Tag Archives: freedom

The Libertarian Alliance Christmas Message, 2009


David Davis

Imagine a land.

Imagine this land here, now, if you can! It’s Christmas again, so let us dream a little. Come with me, now, let’s go there….

Imagine this land, where these things I will list for you, are taken for granted. I’m not presenting them in any particular order, they’re just nice things. I could dream up others, but fourteen is a nice number – it’s flashing blue and white and appears to me like a little bar code in my brain.***

You could call them David Davis’s Fourteen Points. Fifteen actually! The number of the Fourteen Points! (Fifteen’s green and red: yellowish in some contexts…)

(1)            The State’s organisation is so small and so un-visible, that you can spend most of your life without having to encounter one of its staff. They may be able to help you with the inconvenient documents you’d need, to cover you for travel in less fortunate lands and to call for protection by your State’s global-blue-water-forces – and that’s all. The State still runs a few libraries, staffed by some polite old ladies, and retired colonels who know about organisation and getting overdue books back.

(2)            There is a flat rate of taxation – say 10% for now – which everybody, including businesses on their profits, might reasonably be expected to pay without complaint. Progressive taxation is not approved of, but people earning under a certain amount are not taxed, which helps with those on a Shilling an hour, until they do better.

(3)            The Franchise is a Freehold Property qualification. It is qualified otherwise by age – 21. This has a number of benefits: (I) It cuts the number of voters down to those who own freehold land or buildings, or known parts of or all of a business – businesses, being property, can vote through their owners, and business votes are pro rata. (II) It reduces to almost zero the votes that would currently go to socialist parties. (III) It causes MPs to aggressively strive for all voters to own private freehold property of all kinds. (IV) Elections are important, and competition to gain property is immense.

(4)            This land is not in the EU. It has left, and simultaneously, having denounced and repudiated all the relevant “treaties”, has also downgraded its own bureaucracy’s ability to resist and defeat the measures stated. The said bureaucracy is also about 99% smaller. This land is rich, and businesses in EU-enslaved countries compete fiercely to sell their wares here. They need the Gold and Platinum and Rhenium Bars, to prop up their toilet-paper-monopoly-currency

(5)            The currencies which circulate in this land are whatever traders here will be pleased to accept as payment: there may be lots, even including fiat-papers, which may have tactical use for things such as holidays. The prevailing one, however, backed by a number of hard Bullions with commodity-prices, such as Gold, Platinum, Rhenium, Iridium, Cobalt and Silver to name a few, is universally respected. Many industrially-useful metals can be currencies. And you can take this State’s Promissory Note that you got, to any branch of the Central Bank, and they’ll hand you in return the right weight of the metal of your choice.

(6)            The Police are unarmed civilians who do, for you, what they do just like the lifeboatmen of the RNLI do what they do. The Police have not much to do these days, except sit about at the few remaining “Police Stations”, drinking tea in funny uniforms with pointy hats, and occasionally going out to the odd primary school, to tell humorous horror-stories of what it was like under the “Government”, when “some people used to commit crimes! And people thought that “crime” was caused by “deprivation!” ” (Chorus of screams and laughter from children who can factorise cubics before lunch.) You are allowed to keep any arms that please you, up to but not including heavy artillery for which you need permission from some retired colonel or other, locally: crime, therefore, is very rare.

(7)            The State, such as remains in organisation, has no function in employment or wage regulation. There are jobs in which people may work for less than Five Shillings an Hour, even in 2010. There is no “unemployment benefit”.

(8)            But the Shilling, restored to its rightful value, and fabricated in Sterling Silver, buys all this stuff at once, from Tesco or from your “local” little shop: a loaf of bread, a pound of butter, a Pound of bacon (454 grams to you lot) for which is for four people, a frying pan, and the electricity to turn it all into good old Bacon-Butties!

(9)            There is no “Ministry of Education”: not even a “Department of Skills”. Schools of all sorts flourish – you can even go to an Islamic one in Skelmersdale, or Wigan, or Wimborne, if you want, or a Jewish one in (don’t know) or a sort of funny one started in Birkdale by some scientist-madman who hated the “National(ised) Curriculum” under the GramscoFabiaNazis, and decided that when times got better he’d start his own Science and Engineering Academy for Boys and Girls who were “interested”. He’d take anybody – you just had to agree to turn up every day no-fail (or you’d be sacked) and you’d get lots of “prep”, which meant self-study in your own time, and in return he’d always answer all your difficult questions. A very, very old, smoking man with horn-rimmed spectacles, driving a Hillman Super-Minx, reg no “5518 PL”, goes round schools, when he feels up to it, seeing to it that they at least teach “Joined-Up-History”, with dates of kings and queens and important battles against continental Statists, and the easiest ways to solve simultaneous second-order-partial-differential-equations, for the eleven-year-olds to be able to compute the inter-orbital interactions of Saturn’s moons. Other stuff is up to them.

(10)      DEFRA is gone. Zapped. As if it’d never been. Farmers can grow food now, if they like. They are no longer “wildlife” or “countryside” “stewards” – they grow food efficiently and mechanically, for people, and they make real money. Butterflies are a nuisance anyway, being extinct all the time, and as for the white ones, they lay eggs which hatch into nasty caterpillars which eat all our five-a-day-broccoli. If farmers want to conserve wildlife, then they can, and can balance the cost of this against the potential lost revenue from food-buyers. It’s now their choice in this new land. But nobody will come and murder all their animals at gunpoint, and run away, ever again. If their animals get ill, nobody will buy them and they’ll lose money: it’s up to them.

(11)      Defence spending is enormous, but astonishingly efficient. The Armed Forces of this nation’s free people, even while inactive which is hopefully most of the time, strike terror into the hearts of evil-doers, other pirates, dictators of legacy-Statist-polities, and anti-liberal governments. The reason for enormous spending is the terrible threats from the other 190-odd “nations’ “ governments, continually received via the “Foreign Secretary”, whose title is soon to be changed to “Minister for War”. Procurement of kit is “open-source”: anybody may tender to provide, say, encrypted radios that work properly in cold bogs and hot sand, or real helicopters that actually exist right now today for hire or sale, and the like. The MOD is a small office in Whitehall with a telephone, an iPod dock for visiting Corporals’ mp3s, a laptop and a few gentlemen, one of whom sees to buying things.

(12)      The State has nothing to do with “Culture, Media and Sport”: from “State involvement” with these things, nothing but pretentious trash has been shown to emerge. What “culture” is, emerges by free interactions between individuals and voluntary institutions in this nation. No “grants” are given to any “groups” – whether “gays”, Moslems, LGBT groups, “Christians”, Jedi Knights, Zoroastrians (whatever those are), Jews, Rasta-men, new-agers, Gypsies and other “travelling people”, “settled folk”, or whatever. Each makes his own way and raises his own funds if needed, privately, if need be by jumble-sales in Church Halls. If the Mosque can’t hold a jumble sale, it will be legal for it to hire the Church Hall. I care not.

(13)      The astonishingly brazen up-front-scam of AGW has been exposed. Raging mobs of the “bourgeoisie”, irate small-business-owners, and other taxpayers have raided the offices of “climate-consciousness-organisations”, “Green” pressure groups, fake charities and DEFRA, have burnt all the records, malleted all identified hard disks, disk-stores, backups and pen-drives, and turned the staff into the street in the clothes they stood up in. The way is open for anyone, including Mutt and Jeff and their white van, to offer private-building-solutions to local people’s community-nuclear-power stations.

(14)      Hospitals abound in this land. The “NHS” is gone, without trace, but doctors, nurses and medicines of all sorts seem to be everywhere. You can even buy penicillins, the early ones, (via the chemist, at first!) in Tesco, as is right. (They’re not for everybody all the time, and scientific education has to catch up some decades of deliberate darkness in short order!) There is a hospital in almost every large village, in all small and large towns, and many in each city. These initially Spartan places (but they will get better) consist of some Doctors each, who do their own rota, plus some Nurses who might shout kindly at you for not taking your medicine on time but who will heroically attend you without complaint in the night if you are in great pain. There are many many interesting  and advanced machines, and always a couple of telephonists who know everyone in the area, and perhaps a duty-chemist too, to issue the more abstruse drugs. Plus lots of old ladies under an irascible local retired colonel, who come and clean up properly everywhere with strong stuff, every day, for a few quid. The poor buggerettes would stay alive outside care homes for longer if this was the case – they’d have something to do in their lives. There are no “managers” – the Colonels can do that stuff in their sleep. If you’re poor and can’t pay, they’ll fix you for nothing. If you’re insured, no problem. If you’re Sir Alan Sugar, you might also be asked if you’d like voluntarily to “pop something in this little box, it’s really just for the other ones, who, er, can’t really, you know….” on your way out…

(15)      The State wants nothing to do with the internet. Except to be a client, to make its operation more efficient for citizens, so you don’t even have to see anyone if you wanted a passport. Why’d you want a passport? Not to go to Spain [for example] for a holiday: “Spain” and all Spaniards would know you are protected, for you come from here, and they are civilised there, and you’d need no passport – your State has left the EU anyway and so they know you’re “good for the money you carry” and also well-protected forces-wise, so no change of a successful mugging there, then. No, you’d want a “Passport” (a modern wifi one) to call down protection by your Armed Forces, when you go for a working holiday, to less fortunate foreign lands for example – like North Korea or Cuba. You will want to distribute internet-ready computers and usb-G3 wifi devices to the oppressed natives of these poor places in the blinding darkness still. You’d regard it as your duty, so you’d need to go, and be protected by your State’s Armed Forces while you are doing your bit for world liberalism.

All of us here, in the Libertarian Alliance, and those of us locked in the Lancashire typewriting-Chimpanzees’ blogging-team Nissen-Hut (current temperature here = -3C) would like you all to have a marvellous and 100%-climate-free Christmas, and a relaxing and fully-non-Statist New Year, this time and always.

If you are not careful, we shall release video footage of us blogging.

***I have synaesthesia, I discovered about three years ago – I thought everyone saw numbers as strong colours like I do, and I was disappointed and saddened to find they don’t. Music is very very highly coloured too, for me, a lot (It’s numbers too I guess.) Shame really, it’s nice – others miss out on this sensory experience.

A never-to-be-repeated opportunity


Iowahawk learns that it’s been photoshopped, but brilliant all the same.

Up yours, madandbad...

Up yours, madandbad...

National Libertarian Front: Libertarianism 6. The British Movement


Sean Gabb

The resurgence of the Libertarian movement in Britain occurred in the late 1970s under the direction of Chris Thame who’s life was tragically cut short in 2006. During his life he was the key person in organising the Libertarian Alliance, which aimed not to repeat what it saw as the errors of American Libertarianism. Firstly it would not contest elections believing these to be a waste of time and effort serving only to divide the movement and exhaust the movement over matters of triviality. Secondly, the Libertarian Alliance sought to avoid the conflict endemic in the Libertarian movement such as the conflict between Objectivists and Austrians and provide a forum for genteel debate.
The Libertarian Alliance saw its role as not engaging with the masses but in targeting the intellectuals – the 5% of the population that were interested in political ideas. Taking its cue from the Fabian Society, it published scholarly articles, organised conferences, spoke at University and appeared on radio debates in the expectation that these ideas would eventually be picked up by the political classes and implemented, much like the ideas behind the Institute of Economic Affairs were eventually picked up and became the template of thatcherism.
Needless to say it didn’t, the Libertarian movement in Britain which peaked in the early 1990s has been in decline ever since with its aging membership not being replaced with young members, to the point where the pessimistic amongst them predict that eventually there will be too few living libertarians to sustain a movement and it might die just as Libertarian ideas were dead through much of the twentieth century. This decline prompted Sean Gabb in conjunction with Chris Thame to resurrect class analysis, which for many has been regarded as the preserve of marxism. They concluded that Libertarian ideas whilst true were not being given the light of the day because they were a threat to the wealth, power and status of the class of individuals who draw, wealth, power and status from an activist state.
The Libertarian Alliance, in spite of this analysis continues its strategy of courting the intellectuals even though their ideas is not in the self-interest of the many statist intellectuals suckling at the states teat. The National Libertarian Front argues that radical political change cannot be achieved by publishing a few more pamphlets rather it must engage in the sorts of visible activism traditionally associated with the ‘far right’ and ‘far left’.

Posted by KJ at 10:43

2 comments:
Jock Coats said…
The National Libertarian Front argues that radical political change cannot be achieved by publishing a few more pamphlets rather it must engage in the sorts of visible activism traditionally associated with the ‘far right’ and ‘far left’.
I think it’s fair to say that this is slowly happening here. Many are realizing that we need real life examples of doing without the state. You will probably appreciate that we don’t go in much for “revolutionary” agitation here!
So my focus, for example, is in creating a local “sterling free” trading network for business-to-business and business-to-customer use in my county, and market based affordable housing projects without state subsidy, as a visible example of ways in which people can work fre of the state.
In that, it’s much more of a “mutualist” (see your article on Kevin Carson later) approach of building the institutions that will one day replace the state “organically” rather than trying to persuade a naturally not very revolutionary or activist population to decide on one big momentous change (at the ballot box or otherwise).
Time will tell – people do say that gradualism is a recipe for failure, but equally, our “Overton Window” approach is well enough established.

11 July 2009 18:01
Sean Gabb said…
An interesting analysis. A brief correction: the correct spelling is Tame, not Thame.
On the matter of our strategy, we still see our purpose as providing the intellectual underpinnings for any mass movement that may one day emerge.

National Libertarian Front: Libertarianism 6. The British Movement

What is libertarianism, Part 3: Some clearly-put thoughts from Apocalypse-Nowish


David Davis

This is turning into a proper debate, with lots of people’s viewpoints being happily exposed.

