Category Archives: guns

I get worried sometimes when repellent people in other countries do repellent things, and we seem to have no power to prevent the fucking bastards from behaving in pre-capitalist-barbarian ways.


David Davis

My dear colleague Sean has had relayed onto his facebook a somewhat exciting post, by someone called Chris White (who I do not know) regarding some scumbags crucifying other people (who they might or might not know, for all I know).

I do not have any information about whether the victim, videoed, was also a scumbag or not, sadly. This might or might not have been the case, but at this time we cannot know if he was a scumbag or not, as he is unable to say.

My gripe with this situation is that, here we are, sitting in what’s really a fairly OK country, with most of what we want, and not really starving or wanting for much, most of the time. OK, you could rue the lack of a Bugatti Veyron or, if desperate and needy, a Range-Rover HSE Sport Overfinch, and perhaps you might be pissed off at not owning somewhere like one of these. But really it’s not that bad, quite yet.

Should we care if various unsocialized scumbags, arguably desocialized recently and on purpose when it wasn’t a requirement – by a “certain religion which has held their people’s social development back 1,500 years” -  are ritually-slaughtering each other somewhere else?

I think we ought to care. As the English People, we did actually teach the world how to live. I’ve been saying this off and on for eight years on this blog, and about 50, shambolically, elsewhere. This is not to say that the right thing to do is to “go to war in Syria”…and “for who or what? Also we have no vital British Interest in what goes on in Syria. But as a human being, one’s visceral response is to ” arrive in might, find the perpetrators, arrest and then (ideally) dispose of them in public (to make a point), and then _occupy the place, for perhaps decades or hundreds of years_ . This is necessary for mere years (such as the eight or so of Iraq) won’t do the job.

The GramscoFabiaNazis knew, even in 1884 when they began shagging each others’ wives and daughters, that they would have to occupy Britain for decades, and decades and decades, after their victory. The one which they have scored over us, gradually, between 1948 and the present day. They know their war is not over by a long chalk. I’m not making value-judgements about whether they ought to have engaged in those sexual past-times which I stated,

But having “gone into Iraq”, perhaps we should have stayed for 100, 200, 300 years. We stayed in India for just short of 350 years, for example, and even that was barely enough to turn a place like that into a semi-functioning pluralist democracy.

One day I’ll tell you stories about what my old dead father said, about stuff in the Gold Coast (now Ghana) when  he was there with the RAMC in The War, and what the African Tribesmens’ “big-men” said to him when their fears about “White Man Going To Leave Us After War” were sadly confirmed by him.

Perhaps we should have “intervened in Syria”. But :-

(1) Not this government

(2) Not in the way they thought they might.

It’s probably good Cameron was stopped, but then what do we do about this awful stuff going on?

Fake Quote Files: Adolf Hitler on Gun Registration, Conquest and Disarmament


http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/03/19/fake-quote-files-adolf-hitler-on-gun-registration-conquest-and-disarmament/

Note: I am neither able nor willing to verify these claims for myself. I do, however, find them very likely. I can also say that guns were more easily available in Communist Czechoslovakia than they are in modern England. We need the right to own and use guns to protect ourselves from criminals. We also need them because owning a gun is rather like being rich – it gives you the confidence to tell people to get stuffed long before any need for escalation. But the idea that having a handgun at home will stop a seriously oppressive government is a joke. In America, it simply means that the police have turned into heavily militarised gangs. They get their way by outgunning their victims. SIG  Continue reading

Poo Sticks


by Dick Puddlecote
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DickPuddlecote/~3/Pk623BPgfDw/poo-sticks.html

Poo Sticks I expect there are some UK politicians thinking that once plain packaging is passed (despite overwhelming public rejection) there can’t be much else for tobacco control industry executives to nag them about. They’d be wrong.

Please note that this is from New Zealand and not from The Daily Mash. Continue reading

Guns: Out of the Bottle, Like it or Not


by Thomas Knapp
http://c4ss.org/content/27422
Guns: Out of the Bottle, Like it or Not

I saw my first “homemade gun” when I was a kid. Older kids — teenagers — would save up the 4th of July fireworks known (for obvious reasons) as “bottle rockets” and play “war” with them: Stick the firework in a glass soda bottle (this was back when soda came in glass bottles that one paid a deposit on and could return for a refund of that deposit … yeah, I’m old), point it at the “enemy,” shoot. Continue reading

Gun Control in Nazi Germany


http://mises.org/daily/6747/Gun-Control-in-Nazi-Germany

Note: I’m not so sure about victim disarmament in National Socialist Germany. I’ve read claims – mostly by national socialists, I will admit – that the Hitler gun laws were less restrictive than those they replaced. Since I’m both unable and disinclined to check for myself, I will suspend judgement. What I always do find striking, however, about the persecution of the Jews is not whether and to what extent they were disarmed, but how easy they were to find. Without vast other changes in cultural outlook, I fail to see what the average Jew could have done with a handgun. Without identity cards, most of them could have kept their heads down. The hatted and bearded ones could have been done over. The others would have been as hard to round up as the homosexuals. We need guns to protect ourselves from crime, and to make us feel better about ourselves. We protect ourselves from the State by keeping it short of data about us. SIG

Continue reading

We need guns to make us safer


The War Against Armed Crime:
We Need Guns to Make Us Safer
Sean Gabb
(Published in The Birmingham Post, 7th June 2006)

The current debate on armed crime is depressingly predictable. Everyone agrees something must be done. Just about everyone agrees this something must include laws against the sale or carrying or simple possession of weapons. More controls on weapons, the argument goes, the fewer weapons on the street: therefore lower levels of armed crime. Continue reading

Armoured Libraries and survival of culture and law


David Davis

Various prominent British libertarians seem now agreed that The Endarkenment approaches. The signs have been increasingly clear for some time. The fact that liberty is the mother of order and not its daughter is inconvenient for those that mean to boot the vast majority of Mankind – except themselves – backwards, cruelly, painfully and hard into pre-enlightenment misery, starvation, disease and servitude.

Being a scientist myself by training and thought-modes, and therefore by definition not an intellectual -  I have never figured out why humans get to want to bring about – and worse, specifically for others than themselves – what I described above.

It always seems after careful analysis of their plans, that they would like to visit upon the whole of humanity what Churchill described as “the torments that Dante reserved for the damned”.

[Incidentally, I think that "intellectual" (the noun) is is a mere imaginary literary concept, applied by primitive pre-scientific mystics to themselves and their friends who still work according to neolithic non-tribe-male-skull-crashing theories of how to behave towards others, and are driven by emotion and wishful thinking. This may become the subject of another discussion, but perhaps I may accidentally have defined "conservatives" as definitely not these people. We shall have to see, when I have time to try to write something again.]

Various commenters on recent postings here have said things like this, and this, and this. In the darkness however, someone said this, and Continue reading

I just thought all you people would like to see how the EU is allowing Nazis to say things about Britain and Gibraltar. Nothing about the fact that these are “minors” at schools then.


David Davis

http://order-order.com/2013/09/27/watch-spanish-school-children-stage-sick-gibraltar-massacre/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb9-2F0Npgo

There’s no point in trying to keep on buggering on and on, and on and on and on and on and on, about “Ceuta and Melilla” as the SpanNazi Government will simply unlisten as soon as its GCHQ get the syllable “ceu”. Apart from giving nuclear weapons to Morocco, there is nothing to be done about this one.

 

But this relates back to what I said in a comment on an earlier post: this was about whether, and how, or even if, we allow the expression of GramcoFabiaNazism after a victory.

My thesis is that we really, really, truly, madly, deeply, do NOT want to have to go through all this stuff all over again.

 

Would it help if I put this on my Amazon Wish List?


It Didn’t Take Them Long to Hit the Panic Button


A Farewell to Victim Disarmament?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22421185

Working gun made with 3D printer

By Rebecca Morelle Science reporter, BBC World Service, Texas

(The Libertarian Alliance’s officers have inserted a caveat at the end of the post.)

