Category Archives: Obesity Nazis

The FoodNazi farm-animal-Police dishonoureth us, doth bully us and yea, seriously degradeth us (from and old and unremembered tongue-twister)


David Davis

Here we see the Salt-Nazis regrouping for another attempt to either ration salt, or tax it, or both. As War Secretary of an incoming British Libertarian Minimal-Statist Classical-Liberal government’s first administration, I’m not especially worried about these people, for they will simply “have to go”. What salt is in what purchased food will become a matter for the manufacturing sellers and their buyers, as is good and right.

However, there is hope for proper capitalism still since there seem to be enough people still alive who are old enough to write stuff like the following:-

I have no objection against government offering advice and to an extent it is duty bound to pass it on. I don’t, however, go along with the tiresome narrative that food companies are evil because they deliberately hide toxic, addictive, additives to make profits knowing full well that it is killing their customers. Go along with that and one ends up demanding that the state should protect us by ‘acting’ against ‘Big Food’. It’s a trope that is encouraged by the WHO and ‘health’ activists, peopled as they are by those whose agenda is to use health as a tool for attacking western capitalism via global companies. Simplistic though it is, the idea of sinister corporations covertly poisoning populations to make money is a powerful one and seems to find sympathy with many people. I’m quite sure that in the ideal world as envisaged by the WHO and it’s cohorts that state food rationing would be the norm. Perhaps by manufacturing fears of ‘Big Food’ it will eventually encourage a demand for the state to control the food supply? Some might want this, I don’t know, but it certainly isn’t a world I’d wish to inhabit.

I think we need to say things about these fellows


David Davis

BCBx168CEAAfSJr

A Nanny Looks Forward To 2013


by Dick Puddlecote
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DickPuddlecote/~3/lJXGXLhHwZg/a-nanny-looks-forward-to-2013.html

A Nanny Looks Forward To 2013 Sorry, I did try but just can’t let this pass without comment.

A government minister has written to magazine editors asking them not to promote post-Christmas “miracle” diets because they pose a “health risk”.

Equalities minister Jo Swinson wrote an open letter asking magazines to “shed the fad diets and fitness myths” in their January editions.

She suggested they “celebrate the beauty of diversity in body shape, skin colour, size and age” instead. Continue reading

David McDonagh on Advertising


Advertising
The Risks that Adverts Must Run and an Authoress’s
Fear of Freedom


By David McDonagh

The jennyass, Felicity Lawrence, feels that it is a big mistake of the CONDEMS’ new Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, to dismiss the recent campaign of Jamie Oliver against obesity. Writing in the totalitarian propaganda sheet, that is so aptly named The Guardian, Thursday 8 July 2010, she protests that Lansley is overlooking the fact that it was only the nanny state could have recently saved the UK population from smoking. The Jamie Oliver campaign, backed by the state, has also worked in getting children to eat better at school, she says. Lansley was wrong to think it was all down to individual choice. Has he never heard of the power of marketing? Advertising can be used to get people to consume junk food. Andrew Lansley is not only facile, she says, but he is also clearly wrong headed in thinking that all social ills are down to individual responsibility rather than to the actions of powerful firms and their advertising campaigns.

This authoress wants to say, “Nanny does know best, Andrew Lansley.” She begins: “The health secretary’s belief that children should be responsible for their own diet choices would be risible were it not so scary” showing, thereby, a naked fear of freedom and responsibility, and a longing for totalitarian security and all round state

She indicates that Lansley is naïve to hold that “the captains of the food industry are decent chaps” who will choose not to sell junk food if only the state stops regulating them. “Lansley’s analysis of public health is so facile that it would be risible even in a prep-school debating society”, says this exceedingly stupid woman. It is unrealistic, she thinks, to expect schoolchildren to be responsible about their food.

She feels that Lansley has not even bothered to master his brief here “Figures out yesterday show that, far from putting large numbers off school meals as Lansley had claimed, Jamie Oliver’s campaign to improve school meals, and all the government work on nutritional standards that followed, has increased uptake of healthy hot meals at lunchtime. It turns out those in loco parentis, or to use that pernicious rhetoric of the privileged right, ‘nanny’, should decide what’s best for children. It works” she triumphantly exclaims.

Like so many Romantics, this is a tribal thing for the authoress. She does not seem to know that the pristine right of the French Assembly in 1789 was protectionist, as she is, and that the left was for the free trade, that she is so ardently opposed to. The Fabian Society called some old Tory ideas “socialist” in the 1890s, which was perfectly true, but they also said they were left wing. They did not fit in well with free trade, but this was widely accepted as being apt nevertheless. The dichotomy has been somewhat confused in common sense ever since.

Nor is Lansley even aware of the literature that shows that choice is a myth, she continues, as we are all ruled by the unconscious mind. He might begin his homework, she says, by reading up on Sigmund Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, he who wrote an essay on The Engineering of Consent. Advertising is more than just free speech; it is also a way of controlling those it broadcasts to, as the people all have an unconscious mind that any broadcast can enter to manipulate any one amongst the masses listening by using their modern techniques. Bernays was the first to realise that the public could be manipulated “into buying products they did not want or need by targeting their unconscious desires.” In the 1920s, he aided the large scale selling to the public of cigarettes and junk food. The state was needed to break the habit of smoking that such advertising had long built up, and it will similarly be needed to break the habit of consuming junk food too, says the authoress. With smoking, the adverts needed to be stopped first. Then the state was needed to put up taxes on the cigarettes and only later to ban smoking in public places. This long strategy alone could “quell the desires that had been so skilfully awakened” by the giant tobacco firms, she says. She writes as if there would be no smoking or eating of junk food at all if it was not for this tremendous manipulation ability of advertisements.

“Why does Lansley think the food industry has fought tooth and nail to avoid restrictions on its marketing to children? It has to catch them young, to form their palates and create their desires” she says.

This woman thinks that the founder of the Jesuits, Ignatius Loyola, was quite right to think that what we learn young enough; we can never quite analyse, or reasonably check out for truth in any way. It is worth mentioning that Voltaire was the product of such a Jesuit college.

We may hothouse the brain by early education to enlarge the brain by dendritic growth, but we cannot realistically hope to build in a special protection for any particular doctrine by any advantage in early education. And, as the pristine Romantic propagandist, J.J. Rousseau, rightly said, any material will aid brain development such that we will be able to think all the better as a result. Any ideas at all will educate us but none will stop further consideration as to whether they are true or not; quite the contrary, any will aid us to think clearly. Having learned about things – any particular things or things in general – we will be better able to think about fresh ideas than we would had we not been educated. A developed brain will better be able to think critically rather than being merely made loyal to whatever doctrines was used during its development.

Thus, the taxi driver’s knowledge of London will be as good as an intensive course of philosophy to that end. Both develop dendrites in the brain that basically boost the learner’s general ability. In the 1930s the best schools in the world were those run by the Jesuits, but they all, very oddly, confined themselves to Aristotle on physics, owing to their Thomist dogma. But their pupils soon caught up with modern physics as adults. Learning any subject will aid us to learn other subjects. Even if we could all be taught actually true doctrines, anyone might rethink them and fall into adult error, despite the fact that the external world, presumably, gives the truth a lift. Our brains simply do rethink all things. That is why this brainwashing idea is false. It assumes that we can be loyal to ideas indoctrinated but there is no way that we can prevent automatically revising all that we behold.

Richard Dawkins on memes is partly right. One aspect of the meme idea is that we believe, or catch, ideas like we do a virus, much as we catch a cold. But his idea that it is no use reasoning about the ideas that we thus catch, or pick up, any more than it would be to reason about a cold is clearly false, for all ideas are subject to reason not prior to adoption but at any time after they have been adopted. Thus, it is no advantage to get an idea adopted if it can be shed with ease, and false looking ideas can be shed with ease. Our minds automatically search for error and the rejection of anything that looks like error to us is automatic. We can never deliberately err, as Plato rightly said.

Earlier the authoress, Felicity Lawrence, wrote “Free choice isn’t healthy for the food industry’s menu” The Guardian, Wednesday 23 June 2010. She fears the market, loves the state yet also fears that the state has no chance unless it is very careful. I rather think that she is right that the state is not up to much, but she seems to merely imagine her supposed dangers of the market. “Traffic-light labelling was voted down in Europe only last week, scuppered by food industry lobbying of breathtaking determination and expense“. European consumer watchdogs have said that up to a billion pounds was spent by giant multinationals to get the members of the European parliament by use of emails and meetings to sway their vote, she tells us. The result is that an industry-sponsored scheme of nutrition labelling that serves only to confuse the customers emerged instead of her hoped for version of state regulation. The authoresses beloved Food Standards Agency [FSA], that had upset the giant firms in the food industry by successfully naming and shaming manufacturers for use of excess salt in their products, but it may now be abolished in the CONDEMS cuts even before it can fully sort out the big firms. There is simply too much fat in the foods that the big food companies sell today, says Felicity Lawrence, but the FSA might have put them in their place had the new government not been recently elected. “Plans are well advanced to emasculate it by returning its role in improving public nutrition to the Department of Health, whose past performance on food has been lacklustre” she says. “Another success, then, for the food industry and its lobbyists, who were hard at work in the run up to the election.”