I wisch ti weren’t necessary to have to articulate what we mean, but if we must, then we must.

What is Libertarianism, part 2: The Leg-Iron perspective


David Davis

While worrying about how – and worse: why -  it is now needful to //define libertarianism// , a discussion fortunately kicked off by The Last Ditch yesterday, I chanced on this. A simple and clear statement of what a libertarian civilisation would be like in terms of practical details.

Are we tired or have we won, or what should we do next?


David Davis

Is this a lull in the pace of battle, or has the Enemy Class retreated under cover of stubble-fires while our backs were turned for a pee, or….

…are we all just a bit tired?

Or have we run out of things to say about the badness of this government, or…

…should we just “shift target to next ahead”? (And what is that thing? Do we even know?)

Sharpe’s Opinion has an interesting comment thread on this exact subject, so do go read the whole article and replies, some from major bloggers like Guido Fawkes and The Devil.

Yesterday I said that Thierry Djanogly (a footballist?) whatever he is called, should have his gates, because in the coming socialist-driven-wished-for-endarkenment, then we all should, as this is “fair”. Here is another idea.


David Davis

Whoops has hit on what I’d say was an unlooked-for advantage of high-rise tower blocks, in the coming Endarkenment.

(Here’s what I said about Thanogly-Djanogly. Perhaps he ought to be a foot ball-ist, with a name like that, not a politician? Look, he needs his gates, ‘coz people don’t like him, or else he thinks they don’t.

But you’d better hope your assaulters have not got artillery of any kind, I suppose. That the lifts might be put out of action by it, is the least of your worries! What if the building falls “at terminal speed”? (Load of pilotsfortruth9/11.org crap). How will you get out?

How about a Motte-and-Bailey castle, or better, a proper one, or even the really really strategically-focussed ones, such as was built by Edward I, like this one? (It’s about two and a half hours down the road from here on Richard Brunstrom’s cameraed-roads.) This was his contracting-engineer.

There’s still time to buy something if you have the dosh. Sell your yacht. Now, and take it in cash, gold or silver bullion (not “money”).

Nice pic on Freedom and Whisky


David Davis

Here you can read about how it got shot.

Here it is.

“When we were very young”

“But Now We Are Six”

The Miliplanter and pot plants: what a business, eh? And a rant about leftyism and surly (I meant to type curly)-headed black-haired actors in Georgian jackets…and that’s just the men.


David Davis

First people query your expenses, which you have taken so much trouble to get to be defined as “within the rules”, and then you die.

POT PLANTS…. Jesus H Christ, you really just  __have to__  laugh at these people. The Miliplanter is clearly not serious at all.

It’s a tremendously fun hoot actually – I mean, just look at this prize piece:-

ur files also how Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, over-claimed for both his council tax and mortgage bills.

Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, is revealed to have changed his official “second home” designation four times in four years.Meanwhile, the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, spent so much on pot plants at his constituency home that his gardener questioned whether they were necessary “given [the] relatively short time you’ll be here”.

Meanwhile, as we say ‘ere, ” ‘yer-av-ta-luff”. (Also, “Icelandtalks” seems to have linked to us, somehow, I can’t tell how..but… Hi there, welcome to Gordon Brown’s world of terrorist banks. eh?)

See our earlier today piece about socialists and trough-pigging. I mean, if They-Stalinists would just stick to sex, I would not mind so much. The problem of today is that they try to shyste so much money. Money costs. Sex is free.

Sex is actually quite nice, and nobody gets killed (see Pol Pot) as any self-respecting proper Tory Toff will be able to tell these jumped-up-University-lecturers. You go out, you call in one of the cow-girl-daughters of one of your more taciturn and upright Yeoman-retainers – mind that you choose the one with pretty boobs and hips so it’s quick for you and her and nicer for you (make sure __also__ that she’s the one that won “Miss Best Bum” at the last “harvest-maid-fete”) – you shag her in the 6th upstairs-bathroom while the Lady of the Manor is instructing the Servants Below Stairs on flower-arranging, and you then just tell her to go back to her duties. Quite simple, she’s all right, you’re all right. If she has the brass-neck to produce a child, then you get it “avowed” by one of the young men who live in one of the hovels near hers, and you’re sorted. No money needs to change hands.

Expenses problem solved: there aren’t any.

Socialism, eat your heart out, you never got a system like that did you.

But Karl Marx f*****d his wife’s maid, and their son worked for the Great Northern Railway, blamelessly for many years. Michael Caine says not a lot of people know that.

Perhaps the dude Marx was a Conservative after all.

LEFTIES! D’you really think we live like that? No, I thought not. Then stop the BBC doing those awfully naff Thomas Hardy-type costume-dramas, and selling the twattish rubbish round the planet to traduce us.

Good Economics, Standard Theology


Bruce Porteus

WILL  THERE  BE  A  GLOBAL  ECONOMIC  COLLAPSE,   OR  RECOVERY?

Will there be a global economic collapse, or can the world’s economy be saved from a total
melt-down? Will the current stimulus packages work? Will there be an economic recovery?

These questions are now being asked by many business leaders, politicians and economists
around the world. There appears to be little agreement on what will happen as the unprecedented
economic crisis continues, in spite of optimistic forecasts from some world leaders. This article will
explain the causes of the current economic crisis, and what the outcome will be, in simple,
layman’s terms.

Firstly, let’s look at the causes of the current crisis. For over 30 years the Anglo-Saxon nations
(USA, Canada, Australia, UK, New Zealand) and a few other countries have been spending
considerably more money than they earned from exporting goods and services, accumulating large
current account deficits internally, and massive external debts internationally. To finance these
external debts they have borrowed money from creditor nations, in particular Japan and China. This
has allowed the Anglo-Saxon nation’s financial institutions to have the capital to continue growing
their economies, enabling them to finance costly wars and still import consumer goods to satisfy
their self-indulgent life-styles. They have continued to expand their currency supply in order to
maintain economic growth, but that caused an escalation of property prices, and growth in
borrowings to finance domestic consumption. Up to now they have been fortunate to avoid being
affected by the high inflation that normally follows an increase in the money supply, without a
corresponding increase in productivity. This was, in part, made possible by switching to the
purchase of imported goods and services produced by low-wage countries and paid for with the ever
increasing supply of US dollars.

The problem arises when Federal Reserve Notes (U.S. dollars) accumulate in foreign hands. A
Federal Reserve Note is an I.O.U. and rather unstable as it floats against the arbitrage basket of
international currencies. The only alternative for these nations to avoid being overexposed to
unbacked dollars which might tank at any moment, is to purchase United States Treasury
Certificates which are (so far) considered safer as they are rated (so far)”triple A.” Either way, other
nations are trusting that these I.O.U.’s will one day be useful for the purchase of goods, services or
other more stable currencies. The purchase of these Treasuries (loan certificates) by foreign nations
repatriates the dollars which are then spent domestically or overseas again.a vicious circle.

This inflow of money borrowed by the Anglo-Saxon nations has allowed them to maintain generous
state-funded welfare programs that have directly contributed towards undermining the role of the
family as the foundation of a successful society. This has encouraged people to look to the State
for their needs, rather than the extended family accepting responsibility for other family members,
sapping the drive and willingness of their people to compete in a competitive world. Socialism by
stealth in Western nations has done so much to destroy the family structure, the foundation from
which all successful societies are built. An increasing amount of Western Government revenues are
drained into providing expensive welfare programs such as health care, pensions, benefits for the
unemployed and inadvertently encouraging single parent families, but leaving little money for
investment into infrastructure and provide capital to develop their economies. Asians culture
encourages the extended family to accept responsibility of caring for other family members in times
of misfortune, paying for their education and health care, rather than the State. Most Asians accept
the premise that unless you work, you go hungry – sadly in the West it is expected by many that
the State will provide, regardless if one works or not.

One of the results of the current economic crisis is that the Anglo-Saxon Governments no longer
have revenue to support their expensive welfare programs; just at the time when there are the
greatest financial demands being placed on them. An aging population, escalating health-care
costs, growing unemployment is blowing out government budgets, causing unsustainable deficits.
Meanwhile the Asian countries, not burdened with such extravagant welfare programs, have been
able to use taxation revenue to invest into developing their domestic economies. As a result the
Anglo-Saxon nations have become less competitive in the global market-place than the Asian
economies. Added to this, the lack of domestic savings by the Anglo-Saxon nations has made
them dependent on borrowing from those countries that have large current account surpluses,
causing them to slip further behind in maintaining the standard of living that their people still expect
to enjoy.

The end result has been a gradual break-down of the social fabric of western society till today they
are crime-ridden, diseased, over-indulgent, debt-ridden and self-destructive. The Anglo-Saxon
nations are now so heavily indebted to their overseas creditors, that even an increased amount of
export revenues would not enable them to service their external debts. However with falling exports
and large current deficits, it is only a matter of time before they slide into bankruptcy, unless they
are able to operate with a current account to service and repay their international debts. The flow of
US dollars into Asia has enabled their economies to obtain the capital to finance their domestic
growth and accumulate overseas reserves. In turn, lending their surplus capital back to the
Anglo-Saxon nations has allowed these countries to obtain the financing to purchase more imports
from Asia. This arrangement has worked well up to now for all concerned, but is not sustainable.
However, it is proving very difficult for the Anglo nations to expand exports to the rest of the world
during a global economic recession which is causing a lack of overseas export markets for their
goods and services.

Up to now the USA has been in the fortunate position of having the US dollar as the world’s reserve
currency, and being able to print dollars to finance its deficits, avoiding the need to borrow in other
currencies. As long as the global demand for dollars to finance world trade remains, it has been in
everyone’s interest to continue with this arrangement and retain the US dollar as the world’s reserve
currency. Over the last decade surplus dollars have been recycled back to the American banking
system, creating surplus liquidity in the Anglo-Saxon nations, and encouraging their banks to adopt
loose lending practices to generate paper profits from loans to domestic customers.

The current economic crisis was triggered when American and UK banks accumulated bad debts
from reckless lending, as their customers began defaulting on their loans. This quickly led to a
chain-reaction of banks defaulting and the need for government intervention to bail them out. This
has led to the current global economic crisis we now have.

In an attempt to avoid a total economic collapse, the governments of UK and USA have created
trillions of dollars of credit to inject into their banking system to save their banks from collapsing, as
well as guaranteeing deposits. This was intended to allow the banks to continue lending to prevent
their economies from going into free-fall, and government revenues collapsing. It appears this may
be working, although the banks have still not written off trillions of credit card debts and real estate
loans. The real question is, where has all the money gone that was lent though the bank’s bad
debts which have been written off? This money is still in circulation, but much of it is not
recoverable from those who have defaulted on their loans. What has happened to this money? It
has not just vaporised. Much of this money remains in circulation outside the USA and is now
controlled by foreigners.

Another difficulty faced by the Anglo-Saxon nations is that trillions of dollars have been written off of
their equity and property markets, wiping out much of the collateral from their banking system. Still
not accounted for are the trillions (possibly quadrillions) of dollars involved in the derivatives markets
- a sleeping time bomb ready to explode at any moment. In effect this has resulted in much of the
wealth of Anglo-Saxon nations disappearing, lowering the standard of living, slashing government
revenues, and will inevitably result in widespread poverty.

The Federal Reserve policy of creating new currency to replace toxic bank loans is like putting fuel
on the fire. In the short-term it may prevent the US economy from unravelling, but in the long term it
will be disastrous. It will result in run-away inflation as money looses value. Admittedly the US does
not have much choice – if they had not propped up their financial institutions, the economy would
have unravelled already, collapsing government revenues, and dragging the world into a depression.
They would not have had the revenue to service their national debt. Either way, the economy
collapses. The option of printing currency to inflate the money supply in an effort to stimulate
consumer demand and maintain economic activity is a very risky one, and will eventually lead to
erosion of the fiat value of the currency and uncontrollable inflation. Governments flooding markets
with currency to revive economic growth without increasing goods and services will only result in the
collapse of the currency.

So what happens next? The flood of money that has been injected into global markets may lead to
temporally restoring consumer confidence and spending for a short period. Sadly, the imbalances
that have led to the current crisis have not been addressed. Nothing has been done to correct the
imbalance of global trade between the Anglo-Saxon nations and Asia. The Asian nations continue
to accumulate more and more US dollars from exports and income from their investments. The flow
of capital from the West into Asia to finance imports continues. The outcome can only result in one
thing – a total collapse in the value of the currencies of the Anglo-Saxon nations.

The coming collapse of the US dollar will result in significant readjustment of global economic and
military power. It will result in the end of the Anglo-Saxon nations’ dominance of the global
economy. They will be replaced by two significant economic power blocks (Asia and the EU) filling
the vacuum created by their collapse. It will also be a time of further economic turmoil, followed by
political upheaval. It will lead to the end of many of the democratic freedoms which we have today,
replaced by authoritarian regimes regulating the global economy. Not only will there be a denial of
political, economic and social freedom, but also religious freedom. These institutions will be
replaced by authoritarian institutions regulating how people live their lives, denying much of the
individual freedom that we have come to accept today.

There is general agreement amongst many world leaders that the free-market unregulated
economic model advocated by the USA can no longer continue. In its place they are advocating
what UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown calls a “new world economic order”. What is planned is to
have much greater controls on the movement of money, where and how capital is used – controls on
speculation in futures, derivatives, commodity trading, etc. Technology available today will enable a
single world currency supported by one global central bank, to control both the supply and
movement of money around the world. This is being advocated by Germany and France under the
pretence of controlling tax avoidance and regulating markets, in reality it will go much further than
this – controlling the movement of money and all commercial transactions, with a cashless society
where governments can monitor all commercial and personal transactions.