The BBC’s Rebecca Morelle saw the 3D-printed gun’s first test in Austin, Texas Continue reading

My Little Pony


by L. Neil Smith
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle467-20080511-02.html

Note: I had a long Skype conversation last night with Neil. Right at the end, he pulled out a couple of his favourite guns. Such lovely objects they were – so cruel, perhaps, to show them to a man who could get five years minimum for possession of the same. But he is working on a plan to change that state of affairs. SIG Continue reading

Was Hitler Really Anti-Gun Control?


by Anthony Gregory
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/thelibertarianstandard/~3/5wMyEqMkIgA/

Was Hitler Really Anti-Gun Control?

A Salon.com article by Alex Seitz-Wald called “The Hitler Gun Control Lie” is making the rounds, purporting to challenge a myth Second Amendment enthusiasts spread that blames the Holocaust on Hitler’s policies of civilian disarmament. The thrust of the argument is that Hitler’s 1938 firearms law indeed ratcheted back restrictions from the Weimar era. But here is the most telling paragraph: Continue reading

Fear, Violence and the Absurd


by Trevor Hultner
http://c4ss.org/content/16185

Note: I don’t suggest he should be deported, because it’s none of my business what people do in their own country – and because it would mean his coming back to England, and I’d rather have Abu Hamza back here than him. However, why is anyone in America paying attention to Piers Morgan? He’s a resident alien.

In a normal country, such people should have the right to life and property. Of course, they should have the legal right to speak as they please. But it strikes me as bad manners if they use this right to demand changes in the law. They don’t perfectly understand the ways of the country in which they find themselves. They’ve had no ancestral part in the formation of the country. Neither they nor their children have any obligation to share in the consequences of what they recommend.

I find Janet Daley irritating for the same reason as Americans do Mr Morgan. Some years ago, when she was banging on about the need to scrap the double jeopardy rule, so the alleged killers of Stephen Lawrence could be locked away, I suggested she should clear off home to America. She hasn’t spoken to me since.

I’ll make a partial exception from this rule for the Irish, and a larger one for people from the white dominions – ie, Germaine Greer, Peter Tatchell and so forth. Then there are variable exceptions for foreign immigrants – variable according to their degree of identification with the country. Outright foreigners should have a right to speak, but none to be heard and taken seriously. SIG Continue reading

Gun Control as Castration


by Michael Enoch
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/gun-control-as-castration/

Note: Interesting view on victim disarmament from outside the libertarian movement. SIG

Is there really any rational basis for the idea of gun control? Or is it just a desperate grasping for some kind of symbolic control after an outbreak of mass violence? Or is it something even deeper? On its face the idea of gun control is ridiculous. Conservatives, libertarians and gun enthusiasts have been making the same basic points for years whenever the issue comes up in response to whatever the latest mass shooting incident happens to be. The fact that there will be such incidents is a social inevitability at this point. Continue reading

Some Observations on the Gun Control Debate


by Kevin Carson
http://c4ss.org/content/15355

Some Observations on the Gun Control Debate

As tends to happen after each such horrific occurrence, the school shooting in Connecticut was the occasion for reviving the debate over gun control in the United States.

Given the quality of this debate, I’m not really interested in engaging either the smug liberal challenges of “well, are you people finally ready to come to your senses” or the right-wing hysteria of “The Kenyan Marxist Muslim is coming to take our guns away!” I’ll just say for the record I’m an anarchist, and I don’t care much for the idea of the same state responsible for warrantless wiretapping and the NDAA regulating the public’s access to weaponry for self-defense. And I don’t want a new War on Guns carried out by the same lawless paramilitary thugs in kevlar who’re already fighting the wars on drugs and terrorism. At the same time, I can’t say I’m too crazy about the loudest anti-gun control voices on the right. Continue reading

POST APOCALYPSE RECOVERY PROJECT


POST APOCALYPSE RECOVERY PROJECT
James Roger Brown
Sociologist, Intelligence Collection and Analysis Methodologist
Director
P.O. Box 101
Worthington, KY 41183-0101
thesociologist
www.thesociologycenter.com
Last updated 09/22/2011

Check back frequently, I will be adding to and improving this page.

Suggestions for inclusion may be submitted to the above e-mail address. One high priority document has not been located. Between the end of WW II and 1950 Naval Intelligence created a classified archaeology report about prior civilizations on the North American Continent. Talk to your family members who served during WW II and Korea to determine the title and author of the document. I suspect it contains maps that we need.

Introduction

Activating this Post Apocalypse Recovery Project begins an effort which there is no documented evidence has ever been done before in all of human history. The purpose is to manage information, knowledge and resources to minimize the intentional disruption of social stability caused by the engineered collapse of civilization and minimize the recovery time to develop new stable social processes among the survivors. There will be survivors. Continue reading

Killing no murder – the right of the individual to defend their home


by Robert Henderson
http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/killing-no-murder-the-right-of-the-individual-to-defend-their-home/

Note: This was written after the Tony Martin case. However, it applies just as well to other cases. SIG

Killing no murder
By Robert Henderson

Tony Martin’s conviction for murder after he killed the burglar Fred Barras, raises these important issues: the right of self-defence; the protection of property, the general use of police resources; the policing of Martin’s locality, the fairness of Martin’s trial and, above all, the relationship between the individual and the state.

The right to self-defence

Any attempt at definition short of giving a person an absolute right to defend themselves how they will is doomed to failure. Once a definition includes general qualifications such as “reasonable force”, it becomes unworkable, because the qualifications are hideously imprecise. The practical result is confusion and uncertainty and anyone who defends themselves is at risk of prosecution. The problem is exemplified in comments by Ann Widdecombe, the Conservative home affairs spokesman who recently said “People whose person or property is attacked should be able to defend themselves without fear of penalty from the law” (Daily Telegraph 24/4/2000), but then qualified this by saying that prosecutions could still take place in extreme circumstances. Once that qualification is made, the uncertainty returns. Continue reading

The War on Guns


by Frank Borzellieri
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/district-of-corruption/the-war-on-guns/

The capacity on the part of liberals to devise outlandish policies intended to combat crime is rivaled in stupidity only by their propensity to avoid true solutions. Gun control has always been the pet panacea of those who possess neither the desire nor the backbone to confront the true and obvious cause of gun violence: criminals and a lenient justice system. Rather than confront this bane head on, gun controllers have striven to crack down on their favorite whipping boys, the guns themselves. Continue reading

Anyone Fancy Answering These Questions about Guns?


by Sean Gabb

I am just back from Slovakia, and have a mountain of writing and other work to climb. Debating the effects of firearm ownership is very low on my agenda.

——————————–

Dear Sean

I read this on the Libertarian Alliance website:

“For us, freedom of association is about the right to deal (or not) with any other consenting adult,  for any non-aggressive purpose, and without need for explanation.”

Can’t argue that one, really (but note my italics). No argument either with your stance on drugs. But how do you square the ‘non-aggression’ clause with…

“We believe in the right to carry and use guns for self-defence…”

Who decides whether or not an act is performed for the purposes of self-defence? Who, other than the despised State and its law enforcement officers, could be in any position to ensure a proper investigation into the facts and that justice is done, in the potentially countless incidents that’d surely arise if your wish-list were to become a legally-enshrined societal code (itself an oxymoron in this context, since you don’t seem to believe in ‘laws’)?

On any Friday night you’ll find any number of lairy, Stella-fuelled twats aching not just for the chance legally to swagger into their local with ‘nines’ on their belts, but to use the things, and with an impunity that our present structure denies them. What then? Gun law? Watch your backs, and the devil take the hindmost? Literally kill or be killed? Presumably all the perps need do is bleat “self-defence, guv, he had it coming” and everything’s okay.

What a future! Interested in your case for the defence. Preferably one grounded in sense, reason and rationality and that doesn’t involve a lot of reheated, pseudo-profound Ayn Rand bilge.