The giant firms that produce all this dreadful junk-food for profit will not worry much over the plans that the state is making to control the advertising to children before the 9 pm TV watershed, as it can now use the internet to bypass any such regulations. It can use its adverts to get the children to pester their parents to buy junk food regardless of the planned restrictions. “This is not a world in which individuals make free, fully informed choices about food” she tells us. Rather “it is a world in which children are targeted by junk-food manufacturers from the youngest age. We live in a culture in which adult appetites are shaped by marketing that preys on our insecurities and emotional needs. It is an environment in which understanding the labels on our food practically requires a Ph.D. in food chemistry.” So she feels that the state is badly needed to protect the public from being victimised by the big firms that exploit them for profit.

But indoctrination is not as powerful as she thinks, even if we grant the idea that the adverts can indoctrinate; which there seems reason to think is false, as there is not even the time in most cases. The old adage “use it or lose it” seems to be the rule for all ideas, for if we do not use any set of ideas then they will tend to be forgotten. The general development of the brain, the growth of dendrites, will have been achieved by the use of any ideas used in education in the past. Not so the belief that the ideas in question are true, as that will depend on what the beholder thinks is the case at any one time only; even if, in revising what he thinks, he does not amend the content. The fact is that at any time, he might amend the content if it seems apt to do so. To think is to revise, even if we do not change our minds. And to be alive and in normal health is to think. We think automatically.

However, Felicity Lawrence has the daft idea that there is something called the “unconscious mind” that is the irrational enemy within us all. It will ensure that we are unhappy. That seems to be its main aim. So it urges us to do things that are bad for us. So we all need the guardianship of the state, which is, presumably, manned by politicians that lack this unconscious mind. How otherwise could they know what is best? But the idea that politicians are special in this way seems to be rather far-fetched. More realistic is the idea that there is no such unconscious mind, or any other means of manipulation through adverts.

Moreover, almost any history of psycho-analysis will show a falling off of this idea of the unconscious mind within the very movement that gave rise to it: within psychoanalysis. Any history of the movement will tell the reader about how the unconscious was abandoned by many, if not most, of the followers of Freud. . J.A.C. Brown, in Freud and the Post-Freudians (1964), for example, tells his readers that first Alfred Adler, and then many others, the majority, indeed, of the therapist followers of Freud, after a time, dumped this ‘unconscious’ meme as irrelevant to anything they thought was real. I think they were right to do so.

Similarly, the Jesuit colleges have exactly no chance of making a Catholic for life, given the first seven years. If ever such a successful former pupil is later willing to debate at any time, then all the Catholic doctrines learnt earlier will thereby run the risk of being discredited. This would be so even if the doctrines were true. If any opponents of the fondly indoctrinated Catholic ideas can get the pupil to debate then they do have a chance of wiping out any beliefs in the Jesuit creed that he was indoctrinated in. The Jesuits have no chance at all with Christianity in open debate, as Catholicism is, objectively, such a silly creed. But even if it were true it would still risk being abandoned on being criticised. Brainwashing is a mere myth, like mental illness, or irrationality, or socialism [as an alternative economy to the price system for the mass urban society] or the idea of God.

Even though all those bogus ideas – mental illness, irrationality and socialism – do give fools lots of pleasure, no one can actually believe as they wish, so anyone who discusses those bogus ideas thereby risks either being disillusioned, or even understanding an actual refutation in some cases. Bias cannot crowd out criticism, even though many fools feel utterly certain that it can. We are free to say what we like, but never to believe as we like. The one thing that Freud got right was “the reality principle”. We may not want to re-think, but we do re-think all the time; indeed we rethink any time that we do think, even if this is usually only superficially done. Any attempt to manipulate people will need to stand up to the normal test of reason or normal thinking that we all automatically do. It is not foolproof but it is a test.

In any case, the giant firms would need to compete with all the others in their adverts, even if we granted the bogus manipulation theory via the unconscious mind; but that theory looks lame so there is no need to grant it. Yet if we did, it would not be easy manipulation. Competition would ensure that.

Peter Watson in Ideas (2005) writes that the German historian of science, Theodor Gomperz said, “Nearly our entire intellectual education originates from the Greeks. A thorough knowledge of their origin is the indisputable prerequisite for freeing ourselves from their overwhelming influence” (p148) . But this is mere hyperbole, in both sentences, but complete folly in the second cited sentence, as ideas cannot gaol us in any way at all. Influence tends to push us out rather than to suck us in, thus the wider educated mind is usually the more independent mind and a man with a degree in Greek is not likely to be limited to ancient Greece in his outlook.

That we often deliberately make assumptions obfuscates the fact that we often make many tacit assumptions automatically too. Indeed, the latter assumptions are the norm. To repeat, the biologist, Richard Dawkins with his meme idea has the merit of getting the fact that we adopt ideas automatically, rather like we pick up a virus, correctly but he errs, and he errs very badly, when he says that what we automatically assume is thereby immune from criticism. E contra, we will automatically drop any assumption as soon as we see it as bogus, even if we are not right in it actually being bogus. As Plato rightly said, no one can deliberately err.

Indeed, few will think that this current common sense idea of irrationality, at least in the buying of what they do not want as result of advertising, applies to themselves. It only pertains to others; only to the masses. People may foolishly grant that they are irrational in other ways. But only the gullible masses seem open to being duped by advertising; but the masses are only an abstraction. We all feel we are better than others. It is the sort of value that we need to have, as it is, maybe, basic to survival; or at least it will have been so for our ancestors prior to the rise of civilisation. We realise that most adverts fall on barren ground as far as we are concerned. Few males want to wear the widely advertised female underwear, for example. But adverts must affect the masses, we think; even though we can also see that most people are not affected by adverts for wares that are made for the opposite sex or for products that are otherwise not suitable to most people who see or hear the advert. But why not, if they can manipulate any of us at will? Because we think about them, and in doing so we realise that the broadcast is not even aimed at us, of course. But if we do think in this way, then why should we ever grant the manipulation theory that Felicity Lawrence thinks is so silly of Lansley to ignore?

Even road-sweepers, or men selling newspapers, realise adverts have never persuaded them to buy what they do not want, though they still often feel that the adverts must work this way on the masses. The fact is that adverts persuade none. They do aid distribution by merely calling the attention of the people who already want the wares on offer to wares that they already want. That is enough to boost sales. No persuasion is needed.

Most adult people will admit that they have long forgotten most of whatever they learnt at school. I myself remember learning nothing at school on the normal day. I was very pleased never to be asked what I learnt on getting home for I would have usually had nothing to say. Most pupils seem to learn nothing on most days at school today too. That is why most nominal Catholics, sometimes even enthusiastic ones, know next to nothing about their creed, despite all those years of RI lessons at school. Most people do credit the schools with learning them to read and write, but they would have, most likely, picked these skills up as they grew up in the mass urban society. As Stephen Berry says, schools are mainly providing a child minding service. There has been no real building up of doctrine at school, let alone by the giant firms through adverts for smoking and junk food on the media. Mass indoctrination is greatly exaggerated.

Felicity Lawrence feels Lansley overlooks that the various firms have no social responsibility, beyond doing well for their shareholders. Why should they not want to sell more junk food? Bigger sales means more profits. She here overlooks that the firms have no interest in selling junk food, any more than any other food, and that firms actually sell only what is selected by the individual members of the public whenever such an individual chooses to become a customer. In each case, there is the money that the individual will need to pay whenever one wants to buy what is for sale, and that is a built-in disincentive to buy any particular good. Does the ware match up to whatever else the customer can obtain with money elsewhere? Our alternative uses of money have far more impact than any advert could ever have in ensuring that we only buy what we want, even if there was some sort of manipulation. We all do want money so we need to want any good that we actually do buy a bit more than the money that we pay for it and any manipulation, even if we grant it as real, will need to be strong to counter that. But Felicity Lawrence does not seem to realise that fact.

However, she will have experienced it whenever she has to pay for whatever she buys. By contrast, she will not have experienced the power of manipulation from the adverts, for it is not real at all. But she might think that, as this influence occurs unconsciously, she need never expect to have any experience of it. This does not seem to be a very realistic line of thought; but neither do the main ideas she accuses Lansley of ignoring look one iota realistic either. In any case, if the adverts can get the unconscious mind to buy anything, then why not get them to buy healthy food? Presumably, anything the public buys will yield a profit.

In any case, if the adverts can get the unconscious mind to buy anything, then why not get them to buy healthy food? Presumably, anything the public buys will yield a profit. Or does it all depend on the unconscious desires, as most accounts of it seem to suggest? If so, it does not even claim to get people to do as it wants but instead it simply depends on what is wanted by the unconscious mind already. Things are not looking so good for the big firms after all. They are going to need entrepreneurship with its risk of getting what the customers buy wrong, and thus making losses rather than profits. In this line of argument, it looks as if the firms do not have the alternative of handy manipulation by advertising to dodge the risk of losses after all.

Many amongst the UK public have feared greatly, just lately, that the law on product placement within TV programmes is about to be relaxed and they see this as sinister. Like Felicity Lawrence, they fear that advertisements will manipulate them through their unconscious mind by the use of modern techniques of persuasion. I recall a class in which the teacher put a case against adverts as a sort of running joke to lighten up the lesson [it was a mathematics night school class]. Towards the end of the class, he came near the end of his case against the Guinness adverts.: “Then it is on your mind that you might buy a pint of Guinness!” he exclaimed. He was a Guinness drinker and so was I. About seven of us went for a drink after the class each week. “And then you recall that you do not like Guinness!” I retorted. The class laughed. Just getting the message over will never be enough to sell a good. The good, or service advertised, will need to be wanted beforehand.