The Euro is the only currency large and strong enough to replace the US dollar as a world reserve
currency, or a new world currency. Germany is the one country which has sufficient currency
reserves to underpin the confidence in the Euro allowing it to become the new global reserve
currency, having been for years the world’s largest exporter. Increasingly German dominance is now
dictating the direction of Europe – all that is lacking is the leadership.

The EU lacks a leader who can unite the various competing political and nationalistic factions to
enable decisions to be reached to bring about a cohesive economic policy and revive the European
economies. As the economic crisis spreads throughout Europe, unemployment continues to grow,
and political unrest becomes more severe, the need for the appearance of a strong leader will
create a power vacuum into which someone will surely step. Europe now desperately needs a
modern-day Napoleon, Hitler or a revived Holy Roman Emperor who can save the continent from
economic and political disintegration – a strong and commanding personality who can unite the EU
and lead it to economic recovery. Yet unity cannot happen unless the present disparate political
structures that currently exist are reformed, and the proposed new constitution adopted. The
materialization of a single leader that can unite the various European nations into a unified United
States of Europe, who has the ability to revive their economies, and provide the decisive leadership
required to lead them out of this crisis is the obvious necessity.

The fate of the Anglo-Saxon nations now looks extremely bleak. The collapse of their currencies will
be followed by total economic collapse. They will be unable to repay their international debts. They
will slide into bankruptcy. There will be wide-spread poverty, starvation, great suffering of their
people as their nations slide into insolvency. Disease will become wide-spread. Many
drug-dependant people will perish. Crime will spiral out of control, as a total break-down in law and
order develops. Most jobs will disappear. Governments will have no revenue to continue functioning
or pay for public servants or services. They will no longer have the income to maintain their defence
forces.

Throughout history empires rise, declined and collapse. The coming collapse of the Anglo-Saxon
Empire will happen quickly – this group of nations will disintegrate, which will result in the reshaping
of the political and economic landscape of the world. Without the stabilising influence these nations
have had on the world, many of the freedoms we take for granted today will disappear. The
Anglo-Saxon nations originally had a value system based on the Bible, but as they have rejected
the teachings of the Bible and the Law of God, so has their influence in the world declined. Now
these nations are facing total economic collapse, not economic recovery as many hope. They are
now being cursed for rejecting the teachings of the Bible and the Law of God.

Bruce Porteous

Bruceporteous50@yahoo.co.nz

1 May, 2009

Perhaps we are!


Free, I meant. Do read the whole thing.

David Davis

This guy ought to be the President….or on second thoughts, perhaps we ought not to have those.

Libertarian Alliance Easter Message 2009


David Davis

As we descend yet further into the darkosphere, it’s as difficult to know what to say as it was last time. There’s no point to revisit our woes, as you all know what they have been, will be, and are: and the liberal swearbloggers catalogue them better and with more venom than we can summon up in our busy-ness.

 

Let’s take some comfort in something though. The forces of the Enemy Class remain just as evil, and just as imbued with purposeful and wicked intent as they were yesterday, and last week, and last year, and even before that. So, we know where we are, and all’s right after all: the coping classes are still targeted by the moochers and slairs and GramscoFabiaNazis, for their ability to fund their overlordness and pretend-philanthropy, itself built on a stolen, corrupted and plausible mirror of ordinary people’s real charitable feelings for others. Nothing’s changed, has it. 2009 and we are no further forward.

 

Now, I remember, many many, many, oh so many years ago, when Tony Blair, that great serpent, where is he now (?) talked loudly about “the Forces of Conservatism” and how awful and threatening these were, to a rapturous audience of lobotomo-lanternized watchers of the Wireless Tele Vision, at some conference somewhere.

 

It’s interesting that, although such a groundswell of anger and indignation seems to have been now detected, against the machinations of these shysters, no violent protest – justified though it might even be – is forthcoming. All sensible humans know it would be counterproductive and would only play into the hands of the Enemy Class. Even Leila Deen or whatever she’s called only threw green custard at the Lord Of Misrule, nothing worse (thank goodness.) And then she even walked away.

 

Although the Enemy Class gains power daily, over the minutiae of everyone’s lives, yet it lacks self-awareness, a sense of humour, humanity and perspective – although not a perverse logic. And so we hope that it can proceed to dig its own grave unassisted.

 

Our Easter Message comes down to this: human civilisation will stand or fall to the extent that it recognises Man’s exercise of Free Will, which as we said before is biblical in origin. We have in the end to agree that libertarian ideas and morality did not spring, fully-formed, out of nowhere, out of some formless void. We are libertarians because we specifically elevate Mankind, and a specific conscious individual morality, as being the state people ought to aspire to. Stalin and Mao and Hitler and Allende and Pol Pot and the various Kims and Saddams and Castro-body-doubles rejected that route. The oceans of blood, and the mountains of sorrow, which these buggers have brought forth on the world, are witness to how well their alternatives truly have gone down.

 

Some of us libertarians are religious in a traditional sense, and some are not: religion is not the point. But if libertarianism is based on anything (and as I said it did not just spring out of the earth fully-formed – as if “in one mighty bound man was free!”) then it is based on Judeo-Christian ethics, the Gospels, and the Ten Commandments. If it was possible for it to do that, then it would have happened centuries or even millennia ago. It appeared, and eventually reached a state of concreteness, with a body of literature and some public adherents, in post-Rennaissance Judeo-Christian civilisations only. There are no major publicly-promoted libertarian archives and publishers in, say Mecca, or Peking, or PyongYang, or Havana (a regressor-civilisation) (yet.)

 

If Man has Free Will, then libertarianism is the least immoral way to live, in a society where there are more than about seven people. If he has not, then the slairs and moochers and GramscoFabiaNazis are right, and so we all ought to be directed in all things by those who “Know Best What Is Good For Us”. All we have really to do is decide where we stand.

The Kevin Dowd lecture on free banking | Samizdata.net


Sean Gabb

The Kevin Dowd lecture on free banking | Samizdata.net

The Kevin Dowd lecture on free banking

Johnathan Pearce (London) Globalization/economics

As promised, I have some thoughts following on from the talk given by Kevin Dowd, a professor at the Nottingham University Business School and a noted advocate of what is called “free banking”. He gave his talk at the annual Chris R. Tame Memorial Lecture as hosted by the Libertarian Alliance. (The LA was founded by Mr Tame, who died three years ago at a distressingly young age after losing a battle against cancer.)

Professor Dowd covered some territory that is already pretty well-trodden ground for Samizdata’s regular readers, so I will skim over the part of the lecture that focused on the damage done by unwisely loose monetary policy of state organisations such as central banks, or the moral-hazard engines of tax bailouts for banks.

Instead, I want to focus on those aspects of Professor Dowd’s talk in which he tried to sketch out what a laissez faire, free market banking system would actually look like. This is essential; a great deal of commentary so far – while it is very good – has mainly focused on how we got into this fix and why the fixes being attempted by Western governments are proving so stupid. As PJ Rourke said recently, the attempt by the Obama administration to flood the market with cheap money as a “solution” is a bit like the case of when your Dad has burned the dinner, so you ask the dog to cook it instead. No, what Professor Dowd did this week was lay out three broad areas for reform.

Firstly, he says we should remove many of the existing regulations, government-mandated deposit protection schemes, bank capital adequacy rules and other restrictions on what banks can do and how they work. For example, government support for depositors – who are also effectively creditors to their banks – means that there is a moral hazard problem; the banks have less incentive than they would otherwise have to act prudently if there is always the government, acting like a sort of 7th Cavalry, able to ride to the rescue. That has to go. Professor Dowd also wants to hack away at the morass of rules and regulations that violate client/banker confidentiality, or those rules that force banks to lend to people, as is the case in the US, where banks are forced to lend to certain groups or else violate laws about racial discrimination, etc.

Secondly, Professor Dowd addresses the issue of letting banks fail. At the present, policymakers adopt a sort of “too big to fail” doctrine; this doctrine, while not explicitly laid down in any form of statute or operating manual – as far as I know – is a rule that says that some institutions are so large, and the attendant systemic risks posed by their failure so catastrophic, that they should not be allowed to go out of business. The problem of course is that this rule of thumb is often arbitrary and subject to political horse-trading. To wit: the US government’s decision to let Lehman Brothers go down last September, followed shortly by the $85 billion bailout for AIG, showed a total lack of clear message to the markets, and to bankers, one way or the other.

Professor Dowd believes that banks should be allowed to fail and furthermore, if modern limited liability laws were weakened or abolished completely, then such massive conglomerates would be economically and legally unsustainable in the first place.

As a result, banks would probably be smaller, and there would be a lot more of them, so the failure of any individual bank, while unpleasant for some, would not wreck the system as could happen if a mega-bank goes wrong. Also, instead of wide-ranging and hideously expensive bailouts, Professor Dowd favours putting banks into administration, writing down, in full, the value of their loan books, and getting depositors to exchange their status as creditors for that of an equity holder.

This “debt for equity swap” arrangement, while it would anger depositors who lose money, would come with the promise, and hopefully the reality, of a rise in the capital value of their equity stake in a bank if confidence returns to a more robust banking sector, as the debt/equity swap recapitalisation is designed to achieve. And of course banks are entirely free, as are their clients, to take out deposit insurance in a commercial market.

The third leg of his solution is broader, and more long-term, although there are some immediate measures that could be taken. Professor Dowd is against fiat money – money not backed by actual commodities or real assets of any kind – and in moving to a commodity-based/asset-based system. He is not, by the way, necessarily arguing for the gold standard or some gold-based system, although he points out that in the 200 years up to the First World War, the UK enjoyed a remarkable period of stable prices, with the odd blip. What he is arguing, however, is that the message on a banknote that says “I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of X” should be an enforceable legal contract, not what amounts to the jeering joke that it now is.

In the subsequent Q&A session afterwards, one person made the excellent point that a simple reform would be to ban legal tender laws. Such laws currently require a person to accept as legal tender a currency that the state has mandated for a particular region. Instead, if a person wants to refuse to accept sterling and only wants to accept dollars, euros or Swiss francs instead, he can do so. He can also choose to trade in whatever medium of exchange he wants, and with whoever wants to accept it.

Inevitable questions arise. First of all, in thinking about free banking, private monetary systems and the like, the first objection will be is that this will be very messy; there has been no real experience of such monetary systems in the past, etc.

But this is incorrect. Free banking, as defined by Professor Dowd, in fact operated in Scotland, for example, up until legal changes in 1845. South of the River Tweed, the English system had operated under what amounted to state-controlled banking under the Bank of England, set up in 1692. In the 18th and 19th centuries, England saw a number of booms and recessions, such as the 1840s railway boom and the downturn of 1870s. One should remember that the BoE was established by the-then post-Glorious Revolution government as a way to raise money for wars without having to keep asking a fractious public for taxes, and without having to borrow at expensive rates in the money markets. N.A.M. Roger has explained this issue of financing for naval warfare brilliantly. Indeed, it reminds us that state monopoly money systems typically arose in order to finance wars, while the welfarist aspects came later.

There are also current, not just old, examples of banks that operate with unlimited liability partnership structures – Pictet, the Swiss bank, and Lombard Odier, are just two examples. There are dozens of such banks using these structures in Switzerland and by no coincidence; they have avoided the worst of the credit crunch. These banks are typically for the rich but it seems to me that there is no logical reason why such an approach could not be used more widely. So there are different ways of doing banking right now. And do not forget the humble UK mutual building society: they have their limitations, but as a business model they had a lot to recommend them.

Another objection might be that the debt-for-equity swap way of restructuring failed banks under bankruptcy protection laws would be politically unfeasible, since depositors would be hit. I understand that, but Professor Dowd is not trying to imagine what sort of reforms would appeal to David Cameron, say, but what sort of reforms would be workable. That is a rather massive difference, as I am sure readers will agree.

Another objection is that “real money”, as opposed to the state-arranged fiction that we have now, cannot work for as long as governments take such a large slice of GDP. That is probably correct. One of the reasons why so many advocates of Big Government regard “gold bugs” or free bankers as dangerous nutters is that they realise their welfare states would be unworkable under such monetary arrangements. The Ponzi schemes of most welfare states would not be able to function. Even so, as long as governments retain the ability to tax, they have the ability to raise debt in the financial markets in the knowledge that their collateral can be collected at the point of a gun. But a real-money system still hampers such activity considerably.

In the longest run, the best hope of avoiding such financial disasters in the future is to wean the public and policymakers off the seductive delusion that one can create wealth by turning on a printing press. Sooner or later, if you try to fake reality, it bites you hard in the arse. Of course, it is a mark of the kind of man Professor Dowd is that he is too polite to put it as bluntly as that.

I await comments!

Comments

It sounds all very interesting and I really wish now I had been there as the other event I was at did not afford me the opportunity I had hoped to grab my local Oxfordshire MPs and try and sell them my idea for a “Bank of Oxfordshire” using, believe it or not, partnerships and asset based scrip.

I particularly like his ideas about what to do now, practically speaking, because I guess I always focus on the “hereafter” policies of competitive currencies and so on which are probably still a bit far up the Overton window for most peoples’ comfort.

There was an interesting piece about C Hoare & Co in one of yesterday’s newspapers just so people recall that there is at least one UK based bank on an unlimited liability model.

Was any mention made of Gesell, WIR Bank and similar alternative structures that often started up in the Depression and some of which, such as WIR, are still going from strength to strength?

Posted by Jock at March 19, 2009 02:05 PM

Firstly thank you for organising an enjoyable evening and thought provoking talk.

