Tag Archives: BBC

How soon will the Euro implode?


UPDATE:- I said this the other day, too.

David Davis

About 12 years ago, or it may be 13, I bet a YEM* person £25 that the Euro, recently issued, would sink to UD$1.00 by that Christmas. It did fall, a bit: my prediction was only wrong in degree -  but I lost my bet and ponied up.

Now Peter Oborne thinks the project is at last about to come undone.

* “YEM” was the “Young European Movement”. God knows what’s happened to that.

Today’s caption competition


Something to share


Michael Winning

I saw hwile over at Obnoxio the Clown’s place that these people, called Counting cats, would like this to be shared.

So, here it is! (Boss man says this stuff if lifted, has to be in red…wonder if I can do that)

BBC Bias (Again)

Feb 28th, 2010
by NickM.

I saw a small bit of a thing on BBC News this morning. OK, this is from memory and I didn’t watch the whole thing because I would have been sedated to prevent me from hurling the cat at the Samsung. And neither Timmy nor the telly deserve that…

I would though chuck an irate ocelot at Harriet Harman’s minge. That is another story though…

It was about “The Rise of Climate Scepticism in Australia”. It described climate sceptics (they’d burn ‘em if that weren’t “polluting”) meetings as being like an “American religious revivalist meetings” (that’s so BBC on so many levels, that’s the sort of thing to get the average Indy reader priapic) and it was just generally horrendous. Despite my inchoate rage I did though clock something which outraged me beyond feline-throwing comprehension.

It opened with a shot of the cracked, dry Australian Desert. You know that thing that Australia has a lot of but also had a lot of when Captain Cook made landfall and even had a lot of during the Dreamtime of the Aboriginals with this soundtrack:


Yup, whilst the BBC now calls us “sceptics” and no longer “deniers” it plays music from a symphony written specifically about the Holocaust.

Where do you think that band is performing? Don’t look much like the Royal Albert Hall to me unless that gaff has really gone downhill very recently.

So the likes of me, PA and Cats wanna disagree with the “consensus” on a scientific issue and we’re ushered to the “naughty-corner” along with that cunt Nick Griffin. Well, some of us, Aunty Beeb actually not only can parse the science but will not fall for cheap tricks like that. Some of us know what an adiabatic lapse rate is and some of us have also been to Auschwitz. Some of us even listen to C20th orchestral music.

Some of us also know what pride comes before.

PS. Fellow bloggers. Take this. I want it known. I want it screamed from the highest parapets.

Posted in: BBC, Climate change, Climate fraud, Jumped the Shark, Propaganda, The Righteous, twats.

Top Gear in ties


David Davis

I don’t think so, thank you.

Newsreaders? Yes: Jeremy, James and the Hamster? No.

That lot are pretending to be slobs with terrible dress-sense, and they do it very well and it’s part of their brand, so they should look like slobs.

Biased BBC: BBC EDITOR IS CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST


BBC EDITOR IS CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST

Sean Gabb

>> Monday, December 28, 2009

I’ve become increasingly convinced that the BBC is part of an international conspiracy about ‘climate change’. It isn’t simply that the reporting is so biased; it’s also because there seems to be a concerted effort to make sure that whatever so-called sceptics discover, for example over Climategate, the warmists bounce straight back with a new set of warped theories or bent facts to support their arguments. The feed of material is relentless, as if it is coming from an organised source. Over the holidays, I’ve been doing some digging on this, and I wanted to share one of my first findings.
A BBC journalist called Peter Thomson is not a household name in this country, but he’s the environment editor of the BBC programme (made jointly with WGBH Boston and RPI) The World, which on a daily basis pushes out climate scare stories to millions of people. Mr Thomson, it turns out, is also the secretary of the Society of Environmental Journalists, a US organisation, the main purpose of which is to spread alarmism through a ‘guide’ about ‘climate change’(masked of course, under the cloak of ‘objectivity’). There can be no doubt that this is a campaigining organisation which wants to achieve political change because it believes that the world needs to reduce CO2 emissions.
Mr Thomson’s activism does not stop there. He’s also a member of the advisory board of the Metcalf Institute for Marine and Environmental Reporting, yet another international organisation with alarmist goals. It, too, publishes a guide to how journalists should cover ‘climate change’; in truly chilling McCarthyite terms, the introduction explains how anyone who disagrees with “the consensus” should be ignored and that journalists should frantically pester editors to publish ‘climate change’ scare stories.
So, to recap. One of the BBC’s most senior editors responsible for environmental reporting has formal roles at the epicentre of a worldwide coinspiracy among ‘climate change’ alarmists. Not only that, he is assisting in the international propagation of so-called science communication guides, the main purpose of which are to enlist other journalists to spread the same lies in which he also believes. I suspect there’s a whole phalanx of Peter Thomsons, all feeding the BBC’s insatiable appetite to feed us with moonshine.
Update: Richard North, of EU Referendum, has kindly provided further information about BBC propagandists. Nik Gowing, a prominent – and rather humourless – BBC World Service presenter, has a no-doubt lucrative sideline in chairing ‘climate change’ conferences convened by the alarmist-in-chief, IPCC head Dr Ravendra Pachauri.

Biased BBC: BBC EDITOR IS CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST

The public breaking of the BNP, on live Wireless Tele Vision, says something about what will happen to anybody who…


…gets on or appears to get in the way of the Enemy Class Project.

David Davis

I am back. [GROAN....I hear you all say: I bet you preferred Michael who held the Fort while I was out and about.] Happily I missed all the hoohah and Wireless (you get it) Telly-Telly stuff about Nick Griffin and the staged public demolition of his policies, by those who either have the same policies or will have to institute completely identical ones. Which is to say, The Enemy Class.

As an Enemy-Class-ist, the problem you have when you want to (a) disenfranchise, and (b) marginalise and ultimately exterminate the culture of, a whole very very large section of the people of a nation which you have decided to eraze, out of misplaced but correctly-targetted revenge for successes of real liberalism in the past by others, is this. It is that you have to demonise the people who see a Main Chance, and can speak up for it, however mistakenly. You do not, yet, through your incompetently GramscoFabiaNazi faith in historical inevitability, have access either to terror-Police, or not many, nor have you taken care to set up “Vernichtungslager” or even concentration camps: worse, you have failed to label the proposed Concentration Camps as  “positive-health-and-dietary-amelioration-supplement/education-augmentation-facilities in relocational-theatres”….

Really, over this BNP scruck, they the Enemy-Class are on a smallish hiding to nothing, at least from now on.

If they said nothing about the BNP at all and just let it go and be, then its support will grow because it simply says the things that the disenfranchised Old White Working Class (and other bits) wants to hear being said. [That does not imply that what it wants is a right solution.]

And if they demonise it, then that will then just amplify the feeling that there is a class – the Enemy Class – that is the enemy of the aspirations and hopes of ordinary individuals who know nothing political, have nothing much in this world in the way of goods and chattels, and just want to be allowed to get on with grubbing along in even slight comfort before dying, and without too much in the way of hegemonic interference. Which is pretty much what has happened to nearly 100% of all humans since the beginning of history.

Really, it’s the hegemonic people’s fault. They hegemons will really all have to go, as Michael said yesterday.

All this is good for us. really.

Aynbody going to watch Question Time?


Michale Winning

The fascist left have guaranteed that Nick Griffin of the BNP will get prime time billing tonight or whenever it is. What they don’t get is that we all know they’re spitting tacks over the BNP exact;y ‘coz it’s stripping votes off what they think is their own little Pocket Borough. Ive just learned about these and that’s what Labour thinks its’ entitled to. So they are climibing the wall with anger and rage at the BNP, which is just a socialist party realy but a more nationalist one than they like.

You know, if libertarianism os to get off the ground ever, and les’t face it we are not exactly winning right today, all these bloody people may just have to go. I don’t care where or how, just go. Gone. Deprived of power, amployment (they don’t do anything worthwhile anyway) and the ability to influence events. It’s just too effing difficult to deal with them and their whingeing and obfuscation of everything that’s objectivly right. I’m not saying the BNP is right, far from it: why does everybody have to be seen to say loudly that they think the BNP’s wrong even though everybody knows you know it is?

But the sort of people writhing in public rage for TV consumption,  at the BNP’s man being on the telly, are the same sort of people that attack and try to shut down power stations. This doesn’t make the BNP right, and it just shows up where the enemies of liberty and free speech are coming from.

Sorry about that rant, I couldnt help ot.

Whats a “Jo-Brand”?


Michael Winning

I only ask because I want to know – as that man whatshisname said. it it something to do with branding or branding?

Oh, Ithink it was peter simple

‘We’re not done yet, insists Brown’- Sounds horrifying, init?


Peter Davis

here

I have a propsition:

List all of Labours achievements to this day, I won’t, since [a] i can’t be bothered, and [b] my laptop would fall apart because of sheer over-typingness (if thats a word) as it is shoddily made.

then tally up:

1.how many have been a complete waste of your money, and have been engineered to put this nation at an educational, tactical, and economical disadvantage,

2.how many have actually been benificial.

i think you’ll find that the ultra-huge-vastly-immense majority will be: a complete waste of your money, and have been engineered to put this nation at an educational, tactical, and economical disadvantage

And, Brown says, ‘We’re not done yet’…

it is now 22:07 GMT and my brain has almost completely shut down, so i expect Fred Bloggs to do a humerous, but serious follow-up to this, while i set up the weaponized dustbin in our ultra-super-secret-weapons testing lab for a ‘demonstration’. expect to see the fabled weaponized dustbin in action soon:

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/fredll-like-this-one-2/

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/yesterdays-technology-for-today-tomorrow-working-together-to-combat-enviro-crime-for-the-children/

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/improved-pah-this-is-improved/

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/new-impooved-weaponised-dustbins/

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/dustbin-o-doom/

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/here-is-the-weaponised-dustbin-for-your-entertainment/

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/here-is-the-weaponised-dustbin-for-your-entertainment/

‘I DO NOT ROLL OVER’ – says Brown… …whatever that means…


Peter Davis

It appears Brown is stating that he’s not a dog, perhaps?

anyway, this may intrest you.

I have decided that I quite like Rod Liddle after all


David Davis

He has a blog here which I think is newish. Also his plangent assaults on the sacred cows of socialism and (so-called) “liberals” and the effects of their destruction of our civilisation, have amused me for some years. Perhaps it’s his training in the BBC which has made the scales to fall from his eyes in such aggressive fashion.

DISCUSS: “Is school-syllabus-and-broadcast-imposed-popular-culture a deliberate Enemy-Class “initiative” to help stamp out individual critical thought and thus also liberty?”


