There’s no point in trying to keep on buggering on and on, and on and on and on and on and on, about “Ceuta and Melilla” as the SpanNazi Government will simply unlisten as soon as its GCHQ get the syllable “ceu”. Apart from giving nuclear weapons to Morocco, there is nothing to be done about this one.
But this relates back to what I said in a comment on an earlier post: this was about whether, and how, or even if, we allow the expression of GramcoFabiaNazism after a victory.
My thesis is that we really, really, truly, madly, deeply, do NOT want to have to go through all this stuff all over again.
A Salon.com article by Alex Seitz-Wald called “The Hitler Gun Control Lie” is making the rounds, purporting to challenge a myth Second Amendment enthusiasts spread that blames the Holocaust on Hitler’s policies of civilian disarmament. The thrust of the argument is that Hitler’s 1938 firearms law indeed ratcheted back restrictions from the Weimar era. But here is the most telling paragraph: Continue reading →
POST APOCALYPSE RECOVERY PROJECT James Roger Brown
Sociologist, Intelligence Collection and Analysis Methodologist
P.O. Box 101
Worthington, KY 41183-0101
Last updated 09/22/2011
Check back frequently, I will be adding to and improving this page.
Suggestions for inclusion may be submitted to the above e-mail address. One high priority document has not been located. Between the end of WW II and 1950 Naval Intelligence created a classified archaeology report about prior civilizations on the North American Continent. Talk to your family members who served during WW II and Korea to determine the title and author of the document. I suspect it contains maps that we need.
Activating this Post Apocalypse Recovery Project begins an effort which there is no documented evidence has ever been done before in all of human history. The purpose is to manage information, knowledge and resources to minimize the intentional disruption of social stability caused by the engineered collapse of civilization and minimize the recovery time to develop new stable social processes among the survivors. There will be survivors. Continue reading →
Well, at least there wasn’t a six-foot dancing penis Robert Henderson
Prior to the opening ceremony of the London Olympics, the last time Britain put on a taxpayer-funded entertainment that was meant to project the country to the world was on 31 January 1999. The event was broadcast from the Dome (now the O2 Arena) to mark the new millennium. True to the politically correct dicta of the time, the Millennium show said precisely nothing about British history or culture and was an exceptionally trite mishmash of the “we are all one happy global family” variety of painfully right on exhortation and posturing (see http://wwp.millennium-dome.com/news/news-dome-990916show.htm). The lowlight of the show was a six-foot dancing penis. Tawdry is the word which comes to mind. Continue reading →
Having helped destroy other nations far away, our former prime minister — “peace envoy” to the Middle East — is now free to profit from the useful contacts he made while working as a “servant of the people”.
And no I didn’t invent that myself: it is the formal policy-position of the Swiss “Government” (if that word is not slightly tautological.)
Paul Goodman at ConservativeHome nicely articulates the position most of us take on here, which is that now is definitely not the time to do kneejerk, Tabloid-Million-Moms-driven legislation to further restrict, or even ban entirely, all firearms, thus taking us as a people into the territory of the Third Reich, wherein Himmler said that private gun ownership and licensing was “inconvenient” for the State. Except for Göring of course.
I have been excoriated on Facebook, for saying that these periodic massacres, ostensibly by lone crazed lunatics, are set up by the “authorities” every time they want to ratchet up the gun controls here. With hindight, I’m prepared to suspect (but only suspect) that I was wrong in this particular case. But my major thesis still stands I think. We will anyhow know the truth about Dunblane in about 80 years’ time.
It’s times like this that makes me sure that Mr. Orwell got his dates a bit wrong.
I’ve now heard that the Police are using UAV’s and the government is planning on getting even bigger ones. This means that, in addition to all the CCTV cameras dotted liberally (no pun intended) around the landscape, you can also be watched from 50,000 feet.
All this goes on without you knowing however, so you will be able to expect parking, speeding, and, knowing this lot, littering fines dealt out like a bolt of lightening from the gods above. Shortly after this, we, knowing our luck and their determination, will be seeing these things being armed with missiles and smart bombs. Indeed, health and safety will take a sinister turn, for you will be driving along without your seatbelt on, by accident or on purpose, then BOOM! a streak of fire will rain down upon you and end your criminal ways, for you have to remember:
“Driving without your seatbelt on is dangerous.”