The authoress knows, or she thinks she knows, that social class rather than individual responsibility decides those things. Class is still a major determinant of how healthy a person is, says Felicity Lawrence. Inequality is the big factor that causes a lot of bad health by sales of cigarettes and junk food. The fact that the crass ideal of equality is impossible, in any case, is, presumably, not realised by the authoress. She goes on about how salt is bad for our blood pressure. But any reader might think that her silly articles are not the best recommended reading for dodging high blood pressure, nor is a daily reading of that rag, The Guardian. It may help its readers if they take their daily reading of it with a small pinch of salt.

Felicity Lawrence finds the idea of individual responsibility, that she calls a Tory idea, to be “truly frightening”. This idea “which casts everything as personal responsibility – social injustice, like obesity, is indeed a moral failure, but only on the part of those who suffer it” she writes. Felicity Lawrence finds the idea of individual responsibility, that she calls a Tory idea, to be “truly frightening”. This idea “which casts everything as personal responsibility – social injustice, like obesity, is indeed a moral failure, but only on the part of those who suffer it” she writes. But, if we look at it historically, if we go back to what Tory and Whig meant up to the 1840s, or what Tory and Liberal meant in the 1850s and 60s, then she is, basically, a one nation Tory par excellence. What is more, she writes for a pristine Tory warmongering rag that campaigned against Cobden and Bright for opposing the Crimean War, and helped to get both of them thrown out of the House of Commons for opposition to that war. However, she seems to lack the historical knowledge to realise all that.

My guess is that she will be very confused as to what is social injustice. It will be linked to the rather arbitrary ideal of equality in her mind, as in the mind of anyone who writes for The Guardian, but justice bears no relation to that crass ideal in reality. There are many things that we are not responsible for – how the way the moon affects the tides or, less obviously, the earth daily. But it is plainly true that we are responsible for how fat we are at any one time. It is also up to each of us whether we smoke cigarettes, or not. Being a member of the proletariat does not mean that I have to smoke cigarettes and eat beef-burgers. Many such classified people do not follow the norm in that respect, if it is a norm. It will only happen in my case if I want to do those things. My social class has exactly no actual bearing on my choice there; none whatsoever. Ditto for everyone else. But Felicity Lawrence prefers to personify mere social class; for she writes as if she feels that a mere academic abstraction can refute a plain reality, the reality of personal choice. She is hardly alone in that folly. But only actual agents can be responsible [i.e. to be able to respond to blame] and those mere abstractions are clearly not agents. So it is merely futile to blame them. This is, basically, what Mrs Thatcher was saying when they cited her on there being no such thing as society, for when it comes to blame, society is not an agent [and it is not actually a thing either, but mere social interaction]. It does not make sense to blame society, as it cannot do anything at all. Similarly, social class does not decide who smokes or eats junk food. Abstractions simply cannot be responsible in that they cannot respond.

I do not think that there is much of worth in any plea that Lansley has in mind to make to the food industry. It would be better for him to do nothing at all.

The less state regulation there is, the better. Regulation is going to be dysfunctional. This is because the state is bound to victimise some when it taxes and to corrupt others when it favours people with handouts too. It is going to be negative sum on the whole transaction, as there will not only be the funds transferred from OY to McX, but bureaucrats will also need to be paid for the administration costs that will be involved.

Felicity Lawrence tells us that Edward Bernays had his main influence in the 1920s but the essay she recommends Lansley to read dates from 1947. Bernays brought out a book he called Propaganda (1928). It adopts the absurd idea that we have an unconscious mind. The plain reality is that what is unconscious is not of the mind, ipso facto. To be unconscious is exactly to be not of the mind.

“If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it?” – Edward Bernays

Many people who champion the idea of an unconscious mind credit the fact that things can often become clearer if only we sleep on it. To let the action of the unconscious mind work on the problem for us (for example, on a new bit of mathematics) overnight. This time, contrary to the normal idea that it is the enemy within, the unconscious mind is held to be a friend who helps us with our homework. But what has most likely actually happened is that fresh brain development has taken place overnight, in that new dendrites have emerged in the brain. This will be unconscious, but not really to do with the mind, any more than muscle development that can, similarly, occur overnight. This is not of the mind at all but of the body. Either may be owing to a decision made to exercise the mind, or the body, but the development will be physical in each case rather than being mental.

Bernays had the very widespread idea that people are irrational and he thought that this explained why they bought things that he, when considering them with his advanced theories, thought they did not really need, or even want. As we do not need most things, the former idea of Bernays looks realistic. But with the second idea, that the customer does not even want whatever is purchased, there is the built-in disincentive of parting with some money that, in each case, tends to refute the idea that we never want what we buy. Indeed, that the customer parted with scarce money for whatever was bought suggests that the customer wanted whatever was bought even more than the money that they had to pay for it, even if they did not need what they paid for. Many of Bernays epigones in marketing thought that firms made things and then got the customers to buy them by secret methods involving the unconscious mind. But that looks a little nebulous if we but think about it.

Felicity Lawrence, too, seems to think that the choice was made for people by the firms before the customers buy anything. This is quite true as far as it goes and it is simply the great risk of ordinary entrepreneurship, but Felicity Lawrence and the literature she so admires, usually written by silly psychologists and marketing experts, did not mean that the firms risked a loss in guessing what could sell. Rather that the firms might be able to cut out the risk altogether by simply manipulating what people want towards whatever they found it easiest to produce, that they might cut out the risk of making unwanted losses with the aid of Bernays’ advanced theories. They thought that the whole of the risk of guessing what the customers might buy, what they wanted enough to pay for, could be bypassed by modern techniques of persuasion. It seems clear that they did not do much conscious thinking on this unconscious idea.

Oddly, the followers of Bernays usually also thought that making a study of people was needed, to see how the customers felt. If one understood what those “unconscious desires” were, then one could use this to the firm’s advantage. It could be used to sell products the giant firms had already decided to produce, to greatly increase sales of well-established goods. One example was where they found that many housewives felt a bit guilty, in their unconscious mind, that they were having it way too easy in the home by making a cake from a popular cake mixture, so the firm recommended, on the packet, that adding an egg would be needed. That made the housewife feel that the end result was a bit more of her own work, thereby easing the guilt by quite a bit and greatly increasing sales of the product as a result.

This cake mixture example is given in a few internet accounts of those hidden powers of manipulation that I finally resorted to in an effort to find out whatever it could be that Felicity Lawrence was referring to. Yet this much repeated example is odd in at least two senses:

1) Why did the guilt need to ever be unconscious and, if it was such, how was it ever found out by the researchers? Clearly, the unconscious meme was only included as it was a beloved false idol, or a mere fad. That is its attraction for the likes of Felicity Lawrence, Edward Bernays and all the others who adopt it. It is actually a counter productive idea in the story they tell of the housewives guilt. Their love of the paradox leads them to overlook the absurdity involved.

2) Why was research, such as this on housewife guilt, ever needed when they claimed to have the advanced means that could be used to sell her anything in any case? We have been told and retold, that what is needed, or even wanted, by the mere individual housewife does not matter but that theoretical abstractions, like the unconscious mind or social class, decides whatever she does. So why all this research into what it is that she desires? If sales are to be achieved by manipulating desires on the unconscious level, why not just get on with it then? That the masters of the advanced techniques seemed to think that some research was needed suggests that they did not consciously believe in the power of their own advanced means of manipulation.

Many who dislike the market ironically greatly over-estimate the power of money. They think that state services always would work, if only more money was supplied to them, for example. They also think that adverts simply must have a great effect merely owing to the money that goes into them. If the adverts did not persuade people then lots of money would never be spent on them, it is claimed. But adverts aid distribution even when they do not begin to persuade people of anything. It is enough that they remind people of what they advertise. Most people who reject the market do so on the idea that it is about greed and selfishness, but the market is, ironically, where the workers are all institutionally geared to serving others. This is so clearly the case that it might be far more aptly labelled as institutionalised altruism. Profit is a sign that wide sections of the public have been served by the firm who reaps the profit. By contrast, I fear that the state invariability mucks society up. It is always a negative sum activity, which is intrinsically uneconomic and thus dysfunctional and wasteful. So the CONDEMS seem to be on the right track in their aim of replacing the state sector with private sector jobs.

Some people feel that adverts are propaganda, and that is indeed the case, but they think that propaganda is all lies,ipso facto. The state used what it called propaganda against other states whom it was at war with in 1914 and 1939, but this wartime use of words by the state was indeed a war of words, rather that an attempt to recruit or propagate, so it might have been more aptly called polemics than propaganda. Propaganda sets out to persuade rather than to alienate or to discourage or to demoralise. It is out of place in war. So “wartime propaganda” is something of a misnomer.

In a moment of rare candour Galbraith remarked “You will find that the State is the kind of organization which, though it does big things badly, does small things badly, too.”