David Davis

“Is school-syllabus-and-broadcast-imposed-popular-culture a deliberate Enemy-Class “initiative” to help stamp out individual critical thought and thus also liberty?”

Panis et Circenses, anybody?

As I will be away from my computer for about 48 hours [and no, I am not being "detained" for anything, at least not yet] i leave you people with this interrogative to toss about like a dogbone.

Simon Heffer has a suggested antidote for one part of the fightback.

This is because I and a local friend here from Lancs, also a crusty, cynical oldie like me, have been invited by the BBC, no less, to go to London and film one or more “rounds” – depending on how we last the course against pairs from “other regions” – of a /NEW/ TV quiz show. The terms of acceptance to go on the show forbid me from telling you the format (I do know it) or the prize structure [nugatory, that's all I will say] as it will not be broadcast until October, we are told.

A post-mortem, about how terribly badly I did, will be delivered to you all, possibly on Tuesday – provided that I do not feel so completely humiliated by my failure to comprehend the more “contemporary” departmens of knowledge which ordinary graduates of scumbag*** schools find so easy to acquire.

***Not their fault that their schools gave them classes in “modern media”, instead of the Western Canon. They’ll just do better than me in all the questions about football, all other sports, celebs, global-mega-TV shows, soaps,  actroids and actressoids,  Harry Potter, novels in the Booker Prize in the 1980s, specific bars in Magaluf, and the like.

“Universal Broadband” (in the UK…) this is exactly how and why (socialist) governments get everything wrong…


again

David Davis

If people want broadband connections, then the market will discover ways to give it to them at profitable prices. It is _not_ necessary for a (socialist) state, in its death throes, to charge _everyone_ £6 a year to pay its favoured toadie-suppliers of “broadband”, for a probably substandard product such as 2Mb/s (would you guess?), so that this can be provided to the last 30% of people who have not got it already.

This is a back-door-content-receiving-licensing-scam, just like the BBC “TV license”, only worse, and now.

The next step will be a compulsory levy on purchase of (and later, annual ownership of)  home computers.

Soon.

You just watch.

Here’s an exerpt:-

“The report proposed a 50p-a-month levy on all fixed telephone lines to help bring next-generation broadband to the whole country.

This money would go to an independent Next Generation Fund that would provide subsidies for operators to deliver super-fast internet to areas where it would not normally be commercially viable…”

“Not normally commercially viable” …? That’s the “countryside, ducky, you know – that place you have decimated and re-created as a sort of GramscoRamblerNazis’ theme park…

Well, all I have to say is, it’s strange and surprising that  __THIS__  government wants to “deliver broadband” (at “commercially-viable rates” )  to areas which contain none of its voters!

Very odd indeed. I smell a rat, and I see it floating in the air….they are up to something, the buggers, so they are….I think it wants to remotely-scan their hard disks, so it can clear them out once and for all.

“Brown” booed by “veterans” at D-Day celebrations. And the BBC. And what to do about socialism.


David Davis

Never thought I’d see that.

A Ceaucescu moment, withal.

For libertarians, the tragic comparison between the rightly-trashed junta that terrorized poor Romania for decades, and the GramscoFabiaNazi outfit we find we’d let in while sleeping, brings sorrow, and deep embarrassment. You want to know what people in real blood-and-guts-countries like, say, New Zealand, Cuba, or Poland, or Italy, or Tuvalu, think about our plight and how we allowed it.

But the comparison does also being encouragement. It means that Brown either can’t pass any more legisation, ever in his life (a good thing, we have too much already) and will stay ot fight on, further damaging the LabourNazis, or else he will be gone in a few days.

The latter is the worse option, for then Labour could try to recover in the polls. The need is for it to be so thrashed that it could be closed down by door-kicker-inners. Libertarians of course disagree about the extent to which it could be forcibly shut down as a criminal organisation, such as PIE. But at least some effort to, in the inter-regnum between the announcement of the election result and the taking-over of the administration by the LPUK whoever other than Labour should win this time round, should be marked by some “readjustmentof the furniture and effects” at government and Council Soviet offices countrywide.

Hard disks could be sifted out and malleted on the pavements. Especially in regard to any record of pension entitlements (I still do not share Sean Gabb’s leniency in this regard: I am a  bit less positive than he is about not letting the buggers actually really really starve to death in the blown hedgerows.) There will not be time to dismantle them for the NdFeB magnets, tragic though this will be: the GramscoFabiaNazis work quicker than divisions of schoolchildren with screwdrivers….and may return….

Full and long-term degradation of the ability of socialism to re-infect the UK is worth the loss of all that Neodymium.

Paris is worth a Mass.

Industrial shredders could be trucked in. (See power stations below.)

All other serviceable computer hardware could be given to schools and charity shops. Furniture, including OKA (whatever that is) and IKEA (I know what that is) would have to be shred-chipped and burnt in power stations.

Oh, and the BBC will be shut immediately. As indeed Sean Gabb has often said. Property rights in the frequency bands used previously by the BBC will be auctioned off to whoever can pay now, and wants to use them***, so long as no (repeat no) management, “programme planning” or research staff from the old BBC are employed to fill these new slots. Technicians will be fine…for now….BBC “journalists” may have to attend “re-education facilities”, it depends.

In abolishing socialism, you have to start somewhere.

***The RSGB might pick up some cheapo, for Radio Amateurs.

Going down Gordon – does Guido know something?


David Davis

http://www.order-order.com/2009/05/johnson-and-miliband-ready-campaign-teams/

I don’t know – do you? Please tell….

But the longer Gordon Brown stays as PM, the longer Labour (and GramscoFabiaNazis in general) will be out of power, and less able to do hurt to people.

I believe that Labour will do several things on 4th June:-

(1) Rig postal voting in rotten boroughs full of poor and easily-bamboozled people who will act as fall-guys,

(2) Stuff ballot-boxes,

(3) Procure the mis-counting of ballot-papers on the night,

(4) Lose much less badly than is predicted,

(5) Get the BBC to present it as “the public sending a message of support for this government’s overall strategic policy”.

BBC License Fee: Chauffeur-driven cars = £100,000, hotels = £24 million? That’s missing the point.


David Davis

The tory-Quisling-graph takes the BBC to task over its license fee. (Again.)

The Enemy Class will not take any notice of us if we keep going on about their fripperies. Who cares if £100,000 is spent on ferrying two Enemy-Warlords from the train to the office? Small-change, and won’t convince anybody.

This is not the point, and The Enemy Class knows it. The danger is that we will miss it (the point.)

Anyway, if they dared to rub shoulders with the starving, thirsty, sweating mobs on The Tube, they’d get scragged: and even __we here__ don’t want that: not really. It’ll just make the place harder to turn into a peaceful liberty-loving libertarian civilisation than it’s already going to be.

The issue is about whether there ought to be a poll-tax-funded-State-Nazi mouthpiece at all. The entire organisation has become iniquitous, in that it’s now quite cheerfully and openly partial to the objectives of the GramscoFabiaNazis. It needs just to go, like poor Michael Martin – who, now he’s toast, looks just like he always was: a rather dim and useful idiot-fall-guy who drew convenient flak, and was ultimately for use by the real Enemies of Liberty.

No, sorry.

We should assault the structures of The Enemy Class head-on, from now on. We must question the need for these structures’ existence at all times. We must take each chance to abolish something they have made, as it comes, not waiting a second. We must never miss the chance to deliver boot-kicks to the head, until total dissolution, to anything of theirs we have managed to destroy.

They will never give up: they are incorrigibly evil and anti-human, and want a permanent-world-in-aspic, of cowed /Humiliores/ serfs slaving for a patina of /Honestiores/. They _must_ be stopped, and prevented from ever re-arising, or we are doomed. We  _must_  treat infestation by their philosophies as a notifiable and infectious disease, like malaria or the Plague. (So the Universities have got to be fixed quite soon then.)

Charles Moore often champions the BBC-license-fee-refuseniks. You can follow links to him out from here.

BBC “does not like old people” shock horror surprise


David Davis

June Whitfield (anybody old enough to remember her!?) thinks so.

Well, it’s the arm of the ZanuLieBorGramscoFabiaNazis, so what did you expect? They’re all 22-y-o-alternatively-abled-androsexdroids from “Uni”.

I actually hope they all do get really realyl quite old, and suffer from really-old-people’s diseases and conditions, like Rheumatoid Arthritis, and incontinence, for a very very very long time, and are of course refused medicine by their GPs because they are old and white, and then they might die, slowly, without friends beside them, in a NHS “hospital”.

If I’d uttered the word “Uni” in, oh, say, 1969, I’d have been killed.

Here come the bastards, again, for your money, ‘coz they have run out of the last lot they shysted.


David Davis

The Landed Underclass has spotted a move to “tax search engines”. I have to wonder how that’s going to work. It’s clearly a case, if true, of  “if it moves, tax it.” He says it came from this lot here, and the Mail here…apparently to “help the BBC”.

But…I thought the BBC had “The License fee” – no?

Here are some comments from the Mail link:-

“The government wants to give money to the BBC as it’s the one organisation that supports them and there will be an election to fight .”

#”What’s British TV got to do with Google”

“we pay enough for our broadband now, next thing will be gormless gordon putting a tax on the air we breath, but I guess MP’s will put that down on their expenses, like they do with their broadband…….”

No wonder the State wants “universal broadband”.


 

 

 

Rule 1 for the BBC (and for everybody else). NEVER say anything bad about Liverpool (and especially LFC “fans”)


David Davis

Very sorry, but it has to be fisked. Even the Booby-See has had to eat humble pie, in the face of this onslaught. Whatever it is that’s bad that happens to Liverpool, or its people, or the fans and supporters of LFC, it’s NOt their fault, OK, geddit?

Field Marshall Viscount Montgomery of Alamein said the following:-

  • “The U.S. has broken the second rule of war. That is, don’t go fighting with your land army on the mainland of Asia. Rule One is don’t march on Moscow. I developed these two rules myself.”
(spoken of the US approach to the Vietnam War) Quoted in Chalfont’s Montgomery of Alamein.[38]

He ought also to have said:-

“Never say anything bad or deleterious about the City of Liverpool, its people, or its foot ball supporters; they are functionally incapable of evil-doing, even when in Sheffield, and even if the harm was to each other. I also developed this rule.”

Some people out there like us….


Here they are…and yes we stand behind Guido in his hours of travail, doing what we can which is rather little. Hope he’s watching his back.

DID Labour try to keep Guido off the BBC? I thought it was a !public service! broadcaster


David Davis

Obviously not.

I wonder why not?

TV licensing: what does it mean?


