health Service (NHS).

 

Doctors used to be esteemed for their bedside manner, but now often behave like faceless bureaucrats who could be working at public expense in any branch of government. I recently joined a new surgery and was very surprised to receive a Patient’s Agreement to sign, promising not be abusive to surgery staff. Apparently these forms are standard now. The covering letter stated that if I did not sign the form and return it within three weeks, I would be expelled from the practice. I wondered how this complied with the requirement under the farcical Patients’ Charter to be respectful to all patients and with the right of patients under the Charter to have a general practitioner. Such mission statements and charters tend to proliferate in the public sector precisely when conflict with members of the public is rising, and can probably be taken as backhanded admissions that such public bodies no longer treat members of the public with respect.

 

In itself the silly Patient’s Agreement is just a small thing, but family members working in the NHS confirm that the trend within the NHS is towards greater officiousness towards patients. A district nurse has told me that there are altercations every single week in her practice between district nurses and old-age pensioners in their own homes over the patients’ right to smoke. Apparently the NHS believes that all their staff have the right to work in a smoke-free environment. But, rather than leaving such a minor matter to individual negotiation, smoking in front of a district nurse is now sufficient justification for explusion from a practice. The same nurse told me that when she visits patients in pairs, the other nurse will frequently issue an peremptory order along the lines of “put that cigarette out immediately or you will be expelled from the practice”. Such issues “empower” the NHS staff to behave in a bureaucratic and officious manner. No longer are they required to show respect to their patients in their own homes by asking politely for the cigarette to be extinguished.

 

Another aspect of this agenda relates to “inappropriate” language or behaviour by patients. The same nurse told me about an occasion where a 90-year-old man being catheterised in his own home made an “inappropriate” joke. When other nurses at the practice found out, one of them put in an official complaint against the patient “on behalf” of the other nurse, leading the surgery to consider whether the 90-year-old should be listed as a potential abuser and placed on a list of patients who cannot be visited alone.

 

Despite the right to care under the Patients’ Charter, patients with “inappropriate” views may be denied care. There are a number of examples in the media where patients with “racist” views have been left without care in hospital corridors. This reminds me of how my dying grandfather, who went through World War II, became disoriented in his final days, and thought the Chinese nurse attending him was one of the “Japanese”. He thought the Imperial Japanese Army was attacking down the corridor. Nowadays, such comments by a less than lucid dying man could in some hospitals be seen as justification enough for denial of care.

 

Professional behaviour in the NHS requires that all patients are treated, regardless of any “offensive” language or behaviour on their part. Medical care is not something that should be withheld as a punishment for political views. Old soldiers who do not wish to be treated by certain medical staff may be violating the most sacred principles of the multicultural elite, but the issue should be treated pragmatically. Similarly, offensive comments by Islamic extremists, or anyone else, should not be used as an excuse to deny treatment, however satisfying the “fix” of moral superiority such a response would give the NHS bureaucrat involved.

 

I note that all surgeries are engaged in constant propaganda over violence against their staff-but I believe such violence is very rare in fact. The ambulance service has a list of homes where violence is feared-apparently 729 in Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and Dorset-and are wondering whether to blacklist the homes or mandate the wearing of paramilitary jackets when summoned to those addresses. However, press reports make clear that the inflated number includes houses where staff have experienced “verbal abuse”. Only a minority of these people will have actually assaulted NHS staff. Some of the rest may have simply expressed anger at the treatment of their sick relatives or slow ambulance response times. A recent survey of around 1800 NHS staff by the NHS Security Management Service shows that 41% of NHS staff have experienced verbal abuse, but only 2% were physically abused.

 

I certainly do not believe that patients should be violent to staff, but knowledge of British society would confirm that violence to NHS staff is very rare. It may be that incredibly minor events are being classed as verbal or physical abuse today. Of those experiencing verbal abuse (in other words, an altercation of words they should be able to deal with themselves), only 54% reported it. An even greater percentage, 66%, of those physically abused did not report the attacks, confirming the view that in nearly all cases what is classed as “physical abuse” is of an incredibly minor nature.

 

I would expect that abusive or rude behaviour among patients is on the increase, but this is likely to be a reaction to the increasingly bureaucratic nature of the NHS. Contrary to the posters adorning surgery walls, serious violence to NHS staff is virtually unknown. It may be that smug bureaucratic behaviour on the part of the NHS is a reaction to perceptions of rude behaviour among patients. Patients dealt with poorly could become angry and emotional. NHS workers on the receiving end of abusiveness may call for increasingly peremptory bureaucratic controls on patients in a kind of vicious spiral.

 

It is difficult to know how to respond to the officiousness of NHS staff. Complaints or even polite comments pointing out the insulting assumptions in NHS literature would get nowhere. In the end, as the Libertarian Alliance has pointed out, the increase in bureaucratic jobs in the NHS tends to produce more and more bureaucratic initiatives. Cutting the state, or even giving the individual the ability, whether by vouchers or otherwise, to purchase healthcare would restore a sense of dignity to patients-after all, these people’s salaries are paid for out of the taxes that we pay!

 


See link at http://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/SecurityManagement/Documents/violence_towards_NHS_staff_from_the_public.pdf.

War on drugs


End it now, says liberal Conspiracy.

David Davis

We couldn’t agree more. Tip Guido.

Mexico coming undone at the seams: why ALL drugs should be legalised absolutely everywhere.


David Davis

We stand aghast, at the possibility of “military intervention by the USA” against – of all places – Mexico. We know that, since “drugs” are grown in Latin America, and since Mexico is in the way of their transfer to “Film Stars” and wannabes in British North America, where these things are officially illegal to have or trade, that therefore mexico will be on the road of transfer.

This is all very well and ought not to matter. Cars and lorries carrying cocaine and other stuff whose names I can’t remember ought to be able to cross Mexico as though it was anywhere. The problem arises because – and only because -  it is locally illegal to have, sell or use these substances, in the points of destination.

This has several effects:-

(1) It makes the substances themselves more desirable in the eyes of certain people. They will want it more because “The State” says they shouldn’t have any at all at all at all, for their own good at all at all at all .   Nsty useless Hollywood delinquents film stars will leak details of their use of it, and because they are pretty and shaggable (and that’s just the men) you will want to do it too, as you are sheeple because the liberals Stalinists have told you to become so.

(2) It makes it risky and unprofitable and demoralising, for legitimate businesses to supply the stuff. If you wozz an off-licence, would YOU want to supply cocaine to any willing buyer, if you got raided every week by the rozzers for doing it, and had your shop smashed up by them (rozzers) and were put in jug?

(3) It makes the risks of supplying it worthwhile, for shysters and hoods, who don’t mind having to shoulder the boring business of killing people including police and soldiers, in the course of securing their hold on the distribution of of their stuff, to you. The £5-a-day habit, if the stuff was legally sold through chemists even including the impost of State Taxation, becomes the £100-a-day habit if you have to buy it through hoods who have to insure themselves – at your cost -  for their own risk against both the State and against other hoods who want to compete, for what is really a rather small niche sector.

(4) it makes jobs for Police rozzers. Rozzers are inherently tormented people, who ought not to have got like that; they need psychiatric help, and quickly.  Just as you ought not to want to be a criminal, also you ought not to want to be a policeman in the 21st century: what does that desire say about you, and your morals, and world-view, as a person?

So the way forward is quite clear. ALL drugs have to be legalised, in all jurisdictions, preferably by yesterday. This will have a number of good effects:-

(1A) The “Police”, currently a pantomime collection of gamma-minus droids unfortunately increasingly supplied with real guns as opposed to things that shoot out a flag which says “bang”, and who are “employed” by their “states”  not in chasing real muggers, robbers, burglars and killers but in harrassing “drug dealers”, “motorists”, “paedophiles”, “racists”, “terrorists”, “non-payers of council tax”, “TV-license-evaders” and “climate-change-deniers”, will find that their workload is decreased alarmingly. We will “need” fewer of them. Good.

The main solution to civilisation’s ills is

fewer Laws,

and more and better people.

There may even be “calls for” “FEWER POLICE ON THE STREETS”. I think that in a civilised society, the police ought to be invisible: see poll below.

(2A) The use of “drugs”, which is to say substances currently classified as drugs”, by all people, will fall dramatically. or it may not: I do not know. But I think it will fall.

(3A) The legalisation of “drugs” will mean that Galxo-Smith-Klein, Schering-Plough, Ciba-Geigy, and all the others, will be abot to compete legally for whatever market they think they can get. Adverttisisng will be allowed. Advertising is the best way to garotte bad stuff fast. The purity and quality of products will thus rise, and the price will fall to the point where the “State” will come in.

(4A) The “State” will take a take. Where GSK wants to sell you your Ecstasy for 50p a go, via the chemist down the road in Shaky-street (PR8  . . . ) , the State will take £4 or so, making it about the price of 20 fags. What’s the point of going and doing crime, if it’s only that much? You can get it from your dosh you that get “on the sick”.

OK so the “State” wins, win-win in the short run. But it’s got to justify how it needs to spend so much less on policing, since there’s so much much less less petty crime going on down.

That in itself will be tremendous fun to watch.

SMOKING, health fascism, New Labour, and Children: two more reasons why you should smoke. And Keeley Hazell wants her little shops to stay open late.


UPDATE:- And Gordon Brown wants  __YOUR__  body…..

David Davis

We talked about this some months ago. Now also, you should smoke for the children, and also to keep up ZanuLieborg’s taxation-takings, so they can continue to dip their hands in the Till at the expense of poor-people who have nothing else much to lighten their miserable Nazi-jackbooted lives.

