Statists and other varieties of socialist have more or less succeeded in making the planet as dangerous a place as the buggers can get away with. Liberal minimal-statism will never, ever be forgiven for causing useless pre-capitalist-barbarian intellectuals and poseurs to be fully redundant.
This article in the Torygraph caught my eye this morning, and filled me with forebodings concerning certain things that happened in Britain’s recent history. I regard event like WW2 as having happened “this morning”, sometimes, in the light of how I perceive the March Of Time.
It is in general not good to (as the late Osama-bin-Liner said about weak and strong horses) seem to be a weak horse. This is because that Man’s biological instincts and use of neo-English-social-rationality are not at all walking in step in the majority of populations, nations and races today, in contrast generally with how they are in populations inside the Anglosphere.
Modern “Democrat” US Presidents seem to be an exception, a sort of throwback to pre-settlement-primitivism, in which you Continue reading
Posted in Anglosphere, army, British Media, Calssical liberal, Culture War, de-civilisation, defence, Events, history, Law, Liberty, politicians, poor people, Practical Coal Mining, Science and Engineering, USA, War
By Mustela nivalis
In a comment under my post about how it was ‘the internet wot won it
’, meaning that it stopped some insane thugs from insanely intervening violently in that nest of vipers which is called Syria, Sean Gabb wrote:
I keep asking myself what would have happened in July 1914 if we’d had the Internet. One thing for sure is that the idiots in charge wouldn’t have had such an easy ride to Armageddon.
The interesting point I think is this: Without WWI and everything that followed there would not have been an internet. There needed to be a longish historical phase of intense worldwide centralization before a decentralizing force appeared.
Note: Since the only notice I take of America is to loathe it and wish for its collapse, I may not be best qualified to comment on its internal politics. However, I suspect Mr Obama is playing a clever game. He doesn’t want another war in the Middle East. He opposed the Iraq War. He’s spent five years saying no to an attack on Iran. Going to war in Syria will probably mean fighting Iran and annoying the Russians and Chinese. The best outcome of an intervention will do nothing for him or his friends. So, having been nagged rotten by the whole gang of crazed neo-cons into supporting their war, he’s broken the rules of the game. He was expected to press all the buttons on his own authority, and let the Congressmen make prosy speeches about supporting the Government, and then vote the necessary funds and shut up. What he’s done instead is to tell these people to decide for him. That means the sticky-fingered drunkards and debauchees the Americans turn out in diminishing numbers to re-elect will have to get up on their hind legs in public and risk losing their meal tickets at the next election. If they vote yes to war, and – as it almost certainly will – it goes tits up, Mr Obama drags them down with him. If they vote no, he can shrug and go back to doing whatever else he’d rather do. It also means he can sack a few of the warmongers forced on him.
Most of his opponents assume that Mr Obama is just a stupid black man who has been elected twice by various ethnic voting blocs. I suspect he’s a great deal cleverer than they are. Of course, both propositions may be true. To succeed in American politics, you only need to gabble a few set phrases in front of the television cameras, and know which bribes to take. Beyond that, an IQ in the low 70s is probably an advantage. But I suspect – or hope – that Mr Obama really is clever. He may be the most effective President his country has had since the second Mr Roosevelt. The difference is that, where Mr R inflicted America on the world for three generations, Mr O seems to want all its rottenness to curdle at home. I know which I prefer.
We shall see. SIG Continue reading
“Unwarranted government surveillance is an intrusion on basic human rights that threatens the very foundations of a democratic society.
I call on all Web users to demand better legal protection and due process safeguards for the privacy of their online communications, including their right to be informed when someone requests or stores their data.
A store of this information about each person is a huge liability: Whom would you trust to decide when to access it, or even to keep it secure?”
Thus Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, upon learning of the covert Prism operation, which has been reported extensively in The Guardian. According to their report, “The US-run programme, called Prism, would appear to allow GCHQ to circumvent the formal legal process required to seek personal material such as emails, photos and videos from an internet company based outside the UK…the papers describe the remarkable scope of a previously undisclosed “snooping” operation which gave the NSA and the FBI easy access to the systems of nine of the world’s biggest internet companies. The group includes Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo and Skype.” It is clear that the government is none too keen to have this matter discussed in the public forum.
Listening to BBC Radio 4′s Any Continue reading
by Kevin Carson
Bring on the Drones!