David Davis

Some bad stuff here. If you’re thinking of moving to Britain, then don’t. We stay here because we are either too poor to emigrate, or else we are damned if we want to be ejected by scumbags who hate us and our culture and civilisation: you don’t have to suffer the crap if you don’t need to.

Here’s the sequel. h’t Samizdata.

But you have to wonder. What was it in our makeup as a nation and culture, that allowed us to so, so, so go out-to-lunch, and be just so really, well, lazy? How did we allow this rentacrowd of evil, deliberating, GramscoFabiaNazi mountebanks, who have not got our interests at heart, no not at-all-at-all-at-all, ot get control of the mega-triodes at the BBC’s Txs?

Ed Balls worshipped by James Naughtie on the Sound Wireless


David Davis

Marvellous and funny read.

Good BBC “question-time”


David Davis

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00jfbjr/Question_Time_26_03_2009/

The ZanuLieBorg British State hates poor people….


….and it is probably privately still “utterly relaxed about people getting filthy rich”….(was it Mandelson or Blair said that? Does it even matter?)

…and “And There Was Me Thinking” has noticed what I have noticed too. She, however, views the interfering State medical-Gramsco-MarxiaNazis in a slightly less positive light than I do.

David Davis

…but we have, just in, “Price of Alcohol could double”.

It’s bad enough for wretched stalinised poor people, who are those who mostly smoke, being charged 25p (about 0.22 Euro or 16 cents US) for a fag, and who have little else in the way of worthhwile pleasures in life except horrible nasty lefty State Tele Vision (for which they also have to oay the BBC regardless.)

Make their alcohol – probably the only other thing that’s nice in their sad lives that they have left –  double the price, and it will do nothing but drive more petty crime in the direction of nicking the stuff.

Intelligent people, such as big crime bosses, will also get into the act of fermenting and distilling hooch on a large and untaxed scale. Does the Government really want that? Does the NHS really want the fallout from that – both in crimestats and secondary health effects?

UPDATE1:- The Landed Underclass explains trenchantly why the ZanuLieBorg GramscoNaziNannies don’t understand economics. It’s why their only pretence at a “Reich” failed, after all: RIP 1917-1991.

UPDATE2:- The Remittance Man demolishes the AlcoGramscoNazis mathematically. Do go read the whole thing.

UPDATE3:- Legiron does a comprehensive fisking job on Lamebrain Donaldson too.

Gail Trimble on Tuesday totty-watch: brought to you by the anti-elitist BBC


UPDATE2:- Here is a   _really_    good idea - even the murdering-Maoist-BBC-telly-people who hate Oxbridge for being elitist should love it……..

UPDATE:- They really _do_ seem to want to get at us. Look at this.

David Davis

We learn that, owing to a somewhat pedantic technicality, CCC have been disqualified from University Challenge, and Manchester invested with the title of this round instead. Well. The booby-see had to do something to reinforce its anti-élitist credentials, didn’t it.

Never mind. Let’s enjoy pretending to discuss the history of epistemological theory, with nice, clever Gail Trimble, with a glass of port, by candle-light, while there’s still time. Sod the f*****g BBC, sod University Challenge, and to hell with the Wireless Tele Vision: let’s do what matters in life.

Wonder what would have happened if she’d agreed to pose for “NUTS”? (We’d have had to sack poor hardworking Keeley Hazell, or else get her a place at….Ch.Ch…..I guess.)

Here’s what The Times thought just after the show. And Melanie Phillips in the Mail: (I didn’t know the “mob” hates this girl? Weird. So here’s Harry Mount (this link works I now think….but actually it still doesn’t…you can get the important Harry Mount article from a livelink INSIDE the Melanie Phillips article) with a possible take.)

I can’t make the Mailonline links link properly. Probably deliberate on their part. You’ll have to go to their portal and get on each of them manually inside it, yourself.

Oh, for f*** ‘ s sake…..


David Davis

Biohazard, envirocrime, HP sauce. What the hell are these people thinking they are doing?

More on Sean Gabb speech to Conservative-Future: trenchant comment


David Davis

I take the liberty of using this comment (freely available on the thread for this post) as a new post:-

And here’s me been trying to impose a commenting moratorium on myself. Oh well, here I go again.

Sean’s prescription for what to do when power is gained, while perhaps or perhaps not perfect in the detail, is a good one, and is the kind of thought experiment which may bring one temporary cheer. However it does not (nor, one must absolutely acknowledge attempt to) answer the question of how such a position may be gained. As such it is much like discussing which stars to visit in a starship, while ignoring the hard problem, which is how to build a warp drive.

The problem is that by not discussing in the same breath the gaining of that position, we overlook the fundamentally recursive nature of the discussion. If a government of libertarians, or of “the right” (I dispute that label, but let us let it pass for now) or of “real conservatives” (I dispute that even more as I said before) has gained office in our thought experiment, then the war is already won. That which should be done by such government then becomes a trifle, as it will have the authority to do whatever it wishes.

Unless it has gained power by subterfuge, rather than gained office by honest campaigning, this imaginary government has already told the populace that it will slash government to ribbons, immediately leave the EU, abolish the BBC, hound the enemy out of local government, strangle all the quangos and so on. It can only thus gain office if it has the support of the majority of those citizens who care. To achieve that, it must have gained a cultural hegemony and, more significantly a moral hegemony.

It will have become moral to support small government and immoral to support big government. It will have become moral to support tax cuts, to despise the enemy class, and so on.

To achieve the initial conditions for such a libertian cultural revolution, the public morality must have already become libertarian, rather than the current secular evangelical statism.

This is the Hard Problem, and it would seem at this juncture to be entirely intractable, since altering the moral hegemony requires cultural hegemony, while the cultural hegemony is driven by the moral hegemony.

What is oft mistakenly believed is that the statists/Left/whatever invaded the institutions- government, education etc, from outside. This is not true. There were always socialists inside the elite; indeed it is an elite project and always was. We, on the other hand, have no insiders; and the defenders against whom we wish to move are entirely alert to the possibility of any counterhegemonic entryism and are thus able to nullify it before it gains purchase. The Hard Problem is thus profoundly hard. 

And now some music and humour…


Peter Davis

This one gets realy nice at about 1:03:

Here is the humour to brighten up a boring, uneventful Thursday night:

Someone tried to put part of an episode of Top Gear (My favourite show, Jeremy Clarkson is GOD)  into a game, wich is quite fun:

Vaclav Klaus scragged by walk-outer-MEPs, while a guest in “his” own EU “parliament”


…amd a good plug for Sean Gabb’s speech to Conservative Future, from these good people over there.

There are no videos of Klaus himself being shouted at and with grasping, totalitarian, trough-pigging-socialist-scumbags walking out, but we’ll put them on as soon as possible if they appear.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2009/02/19/meps_walk_out_when_vaclav_klaus_questions_european_integration

Thanks for spotting this….


…and so today, the British Open Grauniadista-tweaking-contest Grand Challenge Cup goes to The Landed Underclass….for finding this rather fine material. Stylistico-philosphically-speaking, I have my covert suspicions that Landed and Belfry may be the same man – just using two different pub disguises, but I’m keeping quiet about that one.

David Davis

And this is good stirring stuff. I’m not surprised that the “left” is eternally whingeing that there are few outstanding, fast-responding socialist blggers: the people they’d need are all writing for the enemy.

Libertarian Alliance Bulletin


Director’s Bulletin
14th February 2009
Introduction
Libertarian Alliance Publications
Media Appearances
Speaking Engagements
Libertarian Alliance Events
Libertarian Alliance Book Recommendation
Libertarian Alliance Conference
Negative Scanner Needed

It is cold. I am working hard to finish a book before April. My Baby Bear is now running about the house with more hands than the average Indian goddess. The other Officers of the Libertarian Alliance are also busy. Even so, there is something to report.

Our first publication of 2009 is Anthony Flood, Is Anarchy a Cause of War? Some Questions for David Ray Griffin, Philosophical Notes, No 81
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn081.htm
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn081.pdf

Our Editorial Director is working on several other publications at the moment, and we expect to bring out at least as much in 2009 as in the past few years.

While on the subject of publications, I will take the opportunity here to announce to the whole world what I have been telling people for several years in e-mails of response. If there is anything published by us that you want to republish, on the Internet or in hard copy, please feel free to do so. We do not ask for payment. We do not require to be asked in advance, or to be sent copies of republished material. In return for this general licence, we ask the following:

  • That the Author and the Libertarian Alliance should receive full attribution in any republication;
  • That the Author’s words should not be edited to bring him or the Libertarian Alliance into hatred, ridicule or contempt;
  • That if a work is republished by any organisation that normally pays for material, the Author should receive fair payment.

I am on the radio sometimes three times a week. Sadly, I am usually too disorganised to record the event. Here are details of the only two recordings I have been able to make this year:

4th February 2009, BBC Radio, “Was the BBC right to suspend Carol Thatcher for racist language?”
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/multimedia/2009-02-04-sig-thatcher.mp3

I wrote at some length on this issue in my essay “On Golliwogs, One-Eyed Scottish Idiots and Sending Poo Through the Post“, available at:
http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc180.htm

12th February 2009, BBC Radio, “Was it right for the British Government not to admit Geert Wilders to show his anti-Islam film?”
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/multimedia/2009-02-12-sig-islam.mp3

This one needs a little explaining. Geert Wilders is a Dutch politician who has made a film that claims Islam to be an intolerant religion. He was supposed to come to England last week to introduce a showing of his film in the House of Lords. However, after protests and threats of mass protests by various Moslems, the Home Office told Mr Wilders he would not be allowed into the country.

The BBC is a pro-ruling class propaganda organisation that masquerades as a public service broadcaster. This usually means that it will support the Labour Party on any issue. When it thinks it can get away with it – for example, in claims about “climate change” – the BBC will openly lie and then refuse to give airtime to dissenters. In other cases, it will set up token debates that can be waved at anyone who complains later about bias, but that do not allow opposing points of view to be fairly put. My 12th February debate was of this second kind. A lawyer who is also a Moslem and a woman was allowed to speak about three times longer than I was. She was able to claim without any pretence of hard questioning that Islam was a religion of love and peace and that this was evidenced in The Koran. She insisted that the Gert Wilders denial of this was deeply offensive to Moslems and that his film should be banned.

I was finally allowed to make my response, knowing that I might be cut off at any moment. I made two rapid points: first, that modern public order laws are a blank cheque to anyone able to put a mob on the streets; second, that if this woman wanted to live in an Islamic state, she should consider moving to Iran or Pakistan. I added that, as a woman lawyer, she might get the occasional bucket of acid thrown in her face, but would never have to feel upset about her faith.