It is an absolute wonder, to me, that nobody else in the media-Glitterati can see that we are being marched, by jackbooted ThugNazis in our government, back to a pre-capitalist, neo-feudal society, that looks like anything pre-1381 – the date of the first bourgeois tax-revolt.

Ordinary common-or-garden Nazis were disarmingly frank and openly brutal, by comparison. They approached Mugabe’s PR skills, in fact.

Now  then….This caught my eye as the Firefox foxthingy animal-dooberry started to run just now.

What else is “to be sold under the counter” on direction from “ministers”, in due course?

Alcohol (causes death by driving), knives (kill people), tabloid newspapers and “Zoo” and “Nuts” (offend wimmin), FHM, pork (offends Moslems and contains cancer-causing chemicals), automobiles (pollute the planet), and we could all name more things that “dangerous”, “offensive” or risky in use.

You’d have thought that this junta, so keen on promoting the plight of “small shops” and “small businesses” would want to make it easier for them to sell gear to people, not harder. I don’t believe for a moment that !”ministers” who write and spout this stuff are unaware of its shining fascism: I think they mean it very, very sincerely and that they absolutely know that they can, must, and will force people to behave in defined ways predicated by themselves and theyr gramsco-Marxian “uni” Tutors. Just regard some of this blisteringly fascist prose:-

Tobacco products will be barred from display in shops despite fears it could hit small stores during the economic downturn.

The new restrictions come after an extensive consultation on measures to reduce the number of children who take up smoking and helping those already addicted to quit.

But ministers will not go as far as recommending all cigarette packaging be plain with only the brand name and health warnings printed on them.

Sales from vending machines will also be restricted as research has shown children can buy cigarettes from them easily even though they are supposed to be in places where shops owners and pub landlords can supervise them.

Experts are keen to build on the success of the ban on smoking in public places, introduced in England in July 2007, and the increase in the legal age to buy tobacco to 18.

The main opponents have been concerned at the impact on small businesses during the downturn and a surge in illegal tobacco smuggling into the UK.

Last night a Business Department source said: “We know that business has been resisting this but there are times when the consumer’s interest must outweigh that. We believe the public are with us on this move.

“We have asked smokers’ views on this too. There is no doubt that the vast majority want to quit.”

It was reported last month that Business Secretary Peter Mandelson was attempting to block the moves because of the effect on small newsagents and corner shops which rely on cigarette sales for up to a fifth of their custom.

Research has shown that children recognise many brands of cigarettes and prominent displays of products helps to reinforce their familiarisation which influences them to take up smoking. A study in California found children aged between 11 and 14 were 50 per cent more likely to smoke if they had been exposed to tobacco marketing in corner shops.

Shelves full of cigarettes also lure those trying to quit smoking into buying more packets or tempted those trying to quit to buy them, the Department of Health consultation said.

Almost a third of smokers thought removing cigarette displays would help them to give up.

The products will not necessarily have to be placed under the counter but should not be visible, ministers will say today.

It could mean that cigarette packets are covered, placed in a cupboard or a back room.

Launching the consultation in April, health minister Dawn Primarolo said: “It’s vital we get across the message to children that smoking is bad. If that means stripping out vending machines or removing cigarettes from behind the counter, I’m willing to do that.

“Children who smoke are putting their lives at risk and are more likely to die of cancer than people who start smoking later.”

Other countries have already banned the display of tobacco at the point of sale or are planning to do so including Iceland, Thailand, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway.

Latest figures show 22 per cent of adults smoke in England, which is down by 1.9m since 1998, and the Government is on target to reduce this to 21 per cent by 2010.

However almost 30 per cent of those in routine and manual jobs still smoke and rates are not dropping in this group as fast.

Smoking is one of the leading causes of early death and accounts for 87,000 deaths in England each year and smoking related illness costs the NHS £1.5bn a year to treat.

Among children nine per cent of 11 to 15-year-olds smoke regularly, rising to one fifth of teenagers aged 16 to 19. More than three in ten 20 to 24 year olds smoke, which is the highest of any age group.

And…I’m sure that Keeley Hazell would not want her little local shops, in Bromley, to go bust through lost ciggy-sales…the sales merely lost to the pushers, at £125 for 20 smacks! I’m not betting on it, but I’d guess the “street” price of 20 “Marlboro’s”, not legally manufactured by Philip Morris, at all, to be about £5 or £6 per spliff… and that’s for starters, until it gets more difficult to supply….

Sorry Im not allowed to smoke on film....

"Sorry I'm not allowed to smoke on film...."

More about capital punishment


David Davis

My esteemed LA colleague from Scotland wrote a piece the other day, here. This was, _inter alia_, referring to the issue of capital punishment as ought to be able to be inflicted on unfriendly intruders onto one’s property, none of whom can have one’s interests at heart while they are where they are.

He and I are both iffy about the possibility of the “State” being able to dispense such punichment. History shows that in almost all cases, we are right. This is of course, as everyone will agree, with the absolute exception of Britain and the British Empire and the Anglosphere. Elsewhere, this dispensation has been unsuccessful as the buggers-in-power have never been able to be trusted not to abuse such a delegated right. Or, indeed not to simply usurp that power unilaterally, for various spurious doctrinal Utopian reasons.

However, “polls” show a consistent majority of British people in favour of a return to capital punishment. This is all very well, but they want the wrong solution to the wrong problem, although they think currently that it’s the right solution to the right one.

The problem is that violent and “medium” crimes are out of control because the British socialist state does not want to reduce or control them. It is convenient for it to have a monopoly of force and power of arrest, and for no weapons of any consequence to be held by anyone who cowers in terror, which is most of us – excepting real criminals who don’t mind hurting people in the course of ordinary business.

This is excepting knives, which will be hard to eradicate and ban the possession of, given this British Socialist State’s obsession with forcing us all to eat what my wife calls “unprepared food” – that is to say, stuff that you have to peel and boil (without salt) or even grow, if you are unfortunate enough to be a farmer. Apart from knives, everything else has effetcively been cleared away from all those who most need the gear. I expect that compressed-air-weapons will be next. The number of staged “accidents” involving “boys” is rising.

The State made a contract to propect individuals from harm, crime and loss of property or llife, in return for us surrendering our right to exercise force in the defence of those rights. It has failed, and has signed away our right (delegated to it on our behalf) to kill serious evil-doers. I am therefore not (at this time) in favour of the death penalty returning, unless the reciprocal right to harm or even kill an assailant (vested in an individual) is returned to individuals.

Then, we can properly re-delegate the exercise of that right to a State, in absentia. but we can’t do that, unless we previously have that right ourselves. Discuss!

 

British Government “survey” of people’s sex lives, partners, children – living or dead – and incomes. What have these got to do with each other except as an extremely perverted form of coercive socialist pornography?


David Davis

The title says it all. Here’s the thingy in the Daily Torygraph. I believe the Mail on Sunday yesterday 20th April carried it as front-page.

It’s serious Political-Correctness gone sane.

Fully.

Logical-conclusion-stuff. 

(Wish it WOULD go mad, fall off a cliff, and die.)

Passive drinking …. here we go down to the cesspit again! Next, it will be “passive driving”. Wonder when we will have to admit to “passive sex” as a way of reducing “teenage pregnancy”?


David Davis

Here we go. The stalinist bastards have got out of bed before us, as ever (‘coz they izz boring turds who don’t write computer-games or run silicon-valley firms.) Perhaps we should design less comuter games, and have less long hair and lip-piercings; and instead carry more real guns and point them while loaded at bureaucrats who have no sense of humour.

Why don’t bureaucrats laugh at anythng? When did you last see a “public employee” laugh?

I though so.

Here’s some of it:-

 

The war on ‘passive drinking’

Posted by Bruno Waterfield on 17 Apr 2008  at 21:27 
Tags: 
Crime, EU, public health, Alcohol

 

European Union and United Nations officials are plotting to make drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.

 

Your drink could endanger others, claim UN and EU officials

Hectoring campaigns over “passive smoking” are credited for Europe’s almost total smoking ban. Now alcohol is in the sights of the public health miserablists and they have invented the concept of “passive drinking” as their killer argument.

The Daily Mail takes up a report in New Scientist to trumpet a new “guilt campaign” that is heading our way. “The World Health Organisation’s global strategy will aim to match the success of campaigns which have made smokers feel guilty about the harm second-hand smoke does to others,” says the report.

Ian Gilmore, president of the Royal College of Physicians is wheeled on to confirm the new approach. “The tipping point for banning smoking in public places was third party damage,” he said.

The EU public health brigade are not far behind, in fact Brussels miserablists in the European Commission’s DG SANCO have been trying to poison the drinking debate with this new assault on reason for years.

I took up the EU “passive drinking” debate around two years ago in response to strident claims, in a Commission report, about the high environmental or social toll of alcohol, the “harm done by someone else’s drinking”.

“The total tangible cost of alcohol to EU society in 2003 was estimated to be €125bn (€79bn-€220bn), equivalent to 1.3 per cent GDP, and which is roughly the same value as that found recently for tobacco,” said the report written by Dr Peter Anderson, who has a background in the World Health Organisation (WHO) and who played a leading role in Tobacco Free Initiative Europe.

“The intangible costs show the value people place on pain, suffering and lost life that occurs due to the criminal, social and health harms caused by alcohol. In 2003 these were estimated to be €270bn, with other ways of valuing the same harms producing estimates between €150bn and €760bn.”

On Thursday, at an informal meeting of health ministers in Brdo, Slovenian Health Minister, Zofija Mazej Kukovič dusted off the report – and its language.