Richard Butterworth
Economy with Words®

Strategic Offence and Insecurity


Christopher Houseman

So, the great threats du jour are cyber-terrorism and international terrorism in the style of al-Qaida. Hmm… I can see why we’ll need a couple of new aircraft carriers to fend off those evil beasties, especially if HMG can’t afford to put any planes aboard them. Still, at least nobody’s talking about renting the (not yet completed) aircraft under a PFI scheme, along with the refueling tankers.

Meanwhile, in the name of “not giving in to the people who’ve been angered into action by our previous intrusions into their lives terrorists”, HMG has either got to carry on with business as usual (which means buying enough kit and posting enough troops in the right places abroad to placate the US government) or at least reassure everyone that’s what it intends to do as soon as it can print enough new money convince the markets it’s solvent again.

Personally, I doubt a mere 8pc cut in the MOD budget (while everyone else takes a hit of up to 25pc) will be enough to woo foreign creditors back in their droves. But at least as Remembrance Day draws near, we can all pause a while to give thanks for this country’s glorious victory over the evil Nazi supporters of “Guns before butter”, and encourage ourselves with the thought that the British people are far too noble and wise to fall for that old lie.

Gun control kills British soldiers in Afghanistan…


Christopher Houseman

according to this BBC article. So how will it keep British civilians safe at home?

Protect the Police – abolish gun control


Christopher Houseman

It’s only 5 days since I asked in a post “Are you sure you want to trust the Police to save you?”. The question has a special, unwelcome resonance for my wife and I. We used to live first in Shiremoor and then in Whitley Bay, Tyne and Wear – only a short drive from the recent shootings thought to have been perpetrated by Raoul Moat. In fact, I’m pretty sure we often drove past the chip shop in Seaton Delaval which was robbed on Monday. And all this only a little more than a month after Derrick Bird shot 12 people dead and wounded 11 more in and around Whitehaven in Cumbria.

Perhaps most revealing in current news coverage is the complete lack of any appetite for further gun control laws, and the apparently deliberate downplaying of the death of Chris Brown, Samantha Stobbart’s boyfriend. No doubt this is largely because of the ongoing efforts to persuade Mr. Moat to give himself up peaceably, in which context it would make little sense to play up the one death to date in this sorry tale. But I can’t help noticing something else, too. Like Derrick Bird, both Mr. Moat and the late Mr. Brown are a great advertisement for the unwisdom of gun control.

On the one hand, can we doubt any longer that even the most rigorous psychological profiling can’t ensure that lawfully registered gun owners will never pose a threat to the general public? On the other, what good are stringent gun control laws which can’t be consistently enforced? Raoul Moat, a violent felon known to have possessed guns and other weapons in the past, seems to have obtained both an illegal firearm and ammunition within 48 hours of being released from prison.

It’s time to acknowledge that the so-called “war on guns” has been lost. We might also reflect on how much heartache, blood, time and money might have been saved if the late Mr. Chris Brown had been allowed to take a gun to a gunfight instead of an iron bar. True, one could argue with hindsight that he should have taken cover and then dialled 999, but such behaviour might be exceptional in a boyfriend of just one week who was also reportedly a martial arts instructor.

But there is one more tragic twist in the tale: on the same day the withdrawal of British troops from Sangin province in favour of their American counterparts was announced, the BBC mentioned the possibility of bringing a number of armoured cars over from Northern Ireland for deployment in the hunt for Raoul Moat. Never mind looking after us or the Afghans; it would appear the agents of the British state can barely protect themselves. To paraphrase Phil Zimmerman, the creator of the PGP encryption program, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”.

Perhaps it’s time to ask the Police a question: Are you sure you don’t want the general public to be able to protect themselves – or you?

PS. At time of writing, Northumbria Police seems keen to highlight that its officers, rather than the general public, appear to be the primary focus of Mr. Moat’s anger. Maybe so, but I’m glad I’m not an unarmed civilian trying to remind an armed man and myself of that on a face to face basis.

Surrey Police Authority owns up to confidence trick (almost)…


Christopher Houseman

My copy of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines a confidence trick as “an act of cheating or tricking someone by persuading them to believe something that is not true.”
Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

So imagine my reaction upon perusing the contents of “Policing Surrey”, a glossy puff-piece shoved through my door this morning as part of Nanny’s ongoing efforts to convince me she’s doing a bang-up job for the money. In a surely unintended moment of honesty, I note from the ten performance targets for 2010/11 listed on page 11 of the booklet that Surrey Police is hoping:

“1) For public confidence in Surrey Police to remain at or above 80%”

But further down the list, I read that Surrey Police is also hoping:

“8) To improve detection rates for serious crimes to 18.6%”

So, let me get this straight. Surrey Police currently spends a £215.8 million annual budget (page 7), almost half of which it admits (on page 11) is extracted from Surrey residents through Council tax.

In return for this largesse, more than 80% of Surrey residents are kept convinced that Surrey Police is doing a fine job. But for this coming year, the force is hoping to raise its detection rates for serious crimes to a point where perpetrators will still have an 81.4% chance of not getting caught.

If this isn’t a multi-million pound public relations confidence trick, what is it?

And by the way, in light of the force’s own assessment of its results, will the next person who tells me the right to bear arms should be left to the public safety experts kindly tell me who the experts really are in this context?

Meanwhile, should a genuinely public-spirited officer or civilian member of Surrey Police happen to read this piece… let’s swap condolences.

Has someone shot the gun control lobby’s Cumbrian fox?


Christopher Houseman

Recent events in Cumbria have led to an entirely predictable concern among UK libertarians that even more restrictions on gun ownership and usage are on the way. But on this occasion, I don’t share their pessimism.

UK domestic gun legislation is already among the tightest in the world (which is a bit ironic for a country that is one of the world’s largest arms exporters). Furthermore, even the most dyed in the wool statists are currently resigned to having their budgets (and therefore their de facto powers, at least) cut in the short to medium term. These facts, combined with the rarity of shooting sprees in the UK by licensed gun owners using their own weapons, make any attempt to administer further restrictions uneconomic.

So, might a total ban be contemplated? I couldn’t help noticing from the outset that key elements of the Whitehaven episode didn’t play out according to the standard gun control script. Jamie Reed, the local MP for Copeland was interviewed by the national media as the story broke on 2nd June. Although a Labour MP, he didn’t go along with one reporter’s efforts to corral him into calling for tighter gun control laws. Clearly, Mr. Reed knows something of the realities of his rural constituents’ daily lives. Quite simply, the prominent role of shotguns in particular in rural pest control means that a shotgun ban is unlikely to be supported.

Since 2nd June, it’s emerged that Derrick Bird had held shotgun and/or firearms licences for 20 years with no prior incidents, so it’s unlikely his actions could have been foreseen by anything short of continuous human and/or audio-visual surveillance (and then only in the very short term). Furthermore, it’s also emerged that local police officers had sight of Derrick Bird and might have been able to prevent his last 9 killings – except that the officers were unarmed, and therefore backed off when he confronted them directly.

This last snippet of news has clearly been released in an effort to deflect criticism away from Cumbrian officers. It may have the effect of relaunching the debate over the routine arming of police officers (that would be the state-thinkful option). This is unlikely to be deemed acceptable, but combined with the recent attack on 2 baby girls in their London home by a fox, it opens up new public debate opportunities for libertarians.

What’s the point of relaxing or scrapping the “reasonable force” restriction on householders’ defence of life and property against intruders if householders aren’t allowed to own and train with the best technical means available for home and self-defence (including pepper sprays, tasers and guns)? No wonder ministers are getting jittery about changing the law. And as urban foxes get more numerous and bold, isn’t it time to stop thinking of home defence purely in terms of repelling human burglars?

But what, you may ask, if the forthcoming debate does result in the police being routinely armed? In that case, civil libertarians of all stripes will unite to get it reversed. A significant number of police officers will meanwhile complain about the potential damage to their public image, and the extra pressures routine carrying of a gun will put on them. And then we will have to wait and see how well the state’s prefabricated “one rotten apple” justification will stand up to the public outcry when an armed police officer finally goes on the rampage with a Heckler and Koch. What, then, will be the justification for using the law of the land to allow only the police and the criminal classes to carry guns in Britain?