Why do I take part in these Potemkin debates? I do so first because they sometimes turn out to be real debates. The BBC is an increasingly totalitarian organisation, but not every minute of airtime is yet controlled. I do so second because, however compressed or bluntly, it is possible to utter truths that the listeners might not otherwise hear. The listeners, of course, already know the truth. But it can brighten their day to hear it put from within the lie machine itself.

Sadly, while I am in continual demand for programmes like Drive Time Cumberland, I am never allowed on Question Time and hardly ever on Newsnight. Such, however, is the nature of the BBC.

I have agreed to speak at the following meetings:

Monday, 16th February 2009, 7:30pm – Conservative Future meeting, Westminster. I will probably denounce the Conservative Party. If I do, I shall certainly receive a polite hearing. The difference between the two main parties in this country is that Labour is evil in root and branch, while the Conservatives are just too stupid to understand what has been done to us since 1997. I think this is a closed meeting. If not and you wish to attend, you should contact Lauren Mc Evatt <lmmce86@hotmail.com>

Sunday, 22nd February 2009, 2pm – Marlborough Group meeting, The Town Hall, Marlborough, Wiltshire SN8 1AL. I will speak about the need for conservatives to bear in mind that all the things they have defended for the past hundred years have now been destroyed or co-opted, and that conservatives must start to think how conservative values in the future can be embodied in what may have to be a revolutionary settlement. If you are interested in attending this meeting, please contact Robert Francis <remfrancis@googlemail.com>

Thursday, 26th February 2009, The Oxford Union. I shall oppose the motion “This House Would Restrict The Free Speech of Extremists”.I think these meetings are restricted to members of the Union, and I do not know if they are recorded. But I am to speak at one.

Tuesday 17th March 2009 between 6.30pm and 8.30pm – The Second Annual Chris R. Tame Memorial Lecture and Drinks Reception, at the National Liberal Club, One Whitehall Place, London SW1 (nearest tube Embankment). Professor Kevin Dowd: Lessons from the Financial Crisis: A Libertarian Perspective. Full details at:
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/conferences/crtmemlec09.htm

Society for Individual Freedom

I often refer to the Society for Individual Freedom as a “sister organisation” of the Libertarian Alliance. Since the LA is actually a breakaway organisation from SIF, it is more correctly our mother organisation. Whatever the case, its quarterly magazine, The Individual is now out. You can find SIF at:
http://www.individualist.org.uk/index.htm

My very dear friend, Richard Blake, has now had his second novel published by Hodder & Stoughton. The Terror of Constantinople has been received with universal applause. You can buy copies from Amazon at http://tinyurl.com/bgx5a2. You really should buy a copy – preferably two or three dozen copies.

I also recommend the following from Civitas: Nick Cowan, Total Recall: How Direct Democracy Can Improve Britain, Civitas, London, 2008. This is one of the few Civitas publications that I can wholeheartedly recommend. It suggests radical democracy as a cure for the New Labour dictatorship. You can order it from Amazon at http://tinyurl.com/c93jr6

This has been set for the last weekend in October 2009 at the National Liberal Club in London. As yet, we are unable to make any announcement regarding speakers or subjects. However, bearing in mind the continuing economic collapse, we have decided for a second year to keep the conference fee at the old rate of �85. So many of our friends have now lost their jobs and are facing hard times in the year ahead, that we feel obliged to dip further into our reserves to subsidise the conference. Do stand by for more detailed announcements.

I have several thousand negatives from the Chris R. Tame collection of photographs. I want to have these scanned in for upload to the Internet. Is there anyone out there able and willing to lend me a good negative scanner?


Sean Gabb
Director, The Libertarian Alliance
sean@libertarian.co.uk
Tel: 07956 472 199

http://www.libertarian.co.uk
http://www.seangabb.co.uk
http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk
http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com

FREE download of my book – Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back
Wikipedia Entry

Libertarian Alliance home

Modern Police-Britain and the Spanish Inquisition: astonishingly good article by Legiron


David Davis

I ought to ask The Landed Underclass to join the Libertarian Alliance’s 100-Chimpanzee-typewriting-and-Research-Nissen-Hut “team” 0f assistant executive liberty-promotional-associates, or whatever places like Apple retail outlets call their shop-staff these days.

He has, unlike me and the Chimpanzees, been “reading around”. He came up with this. Here is the ref, from Legiron, for the book in question. I’d buy it while you’re still allowed to:-

[Source: The Spanish Inquisition, a history, by Joseph Perez. ISBN 1-86197-687-9 in case anyone's interested. The English translation by Janet Lloyd, was published by Profile Books, London, in 2004.]

Legiron asks why the “Righteous” are incensed, and scream “racist!” about anyone who thinks of voting for the BNP. His point if I understand it right is that the BNP are only exactly as autoritarian and control-freakish than the Righteous parties (which is all of them except the LPUK) and also come without the baggage of unpopular foreign wars and the EU. The Libertarian Alliance has always made clear that the BNP is merely another corporatist/state-collectivist party just like the other biggies, and that the British left hates and fears it because it competes with it for the same part of the Franchise.

Sean Gabb on Carol Thatcher, Golliwogs and Jeremy Clarkson


UPDATE:- From the Blogmaster of the Libertarian Alliance:-

To editors/ compilers/bloggers

Please feel free to syndicate this post, unedited please, in its entirety, wherever it pleases you to do so.

To reproduce by permission of © Dr Sean Gabb and the Libertarian Alliance

(Oh, and you can repro this while you are about it.) Nothing to do with the below really, except we invented the thing.)

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 180
8th February 2009
Linking url: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc180.htm

On Golliwogs, One-Eyed Scottish Idiots
and Sending Poo Through the Post.
By Sean Gabb

In England, one of those weeks has just ended that define an entire period. This is no consolation for those who have suffered, and who may yet suffer worse. But I have no doubt that it is worth describing what has happened and trying to explain what it means.

Let me begin with the facts.

First, it was reported on the 3rd February 2009 that Carol Thatcher, daughter of Margaret Thatcher, had been dismissed from her job as a BBC presenter for having called a black tennis player a golliwog. She did not say this on air, but during a private conversation. Even so, the BBC defended its decision on the grounds that any language of a “racist nature” was “wholly unacceptable”.

Second, demands are rising at the moment for Jeremy Clarkson, another presenter at the BBC, to be dismissed for having called the Prime Minister a “one-eyed Scottish idiot who keeps telling us everything’s fine”. Various Scotch politicians and spokesmen for the blind let up an immediate chorus of horror that has resulted in a conditional apology from Mr Clarkson, but may not save his career.

Third, it was reported on the 2nd February 2009 that the comedian and Labour Party supporter Jo Brand was being investigated by the police for allegedly inciting criminal acts against her political opponents. While presenting a BBC television programme on the 16th January 2009, she rejoiced that the membership list of the British National Party had been stolen and published on the Internet. Her exact words were: “Hurrah! Now we know who to send the poo to“. The natural meaning of her words was that it would be a fine idea to look up members of this party and send excrement to them through the post. The British National Party put in an immediate complaint, using the hate speech laws made during the past generation. According to a BBC spokesman, “We do not comment on police matters. However, we believe the audience would have understood the satirical nature of the remarks”. It is relevant to note that Mrs Brand was present when Carol Thatcher made her “golliwog” remarks, and may have had a hand in denouncing her.

Fourth, In The Times on the 6th February, someone called Matthew Syed wrote how personally oppressed he felt by words like “golliwog”, and how good it was that “society” was taking a stand against them. Two pages later, someone called Frank Skinner defended the employers in the north of England who prefer to employ foreigners on the grounds that foreigners are “better looking” and “less trouble”. The possibility that he has broken one of our hate speech laws will probably never be considered.

This is a gathering of facts that occurred or were made public during one week. But if we relax the time limit, similar facts pour in beyond counting. There was, for example, the pillorying last month of one of the Queen’s grandsons for calling someone a “Paki“. Or, to give myself as an example, there was my BBC debate of the 16th February 2004 with Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, an Asian immigrant who seems incapable of seeing any issue except in terms of white racism. During this debate, I asked her: “Yasmin, are you saying that the white majority in this country is so seething with hatred and discontent that it is only restrained by law from rising up and tearing all the ethnic minorities to pieces?” Her answer was “Yes”. It is possible she did not understand my question. It is possible she would have clarified or retracted her answer had the debate been allowed to continue. Sadly for her, the BBC immediately switched off my microphone and threw me into the street. Mrs Brown was allowed to continue uninterrupted to till the end of the programme. The hundreds of complaints received by the BBC and the Commission for Racial Equality were all either ignored or dismissed with the assurance that nothing untoward had taken place in the studio. I accept that Mrs Brown might not have meant what she said. Had I made such a comment about Asians or blacks, however, I might have been facing a long stretch in prison.

But let me return to the most recent facts. The most obvious reason why these broadly similar incidents are being treated so differently is that Jo Brand and Frank Skinner are members of the new ruling class that formally took power in 1997. They can vilify their opponents as freely as Dr Goebbels did his. Any of the hate speech laws that might – objectively read – moderate their language will be regarded as nullities. The police had no choice but to investigate Mrs Brand for her alleged offence committed live on television before several million people. But they made it clear that no charges would result. According to a police spokesman, “The chances of this going further are very remote. The idea that the BNP are claiming they are the victim of a race offence is mildly amusing, to say the least”. It may be amusing. The statement itself is interesting, though, as a formal admission that law in this country now means whatever the executive finds convenient.

Carol Thatcher and Jeremy Clarkson are not members of the the ruling class. They have no such immunity. Mr Clarkson may get away with his act of hate speech because he is popular and clever, and because the main object of his contempt is only the Prime Minister. Miss Thatcher may not be allowed to get away with her act. She used a word that borders on the illegal. And she is the daughter of Margaret Thatcher. She is the daughter, that is, of the woman elected and re-elected three times on the promise that she would make the British State smaller and stop it from being made the vehicle for a totalitarian revolution by stealth. Of course, she broke her promises. She did nothing to stop the takeover of the state administration by politically correct totalitarians. But there was a while when the people who actually won the cultural revolution in this country thought they would lose. They looked at her rhetoric. They noted the millions of votes she piled up in her second and third general elections. And they trembled. As said, they won. Mrs Thatcher herself is too old to suffer more than endless blackening at the hands of the victors who now comprise the ruling class. But they still tremble at the thought of how her shadow darkened their 1980s. And if they can do nothing to her now, her daughter can be ruined, and that will now be tried with every chance of success.