“Harmful and dangerous alcohol consumption causes more than seven per cent of the premature morbidity and mortality in our countries. The annual costs stemming from this have been estimated at as much as €125 billion for the EU as a whole. However, the harm caused by alcohol is still underestimated,” she said.

The figures are meant to be pretty scary. Drink is responsible for 2,000 homicides, four out of 10 of Europe’s annual murders. “The economic cost of alcohol-attributable crime has been estimated to be €33bn in the EU for 2003….while the intangible cost of the physical and psychological effects of crime has been valued at €9bn – €37bn,” said the Anderson report.

Children, too, are passive victims of drinking. “Many of the harms caused by alcohol are borne by people other than the drinker responsible. This includes 60,000 underweight births, as well as 16 per cent of child abuse and neglect, and five to nine million children in families adversely affected by alcohol,” says the EU report’s summary.

 

The link made by between alcohol and crime today, whether violence or child abuse or other social ills, follows not from hard facts but from an outlook that sees human characteristics as damaging in general. And if human beings, particularly when under the influence of stimulants, are destructive, then, the argument goes, social intervention must follow. The idea that almost any activity – drinking, eating, speaking, even thinking – can cause harm is often blown out of proportion and used to generate frightening figures and policies.

The sheer absurdity of the idea of “passive drinking” would be funny if the public health lobby was not so powerful and unpleasant. I found that in a twist of irony, probably lost on po-faced public health types, that the expression “passive drinking” seems to have originated as a spoof in two Peter Simple columns in the Daily Telegraph in 2002 and 2003, written by the late Michael Wharton.

Mocking the rise of nonsense research to justify social measures, he wrote about research work being carried out by “Dr Ron Hardware of Nerdley University”.

“They were the first to discover the scourge of ‘passive drinking’, showing by painstaking experiments and finely adjusted statistics that it was just as deadly as ‘passive smoking’ and equally capable of causing cancer and innumerable other ills,” he wrote.

It is no longer a joke or satire – do read more here on Spiked.

We need to stand up to these people.

Posted by Bruno Waterfield on 17 Apr 2008 at 21:27

 

 

 

 

 

Judith Hatton RIP


Sean Gabb

It is with deep regret that I announce the death last Thursday the 10th April of Judith Hatton. She was for many years one of the most formidable defenders in our Movement of the right to smoke. One of her last achievements, indeed, was to advise the makers of the film Topsy Turvy on smoking habits in Victorian England. Thanks to her, this remarkable film is drenched in alcohol, nicotine and other recreational drugs. She turned a film about Gilbert and Sullivan into a window on how life was lived in a free country.

Her death is to be lamented. However, bearing in mind its great length, and its general richness, we ought much more to celebrate her life.

Sean Gabb, talking about “OBESITY” in the BBC – interesting comment


David Davis

I don’t know anything about this idea, but it sounds interestingly plausible. Would any bloggeeks who inhabit this place like to give it “peer review”?

G E Alderson

(the above is where you can go to talk to the guy who commented what follows):

The Government are taking advice from a section of the medical profession who (as Prof. Mann’s review has determined) has a 99% failure rate. We had an obesity incidence in, say, 1960 that occurred in ‘NOCTURNAL HUNTER PHENOTYPES’ who inadvertently overate when eating in daylight.

With the diet of 1960, the ‘DIURNAL HUNTER PHENOTYPE’ eating in daylight did NOT overeat and become obese.

NOW there has been a significant (for the HUNTER PHENOTYPE) change in the British diet.

On an exponential curve (I think he’s being a bit hyperbolic here – no pun intended! – Ed.) over the last 40 years or so, the SOURCE of the fat content has switched from FAUNA to FLORA. The metabolism of the HUNTER PHENOTYPE does NOT recognise FLORA fats when swallowed (at any time of day) and therefore nowadays the DIURNAL version (still eating at the correct time – daylight) are inadvertantly overeating FLORA fat and gaining weight increasing the INCIDENCE of obesity.

REVERSE the fat source switch and not only do the DIURNAL stop overeating and therefore gain no more weight, the position could not be better. Any weight gained through inadvertant overeating which is designated by the body as ’surplus to requirements, is AUTONOMICALLY REMOVED via thermogenesis in Brown Adipose Tissue. This is the theoretical explanation of the Atkins weight loss but it is NOT necessary to avoid the carbohydrates.

The HUNTER PHENOTYPE perceive FAUNA fats to ‘taste nicer’ than FLORA fats. Until the medical profession decided to ‘demonise’ animal fat, this taste prefernce was enough to keep the HUNTERS shunning the FLORA fat as it began to arrive and take its place in the British diet.
The ONLY thing that is needed is to tell the food industry that they must use a ‘Hunter friendly logo’ that guarantees the food has a fat content that is entirely from a FAUNA source with NO FLORA fat content. The STORK TASTE TEST of about 40 years ago (6 out of 10 ‘can’t tell Stork from butter) gives a ‘ballpark’ figure of approx. 40% of the British population being HUNTERS. The food industry SHOULD be willing to produce this food when they are informed that the GPs are about to tell 40% of the population to only buy food with this logo.
When the CORRECT advice is to tell people to eat food that they will find ‘TASTES NICER’ than what they are currently eating (once this food becomes available) that is advice THEY WILL GLADLY FOLLOW.
They do not need to take any exercise unless they want to. The ONLY other thing they need to do to let the weight loss occur AUTONOMICALLY is to wean themselves slowly (to avoid withdrawal symptoms) off caffeine.
The DIURNAL HUNTERS, as a generalisation will ignore all this current advice anyway but will continue to get fatter (some dangerously so) due to the omnipresence of the FLORA fats and the ever diminishing FAUNA fats in the current diet.
The full theory is available on serious request.

The New Dark Age … welcome to British State education in the next decade.


David Davis

Christina Speight, an old mate from eurorealist, comments on her own place: 

The trouble with education in Britain is that we have now gone full circle.  The youngsters who were not taught properly 20 years ago are now  the teachers of today, knowing nothing,  but high on waffle and vague theories.   They  therefore find themselves unable to teach history, geography, literature, languages, art and music because they don’t know these subjects themselves.

So they campaign to institutionalise their ignorance.  

At a time when 9 out of 10 young men who want to join the army are rejected by the recruiters as incapable of fighting a modern war (some admittedly  from general unfitness or drug use) we should be grateful that at least 10% have been educated properly enough to do a man’s job.   TEN PERCENT  - and “education, education, education” was to be top priority.”
Head teachers want to drop National Curriculum in schools
By Julie Henry
A range of school subjects could be swept away under new teaching proposals.
The attack on the National Curriculum, which has dictated school timetables for 20 years, could spell the end of separate classes in history, geography, literature, languages, art and music.
Instead, schools would be allowed to decide how they teach big themes such as global warming, conflict and healthy living.
The present list of subjects would be reduced to little more than English, mathematics and computing. The National Association of Head Teachers, responding to a select committee inquiry into whether the National Curriculum is “fit for purpose”, said its structure of 14 compulsory subjects should be replaced by a “minimum framework” that would be “skills and competence-based, rather than prescriptive and knowledge-based”.
Growing calls for flexibility, coupled with a series of curriculum reviews ordered by ministers, represent a serious threat to the future of the traditional timetable.
Academics defended the National Curriculum, saying it was the best guarantee that children were exposed to vital areas of study.
“We haven’t arrived at these subjects by accident,” said Prof Alan Smithers, of Buckingham University. “We have discovered a number of ways of making sense of the world which have been formulated as the sciences, humanities, social sciences and expressive art. It is reasonable to require young people to engage in these vital subjects for a spell of time.”

More self-promoting potty prelates in the poo … “Recycle or go to hell” … Vatican re-writes the seven deadly sins


David Davis

I don’t know what’s got into these people. Top church-wallahs, of whatever persuasion, are likely to be quite sharp intelligent guys. They have all that time to study and reflect, plus this is the age of the internet.

But we have them saying stuff like this. No longer, are you consigned to eternal lectures by Ken Livingstone about London’s celebratory diversity while standing naked in the pouring rain next to a large gutter-puddle in the Elephant-and-Castle oneway system, for showing  sloth, envy, gluttony, greed, lust, wrath and pride: these sins “now have a rather individualistic dimension”, says Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, a “close ally of the Pope and the head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, one of the Roman Curia’s main courts”. 

Instead, you will rot in the hell above through doing these….

genetic modification,

carrying out experiments on humans,

polluting the environment,

causing social injustice,

causing poverty,

becoming obscenely wealthy and …. naturally (what else?) …. 

taking drugs.

Don’t know about you, but I sometimes feel like running the odd little exercise in genetic modification on sunny summer afternoons.

There is also this uncontrollable compulsion to cause a spot of poverty…..I just HAVE to stock up these days on tungsten filament light bulbs, against the day when they will be banned, so I can still see to type. 

After a couple of drinks (it’s always a couple, isn’t it) I sometimes get the urge to go out and cause some social injustice. Perhpas like punching out some bureaucrat’s lights, or making a rude face at a picture of Gordon Brown while nobody is looking…..or (really really daring, this one) saying something nice about tesco in front of Sir Terry Leahy.  

                                                    

ANOTHER REASON WHY YOU MUST CHOOSE TO SMOKE


I think libertarians ought all to pretend publicly to smoke, even if they do not in reality. This would also be a grand gesture in memory of Chris Tame, who thought it was a nasty and disgusting, smelly, antisocial habit, would not allow it in his flat, and battled mercilessly against the health-nazis all his working life, especially while working for FOREST for the rights of smokers. Dear old chap, gold-pieces be upon him in Paradise. 