Intellectually speaking, at least, I suggest the gun control lobby is only a few steps away from shooting itself in the foot.

Cumberland Shootings: LA Statement


NEWS RELEASE FROM THE LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE
In Association with the Libertarian International

Release Date: Wednesday 2nd June 2010
Release Time: Immediate

Contact Details:
Dr Sean Gabb, 07956 472 199, sean@libertarian.co.uk

For other contact and link details, see the foot of this message
Release url: http://www.libertarian.co.uk/news/nr081.htm

“CUMBERLAND SHOOTINGS: GUN BANS MEAN MORE GUN CRIME” SAYS FREE MARKET AND CIVIL LIBERTIES POLICY INSTITUTE

The Libertarian Alliance, the radical free market and civil liberties institute, today calls for the relegalisation of civilian gun ownership in the United Kingdom as the only way for ordinary people to protect themselves against gun massacres. [This news release is prompted by the killings of at least five people on the 2nd June 2010 in and around the Cumberland town of Whitehaven.]

Speaking today in London, Dr Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance, comments:

“This outrage will certainly bring calls from the police and other victim disarmament advocacy groups for further gun control. However, bearing in mind that civilian ownership of handguns was outlawed in the two Firearms Acts of 1997, we fail to see, unless the murder weapon was a shotgun, what there is left to be outlawed.

“The Libertarian Alliance notes that these shootings would have been extremely difficult in a country where the people were allowed to arm themselves. We understand that the killer, Derrick Bird, was able to drive in perfect safety around Whitehaven, shooting people at random. None of his victims was in any position to return fire. Only when armed police could eventually be brought in did he feel it necessary to run away.

“In the United States, at least one campus shooting was brought to a premature end by armed civilians. The same is true in Israel, where many members of the public go about armed. Only in a country like England, where the people have been systematically disarmed, can a killer go about like a fox among chickens.

“The Libertarian Alliance believes that all the Firearms Acts from 1920 onwards should be repealed. The largely ineffective laws of 1870 and 1902 should also be repealed. It should once again be possible for adults to walk into a gun shop and, without showing any permit or proof of identity, buy as many guns and as much ammunition as they can afford. They should also be able to use lethal force, at home and in public, for the defence of life, liberty and property.

“Only then will ordinary people be safe from evil men like Derrick Bird.”

END OF COPY

Note(s) to Editors

Dr Sean Gabb is the Director of the Libertarian Alliance. His book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, may be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3. It may also be bought. His other books are available from Hampden Press at http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk.He can be contacted for further comment on 07956 472 199 or by email at sean@libertarian.co.uk

Extended Contact Details:

The Libertarian Alliance is Britain’s most radical free market and civil liberties policy institute. It has published over 700 articles, pamphlets and books in support of freedom and against statism in all its forms. These are freely available at http://www.libertarian.co.uk

Our postal address is

The Libertarian Alliance
Suite 35
2 Lansdowne Row
Mayfair
London
W1J 6HL
Tel: 07956 472 199

Associated Organisations

The Libertarian International – http://www.libertarian.to – is a sister organisation to the Libertarian Alliance. Its mission is to coordinate various initiatives in the defence of individual liberty throughout the world.

Sean Gabb’s personal website – http://www.seangabb.co.uk – contains about a million words of writings on themes interesting to libertarians and conservatives.

Hampden Press – http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk.- the publishing house of the Libertarian Alliance.

Liberalia – http://www.liberalia.com – maintained by by LA Executive member Christian Michel, Liberalia publishes in-depth papers in French and English on libertarianism and free enterprise. It is a prime source of documentation on these issues for students and scholars.

Citizen Safety Directive no:326


Fred Bloggs.

It’s times like this that makes me sure that Mr. Orwell got his dates a bit wrong.
I’ve now heard that the Police are using UAV’s and the government is planning on getting even bigger ones. This means that, in addition to all the CCTV cameras dotted liberally (no pun intended) around the landscape, you can also be watched from 50,000 feet.

All this goes on without you knowing however, so you will be able to expect parking, speeding, and, knowing this lot, littering fines dealt out like a bolt of lightening from the gods above. Shortly after this, we, knowing our luck and their determination, will be seeing these things being armed with missiles and smart bombs. Indeed, health and safety will take a sinister turn, for you will be driving along without your seatbelt on, by accident or on purpose, then BOOM! a streak of fire will rain down upon you and end your criminal ways, for you have to remember:
“Driving without your seatbelt on is dangerous.”

Sunday afternoon thoughts on male aggression, and socialism


David Davis

WE watched, as is usual when we have the time, the Belgian Formula 1 GP, which was slightly less unexciting than normal owing to a good pile-up on the first lap. Perhaps we subliminally enjoyed the implied violence? I do not know….

…There is something wrong with today’s car-racing tracks, which I will deal with in time. But in short, they are (1) too short, (2) have got too many really really sharp corners straight after the start, and (3) don’t allow driver/car-changes midstream if you prang or the driver gets killed, and (4) don’t allow you to jump into the spare car (and where is it then?) while the track is still covered with shrapnel. Peter Davis and I did a nice track nearly two years ago on here, about 26 miles long and rather interesting on Googleearth. We will come back to it. You can serch for it in the meantime.

But…..male aggression. It’s probably one of the things that made Homo sapiens sapiens as successful as (he) is, in the battle for survival against shithead short-arsed-bears bureaucrats, sabre-tooth tigers Soviets, and so on. I have been thinking about this for some time as I find that male students vary considerably in their ability to manage or mask or evince aggression as a statement of attitude, and it does seem to vary corelationally by school. (The Governmint might want to know that.)  Janet Daley today examines what she suggests the fascist PC-left have done to being about the explosion of gang culture and knife crime among young boys and young men. It’s worth a read, even though lots of libertarians don’t like her.

In “New Britain”, youth male aggression is not channelled, and so individual directionless crime is rife: why? Because:-

(1) There are no fathers, only “mums”. Girls are born to “mums”, but boys are born by parthenogenesis to “single partners”. “Fathers” are just devices which prodice the necessary gametes, seemingly on demand (I can’t figure out how or why.)

(2) Young boys have to have their heads shaved at three and watch football all day on the Wireless Tele Vision, and “hang out”.

(3) “Schools” have sold their football fields for the building of “affordable housing”, so there are no “competitive sports” which foster “elitism and “inequality” anyway, and so are bad.

(4) The Naitonalised Curriculum has been voided of content and also femiNazised, in order to render school (on purpose) seemingly useless to boys, so that they can be made to prefer streetgangs as a form of daytime outdoor relief.

Socialism (a fungus) of course needs this machinery to propagate within what is otherwise a highly-ordered civilisation, formed sort of accidentally under liberty.

Is socialism a fungus born out of evolution and natural selection, and which exploits a niche? DISCUSS

Afghanistan: If I was Gordon Brown and considering my policy of fostering a Taleban to take people’s eye off what I’m up to here, then I wonder how Wootton Bassett will vote in an election.


David Davis

[It seems that The Ranting Penguin already agrees with what I'm about to say.]

I don’t think I know what a “Taleban” is. Is it some kind of yoghurt? If so, why are we dying? Or is some “friendly power” secretly arming these buggers? We need to be told.

[In Lebanon, "Laban" is Greek yoghurt, and "Lebni" is a sort of slightly tart soft cheese (it's very nice, on a hot day, on a cheese-biscuit or something. With a biggish glass of Chateau Musar from the Bek'aa Valley vineyards.)]

A “Taleban” ought to be easy to eliminate in theory, faced with the theoretically-sufficiently-armed and armoured specialists of a First-World military power…..

Now, this town has the sad destiny, currently, to be where The Men Whose Names Live On These Walls and who have fallen in Afghanistan, pass through most days now, on their way to rest.

(That’s not in Wootton Bassett, it’s here.)