Via the Englishman’s castle, I spotted this ongoing business. I particularly loved this passage below – it says everything about the mindset of those who deliberately set out to unwind organised and settled human civilisation:-
[An internal e-mail from Natural England, quoted on a blog, hails a] “major opportunity for Natural England to lead a high- profile ‘flagship species’ project that will highlight the organisation at the forefront of a major biodiversity delivery initiative . . . There is a small risk of conflict with both socioeconomic and nature conservation interests, but these would be effectively managed by risk assessment and contingency planning . . . A thoroughly planned and well-executed public relations strategy will maximise the potential positive publicity . . .”
I’m feeling rather facetious today, and I feel like taking the piss out of the Greens.
Here I go:
World War one is often seen as one of the worst and most costly, in terms of lives, wars of all time, but many people do not realize that whole new enviroments for great bio-diversity were created in those four fateful years.
To name a few of these habitats of indigenous widlife is quite easy: the vast amounts of shell and mine craters were turned into artificial lakes, which housed all kinds of life, such as frogs, newts and, in some cases, cod. The vast amout of trenches were in turn repurposed into interconnecting rivers, which created vast wetlands which were a safe haven for endangered birds and wildlife.
Also the craters mangled the farmland so much that it was unusable to grow crops, due to the fact that farmers’ tractors would repeatedly fall into, and get stuck in, the large pits, so all of the land was used to plant trees, which in turn created the Ardennes forest specificaly so that in WW2, German troops could use it as a recreational area, as it was ideal for long walks.
On anoter note, horses were widely used instead of cars, because the Allied Command and Centeral Powers Command unamiously agreed that the fact that horses create very little CO2, was very desirable.
During the Battle of Jutland many artificial reefs were created for the wildlife of the North Sea.
57.92% of us who write or read this blog are barmy – not to say barking.
All the world’s a bit queer, except you and me, and I have my doubts about you. But all of us here just don’t even contemplate the possibility that we’d go out one morning (it’s always the morning – I thought these people didn’t get up till 2pm?) and massacre a school?
Nah. The structure’s too formulaic, each one is too derivative of the last one, and the results both mediawise and reactionwise are too similar, for it not to be following a plan.
I predict France next. Then, the EU will “have to step in”. Better keep your children off school for a few years, or a decade, if you’re French.
And indeed, on cue, we have a (rather poorly-choreographed, I must admit) shooting-up, in France, of a nursery school. Whoever is organising this global plan to disarm all the people whose opinions in the first instance matter about anything, diplays all the evaluational faculties of a British State-(dis)educated chav, and clearly thought…”smaller bullets for smaller people”. But managed only to injure about five. Thank Christ for small mercies.
The group, Sect of Revolutionaries, first appeared earlier this month when it opened fire with a submachine gun on an Athens police station, spraying the precinct with bullets but injuring nobody. [...] On Tuesday, the group carried out a similar attack in the parking lot of the private Alter television station, again causing no injuries.
In a statement published by the daily Ta Nea, the group says its latest attack was a message to journalists that “the time that you were ‘untouchable’ is over.”
“They manipulate our minds daily so that we fill the reserves of our disciplined time with values and functions that feed the system,” the group says, adding: “Let the slugs of media journalism know that apart from the mucus they leave behind them… soon they will also leave blood.”
“Mister journalists, this time we came to your door, but next time you will find us in your homes,” it said.
The assaults culminated on Wednesday with an attempt to detonate a car bomb outside the headquarters of Citibank in Athens. The 60 kilogram device, assembled with ammonium nitrate fuel oil – the explosive used in the Oklahoma City bombing – could have destroyed the four-storey building and killed hundreds.
“From now on, the life of every cop is worth as much as a bullet, while their bodies are the ideal target practice,” the Sect of Revolutionaries declared in its maiden proclamation. “They, like the doughnuts that they eat, are no good without a hole in the middle.”
They may be bloodthirsty lefty lunatics, but those boys can write…(aka Mr Eugenides.)
I have worked out how to say what it is that makes me sad about this particular matter. It’s that, in its ever-tightening screwhold on individuals’ liberties, this current British State takes even toys, that boys and men (and even some girls) have once liked to play with, harmlessly, and turns them into weapons of constriction.
if one was a psychiatrist, then one would, after all this is done, like to take some of these State people, put them on the couch, and try to find out, really find out, what made them do what they did? Why did a man who sold teledrones to the Army (understandable) agree to sell them to the State Police….why did he not send the bastards packing out of his office waving a cricket bat, even, when they came to ask to buy them from him…to spy on British householders late on….?