David Davis

Here’s the BBC on this anti-smoking Statist Nazis thingy-stuff

A cigarette “display ban” is being considered. A particular and identifiable droid, known in certain circles by other droids as a “Dawn-Primarolo” , is “concerned” “for the children”.

How could any living being give any job whatsoever, to someone called “Dawn” and “Primarolo” in the same line? It would have to be a wind-up by students on a rag-day.  There are no people called that. The droid referred to  must therefore be a real droid, and so legally therefore can’t exist as a person or a corporate person. Therefore it can’t discuss stuff known as “draft legislation” or “consultation” “papers”, “white papers”, green papers”. (We were given “green paper” at school in the 1960s when we had failed some task and had to redo it)

This stuff is for Nazis to discuss and not droids, so I don’t know what an early-mark Primdroid is doing being switched on here and running.

Moreover, as this blog’s historian readers will know, smoking was first linked with lung cancer by “scientists” in the Third Reich. Of course, they were quite correct. But that’s not the point: if people tell you to not do something for your own good, you become their FARM ANIMAL.

You are a  human being. Either you want to be that animal, or you do not.

Your body is either yours, or theirs (think of the implications, if you are a woman or girl – a much more dangerous thing to be under post-60s-post-western-deconstructionistic-femi-nazism, than was the case in the British Empire and Commonwealth, which functioned according to the Ten Commandments (sorry, I meant the Gospels! spotted by the comentariat..) and the Mosaic Decalogue, and also, er, Magna Carta and other stuff that is very very scary to socialists and Kingists……)

Will you allow yourself, as a woman, to be raped, because a bureaucrat says she(he) wants to “do” you? if S(he) brings the right forms, duly signed and countersigned, to your house?

Will you forbear from smoking because a bureaucrat says you must not?

 YOU have to decide. 

Crime and civilisation … citing “desperate need” could keep you out of jail.


Here is a fun thing!

Because the prisons are bursting at the seams, those caught stealing (especially from shops, and if they rough up the shopkeepers, that is to say if they are ROBBERS as opposed to mere “shoplifters”) may be able to cite “desperation” in their defence, and it may keep them out of chokey. So, er, I guess they can do it some more.

I have a well-formed policy-position on crime. Firstly, I’m against it, and secondly, it occurs because someone takes a rational decision to commit it. If a liberal civilisation, based on voluntary principles and consent between people as to what actions are allowed, is to exist, then it breaks down if these boundaries are torn away by Gramscians. It then begs the question about where gramscians stand in the question of Natural Rights, and what “Rights” therefore they ought to claim (or not) if they persist in peddling their destructive nonsense.

Of this government, or indeed any for that matter, owuld stop pretending to occupy what some see as moral high ground, and would admit that “The War On Drugs” is lost, than the £100-a-day habit could become the £5-a-day habit – about the price of 20 fags. GlaxoSmithKline, Schering, Pfizer and the rest could compete to supply the best gear, backed by advertising (to encourage brand switching of course! Remember the faile defence of tobacco-ads by its firms?) and Gordon Brown could collect £4.50 of that price in taxation. The avalaunche of secondary crimes, referred to in this article, and contingent on drugs remaining illegal, and therefore high priced and in the control of thugs, could be removed.

The Telegraph was knd enough to publish my comments, appearing at about 08.20am and 10.20 am. 

Stuff white people like …. satirical new wordpress blog …. Would that the stalinist nazis would pillory themselves ALSO, sometimes …


But of course, I’m too late, being just a bumpkin.

As is natural, you have already discovered it -

- but if not and you are just a slow, old white non-techie saddo like me, it is here.

In my view, this new blog may run out of bloggable material quite soon, since the horizons and tastes of the sub-class being sent up are rather limited. But I hope to be proved wrong, and the insights so far proposed to us are quite amusing.

DNA database …. Identity-theft …. just because the “database” says I have peed on the body, does not mean I have murdered today’s broadcast-media’s (young and sexy) girl (no, not the one in the papers yesterday or the other one the day before…)


The DNA “database” seems to be coming under attack from a few (real) policemen.

Another angle is that such a database will also open a market-opportunity for a black market in DNA – to be bought and sold and used either to “fit up” someone, or by the criminals themselves to divert attention to an enemy or someone totally innocent and unconnected. 

A chum heard a policeman argue against such a database the other day. The Officer argued that already there is evidence that some criminals are taking other people’s urine, hair, etc, and leaving it at the scene of a crime…

The officer argued for a return to old fashioned detective work.

NOW FOLLOWS A SOCIOLOGY-DEGREE-QUESTION:

DO DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST TYRANNIES FULL OF WIRELESS – TELEVISION CAMERAE and bursting at the seams with policemen, AND CONTAINING “FREE” MEDIA ORGANISATIONS COUNTERSIGNED BY THE STATE, PROMOTE AND PUBLICISE THE PRACTICE OF RITUAL FEMALE VIRGIN SACRIFICE, IN THE STREET,  BY YOUNG AND ENRAGED HAIRLESS MALES ? …..

…. DISCUSS …..

Nazi control freaks, new labour, Dawn Primarolo, binge drinking, crime, teenagers. Do go and have a look, it is so funny.


David Davis

Here.

The comment thread is also brilliant, in its extended wittiness and insight into the minds of tyrannical idealists.

Today we got……


…..seen by:

“Nazis + Green Police”

“Green police + nazi”

“Why you should smoke”

I love the smell of Google in the Morning! (What was that Vietnam movie called again? I can’t remember just now – oh, “apocalypse now”, yes?) I never watched it in full, but it is so famous that I can imagine exactly what it would have been like, such as if I had been shagging (a somewhat younger) Elizabeth Taylor.

Chris Tame would be proud of these search strings.

Political Correctness – more on this and the enforcement thereof. Degrading of property rights in the UK by stalinist government


In today’s TIMES, we have this;

Here is a summary if the link breaks;

Greater powers for official ‘snoopers’
Jill Sherman, Whitehall Editor
More than a dozen Bills going through Parliament extend

the powers of state inspectors to enter
people’s homes, the Government has admitted.
Despite a pledge by Gordon Brown last October
that he would limit powers and introduce a liberty
test, he has extended the right to enter property in
planning, crime, environmental, education and
health legislation.
A parliamentary answer obtained by the
Conservatives shows that nine Bills and one draft Bill contain
new powers of entry, with three others entrenching
existing powers.

“The fact that Gordon Brown is entrenching and
extending powers of state bureaucrats to enter
people’s homes makes a mockery of his so-called
review into powers of entry,” Eric Pickles, the
Shadow Communities Secretary, said.
The Counter-terrorism Bill and the Criminal Justice
and Immigration Bill, for example, allow entrance to
properties to enforce “social disorder” and
anti-terrorist laws. The Education and Skills Bill
allows the State to inspect private schools and the
Climate Change Bill allows officials to enter homes
to enforce black bin charges and to monitor
carbon-trading schemes.

Mr Pickles, who said that there was a need for
measures to tackle crime and terrorism, added:
 “Yet this uncontrolled extension contradicts Gordon
Brown’s empty promises on liberty and is another
worrying sign of the surveillance state.”
A survey of state powers to enter people’s homes
by the Centre for Policy Studies last April highlighted
a significant expansion of entry powers under Labour.
The spokesman from the Home Office said that all the
Bills would be included in the review of powers
of entry. The spokesman added that it was inevitable
that some new powers had to be included in the Bills
to ensure the laws were enforceable.

[This is a typical response from a person stripping you of your
liberties, and a somewhat lazy and casual one at that -Christina Speight] (see her blog)

There comes a point where, if we consider what property rights are, the line dividing them from the “rights” (temporal) delegated by consent to a “state” becomes stepped-over, and not by us but by the “state”.

We have to begin putting the word “state” in parantheses, to indicate our further and further sundering from it and its now avowed objectives. This is despite however in favour we were formally, even slightly, of a minimal “state”, as minimal-statist libertarians (there really are such people!)

We ought to consider what remedies can be taken, against this increasing tide of forced entry and (inevitable) turning-over of our private possessions, including our rubbish (which ought also to be private, for quite sound reasons.) So you green-nazis you can go stuff this new stuff up your jacksis – look it up if you don’t know what a “jacksi” is (and I bet you won’t find it on any wiki either.)

Suppose I wanted to dig a coal mine in my back garden, here? I will have to go quite deep, at least 11,000 feet as the “Wigan-Nine” – that great and renowned seam which drove the Battle of the Atlantic in WW1, and which probably does still yet underlie me here, had its shafts about 20 miles east, and tilts west at a gradient of about 1 in 11. Apart from the problem of disposing of the spoil (a simple matter of property rights and contract) why can’t I do it?

The boundary of property rights between the individual and the “state” stops at the individual’s fence. If we allow “states” to tax fixed property (and there are reasonably sound minimal-statist arguments for allowing a limited measure of this, as opposed to “direct taxation of income” which can be corrupted and get out of hand as is now the case) then in return we must have rights of limitation of allowing Nazi bureauphilia-crazed loons to trample unannounced all over our property. If there is no private sphere (the Englishman’s Castle) then we live in Cuba or North Korea and we might as well go there.