One additional area that will be critical to moving in the direction of free banking is reform of the insolvency laws and procedures. However desirable it may be to put a bank into an enforced reconstruction the law, particularly in England, makes it impossible to complete in a realistic time scale. The timescale for advertising ceditor claims, the lack of sufficient powers of an administrator to cut a deal amongst creditors and make it stick without protracted legal action, and the absence of any legal recognition (in statute or precedence) of priority for the counterparties of many of the new financial instruments mean that any administration process under current law would take months or probably years to resolve. A bank will go under if the uncertainty lasts more than a few days.

Sorting out the legislation and enforcing the current competiton rule to break up the major banks into more managable units will be preconditions of Prof Dowd’s approach.

A further and slightly off topic thought. The Sarbanes-Oxley laws in the US require CEO’s and CFO’s of companies, including banks and other financial institutions, to sign declarations that their organisation has fully effective internal controls, the records are complete and accurate, and that the financial statements can be relied upon. Clearly these representation for AIG, Citibank and other were patently false. Why are there no CEOs and CFOs in handcuffs awaiting trial??

Posted by RobertD at March 19, 2009 02:16 PM

It certainly appears to have been an excellent talk; I look forward to seeing a video of it.

Johnathan’s summary mentions two points which I think could be implemented fairly quickly and do much to improve on the current system: repeal of “legal tender” laws and elimination of deposit insurance. The former is fairly straightforward and explained in the article. The second bears more discussion.

Deposit insurance (in the US, anyway) is an artifact of the Great Depression, installed to prevent catastrophic “runs” on banks, sometimes sparked by mere rumor. It was (and is) a legitimate concern, and while the problem is exacerbated by a fractional reserve system (as I’m sure Paul will interject here at some point), it would also be a problem even without fractional reserve lending. The US’s solution was to create a new federal agency (the FDIC) to run the insurance fund, and (not coincidentally) directly regulate most banks. Therein lies the flaw.

The FDIC is staffed by government bureaucrats with no personal economic stake in the game. They are, by and large, decent and well-meaning people, but they aren’t the “best and brightest” (such people don’t work for bureaucracies) and they are hampered by hidebound rules and a lumbering, ineffecient and inflexible system. Insurance “premiums” are not established on any actuarial basis, but are essentially identical for all banks, however well or badly managed [1], and setting the rate is quite politicized. The proper response should be to use private deposit insurance.

With private deposit insurance, banks could shop around for insurance companies with the best rates and service. The insurance companies themselves would more accurately and carefully assess “risk” than it would ever be possible for the government to do, and would price accordingly. They would set capital levels which make sense given the specific nature of the bank’s business (rather than one-size-fits-all rules), assess the true value of its assets and liabilities (including, where appropriate, off-balance-sheet contingent liabilities), and in general do a better job of assessing the because it is their (and their shareholders’) money which is at risk. If the FDIC misprices, the insurance fund gets depleted and they go to the government for more money. If a private insurance company misprices, its capital gets depleted and shareholders replace the management. Competition among insurance companies would keep any from becoming unduly risk-averse in their regulations or expensive in their pricing. It’s a true free-market solution, and would work.

[1] There has been a move in recent years to incorporate some sort of “risk-adjusted” element to the premiums, but if this has actually been implemented (I’m not sure about that) the differential was essentially nominal.

Posted by Laird at March 19, 2009 04:28 PM

RobertD, you make a good point about the speed of administration process under existing English law. Prof. Dowd made the point that the debt-for-equity swap and recapitalisation of a bank would have to be done very fast, over a weekend. A long delay would be a disaster, in particular, because of the need for businesses etc to make payments and handle invoices, etc.

Laird, thanks for the detail on the insurance angle.

Posted by Johnathan Pearce at March 19, 2009 05:01 PM

I am delighted to see articles like this posted on Samizdata Jonathan – excellent, more in this vein as and when you can please.

Posted by mike at March 19, 2009 05:19 PM

This is the problem I see with insurance: How can an actuarial table be constructed?

Do bank failures follow a known statistical pattern? Clearly not.

I wouldn’t believe any private agency offering deposit insurance. Gold reserves are all that can be believed. At least until an actuarial table can be constructed.

Posted by Current at March 19, 2009 05:23 PM

Two questions:

1. As Laird pointed out above, the bank guarantees were specifically made to avoid panics, wouldn’t the removal of these guarantees necessarily cause panics? With the advent of instantaneous communication available to even the stupidest among us, wouldn’t ‘runs on the bank’ become a regular event?

2. Fiat money v. asset backed currency -
With fiat money there is a good deal of leverage that is not possible with the asset backed. This seems to imply that under a asset backed regime the economy would be significantly less dynamic one, and growth could be curtailed. Yes, a blessing in the possible smoother booms and busts, but it would seem a curse in reducing growth, productivity.

Looking at the historical rates of inflation / deflation it really appears that prior to the 1930′s, this cycle was much more dynamic than after: (UK) Consumer Price Inflation Since 1750(Link)
I realize this study is a reconstruction and I have no way of evaluating the methodologies but it seems relevant.

Posted by Will Anjin at March 19, 2009 07:26 PM

This isn’t life insurance; there are no “actuarial tables”. That doesn’t mean that the risks can’t be rationally assessed. How do you think an insurance company insures any one-time event? Lloyd’s has known how to do this for centuries (even if they’ve fallen off course a bit lately). [I need help here from someone with better knowledge than mine about probability; is this a Bayesian analysis?]

Moreover, the real point isn’t whether there is going to be deposit insurance; that’s a given, after the experiences of the Great Depression. The only question is who provides it, and at what cost? I submit that government is the least qualified entity to do so, for a variety of reasons (some noted in my previous post). In a truly free market each bank would decide whether to offer it or not and the market would reward or punish that decision, but even in a regulated environment the government could simply mandate that banks carry some minimal level of deposit insurance as a condition to maintaining their charter. Banks could choose to carry more than the minimum amount, and again the market would determine whether or not that was a wise decision, but it’s still a market solution. (Probably a market would develop for banks with different insurance levels: minimal for those with relatively small balances wanting cheap banking services, higher for those with more money who are willing to pay a bit more for peace of mind. Let the market sort it out.)

Posted by Laird at March 19, 2009 07:36 PM

I didn’t know Philip Pullman was this good a writer about liberty


UPDATE2:- Little Man What Now? has also republished it. What this exercise shows is the utter futility of an Enemy Governimg Class trying to supress stuff it does not approve of, until its Terror-Police have effectively removed the publication-tools from us all. They clearly know nothing whatever about the history of England in the 1620s-to-1640s, as the new and revolutionarry technique of “imprinting” was at last getting going on a large scale, and at a difficult time for the battling of ideas which was then going on.

UPDATE:- THE TIMES took this piece down off its site some hours ago, to the original link to the Times OUT OF landed Underclass is broken. ( ARRSE have the full text.) The Cato Institute also quotes some of it. Good job I virally-pasted the whole thing….

David Davis

UPDATE:- Here in full is the big and angry discussion thread about this piece on the Army Rumour Service at http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=117552/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=20.html

Hat tip to the Landed Underclass for exposing the true significance of this prescient piece of writing:-

Are such things done on Albion’s shore?

The image of this nation that haunts me most powerfully is that of the sleeping giant Albion in William Blake’s prophetic books. Sleep, profound and inveterate slumber: that is the condition of Britain today.

We do not know what is happening to us. In the world outside, great events take place, great figures move and act, great matters unfold, and this nation of Albion murmurs and stirs while malevolent voices whisper in the darkness – the voices of the new laws that are silently strangling the old freedoms the nation still dreams it enjoys.

We are so fast asleep that we don’t know who we are any more. Are we English? Scottish? Welsh? British? More than one of them? One but not another? Are we a Christian nation – after all we have an Established Church – or are we something post-Christian? Are we a secular state? Are we a multifaith state? Are we anything we can all agree on and feel proud of?

The new laws whisper:

You don’t know who you are

You’re mistaken about yourself

We know better than you do what you consist of, what labels apply to you, which facts about you are important and which are worthless

We do not believe you can be trusted to know these things, so we shall know them for you

And if we take against you, we shall remove from your possession the only proof we shall allow to be recognised

The sleeping nation dreams it has the freedom to speak its mind. It fantasises about making tyrants cringe with the bluff bold vigour of its ancient right to express its opinions in the street. This is what the new laws say about that:

Expressing an opinion is a dangerous activity

Whatever your opinions are, we don’t want to hear them

So if you threaten us or our friends with your opinions we shall treat you like the rabble you are

And we do not want to hear you arguing about it

So hold your tongue and forget about protesting

What we want from you is acquiescence

The nation dreams it is a democratic state where the laws were made by freely elected representatives who were answerable to the people. It used to be such a nation once, it dreams, so it must be that nation still. It is a sweet dream.

You are not to be trusted with laws

So we shall put ourselves out of your reach

We shall put ourselves beyond your amendment or abolition

You do not need to argue about any changes we make, or to debate them, or to send your representatives to vote against them

You do not need to hold us to account

You think you will get what you want from an inquiry?

Who do you think you are?

What sort of fools do you think we are?

The nation’s dreams are troubled, sometimes; dim rumours reach our sleeping ears, rumours that all is not well in the administration of justice; but an ancient spell murmurs through our somnolence, and we remember that the courts are bound to seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and we turn over and sleep soundly again.

And the new laws whisper:

We do not want to hear you talking about truth

Truth is a friend of yours, not a friend of ours

We have a better friend called hearsay, who is a witness we can always rely on

We do not want to hear you talking about innocence

Innocent means guilty of things not yet done

We do not want to hear you talking about the right to silence

You need to be told what silence means: it means guilt

We do not want to hear you talking about justice

Justice is whatever we want to do to you

And nothing else

Are we conscious of being watched, as we sleep? Are we aware of an ever-open eye at the corner of every street, of a watching presence in the very keyboards we type our messages on? The new laws don’t mind if we are. They don’t think we care about it.

We want to watch you day and night

We think you are abject enough to feel safe when we watch you

We can see you have lost all sense of what is proper to a free people

We can see you have abandoned modesty

Some of our friends have seen to that

They have arranged for you to find modesty contemptible

In a thousand ways they have led you to think that whoever does not want to be watched must have something shameful to hide

We want you to feel that solitude is frightening and unnatural

We want you to feel that being watched is the natural state of things

One of the pleasant fantasies that consoles us in our sleep is that we are a sovereign nation, and safe within our borders. This is what the new laws say about that:

We know who our friends are

And when our friends want to have words with one of you

We shall make it easy for them to take you away to a country where you will learn that you have more fingernails than you need

It will be no use bleating that you know of no offence you have committed under British law

It is for us to know what your offence is

Angering our friends is an offence

It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003), the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004), the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Inquiries Act (2005), the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005), not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Inconceivable.

And those laws say:

Sleep, you stinking cowards

Sweating as you dream of rights and freedoms

Freedom is too hard for you

We shall decide what freedom is

Sleep, you vermin

Sleep, you scum.

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. 

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

John Sentamu is right in his observations but wrong in his analysis


David Davis

Christians are indeed regarded as “mad“. But that’s just a enemy-class-tactic. The Enemy Class knows full well – and would if pressed be mildly pleased on TV to admit – that it is evil and wicked, as does Satan. (Just look at the up-yours-junk in Tate Modern.) The point is to marginalise first, and then destroy – once they have become sufficiently unpopular –  your enemies. If Christians persist in behaving like enemies of amorality, then they will just get swept away with the rest of the reactionary trash.

Poor Dr John Sentamu thinks that droids like “Fabians”, “the Cabinet”, the makers of mass-hypnosis-TV-programmes, the upper echelons of the BBC, and the denizens of quangos, are not innately and institutionally evil beings. he is sadly mistaken, for these do evil because it’s er, umm, what they do, it’s their, er, job and objective in life.

From the way in which the Universe seems to behave in reality, as manifested by Gramsco-Marxians, it is reasonable to suppose the existence of absolute Evil.

Sean Gabb: Speech to Conservative Future


Groan:- I don’t know what that smiley is doing there, but I can’t remove it. It’s none of my doing.

UPDATE3:-Please read this response-post, and _in particular_ the comment posted thereupon by an informed member of the blogateriat.

UPDATE2:- Here’s Sean Gabb’s thoughts earlier this year on holocaust denial, a hot subject.

Earlier comment from Blogmaster just after main post filed:-

(1) A direct link from the young Conservatives, who were kind enough to report the event charitably, is here.

(2)  This post by Sean is not for the faint-hearted: that is to say, those who may quail when the real assaults finally come. The prognosis for liberty in the UK is not currently good, and may not get better.

I have just read this on another forum, and would have published it unilaterally had not Sean Gabb done so already. You will find, on reading down, that the floor-response to Sean’s address was not as positive as a rational person would have hoped from today’s Tories, in Britain, embattled as they seem not to realise – or else prefer not to know, and pretend that all will be well if only they take power.

I think we can expect that, on ZanuNewLieborg being thrown out, as they will be, but not decisively (as we fear) then the British Conservative Party will remain a less certain but still definite enemy of individual liberty. this was not always the case as Sean points out. But it is now.

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 181
16th February 2009
Linking url: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc181.htm

Text of a Speech to Conservative Future,
Given in The Old Star Public House, Westminster,
Monday the 16th February 2009
by Sean Gabb

I’d like to begin by praising your courage in having me here tonight to speak to you. I am the Director of an organisation that tried hard during the 1980s to take over the youth movement of the Conservative Party. The Libertarian Alliance provided a home and other support for Marc-Henri Glendenning, David Hoile and Douglas Smith, among others, when it looked as if libertarians might do the same to the Conservative Party as the Trotskyites nearly did to the Labour Party. Sadly, our efforts failed. Since then, the Conservative Party has become more watchful of people like us. It has also, I must say, made itself progressively less worth trying to take over.