Most analysis of drone technology from libertarian futurists these days is pretty pessimistic. They’re generally treated as part of a larger techno-fascist scenario, like the U.S. global hegemony (enforced by orbital lasers and remote-controlled UN teletroopers) depicted in Ken Macleod’s Fall Revolution novels. Continue reading
Posted in Liberty, USA, War
Iraq: I Wish I Had Been Wrong
by Sean Gabb
My normal reaction when I turn out to be right is a combination of surprise and patronising self-righteousness. Where this Iraqi business is concerned, I really wish I had been wrong. Since the American war aims were never fully explained, there is no official criterion for judging the outcome of the war. On any reasonable view, however, the war has been a disaster.
The Americans invaded Iraq on a false prospectus. There were no weapons of mass-destruction. There was no link to al Qa’eda, nor any reason to think an invasion would reduce the will and ability of other terrorist groups. They destroyed the country’s administration and much of its infrastructure, and have done little to replace this. They rule the county by armed force. They are censoring the media. They have imprisoned thousands without charge or trial. They have tortured many prisoners. Their military is degenerating by the day into an armed rabble, killing civilians apparently at random. Before invading, they spoke of injecting liberal and democratic values into the heart of the Middle East. Instead, they have simply made themselves hated without being feared. Continue reading
Posted in Liberty, USA, War
by David D’Amato
Much has been made of last Thursday’s announcement that, as reported by the New York Times, the US Department of Defense will take its “first major step toward shrinking its budget after a decade of war.” The plan represents only a minor modification (if even that), but has been presented — by both its proponents and detractors in the US political establishment — as a veritable sea change. Continue reading
Note: Most Englishmen who comment on American politics fit themselves into the world view of either the Republican or Democrat Parties. Therefore, most English comment on Mr Obama proceeds on the assumption that what he has done to America is supremely good or supremely bad. But I am not pro-American. I judge American politics purely by their impact on England.
For this reason, I regard Mr Obama as an excellent American President, and very much hope he wins the next election. He may have turned America into more of a police state than his opponents would have done. He may simply have turned it into a different sort of police state from the one his opponents had in mind. I don’t care. I’m not an American. I don’t live in America. What happens there is, in itself, of no more consequence to me than what happens in Ecuador or Nigeria. What I do like about Mr Obama, however, is that he is the first American President in over 30 years who has not started any wars. Doubtless, he has not made the world a safer place. But he has done little to make it even more dangerous than he found it.
Since Ron Paul will not be the Republican candidate this year, the American presidential election will be a contest between a man who has started no wars, and whatever unwrapped mummy has bellowed the loudest that he will go to war with Iran/North Korea/Russia/China/Somalia/Cuba, etc, etc. Unless you really want the world to be blown up because “Jesus would have done it,” I suggest it isn’t much of a contest.
Sooner or later, the dollar will collapse, and America will complete its long transition from barbarism to decadence. We shall all then be able to forget the nightmare of its hegemony, except as a threat to naughty children – “Eat up your greens, or the Americans will come and bomb you!” For the moment, Mr Obama is easily the safest pair of hands in Washington. I may even donate £25 to his re-election fund. SIG Continue reading
Latin America: Growth, Stability and Inequalities:
Lessons for the US and EU
Introduction: Images of the Past
The image of Latin America portrayed by the mass media and held by the educated public is a region of frequent coups, periodical revolutions, perpetual military dictatorships, alternating boom and bust economies and an ever-present International Monetary Fund (IMF) dictating economic policy. Continue reading
Article by Anthony Gregory.
Being a U.S. war criminal means never having to say sorry. Paul Tibbets, the man who flew the Enola Gay and destroyed Hiroshima, lived to the impressive age of 92 without publicly expressing guilt for what he had done. He had even reenacted his infamous mission at a 1976 Texas air show, complete with a mushroom cloud, and later said he never meant this to be offensive. In contrast, he called it a “damn big insult” when the Smithsonian planned an exhibit in 1995 showing some of the damage the bombing caused. Continue reading
Carrying of arms
Jefferson copied many excerpts from the various books he read into his “Legal Commonplace Book.” One passage he copied which touches on gun control was from Cesare Beccaria‘s Essay on Crimes and Punishments. The passage, which is written in Italian, discusses the “false idea of utility” (false idee di utilità) which Beccaria saw as underlying some laws. It can be translated, in part, as:
A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility … who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.
The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. … It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.
Jefferson’s only notation was, “False idee di utilità.” It isn’t known whether Jefferson agreed with the example Beccaria used, or with the general idea, or if he had some other reason for copying the passage.
What an extraordinarily articulate and educated man this was: I never knew. You learn something new and exciting every day, as you get older and older – I only looked him up out of interest as I was arguing with a student about the exact contents of the USA’s Declaration of Independence.