Experimental Video Posting: Chris R. Tame in 1991


http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=-4498336691183866126&esrc=sr33&ev=v&len=7789&q=sean%2Bgabb&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.co.uk%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-4498336691183866126&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-4498336691183866126%26q%3Dsean%2Bgabb%26total%3D46%26start%3D30%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D2&usg=AL29H21G15jj0CnjGUWDk_h7Lpv9nMtJBA

In and around 1991, David Botsford recorded a series of interviews for a programme that he called “Voices of Liberty”. Those he interviewed included many in the British libertarian movement, together with several prominent critics of libertarianism.The programme was never made. In December 2007, however, handed the analogue tapes of the interviews to Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance. Sean then spent a week digitising the tapes and uploading downsampled versions to the Internet.Beyond making a few obvious joins, where interviews span more than one tape, Sean decided not to edit the footage. This means occasional comedy and much dullness. But these are now important video sources from the moment when some thought the libertarian movement was on the point of political breakthrough, but it was really on the verge of decline.

If you want higher quality copies of this or any other video, contact Sean Gabb via sean@libertarian.co.uk

Six reasons why you might choose to smoke


David Davis

Like my old friend Chris Tame, who abhorred smoking and thought it was a disgusting and filthy habit, but for some of his life worked for FOREST, and with deep sincerity about the necessary liberty of the individual to decide, I would not smoke even if you paid me. Well……..now you’re offering, of course every Man has his price, but in my case it would be quite high, say £100,000 a year tax-paid, for life. You’d have to be able to wave goodbuy to about 5 million of capital.

The current lack of defence of smokers in the UK, in the face of a staggeringly cruel and merciless onslaught by the Nazi Smoke-Police, has I think its roots in the former hubris with which smokers freely (it was of course allowed) polluted the air in offices, rooms, trains, pubs and the like, without (mostly) asking if they might be allowed. When, until the late 70s, they were a majority of adults,  I guess this was tough but inevitable.

The point is, because we all felt so put-upon by their habit and its nasty smells, when we couldn’t do a thing about it, we are failing to defend Continue reading

Defending animal testing: Rights and Duties, in man and animals – NOW UPDATED Thursday 31st Jan with breaking news about the ubyssey.ca writer’s building…


24th November 2008…..thought I’d put this in from the Daily Mash.

Updated again….25th March 2008 … this post has got so many pageviews that I think a really proper article from the Libertarian Alliance, about this immensely important subject, examining the whole subject of Natural Rights, and whether these apply to “animals” as well as Humans, ought to be produced. AS we are unpaid amateur bloggers, I can’t guarantee when it will appear, but appear it must.

David Davis

[  UPDATE BIT INSERTED  ] The biological sciences building at UBC was “locked-down” (I guess that means closed off for security purposes) by Police, in response to a “threat”. I don’t know about you, but for me that means I bet you 5p it’s the “animal rights” terrorists wot dun it to this seemingly fine university, with a blog run by sensible, down-to-earth students….. I rate these ALF-type people as far, far, far more dangerous to the future of Man in the universe, and something serious will have to be done about them ,or we are f****d.  They are, in strict temporal-comparison terms, far more immediate and nearby, chronically underestimated, and potentially lethal to civilisation than the IRA, the “Palestinians” (whatever those might be,) the EU itself (which shall of course implode eventually) or “Radical” Islam. This latter one does not even get off the starting block for me, if you look at the long term effects of i-ware, pop bands, MacDonalds and fully-available-plus-half-naked-Euro-totty (mostly very nice too, wish we’d had some of this for ourselves in the 50s and early 60s) on “young Islamic men”. I might write a piece entitiled “HOW THE c-THRU CROP-TOP WILL SAVE THE WORLD.”

And now, here’s the original, unupdated post………………!

I chanced accidentally, via Mark Steyn (a bumpkin’s daily must-read, to banish the creeping, all-miasmic socialist-induced depression about the world and man’s fate) on the UBC commentary site, which approximates I guess to a student blog. The link I followed logged stuf about Mark’s and Ezra Levant’s battle with Modern Nazi Canadian Sondergerichte thingies, known as “Human Rights Commissions”. There is of course no place at all, for these wicked fascist organisations in free, grown-up nations such as Canada: a nation which, along with Poland and the rest of the British Empire, fought precapitalist-barbarian-leftism from the first day to the last in 1939-45 (and incidentally in 1914-18 too…) “People” who “staff” these grotesquely evil outfits, ought either to seek help for neuroses, or perhaps they ought to read some good history books. Then, if they refuse these two quite painless courses of help, then they ought to be asked whose side they are on in the present titanic struggle of Civilisation against…well…its opposite, and have to choose sides and fight for it.

But now, to animals!

So, scrolling down, I caught the fag-end of a debate about testing of drugs and the like, on animals. The article on the ubyssey.ca site was written by a 3rd-year Biochemisty “major” (so I guess I must have been one too, once! I still teach the stuff, and am amazed at what now is considered by today’s youngsters to be a matter of fact when we had no blinking clue earlier) who also incidentally does the site’s cartoons from time to time; it is common to find curiously polymathic scientists, the world over. His thesis is that (1) he thinks humans are more important than animals, then also (2) in order to minimize human suffering and danger in the advance of treatment for ills, it is necessary although not perfectly ideal morally to use animals, and (3) animals’ physiology and biochemistry approximates to living human systems, so minimizes the risk of error and failure to spot harmful side-effects of treatments.

I agree totally with all this. However, he has missed vital points.  If these processes violated “animal rights”, then we should have to deduce that IF animals have rights, that they also have duties – and the innate understanding that goes with identifying these. Since animals clearly owe no duties to anyone or anything identifiable (caring for the young even in “higher” (bad term!) animals is not a conscious obligation, merely a result of fully-formed largely helpless young being born in small numbers, and also some selection for survival-behaviour) then they can have no “rights” as defined in human terms, which have evolved and crystallised into our modern views of natural rights of Man.

That of course does not absolve thinking humans from the obligation to protect animals in our charge from unnecessary harm or pain. As animals, not being humans, can therefore be Man’s property, this provision allows the killing of animals (as painlessly as possible – I guess it’s curtains for “halal” meat, then…???) for food, and also the use of them for checking what happens when we give them new drugs etc. Had for example, the testing of drugs on PREGNANT mammals, for teratogenicity, been routine in the 1950s and 60s (naturally, it now is) then thalidomide would never have been licensed for use as a morning-sickness palliative for women, and would never have been described as being “entirely without  known side-effects”. (It was.)

Socialists, tree-hugging dropouts, hunt-saboteurs, social failures, and others who are viscerally-disposed to defend animals’ corner against man and his needs, ought to consider whether they are right to argue that Man is “for the planet”, or whether instead they are mistaken, and in fact “the planet is for Man”. No possible amount of the wearing of Iraq-1 (or even Iraq-2) faux-camouflage day-leisurewear (made in Vietnam) in the shopping-precincts of Bootle – or elsewhere, even when “doing hunts” - will increase the credibility of these people.

In the end, all the motives of such people come down to a kind of neo-pastoralist lament, supposedly for some past “golden age”, when Man lived in harmony with “his surroundings”, had no influence over them whatever, and “the Lion lay down with the Lamb”….I notice it was never “the Spider with the Insect”. Does anybody consider the rights of insects (animals too, see below) in respect of spiders (also animals?)

Does it always have to be Man who carries the can? If so, then why?

Do “animals rights” “activists” consider Drosophila Melanogaster (the Fruit Fly) to be an animal? It is. To a first approximation, mathematically, “ALL ANIMALS FLY”. Do they know that? Have they done the sums? Animals are not just comprised of furry brown-eyed mammals, and nought else. Many entire phyla of animals have eaten each other, in the normal course of their business, in the most contemporaneously-horrible ways, for hundreds and hundreds of millions of years, before we even arrived.

Finally, no scientist I have ever known wants, or has ever wanted, to be gratuitously cruel to animals.  My father was a scientist for the MAFF for 35 years after the war, and supervised among his other responsibilities (when MAFF was useful for something, such as helping farmers to extract more tons per acre, not like DEFRA now) a “room” and its own staff, which (room) I saw often, and which was full of quite large cages of white rats and mice, all carefully labelled and logged. The temperature was monitored 24/7, the staff knew exactly how old all the creatures were, and where, which cages had to be cleaned when, what amounts of food and water where to be given to what colonies at what hour, etc. I was even allowed to ” privately own” some of the creatures from time to time if I was a good boy, and I kept them at home, looking after them myself in my own cage system, and selling the babies in pairs for 2/6d a pair….if I thought the new owner was a responsible keeper. Yeah yeah whatever, slavery mumble groan knickers. I bought dinky Toys with the proceeds. And Mecanno. And Bayko rods and the like. (Floors are almost unobtainable these days.)

But neo-pastoralist lefties, posing as “scientists” (what a staggering corruption that was) such as Joseph Mengele both authorised and carried out personally the beheading of living human children, for “experiments” on “brains”.  I don’t think you’d get scientists doing this to animals, let alone humans, See and wiki their henchmen, Walter Darré, Adolf Hitler (who loved dogs) and Baldur von Schirach, those great reforming neo-pastoralist European socialists, who were all “kind to animals”, and also had strong views about “people” – particularly those whom their twisted, barbarian precapitalist strain of neopastoralism, led them  to regard as animals.

If proper classical Science was taught to 7-year-olds onwards, we owuld not have the problem of violent disputes over “animal” “rights”. Does anyone know if other advanced nations have such a problem?

More on the chemistry set. I invite comments from anyone about what ought to be done about the preposterous British GCSE “science” “syllabus”.


David Davis 

See title, and please feel free to comment!

Today, I tore up my afternoon lesson plans for my students (they are rather hypothetical anyway, it depends what I feel like educating them about after a morning think and a read of the papers) went out with a new cheapo German microscope by a firm called Bresser (I don’t know anything about this firm yet, but I could not leave the machine in a Lidl store for £39.95 just sitting there) and taught.