It is beginning to dawn on me, after years, that I am a curious sort of libertarian. I am in fact a Marxist-Leninist turned upside down. This is getting quite comfortable for me these days, and I will develop my ire further in this regard.

Thus for now: I do not object to foreign wars at all, if fought by a minimalist State based on Classical liberalism, which knows it has an obligated, indeed actually a divine, mission to supress wickednesses elsewhere, such as Statism, fabian-subverted-pre-capitalist-barbarian-survival-guide-warlordism-masquerading-as-religion, general slavery of all kinds (still going on in countries about 3,681 miles from you), “communism” (getting to be old hat now as Chè, Castro, that Sendero-Luminoso-droid, Kim-Jong-Il and Hugo Chavez, Jimmy Carter, and the fascist-pig Mitterand all died physically years ago) and the like.

Indeed, an emergent British – or more possibly English, “state”  having withdrawn from both the UK and the EU – libertarian government, may find itself with a variety of post-Bandung kleptocracies arrayed against it, with erstwhile “friends”, such as “France”, and perhaps even “Belgium”, eagerly selling modern armaments to our new potential enemies, speciifically to threaten us.

But in these wars which we now seem ot be fighting, I believe that we do //not// have to have what Sean Gabb calls a “vital national interest”, in my opinion. The very fact that terrible evils and unfathomable wickednesses are being done to humans in the name of “unity”, in the name of “progress”, and in the name of “people’s democracy”, is the justification to act to stop this nonsense and blood, if we have the power. We are in favour of Natural Rights, which human beings all possess by definition. If we do not have the power to act in these situations, then it is //our problem, and our failing//, and thus I am moving rapidly to the belief that it is [imho] our obligation to acquire the needed power – and to use it in such fashion. Sean knows quite well that he and I disagree in general terms although not necessarily specific ones on this matter and it is quite friendly: we argue about it from time to time in his sojourns up here, and thus reports of the death of the Libertarian Alliance are very premature.

The problem for GramscoFabiaNazis such as Gordon Brown, who like all socialists wants to be seen as “hard” and “warfighting” [it's in their genes sadly] while also crooning pacifistically to the post-modern British neo-CND left, is that he can’t sit on two toilets at once, like John Prescott that unexpectedly clever fellow, can. He can’t both shit and get off the pot simultaneously in two places. He wants to be seen as an important chappie in three ways: “supressing the supply of heroine and cocaine”, fighting the “War On Terror” [a contradiction in terms] and also cosying up to people like ShootinPutin187 whose gas and oil he thinks he needs and who got bloodied in Afghanistan 20-odd years ago. And yet at the same time he has also to appease his Enemy-Class-Paymasters who hate all things British (especially English) and who especially hate the Armed Forces, who of course /won’t/ cosy up to the ZanuLieBorg “Project”, and consist mostly of people either disregarded or despised and hated by the “New Labour Project”.

So where does poor little Wootton Bassett come into this terrible story? You will already all know how very, very deeply I despise and excoriate synchronised public grieving. I have never failed to bore you, year after year, with my hatred of the emotional incontinence which overtook this strong and gripped nation, at the death of the horrible Diana.

But this is different. [If the lefties can say such things, so can I.] Nobody told these poor people, sad at what was happening, to turn out. Not like the mafia-instructions to close all our shops [or else] on the day of Diana’s funeral. They just turned out.

A casualty list of eight chaps in a day, in 2009, is a disaster in today’s terms. This is not 1916, when we were locked in an insoluble battle against an equally-technologically-advanced set of enemies – this is 2009 and we are again fighting what used to pass for [pre-1914] small colonial wars against people that we called “towelheads”, in which we expected to take small but ongoing casualties while yet assuring victory. But our priorities and our perception of the deaths of soldiers in wars today has changed, while our supposed ability to deal with modern battlefields has increased.

This sort of misfortune ought not to be happening to a First-World-Economy’s armed forces, against pre-medieval barbarians [OK they are individual humans, but they "chose poorly" , as the old mailed knight said in the end-scene of "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".]

Gordon Brown clearly wants and needs a war in Afghanistan. That’s why he has both flagged an increase in the number of our solders there (currently about four brigades) and also a decrease at the same time. He wants to please all his paymasters at once, and thinks we don’t listen. Either he wants “victory”, to destroy all the cocaine and heroin, please ShootinPutin187 and look hard, or else he does not, through not giving our chaps any kit at all that works, so that he puts them all off from joining the Army [a GramscoFabiaNazi medium-term-objective] and thus pleasing the neo-Harold-Pinters of this planet.

But the people of Wootton Bassett are trying to tell him something. I can’t think it will be to his advantage as a Prime-Mentalist.

Scottish Cyclops Indeed…


Fred Bloggs.

Gordon Brown’s African cousin….

Sean Gabb on the Commons Expenses Row


Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 182
18th May 2009
Linking url: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc182.htm

A Political Class is Blown Away:
Cui Bono?
by Sean Gabb

My British readers will need no reminding of what has happened during the past few weeks. However, most of my readers are not British, and many will be coming on this article several years into the future. So I will begin by saying that The Daily Telegraph has “acquired” a disk that contained about a million pages of expenses receipts put in by Members of the House of Commons, and has been publishing its findings day after day. Many of the receipts show a scandalous indifference to the niceties of honesty and proportion. There has been one resignation from the Cabinet so far. Several other Ministers are at least tainted, and may not survive much longer even in Gordon Brown’s apology for a Government. Dozens of letter political careers have been blighted. The Police have now been called in, and we are waiting to see who will be charged and with what.

It is very funny to watch these creatures squirming – rather like bugs in the sunlight when the stone under which they were sheltering is pulled over. The general defence is either to blame accounting carelessness. Otherwise, when this defence cannot reasonably be made, they blame “the system” that never stopped them from slipping their hands into the till. That the sums involved have not usually been that great makes it all the funnier. These people have, since 1997, burned their way through about two trillion pounds of our money. Most of this has been used to buy Labour votes or to oppress us – often for both at the same time. If they are now on the brink of political oblivion because of a few thousand pounds here and there spent on tampons and television sets, it is because these are things that we can comprehend. A trillion begins with one digit and is followed by twelve zeros. Claiming back £65 for a summons for non-payment of council tax is much easier to imagine.

Various further questions arise from the scandal. The first and most obvious is how anyone could be so careless in his accounting – especially when he has spent decades advertising his peculiar fitness to govern this country. Then it may be asked how so many politicians can afford to write out repayment cheques for what the rest of us might think substantial sums of money. I am not poor, but would have to wait a while before signing a cheque for £20,000. Have these people additional sources of gain that have not so far been revealed? But the question I want to ask today is why has The Daily Telegraph seen fit to expose all this dirt?

One answer is that this is the sort of thing the media of a free country exists to do. But this is not a satisfactory answer. I have been watching the British media at work for about thirty years now, and I can say that – weather reports and cricket scores aside – nothing is published in the way of news that does not serve some agenda of the great and powerful. These expense claims show at worst rather petty corruption. There are much larger scandals that are not covered by the mainstream media – and certainly not by The Daily Telegraph. There is, for example, the former police chief who used his position to stop his mistress from being blackmailed. There is a senior judge who was arrested for exposing himself to little girls in a bus shelter. There is the whole background to the Dunblane massacre in 1996. There is much else that has never found its way into the newspapers. So why this?

Another possible answer is that The Daily Telegraph is supposed to be a Conservative newspaper, and that it should, therefore, do whatever it can to hasten the end of this Labour Government. However, it has done very little against either Tony Blair or Gordon Brown. Most of the dirt published on this Government has been in The Daily Mail or The Independent. In any event, if the worst abuses have been by Labour politicians, these expenses claims have damaged politicians in all the main parties. Using them for party political purposes is much like using atom bombs to win a trench battle.

No – I believe that this wind that will blow away much of our political class was produced for – if not by – Boris Johnson. He is not currently in the House of Commons, but is Mayor of London. He has obvious ambitions to be at least the next but one Conservative Prime Minister. He is, so far as I can tell, the only person of significance likely to benefit from this expenses scandal. He benefits so far as he is untouched by it, and so far as many of those who do or might stand in his way will be discredited.