Why did the couchee-subjects I have referred to, see the world not as other people, but as controllers of it? or as salesmen to controllers? As controllers of other, unknown individuals’ lives, or worse, as accessories after the fact of that imposed control?
Is it just simple nasty error-ridden Gramsco-Marxianism, or is it something…..deeper? What actually motivated them to consciously err?
Can’t they understand that individuals have Free Will? That the reason for opposition to State control is that it ought not to exist?
In the end, what is it that makes someone want to be, say, a traffic warden, or a concentration-camp-guard, or a “modern” interior-ministry-policeman?
Have we as libertarians failed in some way, to explain how this mind-set cannot be normal, and the owner of it must have suffered in some way, to get like that?
Or, does evil really exist, existentially?…..here’s the post you signed on for……..
(1) What measures will householders be able to take to prevent overflight of their property by these robots, if they decide they simply don’t like them and don’t actually want them around, or they are a nuisance, or they keep us awake in the night, or they scare the racing-pigeons? (The helicopters are bad enough.)
(2) To what extent will _Radio Amateurs_ be prevented from _examining_ and then _analysing_ the frequencies and transmission-modes used? (I never said we would try to transmit on these bands or even interfere with them…we are strictly licensed to operate on certain bands, and in particular modes only. But “nobody suggests” that we can’t listen to any public transmission or signal whatsoever….)
(3) What are the “sunset” clauses inherent in the use of these extraordinary bits of machinery, considering thatw e are supposed to be living in what even this government calls a “Free Society”?
Where must the Queen’s subjects stand up, and actually draw the line in the sand?
What, for example, if you wanted to do Practical Coal Mining, in your garden? Would this stuff be used against you?
We stand aghast, at the possibility of “military intervention by the USA” against – of all places – Mexico. We know that, since “drugs” are grown in Latin America, and since Mexico is in the way of their transfer to “Film Stars” and wannabes in British North America, where these things are officially illegal to have or trade, that therefore mexico will be on the road of transfer.
This is all very well and ought not to matter. Cars and lorries carrying cocaine and other stuff whose names I can’t remember ought to be able to cross Mexico as though it was anywhere. The problem arises because – and only because - it is locally illegal to have, sell or use these substances, in the points of destination.
This has several effects:-
(1) It makes the substances themselves more desirable in the eyes of certain people. They will want it more because “The State” says they shouldn’t have any at all at all at all, for their own good at all at all at all . Nsty useless Hollywood delinquents film stars will leak details of their use of it, and because they are pretty and shaggable (and that’s just the men) you will want to do it too, as you are sheeple because the liberals Stalinists have told you to become so.
(2) It makes it risky and unprofitable and demoralising, for legitimate businesses to supply the stuff. If you wozz an off-licence, would YOU want to supply cocaine to any willing buyer, if you got raided every week by the rozzers for doing it, and had your shop smashed up by them (rozzers) and were put in jug?
(3) It makes the risks of supplying it worthwhile, for shysters and hoods, who don’t mind having to shoulder the boring business of killing people including police and soldiers, in the course of securing their hold on the distribution of of their stuff, to you. The £5-a-day habit, if the stuff was legally sold through chemists even including the impost of State Taxation, becomes the £100-a-day habit if you have to buy it through hoods who have to insure themselves – at your cost - for their own risk against both the State and against other hoods who want to compete, for what is really a rather small niche sector.
(4) it makes jobs for Police rozzers. Rozzers are inherently tormented people, who ought not to have got like that; they need psychiatric help, and quickly. Just as you ought not to want to be a criminal, also you ought not to want to be a policeman in the 21st century: what does that desire say about you, and your morals, and world-view, as a person?
So the way forward is quite clear. ALL drugs have to be legalised, in all jurisdictions, preferably by yesterday. This will have a number of good effects:-
(1A) The “Police”, currently a pantomime collection of gamma-minus droids unfortunately increasingly supplied with real guns as opposed to things that shoot out a flag which says “bang”, and who are “employed” by their “states” not in chasing real muggers, robbers, burglars and killers but in harrassing “drug dealers”, “motorists”, “paedophiles”, “racists”, “terrorists”, “non-payers of council tax”, “TV-license-evaders” and “climate-change-deniers”, will find that their workload is decreased alarmingly. We will “need” fewer of them. Good.
The main solution to civilisation’s ills is
and more and better people.
There may even be “calls for” “FEWER POLICE ON THE STREETS”. I think that in a civilised society, the police ought to be invisible: see poll below.