However, it is not the case that propaganda has to persuade. There simply is not the time to persuade in most adverts, though there is the occasional lengthy advert in magazines, which may be mistaken for an article, and may be of a similar length. It might have an opportunity to break this advertising norm by successful persuasion. However, most adverts are merely drawing attention to the item advertised. The notice of the Libertarian Alliance [LA] monthly meetings is an example. They draw attention to the meetings in the hope that those who see the advert will already want to come along to such meetings. Adverts rely on people wanting the ware, the good or the service that they set out to promote beforehand. The LA adverts are part of the distribution in the making of those LA meetings. They act merely like the ringing a big bell, but ringing a big bell only works in the wake of the achievement of any needed persuasion. They work only on the idea that what they call attention to is already desired. The persuasion needs to have been, long since, done before any advert can have an effect. Entrepreneurship in general also does not set out to persuade but rather to guess what people will, or might, want. It similarly conforms to what is out there already, or to what might soon emerge out there, rather than attempting to get people to buy what is simply easy for the giant firms to produce.

Entrepreneurship embraces the unavoidable risk of error, but the likes of the late J.K. Galbraith, or nowadays his son James, tend to feel, with Felicity Lawrence and The Guardian readers, that this risk can be taken away by the sheer power of advanced modern advertising techniques. It is merely naïve to think otherwise, we are told.

However, the reality is that if the ware being advertised is not wanted beforehand then the adverts will merely be barren. Thus the adverts for junk food will be lost on those that think it is aptly named, that the food being advertised really is junk. Adverts do not usually have the time to persuade, even if such rejecters of junk food could be persuaded, and entrepreneurship is not about persuasion anyway. Rather it is about guessing correctly the likely desires of potential customers. The adverts merely seek to draw attention to the product they set out to promote. They can only help to distribute what the customers already want.

Adverts are propaganda, but they are usually also post-persuasion phenomena. They only work on the already persuaded. They are wasted on the people that do not already like the ware, or service, advertised. They aid sales greatly, but only by calling attention to wares that people already want. Recent adverts have been less widely broadcast, but rather more like narrow-casts, thus they are better aimed at the target people who are more likely to already want the product promoted. This is simply to cut out the realised barrenness of the older wider broadcasts. Why would firms bother with all this if they had known how to get anyone to buy anything, as the authoress, Felicity Lawrence, and many others seems to hold?

The facts concerning the wares or services on offer do not usually even matter to adverts, apart from occasionally the facts of access, as to where and when they are on offer; i.e. merely the facts saying “it is here!”

The whole aim, then and now, was simply to drawn attention to what was on offer. That is why they so often use women, those masters of drawing attention to themselves, and they will use them in advertising any ware at all. It is the ability to draw attention to themselves, mastered by women, that the advertisers seek to use. It does not matter one whit that the ware being promoted has nothing to do with women. It is not sex, but the arts of attraction that women have mastered, and that makes them so very useful in all sorts of adverts. Adverts really are still, in effect, rather like the pristine adverts in the seventeenth and eighteen century, that did actually ring a big bell to call the attention of people to the goods on sale. The whole aim, then and now, was simply to drawn attention to what was on offer. That is why they so often use women, those masters of drawing attention to themselves, and they will use them in advertising any ware at all. It is the ability to draw attention to themselves, mastered by women, that the advertisers seek to use. It does not matter one whit that the ware being promoted has nothing to do with women. It is not sex, but the arts of attraction that women have mastered, and that makes them so very useful in all sorts of adverts. They draw attention not only from men; for females are even better noticed by other women who, presumably, have no sexual interest in them at all [though the PC crew might object to that; how they still love Freud, who held by dogma that we were all polymorphous perverts.] Adverts are there merely to draw attention: nothing more. But that is enough. It is all that an advert ever seeks to do and it is all it needs to do. It is not about persuasion. Still less is it about any manipulation. It does not even need to be agreeable. It only needs to draw attention to the ware, or service, that it seeks to promote. Maybe to rub people up the wrong way will draw their attention even more successfully than to be agreeable. That is a point for any advertising firm to seriously consider. They will need to think about the risk of failure, for advertising can never remove that risk.

However, we liberal propagandists need to realise that it is best to inform people if we are to persuade them. We do need to win the public over to seeing that the state is a big mistake and that taxation is anti-social rather than a sign of welfare. But adverts do not need to persuade. They do not need to tell the public much about the wares being promoted, but there may well be a need to state the time and the place where access to the wares promoted may be had, though with many, or even most wares, this might be well known already. So most adverts will need only to draw attention to what is being advertised.

This theory of adverts as unconscious manipulation, as advanced techniques of persuasion that can get people to part with needed money to buy anything that the giant firms can easily produce is not very persuasive. But this is what the authoress, Felicity Lawrence, rather stupidly and unrealistically, thinks is so very realistic and she is brazen enough to say that Lansley is facile to ignore it. The very idea of it is absurd, as there can be no unconscious mind, ipso facto. Similarly, there are no means that the giant firms have to get people to pay for things that they do not even want. So the whole line of thought is a mere brutum fulmen. There is no reason at all for this authoress to fear freedom.

Some very nasty people are NICE


David Davis

Spotted this just now.

S.O.S. (Save Our Sausages)


Fred Bloggs.

Now this is just being silly. I mean, that’s just being malicious. I like my sausages, stay away from them, they’re mine I say, they’re MINE!.

Ahem…

Sorry for the outburst, but this is a subject that I feel very strongly about.

You still can’t have them…

Drool…


Fred Bloggs.

I now present to you….. The Super Scooby:

superScooby_1490344c

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It contains:

* Four 1/4lb beef burgers: 1,160 calories

* 12 onion rings: 300 calories

* Eight rashers of bacon: 275 calories

* Eight slices of cheese: 480 calories

* Two lettuce leaves: 4 calories

* Six slices of tomato: 25 calories

* Four slices of onion: 15 calories*

BBQ sauce, burger sauce and relish: 40 calories

* Mayonnaise: 90 calories

* White burger bap: 256 calories

Total Calories: 2,645

The Telegraph did an article on it, here.

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

 

 

Food rationing coming soon: it will be called “choice-editing”.


David Davis

They’re after your children again.

Has nobody among these GramscoFabiaNazi “researchers” considered that children need to be fat in places like Stockton-on-Tees, because it’s effing cold a lot of the time? (So your children can, indeed must, be fat, or they will be uncomfortable.)

And that in wealthy, hot Sussex, way-down south of here, it’s just, well, hot? (So your children can, indeed must, be thin, or they will be uncomfortable.) They have successful vineyards, for f***’s sake.

Anyway, those effete southerners are too close to all those “Haute Couture” designers in strange places like London and Paris who seem to think all humans ought to be 3-meter-high-skeletal boys with a scowl, so they probably get to like thin children…

And of course, picking and treading the Sussex grapes, for the Political-Enemy-Superclass to crow about in venezuela and Cuba, in the traditional pre-capitalist-barbarian grape-treading-manner, gets you fit and thin.

The (national) curriculum today


Fred Bloggs.

Chemistry = Geology and why we shouldn’t mine/ Jolobial Warmin’

Physics = Basic math with nice pictures about Jolobial Warmin’/how we mustn’t use any electricity

Biology = Heathy eating/save the whales/how farmers all cause pollution, all the time, everywhere

English = illitrcy/pretentshoos twiiadle masceradin’ az poemz.

Geography = Anthropology/Evil Capitalists dumping illegal waste (everywhere, ‘coz they want to and it’s what they have to do)/evil TNCs exploiting WEMs in LEDCs to make globalised goods for consumers in MEDCs…

IT = The difference between a keyboard and a Monitor. And how “Ness” organises the fields of her “database” of her members at a “fitness centre”…

RE = How peaceful other religions are.

PE = Dont move! You might hurt yourself!/ Fitness programs for disabled lesbians/obese people.

PSHE = Don’t go there.

“Citzenship” = How great the EU and the UN are.

Oh look, it’s that nice man again.


Fred Bloggs

I would like to start this article with a word of thanks. Thank you New Labour!.

Now you are most likely wondering why i thanked New Labour, well, i was having a read of Labourlist.org (I needed a laugh) and i found a new video of that lovely man, Daniel Hannan. Now, i would have never found this video without labourlist, so again, thank you.

One other thing, ajoining the video of Daniel was a another video, this time John Prescott replying to Daniel’s vid. To briefly summerise John’s rant, the video consisted entirely of John saying “Daniel’s wrong, ‘cos, er,er,he’s wrong.” 

Ok, here’s the vids:

The comment that John said about America wanting something like our health care system, genuinly shocked me, as i thought that the Americans were against compulsory euthenasia

Patients to be banned from deleting their records from NHS database | Mail Online


 

Patients to be banned from deleting their records from NHS database | Mail Online

Truly: people are now State Property.

If in doubt….PAYRISE!


Fred Bloggs

In the face of the current economic crisis (some might say fiscal armageddon) the goverment has devised a plan, which consists of, briefly, giving themselves a 60% pay rise. No doubt this “plan” will solve all the economic problems in the world, feed all the starving Africans, raise Atlantis, and with all its well-crafted majesty, scare the Russians so shitless they’ll give Lenin a haircut. Or, well, maybe not.

Apart from the Atlantis bit.

Find out more Here.