I have no direct evidence of this claim. But I can supply what I regard as reasonable inferences from past behaviour that stand beside estimates of present interest.

To begin with past behaviour, it may be recalled that, around the turn of the century, I ran the Candidlist Project. This provided information about the stated or likely views of Conservative politicians about the European Union. It was a very feeble thing compared with what has since been achieved by Guido Fawkes – or even by The Daily Telegraph. But it scared the life out of several hundred normally shameless politicians, and destroyed about a dozen careers. I may have unseated one Member of Parliament. During the approach to the 2001 General Election, I put the Candidlist Questions to Boris Johnson, who was at the time the Conservative candidate for Henley and a senior journalist at The Daily Telegraph and Editor of The Spectator. At first, he refused to answer my questions. Then he gave some very unsatisfactory answers. I made great fun of him, and this was picked up by several newspapers.

What I did next was to start pressuring the directors of companies that were funding a campaign for Britain to join the Euro. This pressure included a threat to publish the home addresses of directors who refused to stop funding what I regarded at the time as treasonable propaganda. Almost at once, I found myself on the front page of The Daily Telegraph, for two days running accused of what would nowadays be classed as terrorism. The journalist concerned managed to claim that publishing the home addresses of people like Fred Goodwin was tantamount to putting dynamite through their letterboxes. I was outraged by the claims, and it took me several days to appreciate the funny side of things. Back then, though, this was still a free country, and everyone else had a good laugh at me and then forgot the matter. It is unlikely that the Police even read the claims, let alone considered how many dozen officers they could fit through my front door before shooting me.

Now, it might have been some alarmed company director who had me done over. More likely, it was Boris Johnson, calling on his friends to punish me for what I had done to him. This was his newspaper. He has always had a reputation for bearing grudges and for a ruthless viciousness in advancing his own interests. If so, it may be relevant that the journalist who defamed me in 2001 was Benedict Brogan – and that it is Benedict Brogan who is now supervising the publication of the Commons expense claims. It may also be relevant that no claim submitted by Mr Johnson while he was in Parliament has yet been published or commented on. Perhaps Mr Johnson ran his finances as a Member of Parliament with more attention to the proprieties than he did his private life. We may one day learn the truth.

As for present interest, I have already explained this. At the beginning of the present month, Mr Johnson was an important elected officer. But he was out of Parliament, and had dropped out of competition with a leadership that growing in confidence with every downward step of the Brown Government. He is now the one leading Conservative who has not been tainted by allegations of fraud or allegations of having tolerated the frauds of others. It still looks as if the Conservatives will win the next election – even they cannot managed the incompetence and cowardice now needed to save Labour. And it looks as if David Cameron will be the next Conservative Prime Minister. But Boris Johnson has grown in public stature during the past fortnight, and he may be able, after the next election, to come forward with claims to preferment that cannot be denied.

I have no reason for not wanting Mr Johnson to succeed in politics. He is no worse than anyone else, and has given the occasional sign of being better. He was beastly to me a long time ago, and has almost certainly been beastlier to other people who have got in his way. I say what I have said because I believe it to be true, and because, if it is true, I might pick up some credit for having said it first.

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

Margaret Thatcher – New Labour’s Midwife


Sean Gabb
Director, The Libertarian Alliance
(Carbon-positive since 1979)

30 Years After: I reject Margaret Hilda Thatcher and Most of Her Works

 Since everyone else is boring on about the 30th anniversary of her first election victory in 1979, I was until ten minutes ago disinclined to say anything of my own. However, I have now promised to put something on the Libertarian Alliance Blog. Therefore, having nothing else to write, I will say why Margaret Thatcher was a bad thing for the cause of liberty in England.

Here goes:

She started the transformation of this country into a politically correct police state. Her Government behaved with an almost gloating disregard for constitutional norms. She brought in money laundering laws that have now been extended to a general supervision over our financial dealings. She relaxed the conditions for searches and seizure by the police. She increased the numbers and powers of the police. She weakened trial by jury. She weakened the due process protections of the accused. She gave executive agencies the power to fine and punish without due process. She began the first steps towards total criminalisation of gun possession.

She did not cut government spending. Instead, she allowed the conversion of local government and the lower administration into a system of sinecures for the Enemy Class. She allowed political correctness to take hold in local government. When she did oppose this, it involved giving central government powers of supervision and control useful to a future politically correct government. She extended and tightened the laws constraining free speech about race and immigration.

Her encouragement of enterprise never amounted to more than a liking for big business corporatism. Genuine enterprise was progressively heaped with taxes and regulations that made it hard to do business. Big business, on the other hand, was showered with praise and legal indulgences. Indeed, her privatisation policies were less about introducing competition and choice into public services than in turning public monopolies into corporate monsters pampered by the State with subsidies and favourable regulations – corporate monsters that were expected in return to lavish financial rewards on the political class.

She virtually began the war on freedom of choice where smoking is concerned. She started the modern obsession with health and safety as an excuse for controlling our lives. She vastly expended state powers of supervision and control over parenting, and immensely expanded the numbers and powers of social workers.

She made the environmental nonsense politically fashionable. She was the first senion British politician to start wittering about climate change and ozone holes. She doubtless thought she was further stuffing the coal miners. In fact, she was a useful idiot for the ideology best suited to replace socialism as an excuse for Enemy Class domination.

She hardly cut taxes. She ruthlessly pushed the speed of European integration. Her militaristic foreign policy and slavish obedience to Washington mostly worked against the interests of this country. The one war she fought that might have some justification was only necessary because her own colleagues had effectively told the Argentine Government to invade the Falkland Islands.

Even her reforms of the trade union movement had malevolent effects. Before her, trade unions were run by ordinary working class people who used the strike and violence to achieve their ends. She ensured that the unions were taken over by the usual Enemy Class graduates. These were the only people capable of using the health and safety and workplace discrimination laws and so forth that were brought in to replace the older methods of advancing working class interests. The result has been the co-option of the trade unions to purposes that have done nothing at all to advance working class interests.

Forget Margaret Thatcher as some hero of our Movement. She was at best the midwife of the New Labour Revolution. She did not just make the world safe for New Labour – she created New Labour. Without her precedents and her general transformation of our laws and institutions, Tony Blair would have been impossible.

I am inclined to wish James Callaghan had won in 1979. If things had turned nasty thereafter, it would at least have been an honest despotism. No libertarians or genuine conservatives would have been making idiots of themselves nearly a third of a century later trying to tell themselves and everyone else that it was other than it was.

Well, who would have thought it!


David Davis

“Sources” sat that the Police “believe” that “an Al Quaeda cell” was “days away from“…doing something a bit down south from this type writer here. Better install a few weaponised dustbins inside the Trafford, to be on the safe side….

Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. Who now can tell? 

I don’t watch the broadcast MSM “news” any more, finding it as I do rather sensationalised and unhelpful in discerning the truth of matters. But I expect this is all over it already. Gordon Brown and our MPs are sinking fast and need to be make to look big again, with some security-theatre: why? Because everybody slumped in front of their Idiots’ Lanterns has already totally forgotten whatever it was Carla Sarkozy and Michelle Obama were wearing at G20 – and how it was designed by Sarah Hobbsbawm on an inspiratory revelation from the Dear Leader Himself. (Her reward was to get to borrow a £9,000 bra, and only have to pay 10% of the price…)

._._._._.

Let us now play an informal little war game together:

Let’s pretend that there actually are (for there may be some) dudes out there, inflamed by certain pre-Rennaissance and amoral-barbarian beliefs, egged on by a number of “deeply-respected” mountebanks and pisstaking mysogynisticoNazi scumbags who stand to gain a lot out of the result, that the West is comprised of sub-human turds who have turned our faces from God, deliberately underdress their women and other sex-slaves, and thus surely deserve to die – as must be obvious to everyone.