It might be argued that what Miss Thatcher and Mr Clarkson said was offensive, and that they are in trouble because we have a much greater regard for politeness than used to be the case. Perhaps it is offensive to say that a black man looks like a golliwog. Perhaps it is offensive to imply that Scotchmen are idiots or that people with defective sight also have defective judgement. It might be. But it might also be offensive to millions of people that the BBC – which is funded by a compulsory levy on everyone who can receive television signals – broadcasts a continual stream of nudity and obscene language; and that it pays the biggest salary in its history to Jonathan Ross, whose only public talent is for foul-mouthed buffoonery. The British ruling class – especially through the BBC, its main propaganda outreach – has a highly selective view of what is offensive.

And it is worth replying that the alleged offensiveness of the statements is minimal. Let us forget about golliwogs and implied sneers at the blind. Let us take the word “nigger”. Now, this has not been a word admitted in polite company in England since about the end of the eighteenth century. Anyone who does use the word shows himself a person of low breeding. Whatever its origins, its use for centuries has been as an insult to black people. Any reasonable black man, therefore, called a nigger, has cause to take offence.

This being said, only moderate offence can be reasonable. Anyone who runs about, wailing that he has been hurt by a word as if it were a stick taken to his back, and calling for laws and social ostracism to punish the speaker, is a fool or a villain. And I can think of few other epithets that a reasonable person would greet with more than a raised eyebrow – “poof”, “paki”, “papist”, “mohammedan”, “chinkie” and the like. Anyone who finds these words at the very worst annoying should grow up. We can be quite sure that most of the Asian languages now spoken in this country contain some very unflattering words to describe the English – for example, goreh, gweilo, and so forth. There is no pressure, internal or external, for these to be dropped. And we know that there are any number of organisations set up by and for non-whites in this country from which the English are barred – for example, the National Black Police Association.

However, the highly selective use of speech codes and hate speech laws has nothing really to do with politeness. It is about power. The British ruling class may talk the language of love and diversity and inclusiveness. What it obviously wants is the unlimited power to plunder and enslave us, while scaring us into the appearance of gratitude for our dispossession. Because the tyrannised are always the majority in a tyranny, they must be somehow prevented from combining. The soviet socialists and the national socialists kept control by the arbitrary arrest and torture or murder of suspected opponents. That is not presently acceptable in England or in the English world. Control here is kept by defining all opposition as “hatred” – and by defining all acts or attitudes that might enable opposition as “hatred”.

I am the Director of the Libertarian Alliance. Not surprisingly, my own opposition to the rising tide of despotism is grounded on a belief in individual rights. I may occasionally talk about my ancestral rights as an Englishman, or about how my ancestors fought and died so I could enjoy some now threatened right. I may sometimes half-believe my rhetoric. Ultimately, though, I believe that people have – or should be regarded as having – rights to life, liberty and property by virtue of their human status. Anything else I say really is just a rhetorical device. This is not the case with most other people. For them, opposing the encroachments of a ruling class is grounded on collective identity – “they can’t do that to us“. Now, this sense of collective identity may derive from common religion, common loyalty, common culture, but most often and most powerfully – though these other sources may also be important – from perceived commonality of blood.

Now, this collective identity is not something that is seen at times of emergency, but otherwise is in abeyance. It is important in times of emergency so far as it is always present. People work together when they must because, at all other times, they have a mass of shared rituals and understandings that hold them together. These shared things often define a people in terms of their distinctness from others. Jokes beginning “There was an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotchman” or “What do you call a Frenchman who…?” are part of what reinforces an English identity. So too are comments and gestures and assumptions that assert the superiority of the English over other peoples. To change my focus for a moment, take the phrase “Goyishe Kopf” – Gentile brains! This is what some Jews say when they do something stupid. It can be taken as expressing hatred and contempt of non-Jews. More reasonably, it is one of those comments that reinforce the Jewish identity.

What Carol Thatcher said was part of this reminding of identity. Her exact words, so far as I can tell, were: “You also have to consider the frogs. You know, that froggy golliwog guy”. The meaning she was trying to convey was: “let us consider how quaint and absurd outsiders are. Is it not nice that we are members of the same group, and that we are so clever and so beautiful?” I am not saying that I approve of what she actually said. Indeed, she would have done better for herself and the English in general had she kept her mouth shut.  Calling someone “froggy” is neither here nor there. Calling him a “golliwog” is moderately hurtful. Saying this on BBC premises, and in front of people like Jo Brand, shows that Miss Thatcher is stupid or that she was drunk. Her words, as reported, do less to reinforce English identity than make the whole thing an embarrassment.

However – her name always aside – she is being punished not because her words were crass, but because they fell into the category of actions that must at all times be discouraged. Powerful or crass to the point of embarrassment, nothing must be tolerated that might tend to promote an English identity. I say an English identity. The rule does not apply to Scotch or Welsh or Irish nationalism. These are not regarded as a danger to the ruling class project of total enslavement. They are controllable by subsidy. More usefully, they are anti-English. The various ethnic nationalisms and Islamic identities are likewise allowed or encouraged. They are not perceived as a danger to the ruling class project of total domination, and may be used against the English. It is English identity that must at all costs be repressed. The English are still the largest national group in these islands, and will remain so at least until 2040, when there may be a non-white majority all through the United Kingdom. English national ways are the raw material from which every liberal doctrine has been refined. The English are an unpleasantly violent nation when pushed too far.

This explains why words and expressions are defined almost at random as “hatred”, and why names of groups and places keep changing almost at random. The purpose is not to protect various minority groups from being hurt – though clever members of these groups may take advantage of the protections. The real purpose is to hobble all expression of English identity. It is to make the words and phrases that come most readily to mind unusable, or usable only with clarifications and pre-emptive cringes that rob them of all power to express protest. Or it is to force people to consult their opponents on what words are currently acceptable – and whoever is allowed to control the terms of debate is likely to win the debate.

And look how easily it can be done. Also during the past week, we have seen working class demonstrations in the north of England against the employment of foreign workers. “British jobs for British workers” they have been chanting. A few raised eyebrows and warnings from Peter Mandelson about the “politics of xenophobia“, and the trade unions have straightaway sold out their members and are preparing to bully them back to work. Better that trade union members scrabble to work for a pound an hour, or whatever, than that they should be suffered to use words like “Eyeties” or “Dagoes”.

I should end by suggesting what can be done to counter this strategy. I suppose the answer is not to behave like Carol Thatcher. We must accept that certain words and phrases have been demonised beyond defence. Some of them are indefensible. These must be dropped. Others that are just about permissible – Scotchman, for example – should be used and defended on all occasions. We should also at all times bear in mind that political correctness is not about protecting the weak but disarming the potentially strong, and it must be made clear to the ruling class that its management of language has been noticed and understood and rejected. A strategy of apparently casual offence, followed by partial and unconvincing apology – of the sort that we may have seen from Jeremy Clarkson – may also be appropriate.

Another strategy worth considering is the one adopted by the British National Party. In a free country, Jo Brand would be at perfect liberty to incite criminal acts against unnamed and reasonably unidentifiable people. But we do not live in a free country. There is a mass of laws that criminalise speech that was legal even a few years ago. The response to this is to invoke the laws against those who called for them. As said, people like Jo Brand and Yasmin Alibhai Brown are unlikely ever to be prosecuted for crimes of hate speech. But the authorities will occasionally be forced to go through the motions of investigating, and this can be made a form of harassment amounting to revenge. Otherwise, it is useful to establish beyond doubt that the laws are not intended to be enforced according to their apparently universal working.

There is much else to be said. But I suppose the most important thing is not to behave like Carol Thatcher. It will be unfair if she is broken by her words. But if you stick your head into a lion’s mouth, you cannot really complain when you feel the teeth closing round your neck.

All told, this has been an interesting week. Understood rightly, it may turn out to have been a most productive week.

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

GOLLIGATE: Are people losing their fear of the PC thought-police?


David Davis

The Remittance Man thinks so. Trouble is, he currently resides in West Grombooliland. I wish I thought he was right, but I fear not. Most people today are I think silently aware of the awful powers these word-banning buggers have, increasingly, of being able to turn one’s life over in public, should one transgress their Gramsco-Marxian permitted-thought-boundaries.

To give Remittance Man his due, he does quote evidence of a “backlash”.

I fear that these days there are no longer what Chris Tame used to call, when he was alive, “enough people to make a difference”. There might have been, but the long-range Gramsco-Marxian thought-liberty-destruction project (it’s not a link yet but it might become one) has been very canny, cleverly underhand, and Fabian.

IT’S NOW A LINK

Its plan, of hauling up the ladder after a few hundred thousand (if that?) Honestiores, with all that paradise could provide for these and what some have called “their more useful servants”, is proceeding on schedule. This leaves the rest of humanity as Humiliores, dying while starving and freezing in the weapon-policed darkness of unelectricity, unfood, unlanguage and un-thought.

State “education” has now been reduced to rote-learning of PC paragraphs of stuff: ironically, “rote-learning” was what PC demonised.

The Wireless Tele Vision “News” broadcasts, to those who can’t be arsed, what they must learn.

The Enemy Class TV “producers” produce what these wretched people must enjoy.

Words that can express now-banned thoughts are increasingly criminalised.

Whole peoples, such as the English in particular – because we Showed The World The Way To The Unguarded Door Out Of Hell, are labelled “institutionally” (whatever that means?) racist/reactionary/ conservative/xenophobic/paedophile/homophobic/bigoted/mysogynist/male-chauvinist-pigs/substitute your own pejorative here.

I’m really not sure what to do about these people. I’d not like really to state on a public blog what the remedy ought to be. But there is little time left, before the terror-police kick in fully. There won’t be enough lamp-posts or time, when the time comes, anyway, so some other remedy will have to be found.

Sean Gabb on the BBC re Carol Thatcher


http://www.libertarian.co.uk/multimedia/2009-02-04-sig-thatcher.mp3

Should the BBC have sacked Carol Thatcher because she said in a private conversation that someone looked like a golliwog? No, says Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance.  Jo Brand was investigated by the police for allegedly inciting violence on BBC 1 against her political opponents. Carol Thatcher used a word. One gets the sack, the other the BBC’s unconditional support. But, then, Jo Brand is part of the New Labour Establishment. Carol Thatcher is the daughter of a Prime Minister who still makes the ruling class shudder.

God and Charles Darwin: Hate mail and the sort of people who send it….


…are related: possibly in an evolutionary way.

David Davis

Sir David Attenborough, being old and therefore in possession of the facts, probably knows about the coming Endarkenment. Apparently he is in receipt of hate-mail, for allegedly “defending” Charles Darwin and the rather poorly mis-named “theory of evolution” in a BBC prog to be transmitted on Sunday.