I did say that I would come here and be rude to you. But that would be a poor thanks for your hospitality. Besides, while your party leadership has consistently ignored my advice during the past twelve years – and has, in consequence, been out of office during this time – there is no point in dwelling on what might have been. We are where we are, and I think it would be useful for me very briefly to outline my advice to a future Conservative Government.

Now, this is not advice to the Government that looks set to be formed within the next year or so my David Cameron. I may be wrong. It is possible that Mr Cameron is a much cleverer and more Machiavellian man that I have ever thought him, and that he plans to make radical changes once in office. But I do not think he is. I think what little he is promising to do is the very most that he will do. In any event, he is doing nothing to acquire the mandate without which radical change would lack legitimacy. And so this is advice that I offer to some future government of conservatives, rather than to any prospective Conservative Government. It may even be a government formed by the people in this room.

My first piece of advice is to understand the nature of your enemy. If you come into government, you will be in at least the same position as Ramsay MacDonald, when he formed the first Labour Government in the 1920s. He faced an Establishment that was broadly conservative. The administration, the media, the universities, big business – all were hostile to what it was believed he wanted to do. The first Labour Governments were in office, but not fully in power, as they were not accepted by the people with whom and through whom they had to rule the country. To a lesser degree, Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson faced the same constraints. A future Conservative Government will find much the same.

Over the past few generations, a new Establishment or ruling class has emerged in this country. It is a loose coalition of politicians, bureaucrats, educators, media people and associated business interests. These are people who derive income and status from an enlarged and activist state. They have been turning this country into a soft-totalitarian police state. They are not always friendly to a Labour Government. But their natural political home is the Labour Party. They will accept a Conservative Government on sufferance – but only so long as it works within a system that robs ordinary people of their wealth and their freedom. They will never consent to what should be the Conservative strategy of bringing about an irreversible transfer of power from the State back into the hands or ordinary people.

A Cameron Government, as I have said, seems willing to try coexistence with the Establishment. The Thatcher Government set out to fight and defeat an earlier and less confident version of the Establishment – but only on those fronts where its policies were most resisted. It won numerous battles, but, we can now see, it lost the war. For example, I well remember the battle over abolition of the Greater London Council. This appeared at the time a success. But I am not aware of one bureaucrat who lost his job at the GLC who was not at once re-employed by one of the London Boroughs or by some other agency of the State. And we know that Ken Livingstone was eventually restored to power in London.

If you want to win the battle for this country, you need to take advice from the Marxists. These are people whose ends were evil where not impossible. But they were experts in the means to their ends. They knew more than we have ever thought about the seizure and retention of power. I therefore say this to you. If you ever do come to power, and if you want to bring about the irreversible transfer of power to ordinary people, you should take to heart what Marx said in 1871, after the failure of the Paris Commune: �the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is the precondition for every real people�s revolution�.�

The meaning of this is that you should not try to work with the Establishment. You should not try to jolly it along. You should not try fighting it on narrow fronts. You must regard it as the enemy, and you must smash it.

On the first day of your government, you should close down the BBC. You should take it off air. You should disclaim its copyrights. You should throw all its staff into the street. You should not try to privatise the BBC. This would simply be to transfer the voice of your enemy from the public to the private sector, where it might be more effective in its opposition. You must shut it down – and shut it down at once. You should do the same with much of the administration. The Foreign Office, much of the Home Office, the Commission for Racial Equality, anything to do with health and safety and planning and child protection – I mean much of the public sector – these should be shut down. If at the end of your first month in power, you have not shut down half of the State, you are failing. If you have shut down half the State, you have made a step in the right direction, and are ready for still further cuts.

Let me emphasise that the purpose of these cuts would not be to save money for the taxpayers or lift an immense weight of bureaucracy from their backs – though they would do this. The purpose is to destroy the Establishment before it can destroy you. You must tear up the web of power and personal connections that make these people effective as an opposition to radical change. If you do this, you will face no more clamour than if you moved slowly and half-heartedly. Again, I remember to campaign against the Thatcher “cuts”. There were no cuts, except in the rate of growth of state spending. You would never have thought this from the the torrent of protests that rolled in from the Establishment and its clients. And so my advice is to go ahead and make real cuts – and be prepared to set the police on anyone who dares riot against you.

I fail to see how you would face any electoral problems with this approach. Most Conservative voters would welcome tax cuts and a return to freedom. As for those who lost their jobs, they do not, nor ever will, vote Conservative.

Following from this, however, I advise you to leave large areas of the welfare state alone. It is regrettable, but most people in this country do like the idea of healthcare free at the point of use, and of free education, and of pensions and unemployment benefit. These must go in the long term. But they must be retained in the short term to maintain electoral support. Their cost and methods of provision should be examined. But cutting welfare provision would be politically unwise in the early days of our revolution.

I have already spoken longer than I intended. But one more point is worth making. This is that we need to look again at our constitutional arrangements. The British Constitution has always been a fancy dress ball at which ordinary people were not really welcome, but which served to protect the life, liberty and property of ordinary people. Some parts of this fancy dress ball continue, but they no longer serve their old purpose. They are a fig leaf for an increasingly grim administrative despotism. I was, until recently, a committed monarchist. I now have to admit that the Queen has spent the past half century breaking her Coronation Oath at every opportunity. The only documents she has ever seemed reluctant to sign are personal cheques. Conservatives need to remember that our tradition extends not only through Edmund Burke to the Cavaliers, but also through Tom Paine to Oliver Cromwell. We live in an age where it is necessary to be radical to be conservative.

But I have now spoken quite long enough, and I am sure you have much to say in response. I therefore thank you again for your indulgence in having invited me and the politeness with which you have heard me.

[A combination of silence and faint applause]

Comment 1: You accuse the Conservatives of having ignored you for twelve years. From what you have just said, it is a good thing you were ignored. Under David Cameron’s leadership, we have a Conservative Party that is now positively desired by the people. Your advice is and would have been a recipe for permanent opposition.

Response: I disagree. There is no positive desire for a Conservative Government. If there were, the polls would be showing a consistent fifty point lead or something. What we have is a Labour Government that is so dreadful that I have trouble thinking what could be worse.

[In a private conversation before my speech, I said that the Labour Party had turned out to be about as bad in government as the Green Party or the British National Party or Sinn Fein.]

There are two ways of doing politics. One is to listen to focus groups and opinion polls, and offer the people what they claim to want. The other is to stand up and tell them what they ought to want, and to keep arguing until the people agree that they want it, or until it is shown not to be worth wanting. I think I know what sort of politicians will run the next Conservative Government. What sort of politicians do you want to be?

Comment 2 [from an Irishman]: What you are saying means that the country would be without protection against obvious evils. With no child protection services, children would be abused and murdered. Without planning controls, the countryside would soon be covered with concrete. Without planning controls, cities like Manchester would be far less attractive places.

I will also say, as an Irishman, that I am offended by your reference to Oliver Cromwell, who was a murderer and tyrant. You cannot approve of this man.

Response: You have been taken in by the Establishment’s propaganda. This is to insist that we live with vast structures of oppression, or that we must accept the evils they are alleged to curb. I say that that these structures do not curb any evils, but instead create evils of their own. We have, for example, seventy thousand social workers in this country. They appear to have done a consistently rotten job at protecting the few children who need protecting. instead, they are taking children away from grandparents to give to strangers, and are setting the police onto dissenting ministers who allow their children to climb onto the roof. None of this should be surprising. The Children Act and other laws have created a bureaucratic sausage machine that must somehow be filled. I say let it be destroyed along with all else that is evil in our system of government.

[What I might have said, but was too polite to say: As for Oliver Cromwell, he was one of the greatest Englishmen who ever lived. It is partly thanks to him that we have just had around three centuries of freedom and political stability. When you refer to his actions in Ireland, you are repeating Fenian propaganda. What he did in Ireland has been exaggerated by the enemies of England, and in any event was in keeping with the customs of war universally admitted in his own time. If you want to throw an offended fit every time an Englishman in London praises an English hero to other Englishmen, you should consider moving to Dublin where all the letter boxes have been painted a reassuring green, and your own national sensitivities never need be offended again.]

Comment 3: All you speak about is winning and the destruction of enemies. Yet you are willing to consider keeping the welfare state. You are nothing but an unprincipled trouble maker. Thank God the Conservative Party no longer has any place for people like you.

Response: If we were facing the sort of Labour Government we had under Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson, you would be right. However, we have an Establishment that has already given us the beginnings of a totalitarian police state. Today, for example, the authorities will start collecting details of every telephone call, text and e-mail sent in this country. Children are about to have their details stuffed into a giant database that will enable them to be monitored by the authorities until they are adults – and probably through their entire lives. We live in a country were privacy is being abolished. Speech is increasingly unfree. The police are out of control. Everything is getting rapidly worse, and it is easy to see the end state that is desired, or total control.

If a government of radical conservatives ever does take power, it will have one attempt at saving this country. That means radical and focussed actions from day one. Anything less than this, and it will fail. I am suggesting a revolution – but this is really a counter-revolution against what has already been proceeding for at least one generation. If we are to beat the heirs of Marx, we must learn from Marx himself.

Comment 4: You are wasting our time with all this radical preaching. People do not want to hear about how they are oppressed by the Establishment, and how this must be destroyed. What they want to hear is that taxes are too high, that the money is being wasted, and that there are ways to protect essential public services with lower taxes. That is why the Taxpayers’ Alliance has been so much more prominent than the Libertarian Alliance. We must have nothing to do with the ranting lunatics of the Libertarian Alliance.

Response: You may have a desire for electoral success that I do not share. But I am the better politician. All debate is perceived as taking place on a spectrum that has a centre and two extremes. If the Libertarian Alliance did not exist, the relevant spectrum would simply reconfigure itself with the Taxpayers’ Alliance at one extreme, and the centre would be still less attractive than it now is. Since most people consciously take centrist positions, it is in your interest – regardless of whether I am right – to say what I do. It makes you and your friends moderate in relation to me.

[At this point, some unfortunate woman began screeching that I was a fascist, and the debate came to an end.]

[I normally like to comment on these events once I have described them. I think, however, the above stands by itself.]

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

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

Geert Wilders (never ‘eard of him.) But let’s see how quickly he gets beheaded in the street in London, and then decide who’s more liberal.


Here.

UPDATE2:- This is what Obnoxio the Clown thinks of the matter. I didn’t even know Geert Wilders was a Dutch MP and that he’s been kicked out due to some threat or other from some crack-heads from upper-Jipoopooland: sorry, you see we live in Lancashire, we don’t really get multiculti-crack-heads here, ‘cozz it’s miles away, thank God at least that Copper Wire has been discovered, so I can say something and you’ll hear it by August next year…..

UPDATE1:- I gather he’s been deported. Can’t think that Keeley Hazell would approve of that, although of course she might, it’s her choice. However – let us suppose, hypothetically, just suppose – that he’d made a movie about how misogynistically-repressive the Catholic Chruch was, about women.

That it said, for example, that they don’t allow women to be priests….or that women should ordinarily “submit to their husbands’ “demands” ” – whatever that may mean…or, even – wait for it – a movie about “what a Jesuit is really thinking”. You know the sort of thing: sinister backlit shots of faceless, unrecognisable “Jesuits”, silhouetted, saying unmentionable things, such as there is Right and Wrong……

……and that “some things are good, some things are bad”.

D’you think Wilders would get deported for that?

Neither do I.

P’raps it’s because he looks like every young female Gramsco-Marxian teacher’s nightmare-phantasm of a socialist Nazi SS trooper blond beast?

…and…he ought to have worn a nice red tie…..the blueish one is death on stilts…..

Dangerous man, young, white, sinisterly-nordic, politically-incorrect,

Dangerous man, young, white, sinisterly-nordic, politically-incorrect,

State camera blatancy: the gloves come off


The Landed Underclass published this yesterday. On the basis several other bloggers and we here think it’s astonishingly perceptive, it will probably go viral on the interweb thingy before long. But with Sir’s permission, we happily republish it in full and unedited here:-

The following:-

©The Landed Underclass,  http://landedunderclass.wordpress.com 2009

BLATANCY AWARD (live linked back in title, for originator)

One of the advantages of living in the country is that one is unlikely to encounter anything like this [the Times, found by the outraged Obnoxio]:

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) has approved a new generation of cameras that are linked wirelessly and operate in clusters, meaning that speeding drivers will be caught whichever route they take across a wide area… they read numberplates automatically and transmit data instantly to a penalty-processing centre… They are harder to vandalise than Gatso cameras because they are suspended from arms on six-metre poles.

Quite apart from the vandalism aspect (ain’t any of you all heard of a lariat?) there is the usual difficulty.

Valley Bottom is a sedate bit of road, and only about six feet wide by the sheep field, but it is not a cul-de-sac. Once in a while one of the local youths drives along it, as fast as he possibly can, a rusty Citroën Saxo (or it might be a Fiat Punto; all this car talk is really rather soiling, isn’t it?), its intrinsic gasps, rattles, squeaks and waterpump scarcely competing with the exhaust, which instead of a silencer now has part of an euphonium attached to it, and the stereo, the alternator loading of which being the reason why the car can manage no more than 58mph (at 139dB(A)/10m).

Because the driver has (as is his wont) omitted such petit-bourgeois poltroonery as insurance, driving licence and vehicle registration, it will not matter if he is on every visit tracked from low Earth orbit by some huge American spy satellite. Nothing will happen to him; it never does, thanks, no doubt, to his customary precaution of having different number plates, stolen from different cars, on each end of his ungentleman’s conveyance.