Monty Don, a rich BBC-Tele-Gardner, savaged by Bella Gerens


David Davis

I’ve commented about this poor, sad, unhistorically-educated Monty Don chappie on The Landed Underclass, earlier, but Bella Gerens does a better academic demolition job on him and his hypotheses.

Yes it’s nice to play at growing a few veg – even keeping a few chickens, if you can stand the slimy shit, are prepared to shoot, gas or snare the inevitable foxes and hawks (beware of the RSPB Gestapo*** on that one!) and stuff their corpses in your wheelie-bin, and if you can bear, as a metropolitan dweller, to kill, pluck, draw and then cook and eat the poor bastards when the time comes.

I don’t object to play-growing. But it won’t feed a nation of 60 million, no way Monty. You can afford to, but we can’t.

***Hawks are of course quite OK, and ought to be allowed to predate your stuff all they want, but your food-birds are of no interest ot them whatsoever.

Is this true?


David Davis

From The Remittance Man we learn this: householders will be visited by bureaucrats dispensing advice (here’s the original source) about cooking with leftovers…..

Sometimes we here, on whichever of the duty-typwriting squadrons is on “watch”, are tempted to emulate the language of Obnoxio The Clown, or the Devil himself. (He’s uncovered a previously unstudied State-Bogus-Charity in that one…Obnoxio’s latest just refers to some bureucrat or other as a c*** . )

But this is a family blog, so, apart from saying shit and crap which is rather weak playground stuff now, we only go so far as to merely write f*** (sometimes even c*** these days.) And also we only show pictures of Keeley Hazell wearing bras (until we get bored with her and we go and get someone else. Possibly Lucy Pinder – anybody got any preferences? See poll below. If in doubt, go here and select someone else.)

To get back to the point, the government is bust, the main world’s private banks have feverishly bought themselves into virtual bankruptcy by queuing for 15 years to buy each others “securitised” pigs-in-pokes, Gordon Brown is printing money….and then they all go and spend it on what? Food-police. Here’s an exerpt:-

Home cooks will also be told what size portions to prepare, taught to understand “best before” dates and urged to make more use of their freezers.

The door-to-door campaign, which starts tomorrow, will be funded by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), a Government agency charged with reducing household waste.

The officials will be called “food champions”. However, they were dismissed last night as “food police” by critics who called the scheme an example of “excessive government nannying”.

WE MUST ALSO BEAR IN MIND THAT THIS IS ! “ALL ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS” !  People who have purchased food are entitled to dispose of it how it pleases them. The bought food DOES NOT become State Property: it belongs to the householder.

No bureaucrats yet come round to tell you not to throw a brick at your Wireless Tele Vision, thus rendering it at least partially if not fully unserviceable, whenever Jonathan Ross come on screen: why should they come and tell you what to do with food whiche displeases you?

It’s all very sad: it’s as if the poor government buggers just can’t kick the gravy-train (sorry) habit, even when there’s really no money, as opposed to just the appearance of no money.


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


David Davis

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

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

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

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

As it gets colder, and sterling becomes toilet-paper, we shall be glad to be able to have chip-butties.


David Davis

I have even met builders, with whom I worked a bit last summer as a second-fix trade-polisher on a housebuilding job, who had crisp-butties for their tea-breaks (many.)

The Landed Underclass tells us, I am happy to relate, that the Vegan stuffed vine leaves are off in 2009 because of Sterling’s continuing fall. I can’t say I’m very sorry about that, although I do like stuffed vine leaves, preferably full of a nice lemony mixture of minced lamb, rice, pine nuts, coriander and other poncy (but scrumptious) Wireless Tele Chef type comestibles. However, his main point is the most cunningly marvellous exposition about foods in general by a proper doctor, the kind who knows about war and stuff. We’d all really prefer to get treated by guys llike that whom he describes, if push came to shove: and not the sneering hectoring sub-types of “professionals” like State “dieticians” whom I met in a certain famous children’s hospital not 30 miles form here, a few years ago when our new-born (now five) was rather less well than he orta-av-been.

The problem arises of course where the State, whether nanny, jackbooted or otherwise (I can’t tell the difference) steps in. I quote from landed’s quote from the Daily express:-

Tam Fry of the National Obesity Forum said …: “As prices rise and incomes fall, people will be drawn to the cheaper, less healthy processed foods, which are precisely the sort of things we are trying to wean people away from. Once habits change, it becomes hard for people to go back, especially because cheaper junk foods are so seductive.”

I have not previously heard of the “National Obesity Forum”, but I bet it’s (a) not a national movement and (b) it’s anything but a forum in which people engage in civilised discourse.

The libertarian issues are as follows:-

(1) If people are to be “weaned” off certain foods, and forced to eat others which they desire  less, then they are the state’s farm animals. I do feel quite sure that this is what “Tam” “Fry” does truly intend, although he’d not see it like that. he’d be “helping” people. Like Stalin did.

(2) If there was a real market in food, then the price of Vegan stuffed Vine Leaves would reflect demand and also the affluence (or otherwise) if the clientele that would go for it.

DISASTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Peter Davis

Within the last hour of this post, the value of the Pound Slerling has gone below the value of the EURO!!

this is a terrifying prospect, but as of 23:11 GMT, £1 is worth 0.72 Euro cents (my keyboard cannot do euro signs, funny though, because it can do everything else though, even these: Ψ Φ ♦ ♣ ← ↑ → ↓↔ θ Ξ ¿)

Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea


Sean Gabb

According to The Independent, Britain seeks to expand its empire with 77,000 square miles of Atlantic seabed.

Splendid news. I propose Tony Blair as Governor General. We could give him a nice plumed helmet – and a pair of lead-soled boots to help his descent to this latest territory to be painted red on the map.

THE BLOGMASTER ADDS:-
This is actually a very important point raised here by Sean. If Libertarians care about property rights and what they are and what they are for, (and many of us do,) then there ought to be an agreed legal method, which everybody respects (that’s the point of Law after all, no?) to define what entitiy or “corporate person” or individual, owns what parts of the seabed.

We ought to care about who’s administering such “Law” – in case it is a bunch of “authoritarian-nationalists” (a great term, which I picked up on a newsgroup just this morning, as a description of the government of the USSR Russia today in 2008.)

MUCH MUCH better, than the crass, sad term “nazi” which gets liberals into so much trouble when used by them to describe ordinary socialists accurately.

We here do not care whether there is stuff on or under the seabed round Ascenscion Island or not. Naturally, the inhabitants, of which there are several thousand, will. It’s their life, not ours. But we think that the general point that’s being made in the article is a vital issue for the next 100-200 years, while the Earth is still the primary source of New Property Rights.

Comments please, pronto! (There will be a short written test on 31st August, to see who’s paying attention.)

Sean Gabb on “The Politics Show”, BBC1, 13th April 2008


Debunking junk science. THIS IS HOW to use numbers in the blogosphere, to trash lefty propaganda and brainwashing…


…that is engineered to force approved behaviour-patterns on unwilling human beings.

David Davis

Read The Remittance Man, on alcohol and breast cancer here.

This is how it ought to be done – a fast, well-thought-out attack, based on a fair bit of general knowledge and common sense, plus correct use of statistics and “real numbers” in their right contexts and having regard to how small some things are and how big are others. All of us in the liberal Blogosphere ought to have thses simple skills, or we’d not be here.

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.

“Water bottles morally wrong anti smoking” ….. lovely search-engine string! We are hitting the (blog) spot.


David Davis 

I can’t think of anything worthwhile to add to the title above, so I won’t.

It says everything about the neo-Stalinist control-freaks with which we are currently plagued here in the home and birthplace of liberalism.

They’ll be categorising foods next, for content of “prohibited” stuff such as “fats” and “salt” – everything that makes it taste of anything at all…..

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.

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

“COMMUNIST WORLD WITHOUT TESCO”. SCARY IDEA. Yeah, I thought you’d wonder about that one.


David Davis 

This missile (see above) collided harmlessly with the armour-belt abutting the port-side of the blog yesterday, in a heavy following sea. It was swiftly and quietly made safe by a bolg-operative (able, second class) who climbed out to the stats page and retrieved it for examination, under enemy fire. He will be mentioned in dispatches (from a dying country.)  (Check this one out.)

What is it, exactly, about TESCO, that upsets and riles lefties? I’d love to hear one of them actually tell us something about this matter. After all, Wal-Mart (American) and Carrefour (French, I think?) are both bigger in global sales value terms. I do not find on the internet, unless I have been purblind and stupid, Walmart (say) coming in for the execration that Tesco gets, daily, in the British media. If one is a fascist-lefty-food-denier-to-poor-people all over the planet, such as certain British male tele-chefs make themselves out to be, then surely one ought to attack the biggest target first?

The identified poor-people may be schoolchildren in Scunthorpe who just want their native foods, or sub-Saharan sand-scrapers (who’d like any food at all) suffering from a surfeit of Bob Geldof, various other “pop singers”, and their friends the Jerks-in-Mercs (they may be wearing sunspecs and medals, so approach the “jerks” with caution.)

Is “cheap food” a problem – as the Prince of Wales is on record for describing this as an “obsession”? (It’s all right for him as he runs a large commercial concern very well and properly(and there’s nothing wrong in that) in which many of the operatives are his colleagues and friends, and who will not let him and his starve – nothing wrong in that either….but he is insulated, sort of, from the consequences of his own statements.)