It is at least 99.99% certain that the planet is astonishingly old, and that diversity and shape of all creatures has altered over tremendous spans of time, so that those that live now are adapted to the external conditions. Because mathematically nothing at all is truly impossible (that is to say, an event’s probability is actually the rational number zero) given enough time and dice-throws, there may be at some time in some place in the Universe a creature called “God”, which proceeds to create – in six days – (a rush-job?) a populated world full of humming-birds and neopastorally-ecstatic human individuals, and without parasites or mosquitos. But Attenborough and I, and maybe also Richard Dawkins, would state this to be highly improbable.

Now to hate-mail. There may be for example an equal degree of hate existing in the minds and hearts of both “Darwinists” and “Creationists”: but I doubt it. For one thing, this is a field of endeavour where “The Science” (terrible phrase) is truly settled. I say this in order to see whether I get hate-mail either from paleobiologists or from creationists. Whereas “Darwinists” are in general rational individuals used to civilised argument and the informed defence of a position with fact, I suspect “Creationists” rely on what they’d term “Faith”. Faith is fine in that of course God’s Mind encompasses the Universe, has done so since the beginning of Time, and He Imagines all that was, is or will be in it: all that is, is thus a product of His thought. That much is obvious to a scientist. But the evidence that God cobbled the earth together in six days, around 6,000 years ago, is scanty at best.

The sorts of people who send hate-mail are those generally with no evidence for their position, but whose world-view is utopian and ideal-driven. For example I think here of socialists, the sort that are not as successful as Polly Toynbee and without her journalistic outlets for their ire: also of “animal rights” “campaigners”. There are of course other kinds, mostly on the left. Whether there is also a connection with the fact that they have very little to do, and lots of time to scratch their own arses, may be relevant. Tere seem to be very few such people on the Classical liberal wing of politics.

If there is a connection developing between the left’s hate-mail-generators and “Creationists”, I think we ought o find out. Both strands of pre-capitalist-idealism will lead civilisation, on purpose, to disaster.

UPDATE1:- I have unashamedly lifted part of The Landed Underclass’s almost simultaneous post to ours, and it’s below. I did wonder in fact whether to discourse in this post about The Nature Of Evil and where God fits in regarding Evil’s continued existence, but forbore this time:-

It seems that nowadays one demonstrates one’s godliness and piety not by acts of charity, humility, contemplation, prayer, etc. but by screaming for the head of anyone who expresses any view that one can, by whatever theological manipulations, deem ‘offensive’.

If I were Mr  Attenborough, I’d go to see my producer and insist that the theme music for my programme were changed to:

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat.
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings.
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous
All evil great and small.
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spiny urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small.
Putrid foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

[Python, source typos corrected]

The Stalinist terror-drink-police will come for you next…


UPDATE:- Lots of useful links out, from The Devil, to other state fake-charities etc, specially those which castigate you for drinking more than you oughta on “at least one day a week”….disaster: all that excise tax-take, and they don’t even thank you.

David Davis

….arriving at a “supermarket” or “off-licence” near you. They’ve done the pubs, kicking them into the bloody dust, so now it’s the turn of the “middle class professionals”. I wonder which fake charity staffed by State-sponsored-scumbags is behind this one? Obviously not a real one then, they have better things to do.

And here’s the Beeboids, direct. And why do nasty gestapoid-Gramsco-Marxians always, always always get so het up about “strong lager”? Eh? Eh? Who ya’-lookin’ at then? Gorra-problem?

The BBC: close it down, sell the copyrights, and give Jonathan Ross the opportunity to get a proper job


Charles Moore (grand honest  fellow) lays into the Beeb here.

David Davis

Israel Gaza biased BBC


David Davis

Just got this through in passing  past uk1884.

If you didn’t think you’d know what to do in the job, why did you go for it in the first place?


David Davis

The “Public Services” are the country’s biggest users of “consultants”. We buggers who have to pay, and who watch all the sadness and crap, and tyranny that results, since the “consultants” have the same warped, inverted and dirigiste enemy-mind-set as their hirers, have known this for years.

It now transpires that this is being trailed. the prose is wonderfully spinnable:-

The Scottish Government is wasting up to £13m a year by not using consultants efficiently, a report has claimed.

Audit Scotland has estimated that government bodies spent about £114m on 1,200 consultancies in 2006-2007.

But it said there was no clear strategy and savings could be found if the planning, management and purchasing of consultancy services was improved.

The Scottish Government recently issued guidance on the use of consultants, saying they should be used sparingly.

Auditor General for Scotland Robert Black said consultancies can be an expensive option.

He said: “Central government bodies need to plan their use of consultants so that they use their knowledge and skills where it brings greatest value for money.

“They should gather and share consistent information on what consultancy services they buy and why.

“Bodies should consider when it is better to use their own staff, and how best to ensure public servants learn from consultants when they are hired for projects or in advisory roles.”

‘Damning report’

Of the £114m spent in 2006-07, £41m was spent by government directorates. Quangos spent £38m, which includes £35m spent by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

A further £35m was spent on consultancy services by government agencies, with Transport Scotland spending £12m.

The Audit Scotland report said: “There is a need to better plan the use of consultants.

“Use of consultants is rarely linked to wider planning about when and how to get the services needed and the best way to purchase them across the organisation as a whole.”

It said the work done by consultants was not always evaluated and suggested the government should carry out “consistent and formal evaluation”.

It recommended government bodies should take opportunities to learn from consultants and that staff should also fill key roles in projects where possible.

And if that’s just in Scotland, where the “send for the Scotch Accountants” mentality – faced with waste, and also with not enough recycled loopaper drying on the washing lines, must inevitably prevail a bit, despite rampant socialism in public life, where then England?

The point we want to bring to bear against Statist “Employees” of the State is that:-

(1) If you did not know best how to carry out the tasks which you thought you were applying to do, or had been elected to bring about, than why did you apply for the job/stand for the council/parliament(s)?

(2) Given that you then admitted, in office or power, that you had no clue, why then did you not resign your post/office? Did your CV/manifesto not state how well qualified you were to do the job/stand and represent your voters?

(3) Worse, why then did you retain flash/self-regarding buggers who must have been sacked from a corresponding job description…?…otherwise they would not now be calling themselves “consultants”, now would they – and so protecting their inept brains and arses through your front-screen? They would be DOING it profitably, and selling it, for money, in the Market (which you all so execrate) to things called “firms”.

OR….

in working for the State, and in using other people’s money in the greasing of the palms of those who say they are your friends, while pretending it is “work”, are you not just a common bully?

After Gaza, something to cheer us up on a cold morning…..and a worrying update on war….


…and Malcolm Rifkind is surprisingly sensble, here. Although I don’t agree that “palestinians” are a people – they are a post-modern construct,  invented for socialist imperialist reasons, to combat Western-liberal-pluralist democracies in places where lefties don’t want them, such as Israel and Lebanon. Jordan will be next perhaps.

And this seems to be what people think here. I guess I’m in a minority of two then (read Guido, who has got >421 comments putting him in very hot water…I’m not supporting the Israelis because Guido does – but because I think they are doing the right thing.)

UPDATE:- An “immediate ceasefire”, so as to give the useless western “peace-bureaucrats” such as Gordon Brown abd Tony Blair (where is he, by the way?) something expensive and travel-fun to do, and which is to say, an “Armistice”, will not solve the problem. Hamas, and all its friends, whether they be in Westminster, on the BBC, in Brussels or Moscow or Washington, will still want Israel “wiped off the map” – eventually – so it’s no use for us all to pretend that “a resumption of the peace process” will solve the major strategic problem for either side – one that just wants to exist, and the other that wants it not to. Just wait and see.

In a war, there are two exit strategies. They are victory and defeat. Libertarians shun war, and rightly. If there were no Big-States, the probability and destructiveness of all wars would be lessened. I cannot tell how much, but it’d be a lot. Libertarians tend to invoke the principle of consent, which of course arises from discussion and negotiation – but wars happen when one side is asked to give up something which is non-negotiable, such as life. (I wanted that in red but wordpress won’t let me…)

David Davis

Some pictures of processor chips here. I didn’t know that the AMD latest quad-core has about 758 million transistors in it…..

…..but I hope Israel decides not to get off the pot this time, until the sad but needful job is done. What ungrateful sods Hamas must be, to whine when the power is turned off (apparently having been supplied by the enemy it’s trying to eraze. What absolute socialist ***** Hamas must be in their hearts – if they have any.) The link provides you wilthe normal daily dose of “Western” “Liberal” handwringing “opinion” and instructions to Israel to lie down and die. *****.

BBC and the licence fee: perhaps it’s time to resist more openly.


David Davis

I came across this today via a tip off Guido‘s “seen elsewhere list”. Jonathan Miller provides a spectatularly comprehensive roundup of (a) the sheer iniquity of the telly-tax-scheme, and (b) what to do about it at indiviual level. Worth a read, and worth also spreading virally.

I personally have had my doubts about “detector vans” for some time. The Landed Underclass will like this one that’s coming…..and he’s got his own pennyworth of useful stuff here….

In fact, in the mid 1970s, I performed this experiment as follows:- (WARNING! DO NOT PERFORM it yourself without supervision by a qualified electrician or a Radio Ham – the voltages present inside the case of an old tube-type colour TV can be LETHAL – up to 35,000V, which is rather a lot !!! (and you won’t know where they are unless you already know.)   TOUCH the EHT from the line-output transformer, while it is working,  and you are DEAD !!! ) (UPDATE – as far as I am aware, the insides of modern flat-screen tellies are safe, except for the presence of mains (230V AC) voltage. Don’t monkey with these either or you will invalidate your warranty…)

I completely lined the inside of 405/625-line “dual-standard” colour Tele Vision Set fully (these were still available new, and also widely used) with a double layer of aluminium foil, electrically attaching it to MAINS EARTH (NOT the chassis whcih is almost always live to the mains) and screening as far as possible all round, up to the edge of the tube front.

I then made a RF “sniffer”, using a coil/capacitor netwrok approx tuned to the 45 MHz “intermediate frequency” which was used inside the receiver module in the set I was playing with. This was in efect a small radio RX whose output registered on a milliammeter instead of a loudspeaker. I was able to tune the incoming frequency through a range of about 8MHz either side of the 45 band centre, so I could also check if the sniffer was picking up any other oscillator signals or sums/differences coming from inside the set as a result of its decoding the vision signals and line/frame sync pulses.