The big disadvantages of speed humps as a ‘rat-running deterrent’, or whatever, are that they cost only a modest amount to install (and generate work only for council mateys, not for shadowy surveillance-and-security companies run as sidelines, via holding companies in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands, by members of ACPO, as if policemen would ever do such a thing; for shame), they don’t generate a revenue-stream for anyone, and they might even impede official vehicles.

That the tired old chestnut of ‘global warming’ has to be trotted out to defend this desperate fundraiser probably indicates roughly how blatant it is.

Obnoxio:

More lamp-posts, more piano wire! Will there be enough?

If I may say so: typical young software chap; lives in a dream world. Just you try attaching anything, my lad, let alone piano wire, to any of this modern streamlined, aluminium, low-pressure-sodium type municipal street lighting. If it doesn’t slide straight off then the wretched thing will simply buckle. What we simian, brachiating, favourite-spanner-dragging hardware types call ‘not man enough for the job’.

If this lynch-mob thing is going to work someone is going to have to do one of those GPS-assisted surveys about where to find the surviving proper, traditional, ladder-bracket-equipped, cast-iron Victorian gas-standards, with, given the nature of the beast, an SWL of about 3cwt or so (as opposed to tacky, undersized imitations thereof made in China out of monkey-metal and sold in Bodgitt & Quickley’s to people with plastic Georgian porticos, self-adhesive bullseye windowpanes and fairtrade garden gnomes), and someone else is going to have to organise some kind of booking system, doubtless computerised, for their use, otherwise it’ll be complete chaos when the time comes.

Personally I’m opposed to capital punishment. Such a waste in a case like this, when many hours of harmless family televisual entertainment (and/or a very popular website) could be had from little cameras covering the Jobcentres patronised by our erstwhile ‘leaders’. Their answers to the inevitable questions about ‘aptitudes’ might even be worth putting on the side of a bus.

Gramsco-Marxian bastards destroy yet more glue holding free and liberal communities together…


in Bristol, near you.

David Davis

Just read this crap:-

Sports club removes ‘sexist’ word from name

A sports club in Bristol has been forced to remove the word “boys” from its name after councillors ruled that it was sexist.

Broad Plain Boys’ Club, which has gone under the name since 1894, faced the loss of funding unless it could show it was inclusive, so submitted an alteration.

The sports club, which does now have girl members, has changed the name to Broad Plain Working With Young People Group.

Club leader Dennis Stinchcombe MBE, 53, who ran the group for 33 years, said the rebranding was “a tragedy”.

He told the Western Daily Press: “There was a lot of history in that name and we are all very disappointed we’ve been forced to change it, especially the older lads.

“We need the funding so we have to back down. We haven’t even had any additional girls coming down – it seems another case of political correctness gone mad.” (NB he must NEVER NEVER SAY THAT – for PC is _NOT_ mad: it is directed on purpose.)

The club says it has helped thousands of youngsters since it began and relies on its £11,600 of authority funding. In 2004 Mr Stinchcombe was honoured for his efforts in helping the community.

The Labour-controlled council does fund single sex clubs including the Bristol and Avon Chinese Women’s Group.

Tory leader Councillor Richard Eddy said the club had simply been “bludgeoned into submission” by the bureaucrats.

The centre also had to recruit up to two part-time female club leaders, meaning more expense, he added.

A Bristol City Council spokesman said: “The criteria is that if you want funding, you have to show that you are meeting the needs of all young people, not a specific group of people. The name change was agreed some time ago.

“It’s all about being inclusive.”

The phrase “it’s all about…..”, as used by Gramsco-Marxians, will be listed, when uttered, as a War Crime. later.

TESCO, government and markets: two (2) cheers for Sir Terry Leahy


David Davis

I am not in the pay of Tesco – really I am not – honest, guv.  But it deserves two cheers or at least its CEO Sir Terry does (not three  -  for reasons I will explain, and which Sean Gabb has explained below) for his spirited defence of Markets discovering the best way to allocate resources, as opposed to governments decreeing (see Sean again.)

I expect this piece by him was absolutely as far as his own “in-house” Communications Department apparatchiks would allow the poor bugger to go. Everyone knows of course that, to a first approximation, 99% of all “communications executives”, which is to say PR girls people, are left-leaning graduates of things currently called “universities”, who have studied “journal-ism” or “media studies”. There will be enough exceptions to prove me almost not quite totally right, so I await brickbats, but I feel that Sir Terry’s private views on these matters are stronger than he was allowed to express.

Because Tesco, and its plans for giving people what they want to buy, is the prime target for assaults by greenies and anti-shopping Stalinists (who like “local” shops and “car free town centres” – an oxymoronic position if ever I saw one) it falls to poor Sir Terry to do the defence. I urge you all of you who appreciate crypto-Stalinist circumlocution, to read the whole thing here about why the local Stalinists bureaucrats don’t want Tesco to expand an already successful store where parking is free – but want it to take a site nobody wants (it’s been empty for three years!) in a town centre nobody can park in except for money to the Soviet.

Sir Terry does not get the full three cheers, for he tries to defend Government’s action in propping up a gasping banking system, which, like Hitler’s Generals who first shunned him – then lauded him – then were in hock to him, ought to have seen through this government’s debauchment of money earlier. Then, they should of course have opposed it in the first instance – but they didn’t, so here we now are. (Like Hitler’s generals in the Bunker.)

Sean Gabb: Another Rant about the Recession


Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 179
28th January 2009
Linking url: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc.179

The Car Industry Bail Out:
Are There no Politicians Now Who Understand Economics?
by Sean Gabb

The British Government has just announced what may be £2,000 million of subsidies for the car industry in this country. Responses to the announcement range from gratitude that jobs and manufacturing capacity are to be saved to complaints that the subsidies do not go far enough. My reading and viewing may not be comprehensive, but I have seen nothing in the mainstream media denouncing the subsidies as at best politically motivated – much of the car industry being located in constituencies held by Labour – and at worst economically illiterate. Since the first grounds of denunciation ought, after nearly twelve years of these people, to be self-evident, I will devote myself here to the second.

We are continually told at present – which is somewhat more than usual – how government spending had created, or will create, so many jobs. Therefore, the immense expansion of the British State since 1997 has created three hundred thousand jobs or whatever. Some deplore this because most of those employed can be expected to vote Labour. Hardly anyone denies there has been a net addition to the number of employed. The same reasoning underlies all discussion of how we are to get through the recession on which we have now started.

The truth is, however, that government spending does not so much create as displace employment. Every pound spent by the Government must first be taken from the people, who cannot then spend it for themselves. If the money is taken is taken through taxes, it exactly reduces the ability of the people to spend or invest it for themselves as they wish, or to save it for transfer, via the banking system, for others to spend or invest as they wish. If the money is borrowed, it again exactly reduces the amount of money that the people can borrow to spend or invest.

It is more complex if the money is printed by the Government – or, more likely nowadays, borrowed from the banks in a fractional reserve system. But if its effects are often hard to trace until after the event, inflation is no less a tax than any other means of providing money to governments. It may reduce the actual purchasing power of money left in the hands of the people. Given the downward pressure on manufacturing costs we have seen during the past generation, inflation will at best reduce the potential purchasing power of money that already exists.

This being so, the argument that government spending creates employment relies on a blindness to the concept of opportunity cost – that every pound spent on paying one salary is a pound less to spend on another salary. Put more simply, it is a case of what Bastiat described as “what is seen and what is not seen”. We see the jobs created by the Government in it “regeneration” projects. We do not see the jobs that would otherwise have been created to supply things that people actually would have bought had the money been left in their own pockets.

For the past six months, the argument has been reinforced by the claim that government spending is needed to make up for a disinclination by others to spend or invest. This being so, it will not be a zero sum game, but will create net employment. There is no doubt that there has been a deflation. People are borrowing less and saving more. The banks have been increasing their financial reserves. But it does not follow from this admission that government spending is needed to make up the deficiency. The fall in spending is not the cause of the problems we face, but is a symptom.

For perhaps the past decade, many central banks in the rich world have kept interest rates below the level needed to balance the supply of savings and the demand for loans. When other prices are forced below their equilibrium – rent control, for example – the result is shortages. In the fractional reserve system that we nowadays have, however, pushing interest rates below their equilibrium has simply enabled the commercial banks to create money out of nothing. In the past, this would have led almost at once to price increases. This time, with most consumer goods made in countries where supply curves are very elastic, and with exchange rates only loosely related in the short term to the financing of foreign trade, and with financial and property markets able to absorb what long seemed to be limitless amounts of money, the result was a speculative bubble, in which consumer prices hardly rose, and in which most of us were persuaded that we were growing richer.

These bubbles never last. The new money is brought into being through bank lending that cannot continue forever. There comes a point where people have taken as much debt as they can service, or  where they have invested on the basis of trends that stop rising. It is then that some event that would otherwise have been overlooked becomes the excuse for a panic. The bubble bursts. Net borrowing turns negative. Prices of overbid assets fall. Prices of securities fall to the value of their underlying assets – assuming there are any that can be identified. Much investment in new capacity is shown to have been unwise.

On this reasoning, the present fall in spending is not an event in itself that needs to be and can be cured by higher government spending. What we now have is really part of a cycle that began with the artificial lowering of interest rates, and that will end with the liquidation of the unwise investments and the correction in asset prices. The British Government’s policy of trying to halt the deflation with higher spending and even lower interest rates cannot do better than lengthen the cycle during its unpleasant phase. It also increases the size of the State – which already takes far too much of our money and spends it on things we would never buy given a free choice.

But I return to the bail out of the car industry. This is not a case of limiting collateral damage. The car industry is not a fundamentally sound victim of circumstances. It is instead one of those sectors in which unwise investments were made. There is no shortage of finance for businesses that really are considered sound. Even I still receive one or two pre-approved loan offers from banks I never knew existed. If the car companies cannot borrow to maintain their working capital, it is because no one believes in their fundamental soundness. Even at the height of the boom, it was claimed that there were too many car makers, given present and future demand for cars. There will now be several years when hardly anyone with an ounce of common sense will spend money unless he must on a new car. No one seems to care if estate agents all over the country are losing their jobs. If car workers are now to lose their jobs, it is for the same reason.

Of course, there are things the Government could do and ought to do to help the car industry. These are all negative. For the past twelve years, it has been running propaganda campaigns and piling taxes and regulations that have tended to make driving less attractive than it might otherwise have been. These propaganda campaigns should be ended. The road excise and petrol duties should be cut. The cameras and yellow and red lines should be taken away. The police officers now deployed to harass drivers should be dismissed – there being, in any event, more policemen than needed to enforce the laws of a free country.

I move back now to the general difficulties we face. With increasing desperation, Gordon Brown is denouncing anyone who questions his policy of inflation as wanting to do nothing. Well, doing nothing at all would be an improvement on what he has been doing. However, there are things the Government could do. None of it would take us back straightaway to the prosperity we have lost. But it would shorten and moderate the pain that stands between us and recovery. I suggest the following:

  • The Government should balance its budget – and do so not by increasing taxes, but by spending less. This would tend to restore confidence to markets that are presently working on the assumption of a soft pound, and where default on the national debt is no longer thought impossible.
  • The Government should force all banks that have limited liability to reveal their true financial position. This would not be an interference in their private affairs, as limited liability is a privilege bringing responsibilities that may be varied as thought reasonable. This would again tend to restore confidence, and it would do more than printing money has to persuade the banks to start lending to each other.
  • The Government should return to a fully convertible gold standard. Unless otherwise contracted, it should be regarded as fraud for a banker to take a deposit and not have sufficient reserves to redeem it at once on demand. This would prevent the periodic explosions of credit that are behind the trade cycle.
  • Of course, the Government should also abolish income tax, valued added tax and excise duties. If this does not cut the tax burden by three quarters, it should abolish some other taxes. To keep the budget balanced, it should also cut spending.

I could go on, making more and more claims unlikely ever to be conceded by the British Government or any other. But the first two, plus a few cuts, would go far to shortening the recession. Sadly, even these will not be tried – not at least until the Keynesian remedies everyone wants have been tested to destruction.

Further Reading:

Murray Rothbard, America’s Great Depression
Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Credit Creation or Financial Intermediation?: Fractional-reserve Banking in a Growing Economy

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

The Bristol Brabazon (grand plane, shame about the name)


David Davis

Got this through a hat tip from Landed Underclass, who got it from him here.

A rather beautiful and stately plane I have to say.  Shame about the speed (or er, not.)

Might as well put this on:-

Ahhhhh… climate change truly is irreversible…..


….so we have to act even faster to reverse it….

Er…ummmm?

David Davis

“Celebrity-ness” analysed….


….along with “Politician-ness”, on The Landed Underclass.

David Davis

When “Landed” and I were young fellas, not only did we not know each other but also civilisation did not really contain what we now call “celebrities”. It’s true, there was The King – only briefly in my case – followed by his daughter  The Queen, and her various children who began to appear, and Sir Winston Churchill, and possibly the Queen Mother, but that was about it. Pop singers didn’t really feature in the 50s, they only earned dosh in the rather princely band of about £50 to £100 a week, and probably it was the Beatles in about, er, 1963?…who got most close to celebrity status first.

Politicians, Mr Churchill apart, who we were taught was the greatest man who had ever lived as was indeed correct with the possible exception of Barnes Wallis, were sort of, er, nowhere. They were “men in grey suits”: they were little different from the town’s librarian who stamped your books each week – whom of course nearly everybody knew by sight and name (think about it.) They just went to Parliament, and has “our interests” at heart, for us. They weren’t even paid much either.

On celebrities, their making and their breaking today: one thinks of the Incas – or was it the Mayans? (who cares?) – who sculpted all those gigantic scowling stone heads to show how advanced they were, and who publicly butchered living young men and women in bloody ways on top of very large stone structures built out of whatever was to hand. Celebrities nowadays seem to occupy the same niche, as “the people” serially worship them and then trash them a few years afterward.