Now are these dudes doing what they allegedly have just been doing  _because_  we have decided to assault the buggers in faraway countries who put them up to it? This is predicated upon the notion that the vast majority of adherents to these ideas want nothing at all to do with blood and gore and explosions – which is patently clear although none of them seem to want to come out and say so….

Or, would the said dude-droids be doing it anyway regardless,  _because_ certain “belief-systems” explicitly exhort that this is the right thing to do, and it’s fun to kill people you don’t know in very large numbers? I incline to the latter.

Thus, the “War on Terror” (a conflation of ideas substantively empty of meaning as we all agree) has been talked up as an excuse by the new ruling Enemy Class of the West, to introduce control of individuals’ lives more typical of those Police States which the detonating-buggers come from, than of a Classical liberal civilisation.

Look now. We here always, always get blown up by successive historical swarms of evil fat-heads, not because of what we have done to the afforesaid fat-heads at sometime or other, but  _because_ they are innately evil (“they just are”, as a British teenager would harrumph, inarticulately unable to acticulate exactly why) and can’t stand to be outshone by real civilisations: it happens to us all the time. It’s an occupational hazard of being right.

The fat-heads’ ultimate unimportance and actual destructiveness and negative value is threatening to them, for they would if made to operate as normal humans merely fade away and become sad meths-drinkers and hobos: deep down, in what passes for their hearts, they know fully that it is as I say. They are those who would be helped to a dignified death by concerned old ladies and retired, heavily-decorated wing-commanders.

We must just stop being so wimpish and accept the fact that if we want to be “The City Upon a Hill”, we shall continue to be attacked by those who still inhabit the cesspools.

“Improved”? Pah! THIS is improved!


Fred bloggs

Gah! Now mere mortals are attempting to challenge the supreme power that I have over dustbins.

This ends now, meet… FLUFFY!

 

Fluffy

Fluffy

Dustbin ‘o’ Doom.


Fred Bloggs.

In responce to Peter Davis’s weaponised dustbin, i  will post my own WMD ( Weaponized Massive Dustbin).

 dod

Now just wait till i get hold of that hoover…

Nightjack is shutting shop, but there’s still lots to say


David Davis

There are, some say, 130 million blogs. I have no idea, and it doesn’t matter really, for 129,900,000 are read by one person a day, and you can guess who. I don’t even bother with “David Davis” and “Ordure! Ordure!” – not yet anyway, for I write nothing there at this time, being busy enough with this one. (We do try to think about what to write, you know.)

But via The Landed Underclass, our primary eyes and ears in the foremast director position, for he spends much time there, and from whom we learned first I think about Nightjack. Nightjack states that he now has said everything he thinks he ought to, and has other plans, such as a book which is fair enough – he does have a job to hold down too.

Says Nightjack:-

It is still fun but  I have now written  down everything that I think is worth me writing. In some areas I am conscious that I am starting to repeat myself.  If I keep on going I believe that I will end up spending the next year or so attack blogging the government rather than blogging about policing.  I don’t want to be all about that. There are plenty of other people doing that better already.

But, attack-blogging the government will provide everyone who wants to, and more besides, with more than enough material, almost for ever….sadly. In an ideal world, none of us liberal blggers would need to do what we do: we could become rich instead by selling things people want to buy, such as electricity, burgers deep-fried in goose-fat, tungsten, cars, steel, space-rockets, cigarettes, and sex. Furthermore, if we do not attack-blog the government, stridently, enthusiastically and with relentless ferocity, then it and lookers-on will start to think that it is winning, and we are losing heart.

Governments know, with perfect clarity, what they are doing, and they are doing it all, without exception, on purpose. They are composed of GramscoFabiaNazis, which is the sort of person who wants to be a GoverNazi – and that’s it, just it.  And thus everything is pre-planned and pre-agreed by them, from the first places where they meet each other: for these are astonishingly bright people we are up against, and not only that, but they have been to the finest education establishments you can buy, and have met each other and have been Eagletonized, and vulcanised, to (jack)boot (sorry.).  

For example, there was no “mistake” or “oversight”, or “error”, on the part of the husband of “Jacqui” “Smith”, a “Bair Babe”,  in claiming for whatever passed as “pornography”: it was claimed for deliberately, to check if it would get through, so that other MPs would know thereafter that they could do it also, and that this sort of expense would pass. There is no other reason – as the bugger is the Home Secretary, and his wife the “Bair Babe” sits in Parliament and does his wishes, this must have been the plan.

Nightjack’s loss to us in The Line is sad: his perspective as a proper Serving Police Officer was useful and illuminating, but his ceasing to write will not be a disaster. Others will come. But if you have any favourite Nightjack posts, I guess you’d better copy-paste them down to your Type Writing Machine as soon as you can, for as he says, his blog will self-destruct in not many days, as they do.

Electronic search terms;

Babes; Blair; parliament; guy fawkes; police; right to roam; farming; common fisheries policy; silver iodide; rain; acid; road access; education;

A Victim Disarmer Bleats


Sean Gabb

Malcolm Redfellow’s World Service

War on drugs


End it now, says liberal Conspiracy.

David Davis

We couldn’t agree more. Tip Guido.

This is who I am getting at in reality, with my war-axe….


I call them Gramsco-Marxians. Tony will assault me…again.

(It’s his job!)

David Davis

Hat tip Samizdata.

Keeley Hazell doesn’t want you to get burgled, so buy an i-Pod with a gun attached…..


David Davis

So that you can shoot straight, it seems you need an i-Pod now:-

Here she is, I expect the gun fits between the boobs, without being observed quickly:-

khburglaryimage1

And, thanks to The Remittance Man, we have this, just in! When I grow up, I want to be like mommy:-


And here she is again….(update, someone on the interwebthingy seems to have removed the image from the link…)


The price of socialism, part 46,574-C/5-a : one home burgled every two minutes


…..and where is the safe haven, just askin’ – as it’s an interesting question……….

David Davis

Well well well: the powers that be have noticed that crime might rise if people are struggling to find their daily bread. But only if you are intent – as Fabianazis and Gramsco-Marxians deliberately are – on creating an anti-civilisation of bad-people, whom you think will vote for your handouts, or better – not vote at all on anything.

The answer is more guns, and knives. In our hands. if the bastards get gutted, or blown away in shreds and their remains have to be hosed off the front path, it’s their problem.

Sean Gabb on Holocaust Denial


UPDATE2:- (25th March 2009) See how Daniel Hannan tears, ferociously, the trousers, follows by the Y-fronts, off Gordon Brown, his own Prime Minister, in the EU Parliament. This will take the heat off poor Sir Fred Goodwin for a bit.

UPDATE: Here’s Sean Gabb’s speech to Conservative-Future, in London, Monday 16th February 2009. It was about what they should _REALLY_ do, as soon as they got into power. Smash the State, basically, by demolishing the levers of power which empower what Sean has publicly called “The Enemy Class” in their tyrannising of ordinary people, and the removal of individual liberty in all things.

It was a proper stormer, and really upset the Tories.

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 159
24th April 2007

postCount(‘flc159′);Comments (8)| postCountTB(‘flc159′); Trackback

Defending the Right to Deny the Holocaust
by Sean Gabb

Last week, on the 19th April, the Justice Ministers of the European Union agreed to make “incitement to racism and xenophobia” a criminal offence in all 27 member states. Despite the best efforts of the German Government, this does not mean that sceptical comments on the holocaust will become a crime in any European country where it is not so already. I am surprised that the British Government held out for a moderating of the final document so that all speech short of “incitement” will remain free. But I doubt if the agreement made last week will be the last word in the matter. Already, nine member states of the European Union punish denial or “gross revision” with imprisonment. There are calls for criminalisation in England. I have no doubt these calls will grow louder.

My own view – and I speak on this matter not only for me but also for the Libertarian Alliance – is that there should be no restrictions on freedom of speech where public affairs are concerned. This involves, among much else, the right to say anything at all about politics, religion, sex, science or history. It is no business of the State to tell people what they can and cannot think. Our bodies are our own. Our minds are our own. What we do with them is our business. It is one of the highest glories of the Enlightenment that states were shamed out of dragooning people into the various established worships of Europe. It is one of the most ominous signs of the modern counter-Enlightenment that people can again be persecuted for their opinions.