If the Market can produce cheap food, then why ought it to be made more expensive by decree? Perhaps I will soon have to write that people who want to prohibit, or ban, or otherwise inconvenience supermarkets, are actually mass-murderers (not only murderers of Scunthorpe kids who want to eat chips, bacon-barms and butties for lunch, but also are murderers of Africans.)

Perhaps I will anyway, to see what happens.

AND…………..your Che Guevara T-shirt is EVEN LESS COOL than I said it was yesterday, so take it off and burn it, you immature ass.

The assault on food: humans should go extinct in order to save corals, and Jamie Oliver, ethical Paragon, celebrity role model, and “chef”, thinks meat should be costly.


David Davis 

I bet you didn’t watch Jamie Oliver, a “chef”, who used once to be a nice scally London oik, who probably ate burgers with relish in both senses, on the Wireless tele Vision last night. Nor did I: but, just like theoretically shagging Elizabeth Taylor (when she would have been rather younger) I could imagine EXACTLY what it would be like.

He and Hairy-Hugh Frightfully-Posh are the latest useful idiots recruited by the Leninist caucus which is assaulting people’s right to buy what food (specially meat) that they want, at the lowest prices that a Market Civilisation is prepared to offer.

I was particularly upset by a phrase I had never seen before, in the Sunday Torygraph’s Wireless tele Vision pages a week or so ago - “The Ethics of Eating Meat” – to do with a trailer for these progs. I mean, meat is food. Man requires it, preferably as nearly like his onw as possible and preferably cooked so as to be able to shorten his gut and look like a man on two legs, in order to keep and run a very expensive brain, that requires 22 times more energy per gram per unit time than skeletal muscle.

Because the state “school” “syllabus” is itself so gutted and contains no scientific knowledge whatever that’s worth the name, plenty of people will have been taken in by his antics, himself electrocuting and blood-draining a chicken on live Wireless tele Vision. (At least he electrically-stunned it first unlike some protected classes of people I could mention.)

Furthermore, if a “super market” offers 3p for a chicken, and a putative farmer is disposed to take it, and no weapons are involved and they either continue to deal or agree to part company, than what business is it of Jamie the “chef”? Is it better that more people should eat animal protein, or fewer? the problme comes when the state interferes and causes the prevailing economic conditions to disadvantage the farmer when he sells at 3p. (I also think a particularly extreme example of one instance has been chosen, to make a documentary paoint.) He’s taking £1.2 million a year from one outfit too, so what is he up to? Distancing himself ready to run? Showing only what he thinks ought to be the right oikish attitude? PLaying to the Gallery? Or does he actually believe what he’s saying – in which case he ought not morally to take the money?

People who don’t like battery farming of meat, essential to Man’s diet or he will die, need not buy the stuff. Meat-eating is not and has never been compulsory – unlike many things under socialism that we could all mention. If enough people want it, then as now there will be a Market created and suppliers will find it profitable to supply expensive, free-range beasts. One great pillar of the modern Western world (not the only one) is the banishing of starvation and famine, substantially, from most of it, most of the time. Although we ought to bear in  mind Edward Spalton’s post of yesterday about the threat of global cooling and the tragic harm already done to millions, and more coming, owing to the depradations of the global warm-mongers and biofuel production at the expense of foodstuffs and animals.

We’d all do well to watch carefully the sinister machinations of statists. Remember, how only a few years ago, people were being “encouraged” to “recycle”? Even in 2005/6 the bus-side ads were positive and cheery; “Do it in your pyjamas! Do it while walking the dog!” Now look what’s turned out. we don’t have long to save our food, if the last example is anything to go by.

Oh and corals? There’s a report that “up to 80%” of Caribbean coral has disappeared “in recent decades” (how many?) according to the Royal Society, and “population control” is “needed”. I have nothing to add (as President E Benes said in October 1938 in Prague.)

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.

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?)

“TESCOS LAW ON FOOD” – yet another teacher getting at her pupils I think. (Search-engine-string.)


David Davis 

What do you, our bolg-reader, make of “Tesco’s law on food”?

Does Tesco make law? Can it control food in any way?

Do any children know, either way, about either concept? 

Interesting I thought – as to what is going on in our schools perhaps?

Perhaps someone ought to McCarthy-ise our state schools, and even the others too, just to make sure. Now I know this is a very un-libertarian thing to say – but undefended Libertarianism is all very well and good in a Market-Civilisation in which the other side also plays by the rules, but it does not get very far in the real world, which is very dark and full of evil people who lie.

The trouble is, the other side contains people like Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Jim Livingstone the Jolly Mayor of Longdon, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara (he WAS a murderer, and your T-shirt is NOT cool), Mayo-zee-Tung, that man in Vietnam called “Chew-Ing-Gum” or something like that (we nearly bombed him out of Haiphong but were stopped by the fascist pig Brzhezhniev, who made the other democrat fascist pig who was then the President of the USA blink) Chirac, Putin, Billary Clinton and Al-Gore-the-Goracle…..evil wicked man, who lies about gases and planets – I mean, of all things to lie about, what would you choose to lie about?

Back to Tesco’s Law on Food. A prize of a ration-voucher (one per responder maximum) for a 2p bottle of Non-Alcoholic British-State Champagne-Substitute, for the first 500 blogger-repliers, who can each tell me what this string ought to mean.

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.

Biofuels will lead Mankind to starvation. What is worse? Starving death for all, or being able to raise “greenazi taxation”?


David Davis 

Good one from Moonbattery here.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/11/biofuel_idiocy_1.html#trackbacks

Read the thingy and just refer to my title.

“THE NAZI DIET” ….. interesting search-engine term. I wonder what it can mean?


David Davis 

I don’t know, do you? I mean, don’t socialists have more or less the same dietary requirements as ordinary people?

Global Warming Politics ___ added to the blogroll. Go there now.


Here it is if you want it directly:

http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/iWeb/Global%20Warming%20Politics/A%20Hot%20Topic%20Blog/A%20Hot%20Topic%20Blog.html

Time some other people got to cybergrips with the global rentacrowd of murdering, fascist environment-Nazi moochers and whingers, who kill people by denying them (and us) the use of powerful sources of energy. They kill especially poor ones in places like Africa, in countries which have become under-developed and over-Nazified since we left.

(There is “no safe level” of Nazification by socialists that ought to be allowed, unlike DDT or food-additives.)

Industrial loads of concentrated energy will be what liberates human beings, not socialism.

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?

“SHOULD GOVERNMENT CONTROL FOOD”…interesting serch-engine-term. I wonder if it’s another teacher getting at (her) pupils?


This text-string hit the starboard-hull of the Bolg, in poor visibility, in a heavy following sea, about half an hour ago. You can just picture, can’t you, the turmoil suddenly created in the Enlisted Able-Bolgmen’s Mess (Starboard, Off-Duty-Watch.) Grog-mugs and laptops scattered everywhere. And the poor buggers was writing about something else. 

Can’t have been sent from anyone doing proper work; has to beby direction, to a child, and from a member of the Unter-Kindergauleiterins-Sonderamt, within some British State-childminding-facility. 

“Should Government control food”?

I think we are beginning to see the underlying agenda driving the Fascist-lefty nonces, people-killers, narks and grasses who are behind the “obesity epedemic”.

They failed to overturn individual freedom under the Soviet Empire (although a sinister comeback is in progress there, although they did succeed in murdering tens of millions so they can be proud of limited success.) The Nazi lefties failed in Germany, although the EU is still sadly alive and (almost) well – see my posts of 3rd and 4th February 2008 - and they also managed to murder millions. They failed again when their toy Wall fell in 1989, although it was quite a lethal toy, very appropriate.

Then, capitalism still managing to limp on regardless, they tried “global cooling” in the 1970s/80s. Fortunately, the sad Jimmy Carter and the detached Callaghan wree no more, and Thatcher and Reagan shepherded the world in their strong arms, so nobody was listening.

Thne they tried “global warming”. This time, lefties, busy outflanking us while we fought the Cold War, had marched through the West’s institutions early enough and in sufficient numbers to be in positions to control the terms of discourse.

This successful March was a deeply embarrassing failing on our part, and it ought never to have been allowed. We should have realised that there was a Titanic battle between good and evil going on, against us (the good) using our own free institutions, and we should have fought back in kind. Unfortunately Hollywood  made sure that we could not do a McCarthy on our universities. Hollywood Jews ought to be ashamed of their major creative promotion of an industry, vulnerable to infiltration by lefties and anti-Americans, which set out to criticize, and even undermine, those very societies that did NOT murder them. But “global warming” has captured temporarily (I hope) the terms of debate, since its plausibility rests on the foundations of the falsified  “post-Science” now ordered to be taught as Vulgate by the Marchers. Yes, “global warming” is indeed gaining them some success; they will at least be able to hobble and attenuate the growth of freedom in some countries, those which they have successfuly marched through the institutions of.

But they won’t succeed with Chindia, no. Chindia will make them look silly in the eyes of those successful nations which cmoe after we are gone. So no future ultimately with “global warming, except to destroy our civilisation for us, here. That may be enough for them but I doubt it. They want truly global hegemony, frozen for all time. So they are ultimately doomed yet again if they stay in the gobal-warming-boat.