In the room, which was about 9ft x 12 ft, there was a detectable 45 MHz RF flux, but it was rather weak. I also found small peaks at 49.33 MHz and 40.57 MHz roughly, probably from heterodyning witht he 4.43 MHz crystal which did something or other in the receiver. There was a weak 45 MHz signal outside the window but nothing else.

I could not detect the 45MHz signal out on the road. Nor incidentally any other ones from nearby houses.

I did not think of trying to detect the harmonics of the line-output frequency, which was 15.625 KHz. I expect they owuld have been weak, at any frequency above about 10 MHz.

Since the uniform characteristic of machines then was a 45 MHz IF, I expect that this would have been what “detector vans” would major on, for the lifetime of cathode-ray Tellies – none of which would have been built with full electromagnetic screening of their innards – what would be the point? (Radio-Hams suffer from interference from consumer electronics far, far more than consumers do from interference by hams!)

I was therefore unconvinced, and have remianed so ever since, of the claims of the BBC about “detection”.

BBC TV licensing tax threats Nazis Charles Moore Ghandi liberty poor people


David Davis

I had never thought I’d see Ghandi as a hero, but if you take one act he did in context (rejecting the Salt Tax) then Guido is totally right that the TV License “Fee” is an unjust and forcible protection of a state-monopoly, and is against the interests of everyone. It is even against the interests of talented tV producers, programme-makers and technicians, many of whom could probably be better employed in other broadcasters, or even totally outside the industry!

Here, you can go sign the NO to TV licensing thingy.

Here also is their blog.

Charles Moore has been going on about this terrible, evil thing for some time – at least three years to my certain knowledge. Now that momentum has been picked up by his campaign, it is hard to see how one of two things can avoid happening:-

(1) The BBC will get nasty, turn up the flame-wick of horror, and start prosecuting thousands and thousands and thousands of people, the whole thing possibly ending at gunpoint,

(2) its income will fall off badly, possibly to zero as Rupert Murdoch picks up the trail, and The Sun starts to flag up the opportunity to not pay and get away with not being scragged by fake detector vans and paramilitary “License Fee Collectors”.

Option 2 is more likely I think. I haver long suspected that “detector vans” either contain nothing at all, or else are unable today to “detect” a modern TV, as it has no powerful “line timebase”, emitting bags of RF at multiples of the horizontal timebase frequency – it is of course “flat screen” which needs none of that old rubbish… (actually it was not rubbish but very cleverly optimised to to what it had to do, although megalithic by comparison with today’s electronics.)

We at the Libertarian Alliance have long advocated closing down the BBC. Fully. That’s it. A State Broadcaster can have no purpose to serve, in a State which is minimalist and liberal. There is no need for one, if the barrier to braodcasting for anyone who wishes to, in a technological civilisation, is low enough – and it now is.

That’s it.

I don’t sadly really know if other nations have a compulsory, criminally-driven TV licensing scheme for their State borat-caster – but I’d love to know.  Please write in. I guess ShootinPutin has put one in even if it’s only run by the KGB against liberals and dissenters: and I expect that the pigs Kim Jong Il and Castro have got one, and also that other pig in ByeloRussia, can’t rememebr his name, all pigs are the same really.

Pity really that I have to so traduce such a useful animal as the pig here. Henceforth, all socialist scumbags will be called cockroaches – such as those who are bureaucrats, or whose Police kill people, or who dispense State welfare, or who ban smoking or displays of tobacco.

BBC and TV licensing: Alex Singleton in the DT today


David Davis

Here, and the comment-thread is especially interesting.

Here’s a poll: you may tick multiple answers:-

BBC: Oh, really? And which poor sad junior will be blamed?


David Davis

BBC “admits serious lapse” (of sanity or judgement I presume?) over Ross/Brand affair.

Perhaps the BBC is just another socialist-sausage-machine: it takes money from the terrified bourgeoisie, who are afraid of being prosecuted and destroyed as a result, uses it to fund pornography, such as people saying “f***” on live television, and then gives the product to the socialist-state-clientariat, for nothing (as it will not prosecute them for “watching without paying”.) If they do…. They probably do (watch without paying, a lot of them.

Who cares?

In a libertarian society, I fully expect that there’d be TV channels where you oculd say “f***” on live television. But you’d have to pay for them. I expect. They would not be especially mass-market. This is just not what Anglosphere people want to do or see. We are moral and liberal. (I DID say “liberal” yes.)

In return, nobody would force you to do so. No “detector vans” would come round, to pretend to see if your telly was saying “f***” without having paid the channel that transmits “f***”. All that the State would have to do (and not even that really) was to supply Courts which would discover if your telly had said “f***” without your having paid for it to do so.

The whole thing, as Auberon Waugh would have discovered long ago, is just an intellectual-property problem. If the monies collected by the BBC were regarded as collected by force, whether you used the service or not, then it was just stealing and doing robbery. If not, and it was regarded as consensual, just to fund sort of journalists and machines and stuff, then it could transmit, but could not also then charge you as well for receiving. Also it could not legally know who was receiving.

The corollary of this is the death penalty exacted by the Nazis for “receiving foreign broadcasts” or “having prohibited receivers”.

I think we all ought to start cutting off our BBC direct debits. Let’s see what happens.

Let’s call their bluff. I’m going to cancel our DD now, and see what happens.

Libertarian Alliance Remembrance Post 6: what ought Libertarians to plan for, and discuss, regarding what’s worth defending, and why ought we to defend anything at all?


UPDATE….and Tim Worstall does it better than I do as well….

David Davis

That’s it for this year, you’ll all be relieved to know…but first, I will direct you to the Devil, who writes all this quite important stuff, which ought to be noted and spread virally into the endarkening before it’s too late, far more effectively that I do. Then I’ll just make the point that this being the 90th commemoration of the end of World War 1, it’s probably the last one of any size: moreover, that it’s remarkable that we have any of what my old dad used to dub “the poor old chapsleft to witness it.

The centenary will probably have State-regulated fireworks compèred by Jonathan Ross. There will be scantily-dressed BBC-news-readerettes who will hand out strangely unfamiliar red flowers in the streets shopping prestinks, to bemused passers-by, the whole thing edgily-videoed by wildly-waving handycams. (“And now it’s back to you, Russell Brand, in the studio!”)

There are many strands of Libertarianism. Chris Tame used famously to say that “there may be two Libertarians somewhere who agree about everything, but I’m not one of them!” Of course he was just making a point theatrically, which he was good at, but he meant that, unlike Trotskyo-Marxian fascists and big-statists, we can amicably discuss a large range of ideas without pogromising each other.

For example, Sean Gabb and many others have always opposed British involvement in Iraq (and for all I know elsewhere too) as not involving any vital British interests and therefore totally unjustified. He may turn out to be right, but I have always disagreed. I think the West responded with much too little, and much, much too late after 9/11, dragged down and back (until it was too late) as it was, by internal traitors in the UN, the EU, on the Beltway especially, and elsewhere, from the easy and clean fulfilment of its essential and unitary objective.

Then, there are Libertarians who would restrict the Franchise on property criteria. Insofar as we have a State, and a government, and while this is unavoidable, then it should be a pluralist democracy and so therefore I support these people, Salisburianly speaking. But I risk scandalising others as a result. It does not matter: we will not bury ice-picks in each other’s skulls.

To libertarians like me, Western Civilisation, especially when conflated with all the popular externalities created BY free markets and minimal State-Planning and especially when un-influenced by what Sean Gabb calls the Enemy Class, offers the fastest and least-destructive path for all Men to improve their lives and be happier. We do not know what comes after this life, if anything (that can be perceived in a physical sense) and can’t ever so far as we know find out; although many of us – even among Libertarians – believe there is a God, and that He approximates to that Being hazily described in 1.Genesis and also in 1.John.1. Paul of course said that “for now, we see as through a Glass, Darkly”: all we can therefore do is what seems best, or least bad, at the time. Human existence is imperfect, but small bits of progress can be made, and accumulated, provided they are allowed to. It’s the “not allowing” bit that totalitarians do that causes the problem.

What distinguishes Western Christian (in the old pre-secular sense) Civilisation from those others it has had the bad fortune to have to oppose and defend against, is the gradual if imperfect rise of a notion of individual conscience and liberty of thought and action. The going has not always been easy or uninterrupted. But in the end, we arrived shakily, “darkly”, at something whereby one could go through life substantially without coming into contact with the jaws of the State (Sean’s words roughly interpeted, not mine) and a degree of liberty meant also that there was a degree of spontaneous order.

These poor old chaps now finally pass out into the sunset of history, soon to be followed by those left from a later and worse conflict. They thought through the prism of their time, rightly or not, about what was worth defending. It would be nice to think we didn’t have to, but what we face now is just another manifestation of the enemies of individual freedom, this time very sadly right at home inside the West. Yes there may be a few terrorists skulking about, but add up all the deaths and destruction they have wrought and yet could, and it’s a pinprick compared with what the Gramsco-Marxians intend and are incrasingly coming out into the open with. Terrorists can only kill people and blow stuff up: they can’t begin to erase ideas.

If individual people are strong in what they believe, and if they honestly believe it, then terrorists can only isolate themselves further. But if we all acquiesce in the deliberate and purposeful Gramsco-Marxian elimination of our culture and the freedoms it gave rise to, then there is no place for llibertarianism to hide.

Sean Gabb – Latest Director’s Bulletin, November 2008


Sean Gabb

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/about/bulletin-2008-11-08.htm

Director’s Bulletin
9th November 2008

Introduction
Libertarian Alliance Conference
Chris R. Tame Memorial Prize 2008 – £1,000 Won!
Helen Evans
Norman Barry RIP
Sean Gabb in The Times
Other Media Appearances
Barack Obama
Books Received
Attendance at UKIP Function
Speaking Engagements
Negative Scanner Wanted

Introduction

I have done rather less during the past few months than usual for the Libertarian Alliance. My time has been taken up instead with finishing one novel and working on another, and with playing nursery rhymes to my daughter in many different keys.

But the Libertarian Alliance as a whole has remained very active. We have just held our most successful conference ever, and we continue to put our case in the media and wherever else we are invited.

Libertarian Alliance Conference

Our conference of two weekends ago, at the National Liberal Club in London, was our most successful ever. It is unfair to single out any particular speakers at the expense of the others. However, our three most prominent speakers were Aubrey de Gray, David Friedman and Hans-Hermann Hoppe. These all gave excellent speeches.

When advertising our conferences, I have always urged people to book early to ensure a place. Usually, we get between 80 and 90 people, and there is always room to let people come along on the day – even if dinners are less easy to arrange at short notice. This year, however, we reached the Monday before the beginning of the conference, and had 112 people on our list. The Liberal Club’s fire regulations limit for our usual room was 120. Over the next few days, another 20 people tried to book with us. When I removed the PayPal buttons from the brochure page on our website, people began to telephone us and tried begging for places. In the event, we had 120 people at the conference, and 113 booked in for dinner.