I used a collection of slides made by my father in the late 1930s when he was a botany/insect-physiology student at Imperial College, and the boys and girls were wowed. None ever imagined that small things in the Natural World could look the way they do.

The machine comes in a kit with a digital camera-thingy, a USB cable and software for Windows/Mac – you can display the image on-screen as well as shove optical eyepieces in and look at it traditionally.

Chemistry in British schools is similarly emasculated, and we need to change this fast, or we as a nation will sink into a new Dark Age of fear, un-knowing and credulousness, much-to-be-desired by wicked socialist politicians and “movers/shakers”.

These people hate us, for showing the world the Door Out Of Hell, pointing the way to it, and teaching the world How To Live.

PS (update) I am now convinced that ALL good chemistry sets should contain a small phial of Mercury (metal), say about 50 to 100 grams,  plus the apparatus needed for its proper handling and use to make stuff like small barometers etc – also for it ot be used as a mobile cathode in electroylsis experiments.

“Heath Ledger”…I thought this was something logged-into and kept by Eurosceptics, regarding Ted Heath’s crimes against the British.


David Davis 

A man called “Heath Ledger”, an unfortunate name to be sure, has apparently sadly died in pill-strewn circumstances in New York, aged 28. (They always do, these people; what is it about “pills”, and about the life they choose, that makes this method of death so popular? I only ask because I want to know.) 

I had no idea until this morning what he was known for, since I do not watch “movies” much at all unless they are called “The First of The Few”, the “The Dambusters”, or “Where Eagles Dare”, “The Hunt for Red October”, “Top Gun”,  “Sink the Bismarck!” (surprisingly powerful, sensitive and good when viewed by today’s youth who – through the action of Socialism - don’t know and don’t want to know anything at all about anything, and with very sound performances by Kenneth More and Dana Wynter), and “The Lord of the Rings”. Peter Jackson’s epic, possibly the Great Film of Our Time, is still a bit borderline for me although I consider the Book to be one of the most powerful literary works of Man’s Mind ever to be produced. It is going to be probably the best achievable realisation of my old lecturer’s Personal-Grand-English-Mythology, in practice, in this 21st century sociopolitical climate which we are forced for now to inhabit. (I am old enough to have had the great good fortune to hear the author himself, talking about it informally as digressions from his actual subjects of the day.)

But…

I thought that a “Heath Ledger” was something kept by the society of Ted Heath Burners, until I discovered…..the media.

This is not to belittle the personal sorrow for his family, of this young man’s death. But the eulogies following him, even in the Torygraph, make him sound like the Pope, or even, dare we say it, Elvis. Was he the star of something that the left-mediarati idolize as a philosophy, despite the film’s largely-unwatched status, specially in the Mid-West, or was he just a good actor who will be missed? Again, I only ask because I want to know.

Talking to the enemy before you have wasted him…and when he thinks he can still waste you…what bastards the EU and the UN are to our men, who fight and die for them…


David Davis 

Trust the UN and the EU to shoot Britain and the liberal world in the foot. In the middle of a war, to boot (no pun intended.)

 Here is it in black and white.  It had of course to be those arch-Quislings of the West the EU (which is a Soviet) and the permanently-embedded foe of it which we even pay for, the UN (Useless Nothings) involved, didn’t it. No surprises at all there, then. I ownder when they’ll learn where their bread is buttered – or are the actually the enemy demolition-parties that I have suspected them of being all along?

Rot in hell, bastards. Merry Christmas, and thank you very, very much. Friends of friends of yours might have been dying on patrol, but on second thoughts I don’t think any of them or theirs would want to know or live near people like you. I don’t think our soldiers would want to be photgraphed standing next to you (I quote one of our Generals in Bosnia, regarding I think it was Tony Blair! Or it might have been John Major, but they’re the same droid anyway, the outer casing just got changed when the droid got re-elected in 1997.)

You DO NOT TALK TO your enemy, until he is defeated, and rolling, crying in the blood and dust, in front of you. And, if he’s an enemy of liberalism, NOT EVEN THEN; the stakes are too high and we have to get off this planet in time, and not be delayed. We don’t behave like this but the enemies of liberty do, for they are more primitive and pre-enlightenment than we are, and closer perhaps to the reality of primordial conflict and its psychology – locked in an age before the realistaion of how fragile our total exictence may be. they can afford to kill locally, for nowhere that exists at all, ever, is more than a few miles away.

We must get back the will to inflict terrible, ghastly, memorable defeat on those who are both (1) wrong and (2) simultaneously try to force us to believe they are right.

Otherwise, the concept of “terrible defeat” and what its purpose is, loses all meaning: there is no point then in fighting wars against wrong-people for they will not be make to learn right. Then, the world descends to the level of a modern British secondary-school classroom, in which nothing is learned at all (see the Wireless tele-Vision News any day), and the West (which is right) will continue to be embattled by Evil until it’s too late to go away.

Interesting, that SIS officers were allegedly “talking” to the buggers too. Perhaps Christmas is a good time to bury bad news

Great post for Boxing Day I had to do and it’s your fault you two traitors in the article, thank you.

“Political Correctness Gone Mad”. I wish…God, how I wish, that it was just some sort of madness…..


  David Davis

……and that this was true and it was just a bad dream, and not a misrepresentation of what “PC” is really for. How many, many times do you read in the papers about some poor, sensible human being, tormented by The Forces of Darkness in the form of officials of some British Soviet or other?

A nice old lady who is forbidden to tidy her grass verge outside her house and plant plants on it, because she must wear a hard hat and a yellow-fascist-jacket, and have cones to stop the traffic?

The Soviet of a large British city which celebrates “winterval”, whatever that is? (Must be Nazi….it sounds sort of neopastoral/Nordic/pagan.)

The (many) schools which do not stage a Nativity Play any more (it’s supposed to be “offensive” to other “faiths”) and in a Christian Nation?

I could go on. You know them all, for you – and the entire civilised world – are all irritated by the supposed need these threatening leftist busybody stormtroopers have for upsetting ordinary conservative people, as some sort of displacement activity to make up for their staggering lack of social graces, or of educational/cultural qualifications of any actual value whatsoever.

“Political Correctness”, as a phrase, shows all the marks of self-regarding intellectual arrogance plus an assumed monopoly of the truth. (And I thought the fascist left derided monopolies?) We liberals, being not (infantile or grown-up) leftists but on the “extreme-right” (their term for our position, not ours!) by contrast know that we ARE correct. This is because history bears out the truth of our hypotheses, about how and why the world and civilised human society functions as it does.

Moreover, we do not distort the terms of civilised discourse by banning the use of certain words that we think can define concepts with which we disagree.

To associate the English word “correct”, with (a) political discourse, and (b) the censorship of words so as to lead to the censorship of ideas, is a crime. I only have to wonder for how long a War Crimes judge will send each of these min-Gramscians to prison for, when we finally get our teeth into their bollocks, in return for all the harm they have done to people.

Merry Christmas, and peace and goodwill to all men – but not to you buggers who are trying to destroy our civilisation. I’m sorry, but I can’t make myself extend the Forgiveness of God at this Christmas time to you bastards. There is too much at stake, too many defenceless people alive whose lives you plan to ruin,  and your gloves have been so very, very off, against us, for so long now, and we have run out of patence with you evil imbeciles.

You understand force and threats and death and abolition of cultural ideas you don’t like; so be careful that your ideas don’t end up perishing in the same way. Better just to become real liberals and forget all that childish Marxist stuff, before it’s too late for you to recant.

HOW LIBERTY DIES…REMOVED YOU-TUBE VIDEO ON SEAN GABBS LAST POSTING TODAY IS ON http://devilskitchen.me.uk


IT’S CALLED   >>>  HOW LIBERTY DIES  <<< RIP IT    RIP IT    RIP IT

Ghastly, sick socialist behaviour by the Gauleiters and “ushers” of the “Europarliament”, against a very very large and loud protest IN THE CHAMBER by EuroMPs.

Education education education. What a bastard, evil, wicked liar Tony Blair was, to emulate what his political forebears had also said……to think that governments could (and worse, should) educate humans


David Davis

The Torygraph was kind enough to publish today what I had said on its comment pages – remarkably quickly by its usual standards I might add - about how we could make “Britain’s education world class”….again or at all? The question about what “world class” meant was not strictly addressed, but this is what I said;

Britain’s education WAS “world-class”; in fact we invented the world using the curriculum and system we had.

Here’s a “TEN_POINT_PLAN” !!! (1) Junk the National(ized) Curriculum, hook line and sinker. (I mean the Nazi one curently used.)(1A) Teach ENGLISH GRAMMAR, properly, early on. About age 5-7 is not too late to save these people.

(2) Return to proper liberal Classical education, as it was more or less up to 40 years ago, and thus rooted in the continuous history and cultural development of the Christian West, found on Rome and Greece.

(3) Teach joined-up-history/maths/science as a unified philosophy, as it was for us then.

(4) Teach proper Geography, rooted in the History of the Earth, and the places therein. (Tourism trends, social/foreign-aid/government intervention issues and traffic control have no part in this, they are for bureaucrats.)

(5) Teach Latin and Classical Greek -the latter especially, and both especially to scientists. Teach them using the original timeless texts, as well as any shilly-shally-modern-themed stuff you want.

(6) Tony Blair’s pledge to have every school on the internet by 1999 or summat, has proved to be a hollow achievement. Put proper libraries, with books containing large numbers of words and text, back in every school. 99% of the internet is junk. The skill comes in knowing how to sift junk from seeds and nuggets that are useful. teach this for Christ’s sAKE, there must be people, mostly old, who know what to do. It’s called “knowing how to think”.