Of course, there are people who claim to believe in freedom of speech, but who say that the promotion of “hatred” is a distinct matter. They say that “hate speech” is direct or indirect incitement to acts of violence against others, and so should be put down by law. This is not, on their reasoning, censorship. It is simply a matter of keeping the peace.

We in the Libertarian Alliance reject this supposed distinction. What some call the promotion of hatred others call telling the truth. Quite often, whatever opinion the rich and powerful do not like they will find some means of calling “hatred”. In any event, we believe in the right to promote hatred by any means that do not fall within the Common Law definition of assault.

Perhaps you are one of those people who believe in a distinction between free speech and hate speech. This being so, I will drop any further mention of abstract rights and turn to a practical argument that is ultimately just as connected with keeping the peace. Let me ask: what reason have I to believe that the holocaust really happened?

The obvious answer – that the standard history books say it happened – is not in itself much good. My first degree was in History, and I know enough about certain periods to say with confidence that even standard secondary sources are riddled with errors that sometimes amount to actual falsehoods. I will not discuss the numerous claims of doubtful truth made about the Later Roman Empire. I will only observe that, in the standard accounts of the Second World War,  the Katyn Wood massacre used to be blamed on the Germans, and now it is blamed on the Soviets. How can I be sure that the same is not true for the holocaust?

The next answer – that there are many witnesses to the holocaust still alive – is also not much good in itself. These people may have been in a concentration camp, and they may have seen atrocities. They did not see the holocaust in any synoptic sense. They may have been mistaken. One of my grandmothers, for example, lived in Kent all through the Second World War, and she went to her grave insisting that there had been an unsuccessful German invasion of England in 1940. There are millions of people who claim to have seen plaster statues of the Virgin weep real tears, and I am perfectly assured they are mistaken or lying. How do I not know that the holocaust survivors I have met or seen on television were not mistaken or lying?

Or there is the argument from the agreed nature of the Hitler Regime. Almost everyone accepts that this acted in defiance of – and perhaps in open contempt for – the norms of civilised behaviour. This may be evidence for the probability of a holocaust. But it is hardly proof that one happened. On the same reasoning, I can believe that Hitler was a bad man: this does not require me to believe that he ate human flesh.

To answer the question properly for myself, of whether the holocaust happened, I need skills and knowledge that I do not have and do not feel inclined to acquire. I need a good understanding of German, Polish, Russian, Hungarian and Hebrew, among other languages. I need to be able to track down a mass of primary sources, most of which are unpublished but are in various European and American archives. To evaluate all this, I need technical knowledge that I do not have – knowledge, for instance, about the lethal nature of Zyklon B gas, or of diesel fumes, or of how to burn bodies and dispose of the remains.

I have not read even much of the secondary material that exists in English. This is not a subject that has interested me since I sat my O Levels. I have, though, read a very small selection of the material published on both sides of the debate. And what I can say of this is that, considered purely in itself, the revisionist material is as persuasive as that of the mainstream historians. At least one side in this debate is lying, and lying very fluently – but I am not able, on the basis of the evidence offered, to say who is lying.

Nevertheless, I believe with reasonable firmness that the German National Socialists did try, during the last years of the Second World War, to murder every Jew they could set hands on, and that they succeeded in murdering several million. Whether this was a plan centrally conceived and centrally directed, or whether most of the killings were deliberate murder or the effects of culpable negligence, are not matters on which I have any opinion. But on the central claim of the holocaust, I am reasonably assured.

I am assured of this on the authority of the mainstream historians. I have no means of knowing for myself whether the holocaust happened. But I take it on trust that it did happen. That is true for me, and it is true for the overwhelming majority of everyone else who believes the same.

There is nothing in its nature unsatisfactory about knowledge based on authority. Most of what we know we cannot demonstrate on any grounds of direct evidence. I “know”, for example, that light travels at 186,000 miles per second, and that the Earth is in an elliptical orbit around the Sun, and that the Earth is around 5,000 million years old. I am completely incapable of demonstrating any of this. I might even have trouble arguing with a convinced flat-earther. I believe all these things and much more beside because nearly everyone else believes them.

I grant that we should not believe too much on authority that we are competent to investigate for ourselves. But the only real concern with such knowledge is not that it is on authority, but that the authority should be good. What makes authority good? The best answer is when it can be openly contested by others who claim to know better, but who have not convinced reasonable onlookers that they do.

With regard to the holocaust, I have – broadly speaking – two options. I can believe that it did happen roughly as claimed. Or I can believe that it is a gigantic conspiracy of lies maintained since the 1940s in the face of all evidence. Since debate remains free in the English-speaking world, it should be obvious what I am to believe. I believe in the central fact of the holocaust. On the secondary issues mentioned above, where my authorities do not agree, I suspend judgment.

Take away the freedom to argue with or against these authorities, though, and my assurance that they are right must be weakened.

In my case, let me say, laws against revising or denying the holocaust will not destroy my belief that it happened. There is still the long preceding time of open debate, and the unlikelihood that compelling new evidence either way has been discovered now. There is also the fact that many people will insist on laws in support of evident truths. If you are Jewish, for example, it may be very upsetting for people to say that your grandparents were not murdered in Poland in 1944, but are alive and well and living in Finchley. Or you may worry that scepticism about the holocaust will prepare the way for a repeat of it. Then there are the obvious financial and moral advantages that certain Jews and the State of Israel have obtained from the holocaust. Cries of anti-semitism are a good closing tactic for many debates that might otherwise be lost.

Laws to compel belief in the holocaust do not mean it did not happen. But they do allow people to ask what kind of truth this is that needs laws to defend it. There are many people who know even less about the holocaust than I do, and who deny that it happened simply because David Irving is generally acknowledged to be an expert of sorts on the period, and he had to be locked up before he would shut up.

Open mockery of deeply-held views, deliberate and gross offence, savage abuse that barely stops short of incitement to violence – these may well disturb the peace. Far worse, though, is the sort of hatred that boils beneath a seemingly placid surface, and then erupts into a disorder that cannot be checked by reason. That is the danger of laws to compel belief in the holocaust.

And they make cranks into martyrs. Do you suppose the Libertarian Alliance enjoys putting out news releases in defence of David Irving? We put these out because we believe in freedom of speech with no exceptions. We put up with the cold shoulder from other civil liberties groups, and with raised eyebrows and outright smears. We are much happier defending the rights of sexual or social minorities, whose tastes we might ourselves share or do not think in the least reprehensible. We do what we believe is our duty, and do it as well as we can – but we regret the need to do it.

And they set a precedent for further censorship. If people must be careful what they say about the holocaust, why not add the alleged Armenian genocide? Or the alleged Bosnian genocide? Or the alleged Irish genocide of the 1840s? Or the Divine Mission of Christ? Or the holiness of the Prophet? Why not have legal curbs on doubts regarding the nature and extent of global warming? Indeed, on this last, there are calls for the American President to be impeached for his expressed doubts.

Censorship is rather like torture. It is always possible to fabricate “exceptional circumstances” to justify it. Opponents can always be denounced as naive or tender-hearted. But it is always corrupting of civilised decency. Its general tendency is to undermine whatever it is called into being to uphold.

I am glad that the British Government, among others, managed on this occasion to prevent a common scheme of censorship across the European Union. But I do not suppose, given the settled decline of faith in freedom of speech, that this will turn out to have been more than a holding action.

NB – Sean Gabb’s novel The Column of Phocas (£8.99) will be withdrawn from sale in the next few months, prior to its reissue in February 2008 by a multinational publishing group. Buy copies of the first edition while you can from http://tinyurl.co.uk/z31v or via Amazon: http://tinyurl.co.uk/2cnw The sequel has already been completed.

You can download the first three chapters free of charge from: http://tinyurl.co.uk/kkl4