(2A) The use of “drugs”, which is to say substances currently classified as drugs”, by all people, will fall dramatically. or it may not: I do not know. But I think it will fall.
(3A) The legalisation of “drugs” will mean that Galxo-Smith-Klein, Schering-Plough, Ciba-Geigy, and all the others, will be abot to compete legally for whatever market they think they can get. Adverttisisng will be allowed. Advertising is the best way to garotte bad stuff fast. The purity and quality of products will thus rise, and the price will fall to the point where the “State” will come in.
(4A) The “State” will take a take. Where GSK wants to sell you your Ecstasy for 50p a go, via the chemist down the road in Shaky-street (PR8 . . . ) , the State will take £4 or so, making it about the price of 20 fags. What’s the point of going and doing crime, if it’s only that much? You can get it from your dosh you that get “on the sick”.
OK so the “State” wins, win-win in the short run. But it’s got to justify how it needs to spend so much less on policing, since there’s so much much less less petty crime going on down.
Now I’m a big fan of games, obviously, I’m a 14 -year-old, and thanks tho the f****d-up school curriculum, I have learnt more about World War II from the games Call of Duty 2, Call of Duty 3, and Call of duty: World at War than I have from every history lesson I have sat through on the subject.
So I was on this website looking through the index of free full games to download, and I saw:
Eco Warriors: Invasion of the Necrobots
Acording to the descrition, it is set in southern Italy ”In a not so far future away…” At first, it had the makings of a normal game:-
Robots appearring in towns, woods and countrysides.
A dark enemy is conspirating to destroy us all blah, blah, blah………
But then, this popped up in the description:-
But there’s a new hope!
A team of warriors has been raised to defend Nature: The Eco Warriors!
A huge battle is getting closer…
and that’s the description…..but its basically about saving the environment, and the game is absolutely S***: here are some screenshots for your enjoyment:
(if the pictures did not load up, here is the link)
If you want to try this game, (that is to say, if you are delusional), here is the link to download it:
I and the Libertarian Alliance and the blog, are NOT responsible for any damages to the mind or your PC or Mac or whatever you have,I did download it and try it, and my PC was undamaged. !DOWNLOAD AT YOUR OWN RISK!
Hayek particularised this relationship between whatever “State” authorities there may be, and individuals, by stating that “to be controlled in one’s economic pursuits…..is to be controlled in everything”.
I am not convinced that the right is enshrined in Magna Carta, as my copy does not appear to explicitly state it. But the point is that this is a symbolic act by a “big statist” QUANGO, designed further to separate individuals from victimless rights, which is to say natural ones as we have always described. it is nothing to do with “political correctness gone mad” – as if PC was something designed to help civilisations operate sanely and rationally anyway.
No: the plan to forbid people from gathering their own dead wood, instead “licensing” “local timber merchants” to sell it to them, merely is another act in the sordid sham of “bringing government closer to the people it serves”. Just like death-camps “served” the Jews and others under another socialist state I shan’t mention: government was brought closer to them than was good for their health and well-being.
This gradual confiscation is designed to make it harder and harder for us to climb back out of the Dark Age in store for us, to a state where real Natural Rights can again be exercised in a minimal-statist environment. Successful conferences like ours which has just closed in London last night, will do great good in firing up the officers of libertarianism for the future. But officers are no use unless the “lesser folk”, for whom it is all about in the end, and of whom there are many many millions, understand what’s at stake, and how to use liberal philosophy to combat petty local assaults on natural rights.
Grand think-pieces will not be forgotten. But, in the even grander strategic context of British libertarian thought and tactics for re-engineering liberty for humans, this blog will increasingly take the role of exposer of petty, nasty, bureaucratic destruction of liberties, especially ancient ones.
(For those not familiar with the background to this story, the Blogmaster adds a comment:-
Since the Socialists set out to destroy British civilisation in earnest for what they thought would need only to be the last time, in May 1997, there have been carefully-disguised but also sharply-rising crime levels against the person. In particular a recent spate of lethal stabbings of (mostly) teenagers and young men, in the citadels of New-Labour-urban-Stalinist-Soviets, such as Britain’s major cities – where their Political Writ runs most surely.
So……the government seems intent on letting citizens take back some of the burden of law-enforcement and retribution. Truly, we are heading backwards into the future. The real solution is of couorse based on only two things:-
(1) Better people, this to be ensured (but it will take some time) by abolishing all the trappings of politically-correct socialist “education strategy” in the UK,
(2) Armed people, which is to say that weapons, possibly up to and including semi-automatic firearms, may be kept by Freeholders or (nett) taxpayers.)