The problem that Landed tries to address is why the families and children of politicians and celebrities are going to be _not_ on various “databases” which are to be set up by the State the Stalinists who tyrannise us today, and are to be for our delectation, our security and our enchainment.

Is it that politicians envy the celebrities’ perceived status, power, wealth and ability to have whatever they desire (pace the Mayans or whoever!) and therefore automatically desire the same privileges? Or is it as Old Holborn says Penguin thinks, which is that politicians have been in control of the whole process of viral-mass-idolatry all along?

Are the politicians who enslave us, been Wireless Tele Visually artificially creating phantasmal celebrities out of the fabric of real people, for some years (it coincides with the Diana-Witch-Mania and the subsequent Nationalised-synchro-Grieving-Terror that was commanded to be visited upon us all, and the real rise of the “Hello!” culture too) as a cover for themselves to hide behind, later?

The comment thread which has been allowed on Old Holborn in regard to this specific matter is, I think, vituperative and unhelpful. The State watchers will target blameless white-van-men instead of us as a result. We should approach this strategic matter in an atmosphere of calm and reasoned and cold deliberation.

RAEDWALD added


David Davis

Added here.

Islamic terrorism … India, being the next country to succeed to get out of the Dark Ages, wil be hit.


David Davis

I mean, it’s obvious, isn’t it.

If any country shows signs, from now on, of encompassing liberty, whether economic or social or both, then HIT IT.

Fortunately, India will take some pulling down. We took some good stuff, and over four centuries of trial and error, made it even better.

Then, they will have to go fo China. I don’t fancy their chances there much. But it’s a pity that we’ll have long been anihilated, or worse, and won’t be allowed to view on the interweb their destruction at the hands of the logical Chinese, who will see liberty as better than pre-capitalist desert-warlordian barbarism.

More about banning of Latin in everyday discourse, and British Soviet Stalinists’ attitudes to that


David Davis

Here’s Gerald Warner today. I also flagged up this pretentiously socialist rubbish now going on, a couple of days ago.

Gerald is especially good, and far better than me, about the importance and fundamemtalness of Latin (and by implication other languages from which we have extracted loan-words and grammar) in our language.

I add that the freedom of language underlies also the freedom of thought and (by inference) action, which we libertarians spend so much time banging on about. This publishing house is going great guns in especially Latin: I use their books (this is the Latin link in particular – get them!) to teach with in this language and have helped a couple of students already (it is a slow business, pulling the planet out of the Dark Ages despite the best efforts of ths Stalinists) and they are very traditionally-oriented and very good indeed. Order their stuff please.

Phone them if you want, on 01580 764242. I’m sure they take credit cards.

Additionally, if you are an extreme right-wing-fascist-imperialist-running-dog-of-the-boss-class-toff, and also a member of the Bullingdon, (only stalinists and people who can’t say “shibboleth” call it the “Bullingdon Club” so one knows in a NANOsecond whom to exclude and distrust – it’s like saying “horse-riding” when you mean “riding” on a horse which is the only thing you can do – you can’t ride a sheep, can you) which is to say most libertarians if they are honest about themselves and their political anticedents (liberal-left-lower-class-grammar-school-type-boys-made-good), then you might like Harry Mount’s book.

And here’s Keeley Hazell and Jamie Oliver to entertain you all at dinner tonight…


Welcome …  TO THE KEELEY HAZELL PORTAL OF THE LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE!

Firstly, here is the News: JamieOliveOil talks about the EU common agricultural police:-

And Prodicus puts the BBC in its place, as a dinosaur of the MSM.

WELCOME, again, TO THE KEELEY HAZELL PORTAL OF THE LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE!

Go see this topless video first for it is more fun, and concerns your liberty. It is without top.

And I wonder what she thinks about the crown dependency of Forvik?

UPDATE2:- …for future visitors, say in 2009, the LA is a free-market Classical liberal think-tank and policy institute.  This post below was created for the amusement of our London Conference Dinner on 25th October 2008….

So, now that you’re here, why not stay and mine our unrepeatable archive of interesting Classical-liberal postings? Who knows – you might even end up a liberal yourself. And we do still do Keeley from time to time, for your delight and ours, maybe about every couple of days….

and…The Remittance Man carries, regularly, lots of pictures of girls! Not Keeley Hazell but other pretty unknowns, so be the first!

UPDATE:- ….and we even talk about other stuff on this post, more recently, as well as a couple of other pix of her

David Davis

This fairly pleasant-looking young woman seems to have brought several hundred hits to the bolg, merely by tamely repeating “I’m saving the planet” mantras on Sky news. Astounding really, since we are just a think-tank, and we don’t even agree with her with the people who have told her what to say.

And, she’s even from Bromley. Just down the road really. Marilyn Monroe, you are nowhere, stop hanging out with the corrupt, grasping, self-centred Kennedys, and get a life.

As this is a family blog, read by women and children too, ladies don’t take off their bras in front of people they don’t know:-

No, it stays on...

No, it stays on...

Hands up all those who think it’s deliberate


David Davis

I return to my pererennial hobby-horse regarding the need for a Libertarian Nation (and one or more such ought to be able to exist) to be – at least initially – heavily armed and defendable.

I think that Men would fight for such an entity, freely. Today’s difficulty for the UK (which is currently anything but libertarian and is rapidly descending into the cesspit of Police-Stateness) is that

(a) We taught the world how to live and to rise out of the slough of tyranny towards individual liberty under a system of impersonal Law,

(b) We need to be punished for it, by the fascist left,

(c) This punishment needs to be public and exemplary,

(d) No chance of exerting any pressure on overseas tyrants, nor of there being any armed forces which might conceivably oppose the above plan from a moral Western civilisational standpoint, can be allowed.

Regular readers of course know to what extent Sean Gabb and I disagree, mostly on entirely cordial terms, about the objectives or need for Britain to be involved in foreign wars and expeditions: these are mostly on behalf of other people, always far away and for those people of whom “we know little or nothing”. Now, if such an ideal libertarian state was to exist, discussion would need to be had about the extent to which it would need to “make the world safe for libertarianism”.

I for one firmly believe that it would come under direct attack from day zero. this might or might not be a straight assault: It is more llijely to be cowardly nibbling, by force, at its overseas commerce. We have already had two sharp lessons about this particular one in the past 100 years alone.

Obvious candidates would be the USSR Russia (as it stands today). I am not sure that places such as Iran (until liberated) and Venezuela would be far behind. I can envisage, too, a congeries of African “nations”, collectively whipped more or less violently (and with the active assistance of the United Nations) by people like the fascist pig Mugabe, and Thabo whatsisname or whoever is currently wielding the weapons in South Africa.

All this makes a credible Blue-Water-Navy, well-backed by air power, and able to transport at need a fairly small but highly-techologically-competent Army, anywhere on the globe within preferably 8 to 12 hours. The point that would need to be made is not just size of response but rapidity – the news Media of the Enemy Class both at home and anywhere overseas do work fast themselves: they would need to be swamped with “breaking news” which is breaking against them rapidly, and moves the jabbering buggers further down their own windpipes and out down through their own arses and into the pot, before they can spin it.

Space-based weaponry and surveillance are an obvious need….cue Tony H!

Libertarian Alliance 2008 Conference, London. Places still available!


Sean Gabb

As we are all busy trying to keep up with the depredations of Gordon Brown’s (or anyone else’s for that matter) government, this is Just a reminder about the Libertarian Alliance conference this
coming 25-26 October, at the National Liberal Club in London.

This will be perhaps the best event of its kind in many years. We have,
among others,

Aubrey de Grey on life extension,

Hans-Hermann Hoppe on the
Law, and

David Friedman on the future of liberty.

You can see the full brochure, and reserve your place, by going here:

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/conferences/conf08brochure.htm

On a separate matter, I notice that yesterday – the 30th September – was the
70th anniversary of the Munich Agreement. I think there is much to be
said for Neville Chamberlain.

You can read my thoughts on the matter here:

http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc099.htm
There is even a blog-like facility here

for you to express your disagreement.

Oh, and I have added a random article button to my website. Go here, and
you can find any one of the hundreds of articles written by me during the
past few decades:

http://www.seangabb.co.uk/random.htm

Hit the back button in Internet Explorer, and you can get something else
and so on. Just like on the Libertarian Alliance website as you are all doubtless aware…

Sean Gabb was right after all!


David Davis

Even the crypto-lefty John le-Carré now thinks there is a case for thinking that the “anti-terror” “laws” might be an excuse for a police-state.

I’m sure that the PM will say something about “protecting and supporting the British People against terrorism” (or against bust banks) in his speech later.

I caught that rather strange object “Jacqui” “Smith”, quite accidentally, on the Wireless Tele Vision Machinery, this morning. It (the “Jaqcqui” (?) “Smith”  (I can’t often spell “Jacqui” easily these days, there are so few of them) ) was mouthing something about “supporting the British People through a difficult time and supporting the Prime Minister while he “gets on with the job” “. All I was trying to do was change channels to “CeeBee-Bies”, for our littlest boy. And I got “ministers”…oh well.)

There is no point to be a libertarian, if there is nowhere to be a libertarian in.


David Davis (as if you had not guessed.)

Read John Bolton here.

Better to be dead that red “socialised”.

The interesting thing about the British “Labour” “Party”.


David Davis

The British Labouring-Party wants socialism: its credentials are fine in that regard, for they scoop money from poor-people via “tax-ation”, to be used by themselves. It is after all what socialists are for, and what they have always been for. Just look at the murdering pig Castro, and the other modern murderer Saddam Hussein. Hitler and Stalin were no different. No were the pigs Pol Pot and some robot called “ho chi Mhinh”, nor Mao and Brzhezhniev.

But now it’s faced with a real “di”-”lemma”. (Two problems at once.) It wants to stay in power, so it must get rid of Gordon Brown, or esle its Gauleiters in Westmonster will be out of their jobs at the next election, with nowhere to go since they are institutionally-unemployable. Or, if they wait till then, they’ll go down as a crowd who put in two (or more?) PMs without an election.

Their problem is their lack of Terror-Police. Now, I grant you, they’ve tried hard to instil the terror-factor in the present lot of Fuzz, but in a still-functioning liberal democracy it’s hard to make the Met look quite like the Gestapo or the KGB, even when their squads get to shoot blameless Brazilian electricians and be paid for it.

Labour can’t get out of this jam, for they have not got round, early enough as Lenin and Mao and Castro their friends did, to fixing the opposition via police terror early enough after 1997. They did try but it was too little and too late. Perhaps they thought we were all asleep and it would not be necessary (mostly true I’m afraid.)

They either have to dump an (admittedly inadequate) unlected PM and put in another (unelcted one), which ought to trigger an election which they will lose, or else they have to go on with ths one, who will lose the next election anyway (barring serious accidents.)

What a sad, sad pass for poor socialists, so right as they are, so moral and caring as they are, so correct and so messianically-driven for the common good as they are – to come to.

They are going to get thrown out, again, in a fair fight – as always is the case when one is offered. It’s tru: when people are offered socialism in a free and fair set of choices, they always reject it. So there’s hope, but the big battalions of PR firepower are still on the enemy’s side. 

ITEM:

I can’t blog as much in future. Never mind, for others will take my place, I am working on that matter. Libertarian blogging sadly comes between me and my family, not just in time matters but opinion ones also. It’s called “saving the f*****g world.”

I shall continue to blog when people are not looking. Posts may not be every day.

Report on Property and Freedom Society Conference in Bodrum


Sean Gabb

http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc173.htm
Free Life Commentary
,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 173
4th July 2008

The Third Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society,
Bodrum, May 2008:
A Brief Record
by Sean Gabb

I dreamed last night of the Hotel Karia Princess in Bodrum. I do this perhaps once a week. Last night, though, the dream was unusually vivid. I was walking down the stone steps from the Migros supermarket, a bag in each hand. On my left, at the foot of the step, the taxi drivers were gossiping loud in Turkish and chain smoking. The sun beat down on me from overhead. I could smell the dust of the road and of the aromatic plants all around. Directly across the road, the Hotel shimmered vast and white.

I cannot remember going in through the revolving doors into the cool, marble interior. But as I write, I can imagine the smiles of the reception staff, and the endless loop of the Third Movement of Mozart�s Jupiter Symphony, and being called over by Paul Gottfried checking his e-mail, or Justin Raimondo, or by one of the semi-permanent German guests.

It is now two years since my first conference there with the Property and Freedom Society. I got the e-mailed invitation out of the blue from Hans-Hermann Hoppe. How he found me and why he wanted me I have never thought to ask him. But his conference was set to happen in the middle of my summer term, and I was minded at first to send a polite refusal. But I discussed it with Chris Tame as he sat in his hospital bed waiting for death.

“You�ve got to go, Sean” he had said, looking up from the list of attendees. “Whatever people say about him—and, let’s face it, all his enemies are envious windf*ck*rs who don’t like us either—Hoppe is the Big Man of the Movement. Now Rothbard is gone, he�s it.” He brushed aside my whines about teaching commitments, and sent me off to book my ticket.

And so, just over two years ago—after a journey that involved the failed theft of my wallet at Heathrow, and a most civilised encounter with a Turkish customs official who found Chris� Swiss Army knife in my camera bag: the Heathrow machines had failed to spot that!—I found myself sat with Hans beside the Hotel swimming pool, sipping chemical cola and discussing the failed war in Iraq.

Since I wrote at some length about the first Property and Freedom Society Conference, I will avoid repeating myself. But I was back for the second—this time with Mrs Gabb. And I wrote about that one too. This year, I was back for the third—this time not just with Mrs Gabb, but also with the Baby Bear.