One of these, I am pleased to say, was Teresa Gorman, who was one of our most consistent friends in the Parliamentary Conservative Party during the 1980s and 1990s. Though now in semi-retirement, Teresa looks good and remains on good form.

It is not certain we shall be so crowded next year. Even so, I do recommend early booking.

As ever, we made a full video record of the speeches. Because I am busy doing other things, because it takes time to process video, and because my desktop computer is unaccountably very slow, it took me a fortnight to get the video files uploaded to the Internet. But they are now available. You can see our video record at

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/conferences/conf08record.htm

These files have been radically downsampled for Google. However, if you want better quality copies on DVD, you can use the PayPal buttons at the bottom of the record page. This year, we are happy to take payment in pounds, in dollars and in euros.

Chris R. Tame Memorial Prize 2008 – £1,000 Won!

The subject for this year’s essay as “Can a Libertarian Society be Described as ‘Tesco minus the State’?” I am disappointed that no one came forward to give a robust defence of corporations on libertarian grounds. I did promise impartial judging. However, I received a number of very fine entries, all of which will be published by the Libertarian Alliance. After much deliberation, I decided that the best entry was from Keith Preston in America. His was a very impressive entry, and we shall be delighted to publish this as a Libertarian Alliance pamphlet. For the moment, it can be seen on our blog:

<http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/chris-r-tame-memorial-prize-winning-essay/>

Next year, I am hoping for several thousand pounds of sponsorship, so that we can offer a first prize of £1000, but also several dozen second and third prizes for lesser amounts.

Helen Evans

We were all naturally concerned when Helen Evans, our Events Coordinator, fell dangerously ill just before the conference. However, she is now out of danger and well on the road to recovery. Our thoughts are with her, with her husband Tim and with their daughter Petica.

Norman Barry RIP

For those who have not heard already, I must announce the death, on the 21st October 2008, of Norman Barry. I first met him in 1986, and he was one of my external examiners some years afterward. A most distinguished scholar, he was victim in his final years to multiple sclerosis.

According to the announcement on the University of Buckingham website,

“It is with great sadness that the University has learned of the death this morning of Professor Norman Barry. As one of the foremost exponents of classical liberal theory in the United Kingdom, Norman established the foundation around which the study of politics developed at the University. His work as a scholar of Friedrich von Hayek, as a social and political theorist and as a writer in business ethics contributed greatly to the academic reputation of the University after his arrival in 1982. He received the ‘Liberty in Theory’ Lifetime Award from the Libertarian Alliance (LA) in 2005. Our condolences go to his colleagues, friends and family.

“A graduate of the University of Exeter, Professor Barry lectured in Politics at Queen’s University of Belfast and at Birmingham Polytechnic (now the University of Central England) before being appointed as a Reader in Politics at the University of Buckingham in 1982. His books include Hayek’s Social and Economic Philosophy (1979), An Introduction to Modern Political Theory (1981), The Morality of Business Enterprise (1991), Classical Liberalism in an Age of Post-Communism (1996) and Business Ethics (1998). He was awarded a Chair in Social and Political Theory at Buckingham in 1984. He was also a visiting scholar at the Centre for Social Philosophy and Policy, Bowling Green State University, Ohio, and at the Liberty Fund, Indianapolis. He was a member of the Advisory Council of the Institute of Economic Affairs, London; the Institute for the Study of Civil Society, London; and the David Hume Institute, Edinburgh.”

The full announcement is here:
http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2008/norman-barry.html

You can also see an interview with Professor Barry from 1991. This is in our Botsford Archive at:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5778658966132637817

Sean Gabb in The Times

I think I did send this out. If not, I should have done. On Friday the 24th October 2008, The Times carried an article by me in favour of disestablishing the Church of England. Here is the article:
<http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/public_sector/article5003179.ece>

Here is a longer article I wrote a few years back, in which I argue against disestablishment:
http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc082.htm

I have changed my mind about the Church and about several other issues on which I was once a strong conservative.

Other Media Appearances

I have been much in demand by the BBC these past few months. I regret, however, that I have been far too disorganised to record any of these. My most recent was the night before the American election on Radio 5, where I denounced most politicians as motivated by money, kinky sex, or the sheer joy of messing up the lives of others. I scandalised some Labour politicians and politics lecturer, who had come on in the belief that he would be worshiping at the shrine of St Barack the Redeemer. His embittered annoyance, and his attempt to turn the listeners against me with his revelation that the Libertarian Alliance believes in legalising all drugs and even incest between consenting adults, made for an entertaining broadcast. Sadly, I failed to record any of this. I will try to do better in future.

Barack Obama

I did think of betting money on the election of Mr McCain as American President. However, the more I looked at him on the television, the more I realised he was one of those figures, half comic, half sinister, who are thrown up at the end of every ancien regime. I guessed that millions of Americans would vote for him through clenched teeth, bearing in mind it was him or a black man. But I decided in the end he was not worth the risk of losing £20.

So Mr Obama it is. He will contrive, if very differently, to be even worse for America than Mr Bush has been. On the other hand, he will probably be less inclined than Mr McCain would have been to blow the world up. And if he is a closet Moslem, that is certainly less alarming than the acknowledged Christianity of Mrs Palin.

Oh – and, since he is half-Kenyan and was born before 1963, he will be the first American President in many years whose father was a British citizen. I am sure this fact will not be overlooked by Lyndon Larouche and his many followers in America. Perhaps the Empire is striking back!

My comments on his election can be read here:
http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc176.htm

Those who want to understand the true nature of the evil he means to America, should read my book Cultural Revolution, Culture War. You can get copies here:
<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cultural-Revolution-Culture-War-Conservatives/dp/095410322X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226250079&sr=8-2 >

I am running out of copies, but want to sell all of these before I set to work on another edition. If you buy now, you may be able to give copies to your loved ones for Christmas/Hannukah/Diwali/Kwanzaa. You are too late for Eid.

Books Received

At the Libertarian Alliance conference, David Friedman gave me a copy of his novel Harald. This is a fantasy set in world loosely based on the early middle ages, and is a very good read. I wish he had brought more copies so he could have sold and signed them. I think it is important for libertarians to write about more than how to privatise the Bulgarian motorways. David has always been a diverse writer, and his novel is a significant move into fiction.

You can buy your copies of this at:
http://www.amazon.com/Harald-David-D-Friedman/dp/1416520562

I have also been sent a copy of The Plan: Twelve Months to Renew Britain by Douglas Carswell and Dan Hannan. This is a remarkable attempt by two Conservative politicians to give their party some actual policies. Of their two main prescriptions, one is excellent, the other on the verge of terrifying. The first is to devolve to every county and city in England all the powers of the Scottish Assembly. This would at once undo the massive centralisation of power England has suffered during the past hundred years. The second is to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and to subject the judiciary to the restored legislative sovereignty of Parliament. Giving power with no hope of appeal to 625 of the most ignorant and corrupt people in the United Kingdom is not the way to make the country a better place.

I will review this book at some length in the next few weeks. you can buy copies here:
<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Books/s?ie=UTF8&rh=n%3A266239%2Cp_27%3ADan%20Hannan&field-author=Dan%20Hannan&page=1>

Attendance at UKIP Function

On the 17th October 2008, I was invited to a closed meeting of the UK Independence Party on HMS Belfast. This was addressed very ably by Nigel Farage, who spoke about his party’s strategy for doing well at the next elections to the European Parliament. Though I do not feel able to say more about what was a closed meeting, I was very impressed by all I saw and heard. Regardless of the strained relations for much of this year between UKIP and the Libertarian Alliance, it has been my settled intention to continue voting for UKIP. I am now glad to report that relations are no longer strained.

Speaking Engagements

I have accepted an engagement to speak to the Shelley Society at Eton College. This will be around the middle of the present month. I may record the event, but will only make my own speech available on the Internet.

Negative Scanner Wanted

I have several thousand negatives from the Chris R. Tame collection of photographs. I want to have these scanned in for upload to the Internet. Is there anyone out there able and willing to lend me a good negative scanner?


Sean Gabb
Director, The Libertarian Alliance
sean@libertarian.co.uk
Tel: 07956 472 199

http://www.libertarian.co.uk
http://www.seangabb.co.uk
http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk
http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com

FREE download of my book – Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back
Wikipedia Entry

Libertarian Alliance home

BBC: what to do? Best Samizdata comment-thread for some weeks.


David Davis

I admire Samizdata: not so much for what is posted, but for the sort of people who comment, often and deeply, and who seem to have all the time in the world to do marvellous thinking, when I have not the time to wipe my bottom, let alone do anything else that’s intellectual. I don’t agree with all the comments on this Ross-brand thread, but the entire experience of reading it was awsomely enlightening. I share it with you now.

We support this. No to protection-money in return for watching the Wireless Tele Vision (er…)


David Davis

Charles Moore in the DT started this thread, and thanks to Samizdata for amplifying it so we could see it.

To a libertarian, the very idea that one is forced to pay a State (or any other) broadcaster what amounts to a fine, in return for either watching or not watching the State channels, or indeed any others which might be available for nothing which is most of them, is anathema.

There are lots of ways in which, if you are prepared to go inside, you can “screen” your Wireless Tele Vision receiving Machine’s IF radiations and those from its other local oscillators such as the line timebase output transformer, from the “detectors”. I may start to put some of these on here for you, when I can find the time to research them. it is unconscionable that BBC buggers and Jonathan-Ross-salary-Payers can force money out of you in return for pretending that they know what your tastes in obscenity are. How the f*** did those two silly young schoolboy buggers know what would titillate me? They never asked me. I don’t get off on phoning old actors to say I’ve f****d their grand-daughters , no, sorry, I can’t raise an orgasm on that – even if I did fancy said grand-daughter (that also is not the business of other people – whether “producers” or listeners. In my opinion, one’s sexual fantasies, and one’s grief, are private family matters – so I don’t go for roadside death-shrines either. I would remove them all, privately, as a being, at something like 02:20 am one morning, as a nation, while nobody is looking.) I get off on other things, which it is nobody’s business to either publicise, or joke about on air, and I didn’t pay the BBC to pretend otherwise, so I might take the money away now.

Charles Moore, although an Etonian and therefore obnoxious and a friend of people that we ought not to say in public that we like (or we will not be invited to supper-parties in MetroTopia) is becoming more and more libertarian in his old age, and is a good man.