Reasonable force for purposes of self-defence etc.
This section applies where in proceedings for an offence—
an issue arises as to whether a person charged with the offence ( “D”) is entitled to rely on a defence within subsection (2), and
the question arises whether the degree of force used by D against a person ( “V”) was reasonable in the circumstances.
The defences are—
the common law defence of self-defence; and
the defences provided by section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (c. 58) or section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 (c. 18 (N.I.))(use of force in prevention of crime or making arrest).
The question whether the degree of force used by D was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as D believed them to be, and subsections (4) to (8) also apply in connection with deciding that question.
If D claims to have held a particular belief as regards the existence of any circumstances—
the reasonableness or otherwise of that belief is relevant to the question whether D genuinely held it; but
if it is determined that D did genuinely hold it, D is entitled to rely on it for the purposes of subsection (3), whether or not—
it was mistaken, or
(if it was mistaken) the mistake was a reasonable one to have made.
But subsection (4)(b) does not enable D to rely on any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced.
The degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was disproportionate in those circumstances.
In deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3) the following considerations are to be taken into account (so far as relevant in the circumstances of the case)—
that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and
that evidence of a person’s having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose.
Subsection (7) is not to be read as preventing other matters from being taken into account where they are relevant to deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3).
This section is intended to clarify the operation of the existing defences mentioned in subsection (2).
In this section—
“legitimate purpose” means—
the purpose of self-defence under the common law, or
the prevention of crime or effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of persons mentioned in the provisions referred to in subsection (2)(b);
references to self-defence include acting in defence of another person; and
references to the degree of force used are to the type and amount of force used.
My esteemed LA colleague from Scotland wrote a piece the other day, here. This was, _inter alia_, referring to the issue of capital punishment as ought to be able to be inflicted on unfriendly intruders onto one’s property, none of whom can have one’s interests at heart while they are where they are.
He and I are both iffy about the possibility of the “State” being able to dispense such punichment. History shows that in almost all cases, we are right. This is of course, as everyone will agree, with the absolute exception of Britain and the British Empire and the Anglosphere. Elsewhere, this dispensation has been unsuccessful as the buggers-in-power have never been able to be trusted not to abuse such a delegated right. Or, indeed not to simply usurp that power unilaterally, for various spurious doctrinal Utopian reasons.
However, “polls” show a consistent majority of British people in favour of a return to capital punishment. This is all very well, but they want the wrong solution to the wrong problem, although they think currently that it’s the right solution to the right one.
The problem is that violent and “medium” crimes are out of control because the British socialist state does not want to reduce or control them. It is convenient for it to have a monopoly of force and power of arrest, and for no weapons of any consequence to be held by anyone who cowers in terror, which is most of us – excepting real criminals who don’t mind hurting people in the course of ordinary business.
This is excepting knives, which will be hard to eradicate and ban the possession of, given this British Socialist State’s obsession with forcing us all to eat what my wife calls “unprepared food” – that is to say, stuff that you have to peel and boil (without salt) or even grow, if you are unfortunate enough to be a farmer. Apart from knives, everything else has effetcively been cleared away from all those who most need the gear. I expect that compressed-air-weapons will be next. The number of staged “accidents” involving “boys” is rising.
The State made a contract to propect individuals from harm, crime and loss of property or llife, in return for us surrendering our right to exercise force in the defence of those rights. It has failed, and has signed away our right (delegated to it on our behalf) to kill serious evil-doers. I am therefore not (at this time) in favour of the death penalty returning, unless the reciprocal right to harm or even kill an assailant (vested in an individual) is returned to individuals.
Then, we can properly re-delegate the exercise of that right to a State, in absentia. but we can’t do that, unless we previously have that right ourselves. Discuss!
What ought Western Libertarians to do, when they suspect that their electoral system and its numbers are being man-handled, to produce a particular result? Like a new-Laborg-win, in the next general “election”?
There are no conditions under which (to use a great literary construction by Jeffrey Archer, used by him several times in books by him which I am proud to own) the Laborg can win an election this side of 2012 with the current figures. unless they cheat, lie, do “ppostal voting”, or “sign up” lots of client-votariat.
North Korea and Cuba and Russia – and now the UK - describe themselves as “democracies”. This is not what liberals mean by democracy. (For the benefit of North American readers of this blog, when I say “liberal” on here, and elsewhere, I MEAN liberal – that is to say, one of us who might write here: free-market/libertarian/non-socialist/non-Nazi. When I refer to Hilary Clinton as a “liberal”, I mean that this means “socialist”, which is to say, illiberal.)