But wait! In the nick of time, they can bring back a version of “rationing” (does anyone remember that?) MUCH worse after WW2 even than during it, when U-boats were sinking our food as fast as we could buy it. The rationale was that the government had to control access to food, as otherwise “rich people” would buy up all the food, and “everyone else would starve” – I was even told that at kindergarten!

They’re now screaming that everybody is fat – the word “obese” somehow sounds much more like a disease requiring treatment by “experts” – reminds me of what we used to call “Soviet Government Health Farms“. Not only can they apply it directly to us as a torment now, since we are fortunate ot be able to eat enough to be full-size humans most of the time, but they can later threaten Chindia and other places with it as their standard of living increases and they can afford to but more and nicer food.

Have you noticed, how it’s always the foods which taste of anything at all, which are the “culprits”? Fats (specially the tasy ones like animal fats…) Red meats (protein mostly, but healthily leavened with salts and interesting fats.) Salt (it makes tasteless stuff, such as bare protein and starches, taste of something.) Even snails, which we may be reduced to poaching, probably illegally.

Yes I expect that governments would like to “control food”. You could even issue “coupons”; it would be like trying to buy petrol in Czechoslovakia in the 80s, they would love that! Or it would hark back to the Great Days of 1945-56, when food was actually rationed! Favoured individuals, “in” with the dictocrats, could make shagloads – like “Labour” MPs and “golden couples” (do, and would) – Cooperballs, anyone?

It’s a major aspect of individual life that this government does not yet really control effectively, so it’s probably pencilled in somewhere. You know! “No-one is suggesting that individually-focussed access to personal  nutrition requirements be made the subject of discussion-plans for centrally-determined and co-ordinated management!”

Mr No-One usually gets his suggestions adopted in time. Planning regulations….medicines….motor travel….parking….medicines….cigarettes….drugs….alcohol (soon)….cheap air travel….how long before food? 

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?

Our 800+++ publications still await your free download of anything you want!


New readers of this blog (and there are many) may not know that they can read the LA’s entire published output, for nothing, on the main Libertarian Alliance website. you can also save off individual files in any categories you are interested in. Most files are pdf’s; I don’t really like pdf’s but most others like them and they are convenient; well, there you are.

Just click on “LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE PUBLICATIONS” on the LEFT SIDEBAR which scrolls down, and you will find everything your heart desires.  We have even categorised them all, under different topics and discussion-headings!

“HOW DO YOU DEFEND TESCO AS A MONOPOLY”…(?)…Interesting search-engine-string which arrived at this blog yesterday!


“How do you defend Tesco as a monopoly?”

Two ways in which this intrigued me were that (1) somebody other than the guvmint (WHY IS THERE ONLY ONE?) and the “Competition Commission” (WHY IS THERE ONLY ONE?) thinks Tesco might be a monopoly, and (2) the poor wretched outfit might be in need of defence.

This betrays a large measure of misunderstanding, possibly fostered deliberately by our Marxist-dominated schools and this state here, about what monopolies actually are and what the word actually ought to mean (this does not surprise me.)

Yes, Tesco DOES need defending. Its directing-staff may think they can survive in an increasingly Marxist/Mooching/maundering/mingeing western world, gone to the dogs through failure to stay awake after the fall of The Wall. But they can’t; the Stalinist Nazi Wraiths of Wickedness just reincarnated themselves as greens, anti-packagers, organic hippies, ferocious followers of 4x4s, and wind-worshippers. And also as haters of successful provision of cheap food (THE PRINCE OF WALES THINKS CHEAP FOOD IS AN OBSESSION) to poor people.

Monopolies cannot exist naturally, in a market civilisation. I will no longer use the term “market economy” ever again in this blog, for one of these cannot exist for long or on a large enough scale to help Humankind, without a “civilisation” being prepared by broad consent to defend it against assaults by various nefarious “idealists”.

They (idealists) should learn a bit of physics. Every schoolboy knows that physicists deduce theories on the basis of “ideal” or theoretical scenarios about the behaviour of the universe. BUT all the while they know full well that actual observed behaviour only approximately approaches ideality, but THAT IS GOOD ENOUGH for today’s imperfect setup (“we see through a glass, darkly”). Utopians don’t understand the Nature of God and thus therefore can’t stand this state of affairs, and therefore can never, tragically for themselves, be scientists. They have to gas on and on in the Guardian instead like poor sad Polly Toynbee or that ghastly other woman whose name I can’t remember, or if all else fails, get jobs teaching politics and English in Universities while the people who pay for them are sleeping or unconscious.

Tesco wants defending, because (a) it is not a monopoly (these collapse naturally anyway in market civilisations), (b) it provides cheap food for the Prince of Wales’s employees not to mention everybody else, and (c) its tough business model exposes brightly the machinations of greenazis and EuroCAP Nazis to real scrutiny, bringing itself into the political spotlight in the process.

I’m sure the farmers who are in the position of growing Charles’s Duchy Originals can’t themselves afford to subsist on the stuff. I mean, have you SEEN the prices? Fine for Waitrose I guess. But they occupy a different market niche.

“Gay hatred Laws are anti-free-speech” – their headline!


Iain Dale in today’s wobbly-Tory  Graph is good, here

It is interesting that the “hate speech” legislation, and other recent New-Labour-type strictures about what people can and can’t say about certain “minorities”, all seem to relate to groups which are -or have in the past either been – associated with the Left’s assault on “The Establishment” or against “The West” (that is to say, post-enlightenment-Judeo-Christian Civilisation.) The public associations which the jolly toytown Mayor Jim Livingstone goes out of his way to create, between himself and such groups as “Gay Pride” , chav-Latin Dictocrats and Radical Moslems, is rather a giveaway in my opinion.

Iain Dale himself is a proper liberal, as liberals go today (with a small “l”, which is why he is a conservative.) He takes the Libertarian line which is that people ought to be able to say what they think and also to laugh about what pleases them.

It is now but a short step to more “hate speech” statutes, possibly relating to other groups whose votariat-power is important to this administration, such as any “Public Servant” whatsoever. Perhaps attacking your local MP in the letters page of your local rag (providing only that he is not a Tory, in which case it’s a Public Duty to assault him) will attract a visit from the Police, and the hated DNA-swab, if not worse.

While they are about it, why not criminalise anything even vaguely satirical about anybody – except white Bourgeois English Males who are any of the following; married to one wife at a time and living with her; self-employed; in salaried work in private firms? A single Enabling Act would do the trick!

The Libertarian Alliance does not condone any form of limitation of private speech OR thought, subject to existing Libel or Slander laws covering speech or publication, which are perfectly adequate for the task they have to achieve.

And finally, what do the New Thought Police think they can do about what we all know goes on or is said in school playgrounds? They have only to regard the fate of Ozymandias, in their attempts to stamp out smoking, drugs and sex among today’s British schoolchildren, and despair. Not one of these is going to stop telling “gay/lezzo” jokes any time soon, and the telling will merely be encouraged and amplified by restriction. 

Video record of the Libertarian Alliance 2007 Conference; also the 2006 and 2005 events, if you can click stuff!


Here they are. You can click on the date-links to get each conference.

Http://www.libertarian.co.uk/conferences/conferences.htm

 Conferences

The Libertarian Alliance has held dozens of conferences and seminars during the past thirty years. Most of these are evidenced by nothing more than an old brochure, the occasional publication arising, and a mass of photographs in the Chris R. Tame collection.

In 2005, however, we acquired a video camera, and decided that everything from then should be carefully recorded and made available. Here are the video records of the conferences held since then.

2007 Conference of the Libertarian Alliance and Libertarian International, held in November at the National Liberal Club in London

2006 Conference of the Libertarian Alliance and Libertarian International, held in November at the National Liberal Club in London

2005 Conference of the Libertarian Alliance and Libertarian International, held in October at the National Liberal Club in London 



 

And no, sorry! I don’t know either, why wordpress has formatted the 2005 conference in a larger pointsize! (Faced with computer-stuff, I sometimes I feel like that semi-funny guy in the movie, the one where the unlikely comedian sits by accident in the cockpit towards the end of the film, pulls levers while wisecracking, in order to try to save the world from the evil Bureautrons, or whatever. Then sometimes he even pulls the right one.)

You know!  “I wonder what this button does??!!”

Do we want children to smoke or not? I think of Auberon Waugh here sometimes.


Today, outside the tobacconist/sweetshop near my boy’s secondary school, I observed the usual groups of schoolchildren, lounging about in that studiedly televisual way (you know the attitudes and body-positions) pretending to look at nothing and nobody in particular, which the bored mass of today’s British teenagers adopts when it thinks it is performing something…..coool.

Obviously they were smoking. Currently this activity is still legal. There are no state strictures (yet) on who can smoke at what age in the only place left, which is the “street”. I was sorry for them; I would not smoke you paid me, taking as I do the Chris Tame line that smoking is a disgusting smelly habit that makes you like kissing an old ash-tray, and could make you ill (but it’s your body not mine. you are not my Farm Animal. I cannot, and I may not, do with you as I wish; that is called rape.)

You can legally buy tobacco products. (But since 1st October only if over 18….so how come you can shag or leave school at 16, and drive cars at 17 – all activities which “could cost the taxpayer” shagloads of dosh via the “healthcare budget”?)