(7) Inject pride back into British history and culture. We did invent the world, and we should say so. Children will then want to learn this story, as it will be cool – it was for us, but we did not even need the word to describe it, for it just, er, was.

(8) Sack all teachers who are (a) Marxist or left-leaning, for it is a fact that the Left hates liberal Classical (that is to say, English) culture. Honest leftists admit this bent freely. take them at their word, and take them out of the education system. Either we are right, or they are. If we have the courage of our convictions as to what is right, we should steel ourselves and do this.

Hire all the old ladies and retired colonels instead who are left. I’m sure they’d be glad of the opportunity Once More to go unto the Breach.

(9) Remove ALL government involvement in what is taught. This will eradicate lies such as anthropogenic global warming, hatred of “firms”, for “polluting rivers”, hatred of farmers for “destroying the countryside”, and hatred of supermarkets for “ripping off consumers” and “third world growers”. Children have no business learning what governemtns say about themselves in schools owned and run by governments.

(10) Abolish the BBC, close it down, auction the archives to other broadcasters. Politicians will then not have a willing mouthpiece hostile to all the above plans.

At the risk of attracting major opprobrium, and at the risk of being called unlibertarian, I really really would advocate the cleansing of the UK school system of teachers who are even slightly sympathetic to socialist and (therefore) anti-liberal ideals. Now I know this is controversial, but I have (in my old age) difficulty figuring out how it’s possible for a socialist to become a libertarian. Either socialists agree that libertarianism is right, or they do not. if they do, then they are not socialists. If they don’t, then they are opponents of liberalism, which is to say conservatism.

I do not believe it is unlibertarian to expunge non-libertarians from posts where they could promote unlibertarianism. Either libertarianism is right, or it is wrong. If it’s right but will not fight, it will be right but it will fail. We live in an imperfect world, and many libertarians do not reailise this, and we may still have to fight for it, as this is still The Dawn of Time.

If they, the socialists, say that they are our opponents, then it does not matter so long as they do nothing to hurt people and force then to be things they don’t want to be.  they do not NEED to invoke Utopia. Capitalism bring them all the benefits they need and also to the people they say they srve. But the moment they hurt people, such as telling them untruths in classrooms of children, or growing “bio” “fuels”, then they do harm and hurt to all-people, and ought to be opposed, and by force if needed.

I wonder when the first “task forces” of assault-liberals, will assault biofuel fields, and (I don’t know what) burn them? It would be pointless, but also simultaneously symmetrical. 

MOONBATTERY. If you want to stay sane in this darkening world, drink pints of it now. (It comes in pints…)


David Davis

Moonbattery is quite good today.

And, and and.

While you are about it, you can look up and download our approx 800++++++ publications on the LA website. I need periodically to remind all you good people, for you are all busy striving to eradicate socialism and expunge it from the face of the Earth. and blogging is a part-time activity or it is nothing.

Reminding you all, saves me having to publish sermons – after all, we are not a blasted church, where you have to sit and listen to the poor old chap mumbling, while the dinner burns. You don’t need me to orate it, you can read the bloody stuff yourself! About three million words. (All good gear, by the way! Trust me.)

Is it better for a Sovereign Human to exist or not? Some sub-Human socialists think not….well, there is a place where they may feel comfortable.


David Davis 

I got this by accident from Mark Steyn about five minutes ago. (Eat my petrol-and-wee-stained-trousers, all you Steyn-hating-slairs!) The implication of its meaning is so awful, and so obscenely disgusting, that I had to post it to you all to show what we liberals are up against.

I say liberals (that is to say; conservatives and libertarians of MOST kinds) to differentiate us irrevocably (now I see the whites of our enemies’ eyes, if indeed that is what they have in their “heads”, rather than bottomless, non-radiating sinks of unutterable evil) from what is being described. 

What is being described here in this piece from Mark is Nazis, other kinds of leftist such as “greens” and other classes of death-lovers, Castro-c***-lickers and planet-corpse-f****rs. Here is his “CORNER” piece for 08.12.07;

Christmas gift ideas   [Mark Steyn]

There’s no better holiday gift than a great book and, courtesy of Oxford University Press, here’s a stocking stuffer that’s sure to bring a glow to the environmentally aware loved one in your family this Christmas morn:

Better Never To Have Been: The Harm Of Coming Into Existence
by David Benatar

Most people believe that they were either benefited or at least not harmed by being brought into existence. Thus, if they ever do reflect on whether they should bring others into existence–rather than having children without even thinking about whether they should–they presume that they do them no harm. Better Never to Have Been challenges these assumptions. David Benatar argues that coming into existence is always a serious harm… The author shows that there are a number of well-documented features of human psychology that explain why people systematically overestimate the quality of their lives and why they are thus resistant to the suggestion that they were seriously harmed by being brought into existence. The author then argues for the ‘anti-natal’ view–that it is always wrong to have children–and he shows that combining the anti-natal view with common pro-choice views about foetal moral status yield a ‘pro-death’ view about abortion (at the earlier stages of gestation). Anti-natalism also implies that it would be better if humanity became extinct. Although counter-intuitive for many, that implication is defended, not least by showing that it solves many conundrums of moral theory about population.

The author is a professor at the University of Cape Town. That’s on the Cape of Good Hope, though evidently not in this case. 

(via Spiked and Tim Blair)

The harm of coming into existence?

The tragedy for us is that if there had been no “existence”, then there would have been no “utopianism” and Nazi philpsphies such as socialism, for us to have to spend the strength of our lives blogging against.

The tragedy for the Great Enemy is that, if this writer was right, then there would be no stage on which to act, and lie, to All Creation. There would be no audience. I don’t think the sad dude Benatar has thought this one out.

We on the liberal and conservative blogs will scragg him to bits, and he will have himself to blame for his nemesis. 

Surely, seen from this point, when socialist idiots are saying rubbish which they thinlk nobody will contradict, then we are now approaching The Last Battle, Armageddon; when the Forces of Good take on the Forces of Evil for the last time.

We may still lose, but let’s take comfort. At least we can rest happy that Polly Toynbee and all the other leftist fascist pigs like Castro, Putin, Chavez, Jim the Jolly mayor of Newtingstone, bendy-buses, wheely-bins, uneducated socialist teachers and those chaps that run government departments and quangos and think they are right so to do, and ALL the computer-suppliers-to-the-state, will all get swallowed up in the cesspit of Satan’s maw.

BINGE DRINKING. A Socialist MP, called a “Grogan”, blames a shopkeeper. Yeah, right. We all go to shops to get stuff and then we bingedrink and get rat-arsed in the street with it; hence all the 2am streetphotos.


Simon Heffer in today’s Telegraph has it right;

David Davis

Binge drinking is the only cure for Brown

If you want to know what Labour MPs do with themselves all day, here’s an example.

One of them, a John Grogan, has followed a missable career as a student union leader and local government flunkey by becoming MP for Selby. Better still, he is (and I am not making this up, I promise) “chairman of the all-party beer group”, a calling for which only being president of a student union can possibly prepare one.

With typical brilliance, he this week described Sir Terry Leahy, one of Britain’s most successful businessmen and chief executive of Tesco, as “the godfather of British binge drinking”. He said Sir Terry was underpricing booze in his stores “all the time”, and warned him this must stop.

I am sure Sir Terry would rather take commercial advice from a pet stoat than from this moron – at least, as a Tesco shareholder, I hope he would. And doesn’t Mr Grogan understand that binge drinking and the pervasiveness of the Brown Terror are intimately related?

(In what still used to be Czechoslovakia, there was in 1991/2 a politcal party called “Strana Priteli Piva” (the SPP) translating as the “party of the friends of beer”. Perhaps he ought to find it and join?)

ACRYLAMIDE…(don’t they mean acrylaldehyde?) and the EU – another assault on FOOD. I mean, what do these fascists want?


David Davis 

“Acrylamide” – CH2=CH-CO-NH2 – a fairly harmless organic intermediate in the production of some forms of plastics, has received a wide press lately, having been slated by the EU (no less!) for “increasing” the risk of uterine and ovarian cancers in “women” – (not in men, I hasten to notice.) it is apparently and allegedly a product of overcooking food in all the “nice” ways; that is to say, toasting and frying it. In fact all the ways that Man had cooked food (except boiling which produces tasteless crud and is the reason that “English” cooking has been satirized and execrated the TV-world over for 60 years, and is why “telechefs” exist at all.)

I mean, yer-no’……can you imagine a world without…..bacon? (No I don’t mean “boiled ham” either…) Or “Barbies”…?

Firstly; the pretentiously-higgorant journos don’t mean “acrylamide” at all – they mean “acrylaldehyde”, which was what we chemists call “acrolein”. It is mildly oxidizing in the presence of liver-alcohol-dehydrogenase, inhibits it, and can extend hangovers caused by other reasons. It tastes and smells nasty and so it therefore might be a little bitty toxic as is the case with other poisons. It is produced in small amounts by carbonizing fried food further than necessary. Its formula is CH2=CH-CHO….a bit different form acrylamide (which does not occur naturally.) (But we’re all going to die anyway sometime; the evolutionists say it’s necessary but I’m one of them and I’m not so sure, for the Universe is quite large.)

The pretentiously-higgorant journos don’t know this of course. They are merely busy imbibing some press-release, rendering its content so it’s a lot less exact than it was, draining it of meaning, and regurgitating some copy.

 The EU has now stipulated that we must not toast bread “more than is absolutely necessary”. We mjust fry potatoes to a “light yellow colour” and not any shade of “brown”. The PM ought to listen here.