There is now going on a rapid and feverish addition to what we call our “electoral rolls” – people who are registered to vote in “elections”. The observed trend is of inclusion of hundreds of thousands of people who might be expected to vote for the continuation of the extisting pork-barrel policies of handing money and facilities to “immigrants”.
I have nothing against immigrants. My mother was one, from Lebanon, a paternal great-great great (etc) grandfather was a Huguenot, and my wife is one. Anglo-Saxons, used a a term of racist abuse by the Brussels/EU and also by Hitler and Stalin frequently (go figure) are immigrants. We ought to be proud that people want to cross water and come here when they could so easily stay the other side.
But using them as a stick with which to not care about what “British” think, in a democracy, is underhand and socialist. Why am I not surprised?
One million join electoral register in two years
By Christopher Hope, Home Affairs Correspondent
One million voters have been added to the electoral register in only two years following the introduction of the Electoral Administration Act.
New applicants do not have to provide documents proving their identity or even whether they are in the country legally. Instead, they simply fill in a two-page form and declare that the details are correct.
The surge in voter numbers coincides with hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming to Britain from eastern Europe and elsewhere.
After the introduction of the Electoral Administration Act in 2006, the roll increased by 513,054 and a further 463,340 in 2007.
EU nationals can vote in local and European Union elections but not in general elections. A record 46 million people can now vote in the local elections on May 1.
Bridget Prentice, the elections minister, said: “Democracy underpins the fabric of our society and provides a voice for those who are vulnerable and marginalised. No vote means no voice.”
Turnout in elections has declined in recent years. Ken Livingstone, the London mayor, was elected on a turnout of 36 per cent in the 2004 London mayoral elections. Turnout was only 34 per cent at last year’s local elections.
Last night, a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: “There are all sorts of reasons why people join the electoral register and it is just not correct to say that the pattern of migration is the sole, or even most significant, reason.”
And no, this is not the only paper to notice this shenannigan. I just go there first because I can’t stand the Guardian – and am so pleased that it is about to be sued for unlimited damages by Tesco. Of all people: why are we not humiliated that the fundamental truths about our civilisation ought to be allowed to operate have been reduced to being defended by a supermarket, for Christ’s sake?
We are coming to the point, as I said on Eurorealist today, where we have to decide how much it matters that
(1) letters to the editor of the Much-Binding-in-The-Marsh-Masturbator (probably owned by the Trinity Mirror Group) about the EU and directives, asking for “moderation” and “common sense”,
(2) complaining politely about “political correctness gone mad”
(3) civilised petitions of “more than 11 signatures”
(4) peaceful demos more than 1 kilometre (what’s that?) from the Houses of Parliament
are of no use whatsoever, since this outfit does not care what we think.
if it does not matter, why waste the effort? if it does matter, what are we going to now do?
“Eventually, it seems evident, a general system, whether private or public, whereby all personal facts, biological and mental, normal and morbid, are duly and systematically registered, must become inevitable if we are to have a real guide as to those persons who are most fit, or most unfit to carry on the race.” (Havelock Ellis … madman, misfit and prominent socialist “Eugenicist”.)
I found this quite by accident while arguing with a student.
Of course, if no farming is to be allowed to be carried out, and the landscape shall then revert to its pre-capitalist barbarian form (er, this is the 21st century, or so we thought, and the planet is for Man, no? And NOT the other way around?) then I guess it does not matter.
Perhaps rich Chindian tourists will be conducted on “safaris” round the Highlands, and we will eventually climb back up to the socio-economic level of Kenya.
It may be that wolves in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK are the free-market solution to the earning targets of the rural inhabitants of a non-farming country. But in the age of ambulance-chasing lawyers, I don’t think so.
Sorry. Wolves have no place, any more, in these islands. They are gone for a reason. Man is pleased to allow certain useful and/or friendly predator-animals to co-exist with him, such as the Domestic Cat, and certain breeds of dog, and not others, if he needs the run of certain places, like the Crofters do.
Don’t think you’d get many takers for wolves, although I did see two, a year ago, on leads, in Ormskirk marketplace. They were very striking animals, and I patted them, and they smiled, but Siberia is a big enough place.
I do not suggest that we should put all “conservationists”, without any exception, in front of firing-squads quite yet, but the time may be near.