You can legally own tobacco products – as much tonnage as you like too - provided you have not gone to the trouble of enriching the State’s coffers even further by buying lots of fuel to get them elsewhere, such as Calais, where the state-take on them is a smaller %.

For all I know, you can even grow plots of Nicotiana variations in your garden and manufacture your own (bet you can’t sell it as spunk or even tobacco though…) the flower-seeds are sold for ornament; ergo it must be possible, in these days of global warm-mongering, and ice ages as of now,  to grow your own. 

However, let is now turn to the GCSE “science” parts of the nationalised Curriculum, in particular the Biology syllabus. Here you can find one example. These days, it is quite interesting in a sociological kind of way, for it bears little resemblance to formal biological science. This is because, as we all have rumbled, the “New Science” GCSEs have been craftily designed so as to be able to be “delivered” by non-science graduates in schools. This in turn is because there are now no Formal Science Graduates, much, in the UK, who want to work as teachers of what now amounts to what my boy labels as Marxism.

The “New” Biology is all about socialising the behaviour of the “kids”. Not content with PSHE (more Marxism) and Citizenship (yet more – I told the youngfella to tell his mates all either tot ext each other or to go to sleep in the sessions, so they do) the DFEE or whatever it’s called this week has injected yet further enlargement of the parts about Smoking and Health; Alcohol and its effects; Drugs and their status/effects/penalties/results for your body and brain. I paraphrase – the language used is just too patronizing and portentious for words.

For instance – you have in one exam question (I bet you 5p it will be set) to classify some “drugs”….Alcohol, Nicotine, Ecstasy, Cannabis, as one of the following; Recreational….Addictive….Illegal….Harmful….there are no marks for ticking the wrong box in each case.

Other questions focus on “obesity”, and “heart rate” before and after “fitness training programmes” (the participants featured in these exam questions are always and invariably “athletes” and “female”……and a “student” is always “she”…… Sometimes they are called “Samina” or “Preethi”.) I don’t object to this at all, for women sometimes are athletes (Poor girls! Whyever?) and also sometimes are called this sort of thing (there may even be more Preethis and Fatimas on the planet than Kerry-Annes and Jades) but then I am not a child living in Slaidburn or Hawes or Benbecula; not all the children of the UK reside in Leicester or Tower Hamlets or Bradford, only a few.

For the scientists reading this, there is almost no Classical Biology at all. Hardly any biochemistry, except for the fine details of hormonal changes and physical structure of the uterus-lining versus days-after-last period, in the female menstrual cycle (which is well-tested, and boys have to know it too) plus stuff about how contraceptive pills can “help a woman to regulate her fertility”. There is also stuff about IVF and hormone-treatment to “facilitate planned pregnancy”. (Yep, if you’re a hard boy, who’s into the footy and yer X-Box, you have to learn this stuff too or you will not do well and you will get a “D”!)

But back to smoking, and why do these poor children do it? I mean, it smells bad, and it means you have to carry baggage about like fags and matches or lighters, and it costs a bomb coz’ of socialism whan it does not even need to, and it’s utterly disgusting – only ameliorated in totally and utterly-disgusting disgustingness by the axiom that Hitler, who brought in the first State anti-smoking laws in the world, was not someone you’d have wanted your daughter to marry. At least the smoking of fags went up every year in the Third Reich until 1945 (probably after it too, the poor sods. wonder where they got the tobacco – and what exactly was it made of by then? I mean, I’d never wish the poor Germans all the deaths they all got, but they imho were morally liable as a nation for what then occurred, having  failed to not vote for Hitler in 1933.)

They do it, I believe, because they are dinned and drummed, every day, in pshe, citizenship, and now in science (and probably in “English” lessons too if the truth be told) that they must not. That’s even worse than “ought not to”. Any child of six with a degree from a jumped-up-socialist up-the-road-Poly in psychology, would tell you that what you are told not to do, you will do. The more? The more.

Ciggies are easy to get. You just either threaten the shopkeeper if you are a big male Y11, or else you get yer-mum to get you some, or else you steal them from her bag hoping she can’t count, or you go out aged 13-dressed-as-19, on Saturday, if yoo izz a chick or a babe. (I know they do; they tell me. They know I won’t grass them up.) Then, you peddle them at 50p (the going rate) a fag.

Mr X—-, the deputy-Head, doing fag-patrol outside the shop at 3.30, can do nothing. they’ll just wait till he’s gone in freezing to death in the rain, and carry on. Their role-models, on the Wireless Tele-Vision every evening, on “Corrie” or “Eastenders“, will continue to tell them how to behave.

Once more, we have a scenario in which the Hegemonic Mediarati prescribe behaviour with one hand – and even enshrine in  the state “Curriculum” as “Science” (I mean, for f***’s sake!) enforcing draconian laws so to do, while yet allowing themselves to make an opinion-forming climate of beliefs that glorifies the very sort of habits that they purport to want to extinguish. In the meantime they collect billions in taxation, mainly from the constituency that’s least able to afford it, and in which smoking represents one of the few pleasures left to the poor. 

This leads me onto foreign aid, a probably-large and gaping orifice of state-resource-swallowing, which Peter Bauer described as wicked and immoral, in that money was hoovered off poor people in rich countries, to be given to rich people (mercs-4-jerks) in poor countries. But I’ll “do” foreign aid another time,  maybe tomorrow, maybe not.

There’s no wikipage for “Mercs for Jerks”. Would anybody like to write one? I think it should be done!

HEGEMONY OBESITY…..God, I just LOVE the smell of human beings in the morning! The unimaginable things their brains come up with! Fat Food Obesity Nazis more.


HEGEMONY OBESITY was a search-engine-string applied to some machine or other, somewhere in the world, yesterday. The seeker reached us.

How wonderful. “Hegemony Obesity”! I just have to say it to myself again, and again.

This person has just GOT to be on our side! 

In two words, the phrase just says it all, about the unimaginably horrific plans certain of our temporal masters in the UK have for us, as their Farm Animals.

First, they frame the terms of discussion.

Then, they tell us what to eat.

Then, they corrupt the life of a popular London Laddie, on the Telly, to tell Soviets what to tell schools to tell children what to eat. (The upper-middle-class-parents all love him, the Single Mums and their children who only understand chip-butties don’t, the poor starved children of all classes rebel, but nobody in Soviets pays any attention…….and then you have the psychological crust, the mental rind, to wonder about knife crime in schools?)

Then the Nazis accuse everyone of being “obese”……I wonder about the non-use of the word “fat”, and think perhaps it’s regarded as “working-class”, so the food-Nazi-dictocrats don’t want to use it. “Obesity” can be made to sound like something……..sub-human, something……..diseased, a failing. Anyway, they’ve already “done” fat, as a term of abuse for “cats”, which is to say in their terms people who make money by working quite hard serving people.

Rewriting the british “National Curriculum”, to help stamp out Nazism


David Davis

I have decided to re-write the whole of the UK’s National(ised) Curriculum (except languages, about which I know nothing except for Latin and Greek. )

It will give me slight amusement in my old age, when, my alternative version being published, many, many thousands of UK primary school teachers will riot (sorry, I meant “demonstrate”) and say “we can’t teach this”. The extrinsic reason will be that they don’t agree with its thrust; for many are trained Marxist destroyers of Western liberal Classical knowledge, and do what they do right now on purpose. But the intrinsic reason will be that they mostly don’t know anything, much, at all, as a result of their Marxist-oriented training. I shall take sad pleasure in being able to say, to many thousands of them: “Well, and, I am so sorry. Go, and go now.” Many of the larger teachers, and there are many, could go…….and break rocks…………..perhaps in China, whose pants are so on fire that rocks still have to be broken, here and there, even in 2007. They could build some of the 562 coal-fired power stations, of which one a week is opening until 2012, as fortunately for China and for us too, it did not sign the anti-liberal Kyoto scam. China is even building a Ground Iron-Rail Way , to, I believe, Tibet. That ought to tell the poor old Dalai Llama something, about where both his real, and his imagined, friends, could now be.

This was brought on today, by my boy, who on coming home, said that science homework this week is a “2-minute “POD CAST” about a science topic in the NEWS”. Firstly, I had no idea what a “Pod Cast” is, and had to take a few seconds out to learn it, as the teacher had not said anything. Then, we had to “Down Load Soft Ware” from the school’s “Web Site”, including, may I add, the homework-brief (I do know what a brief is, altough they did not call it that!)

What is the situation, in all this, of socialistically-overdeprived children whose parents do not know how to interpolate opaque instructions, let alone those who do not possess computers or even internet connections? If they have to pay the electric bill with funny cards in grocery shops, what do they do about internets, I wonder? (Not their fault IMHO – I blame Fabians, Napoleon, Lenin and the Kaiser.) How then can they “access the school web site” and get programmes with which to do the homework and re-upload it ??? We will manage, but I have been just gifted a good laptop with “features”, by the kindness of a friend.

No, this homework was symbolic of new Labour. It was nothing about science, at all, and everything about presentation. Not only is the homework itself a work of presentation, and no more and no less, but it has to be about something else “in the news”. No attempt whatever in the last few weeks has been made to actually teach any science to these poor children.