Truly, we have become their farm animals. They are doing this for “our good”. Bugger them then, for a start. They’ll be telling us not to smoke next.

I think that the fascist master “Honestiories” want the “Humiliories” to eat tasteless nasty food as befits (our) station.

The mouse that “can’t get cancer”. Another example of free-market science success that won’t be available on the NHS in England.


David Davis 

The Daily Mail, in its rather sad “two sensational-health-scares plus two sensational-advances (and all for women mostly) per week per front page” editorial policy, trumpeted today;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=496751&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490

“The mouse that can’t get cancer”.

I object to this popularly-journalized demonization of cancer – not because it’s an often painful and sometimes currently incurable condition – but because news about our progess towards its being made nugatory, such as with colds and flu for instance, has fallen into the hands of those who drive popular culture and popular-use-of-popular-media.

Molecular biophysicists have known for some years that there are genes which act, sort of like a “dead-man’s handle”, in cells which become what we call “neoplastic”; that is to say, cancerous. these cells have “lost” the ability to respond to ordinary chemical signals from their host body, telling them all the while “don’t divide”. So? They divide. Then they do it again…..and again, and again, and again, and…… the result is? Cancer. Some genes exist in multicellular organisms exactly to respond to this scenario, and they shut down any such cell line. Sometimes, tragically, these genes can become broken, in the course of many many cell replications in one’s life. (That’s why cancers are often conditions of middle or old age.)

But “The mouse that can’t get cancer” is I think a premature stab for us at some confidence in the future. Let’s not get too excited in England in 2007….for…………

Gordon Brown still wants you to die painfully, for a few decades more, like his political forebears still rationed foods and petrol and clothes (even CLOTHES for f***’s sake?) for years after the War. After all, if such was available on the NHS, then rich-people would queue up for it first, and we can’t have that. 

There is no doubt that Man will beat cancer generally and in detail. It may even happen in our lifetimes. But there is also no doubt that, as soon as such treatment whatever becomes available, it will “not be available on the NHS in England”. Probably in Scotland. Most probably in Poland too.

A freer market in university research in the USA has brought this new insight about. isn’t it interestingly tragic that a thingy called “NICE” (the national institute for clinical excellence) often forbids stuff automatically to England, which is permitted to be “funded” elsewhere. Well, there’s socialism for you.

Fascist assaults on Advertising gather pace; now it’s the turn of “junk foods” and “alcohol”.


David Davis 

The Sunday Telegraph carried in its business setcion a thingy saying “new ad curbs would slash TV income.” The gist is that proposed “controls” (it’s “for the children” of course) and a 9pm “watershed” for ads for the next things this gumment disapproves of will lower the share prices of the TV contractors further, and “cost the advertising industry” £250million.

ALL THE BLASTED STUPID MYOPIC BUGGERS, collecting their salaries for the now, HAVE MISSED THE POINT. They are heading for disaster, rather fast.

They will go the way of the cigarette manufacturers in the last century, as they will not make this fight a fight about individual freedom and censorship, which is actually what it is.

In a market-civilisation, advertising is essential to individual liberty. Advertising a good product, or one which people want, ensures its success. Advertising a bad product causes it to be garotted fast and relatively painlessly, except for the maker who chiefly suffers, but that’s freedom for you.

Socialists and other Nazis can’t take this at all. They are so hung up on “planning” and direction of masses of people that they just can’t see that successful advetising means there has to have been a successful and wanted product, which people, er, wanted. If they did not want it, they would not buy it. They even teach my students that “advertising makes people buy things they don’t want or need.” Yes, they do, in England, in 2007. It’s difficult to combat except one-2-one, when you can use logic and reason, but you can do it, slowly. (But that’s not enough.)

Many of you here know the pre-capitalist societies of Central and Eastern Europe pre-1989. There was by then little or no advertising – notwithstanding that there were rather few goods available anyway. This was not the fault of producers, who were not allowed. Totalitarian societies are characterized by the lack of goods and info thereof, and the plethora of State glorification of their leaders and “parties”. We are heading that way rather quickly in England.

In about 1980 I was asked with a good friend, now a succesful London IP lawyer, to draft a case for tobacco advertising, courtesy of Peter Marsh, of Allen Brady and Marsh, for whom I worked at that time. (Rod Allen died recently.) This would be presented to a committee of marketing directors of the major tobacco companies, in support of their opposition to an ad-ban. My friend and I came up with a liberal (I would not go so far as to say Libertarian) defence of any advertising including that for tobacco products, based on the fact that control of information, or its suppression, amounted to censorship. We said that if the product was legal to make and sell and own, then people who made it ought to be allowed to speak well of it. Any encroachment on their ability to do so would amount to suppression of free speech, and oculd not be tolerated in a free Market-Civilisation. Thatcher was young, FOREST was young, and they might just have got away with it while the enemy-class flank was unguarded.

Instead, the report was blown out. They said “we can’t get away with this”. They decided to try and contradict the medical evidence about lung cancer (not possible to do) and also to try to say “advertising is all about getting the consumer to switch brands”…”we can switch them to “lower tar” brands!”

I and my friend said we would recommend this plan if they took it up as they wanted to, as a recipe for utter disaster, and ultimate defeat by the State.

The rest, as they say, is history. (Our recommendations were not adopted, although dear Peter Marsh endorsed every word.)

So, now that smoking is almost outlawed, people, espeically  poor people, drink heavily and eat nice-tasting food from hot-food-joints, to help distance themselves from the eternal hellfire of safety-socialism for a few minutes or hours more. The state-sponsored prevalence of post-Christian atheism means that they can’t expect anything after this life (the gumment says so) and nobody believes all those Moslems about all those virgins anyway, and half of the poor buggers are also non-virgin women and certainly not lesbians as they have children, so where do they go to, then? Hell? 

So there is only tobacco (where still allowed) burgers and chips, and drink.  Gambling will stop when they poor-buggers all run out of money, and as the state is bust there won’t be able to be a “weekly lucky chance benefit payment” scheme (to keep it running) masterminded by that man whose name I can’t remember but who is described as a “Chancellor of an Exchequer”.

There is talk that the “industry” will “work with” the gumment. That, alas, is what happened last time.

Those who do not learn from history will be condemned to repeat it.

Libertarian overtakes Marxism on Google. (2nd July 2007, an update of that position.)


The first part is what the title was.

Here are today’s results from about a minute ago:

Libertarian = (about) 11,600,000

Marxist = (about) 8,370,000

Marxism = (about) 6,420,000

And some addons, now, for some effect;

“Right Wing” = 3,350,000

Interestingly, “liberal” = (about) 77,200,000

“left liberal” = 294,000 (really? That little?) (almost-real lefties, sort of holograms of one)

“genuine liberal” (that is to say, REAL lefties who are Stalinists and Castro-worshippers) = 17,100 (WHAT??????)

and………….

 “Fascist Bastard” (see Freedom and Whisky for more about this animal) = 713  (yes just 713.) 

Are we on the “right” (I will use the enemy’s terms here, so that their deluded map-readers can tell their Gauleiters where we are sitting, so they can throw stuff at us) all just the victims of a smoke-and-mirrors-game? Will we all wake up in a minute and find it’s just been a bad dream, and the world really is a Market-Civilisation after all?

I’m often blamed for being pessimistic. Well, I’m an optimist who has collected all the facts.


Guys get at me, for going on about how terrible it all is, and how we are going down into a New Dark Age, and the like. All right, let’s just look at today’s news, or some of it.

The Torygraph leads (2nd or 3rd) with a go about how “binge drinking” has not “been curbed” by relaxing licensing laws. The usual fascist “alliance of suspects” teams up behind “some experts”, to shout about how nasty it is that some people get pissed in public sometimes or more often than that.

Look, it’s bloody cold and wet and windy up here on the Island. This has been for 1,400 years due to Al Gore who you lot gave a Noble Prize to, for talking crap and prostituting scientists. We came here coz’ we couldn’t stand you lot of Romanized pimps wot drank wine and stuff (and ate barbecued mice in fish sauce, and little live birds in brandy, and frogs and snails (garlic-flavoured-rubber, but not entirely unpleasant if the garlic was good enough)), and other unmentionables.

We ‘azz to keep warm somehow. So wee getz drunk, alright? Usually in a “go”, now and then, as we hazz to go and work to grow stuff all year and do the hedges and things like that in the freezing rain so the cows don’t trample all over the food, unlike you lot back in Romanland who izz on benefits and getz paid by us through the CAP to not grow stuff, using our taxes. So we azz to drink gallons at once. The wenches too, it’s their night off as well you see.

It’s more economical to drink like that, as we only needz to get drunk say once or twice a week, unlike your grizzly “sweet old men sitting 3×3 on sunlit steps with moustaches smiling at the tourists’ People-Movers”, and who are probably faintly pissed to a slight haziness the whole time.

While we getz drunk, we all sing tunelessly about about how ‘orrible you lot are and about how we all killed Grendel the EUmonster the other day and we left the bloody frogs. Then we goes and rapes all the wenches afterwards in the barn, on whatever hay izz not too damp and cold and covered with rat-droppings. The wenches oblige by dressing like Big Brother and showing they’s meaningless tattoos on they’s bums (and other places) for us to notice, so we all knowz they izz “up for it” and it’s all right.

More taxation will only turn alcohol into a commodity like drugs, which will be stolen and mugged for. The Police will have more forms, and more different ones, to fill in, and less will be done to mitigate the baleful effects of adding another prohibited substance to the long and increasing list that fuels petty crime.

I wonder how long before we will be forbidden to own ammonium nitrate, or cars, or glue that sticks anything other than paper together?