And it was an astonishingly good time. I will try not to say more than I already have about the Hotel, beyond that it is the sort of place you read about in novels or—always with nostalgia for what is long past—in the memoirs of people who are or soon will be dead. Bodrum can be a hectic place come June. As the temperature goes about the hundred mark, so the population rises from 30,000 Turks to around two million tourists. Within the Hotel, though, all is quiet; all is ordered; all is, without ostentation, civilised.

The Turkish State, sad to say, had this year decided to flash its European credentials by forbidding smoking in enclosed public spaces. And, to my surprise, the police were showing a certain zeal in enforcing the ban. But when you are used to lighting up outside in the high thirties and the pouring rain of London at any time of year, stepping out into the gardens for a cigarette is hardly worth a moan.

It may be the venue—though I doubt it—but I do believe the Property and Freedom Society is an indispensable part of what Americans call the paleo-libertarian movement. If you think libertarianism is defined by wanting to privatise the paving stones while mouthing politically correct platitudes, these gatherings are not for you. These conferences provide a time and a place where nothing is off limits. There are no forbidden subjects, no polite suggestions that whatever is being loudly debated over dinner by the swimming pool might be “inappropriate”. The only rule is the obvious one—that you listen to the other side before making reply.

These are conferences where social conservatives sit down with anarcho-libertarians, where Czechs and Chinese discuss where history went wrong, where English is the preferred language, but a knowledge of half a dozen other languages will frequently come in handy.

They are also conferences useful for what everyone nowadays describes blandly as networking, but what the old Marxists, with a more sinister and accurate turn of phrase, called “cadre building”. It is in Bodrum, every May, that the connections and ideas that will be the future of the libertarian movement are first to be perceived.

I will not bother summarising the actual conference speeches. This year, I made video recordings of everything, and have already uploaded it all to Google Video. Of all the sessions, though, I think most people enjoyed the debate over Ron Paul and what he means to the wider Movement outside America—particularly within Europe. Justin Raimondo and Robert Groezinger were particularly eloquent on this.

My own favourite speech was John Lott on guns.  I live in a country, where gun ownership has been made into a crime except for the police and the very rich, and where being caught with a peashooter will probably soon carry the same prison sentence as rape. I liked the relentless piling up of cases and the statistical analyses. I will use them myself the next time I go on television to talk about guns. Should I also say that, however degraded it may have become, I am part of a culture that has more respect for proven fact than for elegant hypotheses?

Hans was profound on the nature of the State. Paul Gottfried was at his venomous best about the roots in American Protestantism of political correctness. Mustafa Akyol and Peter Mentzel were interesting on Turkish and late Ottoman history. I was quite good on the nature of financial markets in the ancient world. But, as said, all the speeches are recorded, and—allowances being made for the air conditioning and the public address system—are pretty well recorded.

Let me return to the cadre building. I knew we were in for a good conference when Paul Gottfried walked into the hotel lobby, his bags carried behind him. He threw a benevolent glance at the Baby Bear and then demanded of me the aorist of χαίρω.

Εχαίρα? Εχαίρον?” I hazarded. He gave a contemptuous sniff that I really should investigate, and asked if I could help him connect to the Internet. Over dinner, he went into full flow—in two languages denouncing the Germans for their gutless historical masochism. Perhaps they were to blame for 1939: it is at least arguable. But 1914? he sneered. That was at most a no fault car crash. And some Germans are even blaming themselves for 1870!

Then there was Justin Raimondo. I first discovered his writings during the Iraq War, when large stretches of the British and American libertarian movements had come together and agreed what fine things maiming and killing and torturing were when called “assisted regime change”. It was good to find someone even more forthright in his condemnation than I was of the neo-imperialist project. I rather envied the fear and loathing I discovered he could inspire in all the right people. I greatly admired his biography of Murray Rothbard—it is a model of how to summarise and judge the life of a turbulent intellectual. Now we were together in Bodrum, there was all the time in the world for getting to know each other, and for argument and debate.

Narrating all that we covered in ten days as we puffed away in the open would take a short novel. But one recurring argument was over the coming Presidential elections in America. Justin supports Barak Obama, which is fair enough, bearing in mind the only alternatives at the time were a geriatric warmonger and a venomous old harpy. But he also believed Mr Obama could win. I accept I know little of America, but I was unable to agree. “Whatever they tell the pollsters” I kept insisting, “the American people will not vote in sufficient numbers to elect a black man as President. Our only hope of avoiding war with Iran is for the money to run out in Washington.”

Another discussion that stays prominent in my memory is towards the end of the conference. It was late, and there just a few of us sat at a table beside the swimming pool with G�l�in Imre, the owner of the Hotel—since last year, she has been G�l�in Hoppe. After a general conversation, we focussed on happiness. Rather, we focussed on why so many people in the rich world appear to be unhappy. Most people no longer die at absurdly young ages. Most people do not bury half their children cough and sweat their way to early graves. We all have enough to eat. We have soap and water and warm clothes. We have an endless succession of shiny electronic toys to divert us. In another decade or so, what we have now will doubtless seem as inadequate as MSDOS and video cassettes now do to us. But we already live in something approximating the utopia of the early twentieth century science fiction writers.

So why so much unhappiness? Why are the streets of every Western city teeming with plainly bored and aimless sheep of every age and condition? Was it always this way? We agreed that it probably was not. Most of us were old enough to remember a time when there seemed to be more quiet contentment, even though there was much less in the material sense to be contented with.

No one thought to raise the silly old argument that wealth and happiness are and must be inversely related. I can understand that the rich have generally tried to impose, and the poor have too often taken comfort in, the belief that three meals a day and the chance of living past thirty five are to be pitied rather then envied. But I see no reason whatever for sharing the belief. Certainly, some of the people round that table were rather well off, and were not obviously unhappy. Speaking for myself, I have been moderately embarrassed in the financial sense, and moderately comfortable; and I know which state for me is more conducive to happiness.

We did briefly touch on whether mass enrichment has been accompanied by a loss of freedom and of identity. Very few people may want to do any of the things that have been banned over the past century. But everyone is in some sense aware of the immense structures of guardianship that shapes our lives. And everyone to some extent has noticed the rise of a new and utterly malevolent ruling class, that enriches and privileges itself behind a palisade of words about “equality” and “diversity” and “tolerance”.

What more interested us, however, was whether happiness in the long term is not so much about bodily pleasures and material consumption as about being able to follow some self-chosen mission. What mission each person might choose will depend on his inclinations and general abilities. For one, it might be bringing up children in a respectable family home, or building a successful business. For another, it might be collecting classifying every species of butterfly in the Falkland Islands. For someone else, it might be understanding and opposing the ambitions of our new ruling class. Whatever mission is chosen, it gives meaning to life. Anything short of catastrophic failure gives some protection against becoming just another of those depressed, apathetic sheep in the street.

Nothing novel here, of course. But it was a good conversation, in good company. And it was a conversation this part of the world must have heard many times before. The cities of Asia Minor seem to have been places where Epicurus and his philosophy were always particularly honoured.

Yes, it always for me comes back to the ancient world. Modern Turkey, the Ottoman Empire and Byzantium all have much to commend them. But I can never go to the Mediterranean without feeling the endlessly renewed thrill of realisation that it was here where the human race went through the first of its two great enlightenments; and that this particular enlightenment was wholly spontaneous. Miletus, the birthplace of scientific rationalism, is just a drive up the coast. Cos is a ferry ride away. Barely anything remains in modern Bodrum of Halicarnassus. But you can stand on the beach at sunrise, and ask if it was here that Herodotus once stood, looking out to sea and wondering what lay beyond the horizon….

There is much else I could mention about the conference and its attendant comforts—the belly dancers, the boat trips, the visit to Ephesus, and the opportunity for sitting down with intelligent Turks to discuss what it is really like to live in the most dynamic and interesting country in the whole Mediterranean. But I will not do more than mention these things. If you are really interested, contact Professor Hoppe, and try to find out for yourself.

And so, for the third time running, I commend the Bodrum conference of the Property and Freedom Society. Any libertarian or conservative who has not managed to secure an invitation at least once is very much to be pitied.

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

David Davis is returned as MP in Haltemprice and Howden


David Davis (not that one)

The Barclay Bugle has the main report here.  Interestingly, there are other repercussions: the Tories recognise the ball-and-chain that Davis has put round their ankles on this one. And here’s Philip Johnston, always a sound read.

Notice how the lefties are all wailing that the by-election “cost £200,000 to the taxpayer”. Talk about the Pot Calling The Kettle Black…. I bet Ken Livingstone’s wie-store in his office was  more than that, and we could have had a new ballistic-missile sub for only 10,000 times as much, or else a couple of mine-proof, IED-proof vehicles in Afghanistan, for only the basic 200-grand!

On a lighter note, I wonder how Labour’s fire-sale went last night? Or was it cancelled as nobody would turn up?

IRAQ. Help, we’re winning! Don’t mention the War! (I always found “Fawlty Towers” very unfunny, didn’t you also?)


This is going to be about Iraq, but I have to get this off my chest, as I borrowed part of the headline from a major 1970s/80s British TV series…..

Did anybody find “Fawlty Towers” (don’t mention the war!) as excruciating, embarrassing and unfunny, in the way only John Cleese can be unfunny, as I did? Please discuss, for I need help, and I feel so terribly, terribly left out of something clearly very universal here where “British” modern humour is concerned. Even though he drove a Rover 2000, I can’t love the man or especially his humour. (Perhaps, tell it not in Gath, I’m not really a libertarian….? Not THAT sort, anyway…? ….[YOU know!...he DOESN'T LAUGH at MONTY PYTHON STUFF.......!!!] )

And I found “Life of Brian” even worse – possibly I was offended to religious reasons, but I watched in in the company of several “English Old Catholics” who all found it an uproarious hoot, and I was frankly mystified.

David Davis

Now then.

I have been wondering quietly over the last couple of weeks and months about Iraq. As everybody here knows, I have never ever failed to oppose, often vociferously, those who said we (which is to say “The West”, which is to say in practice, Britain and our assistant the USA, plus any Anglosphere nations such as Poland who wanted to come along) had no business there.

The probability that, providing whichever Gramsco-Marxian succeeds Bush as our President in 2009 pursues what Petraeus has been doing, Iraq will finally succeed as a project, is high. this was noted today on Kerplunk, a sensible Australian blog. While the main point of the post was about the “West’s” mediarati dis-reporting success in Iraq, the blogger also wondered why the “left” don’t want people to be successful and free. Well, they’d have no job, and would have to break stones or fill shleves like proper people do, as I opined there:-

First of all, thank you for a sensible and grand blog. I have always particularly admired your “Ten Signs that you’re a Moral idiot” essay. It ought to be resyndicated lots.

The left does not want nations, any nations at all, to be successful and free. Why?

Because the very fact of freedom, coupled with success or even relative failure – and most nations fail, just like people – utterly negates any premise that the left (Nazis or other types of left-wing-communists, or “Trotzky-ists” (whatever those may have been) Marxists, Maoists, Polpotists, Sartristas and the like) has any reason for existence, other than in “public-sector” jobs as a bureaucracy.

This latter loophole is the only way they can get “gainful” (yay!) “employment” inside “advanced” (which is broadly to say, liberal capitalist) nations which are peculiarly resistent happily to armed or subversive revolution on the Leninist model.

The “left” is not Mankind’s solution: it is the problem, and the main problem. The uncomputable number of deaths and individual sorrow, which it and its musings have caused, is probably water under a bridge by now…but the scenario in former Warsaw Pact countries now liberated – after a fashion – from pre-capitlist barbarism, shows what can be done with little, even half-heartedly, in a very little time.

No. The “left” does not want you – or anybody – to be lifted out of atavistic misery and servility to barbarous, unsocialised beasts masquerading as human beings. Once everybody is free, and has no need to listen to the buggers, they are f****d. Terminally. Good.

That is why they are so, so very very pissed off about Iraq and the results.

Libertarian Alliance Quote of the Day … from Angry Political Optimist…


…who is one of the Twelve Angry Men:- ( this is just their homepage – see the link below for the post-subject.)

Is America perfect? — Hell no. And everyone in the world understands that. What makes America unique is its optimism that one person can change the world — that one person, working from nothing can become rich and influencial. For all the rhetoric and venom cast at America, when people of the world want that chance to succeed, they head for the United States. Do they succeed? Not many of them, but they understand that also. Any chance is better than the no chance they have where they are.

David Davis

You can read the whole of their fun, uplifting post here.

I’d love to know who “Angry Biologist” is.

American mass culture is a force for good in this world …


… But would you miss “Starbucks”?

David Davis

I have to confess something: I have just had to have it explained to me what a “Starbucks” is, and what a “Latte” is also. (I thought it was pronouced “LATT” and was slang for a lavatory…as in “They never use the lats, they do it in our hats, thank God we’re not the P.B.I*…!!!)

Whatever is happening to Starbucks, the point is that:-

(1) The USA, through the benign influence of the Anglosphere and freedom of communication and trade (mostly) has been the father of mass cultural and brand identities which give happiness and daily solace to chiefly poor-people who have no time for, or have been deprived of (through the deliberate devices of Fabians, vulgar-leftists and other Nazis) otherwise available opportunities to learn about such things as “high culture and high art”.

Here are some examples:-

Ford cars. Western pop-music (whatever you say about the Beatles/Stones/Shadows/all other Brits etc, the USA invented it. Coca-Cola (and Pepsi). MacDonald’s. Burger King. KFC. Hollywood movies (without the new-lefty-slant, from now on, please!) Jazz. Colour television (HOW long did it take the Booby-See and ITV to get it going here?) We could all name more.

(2) By contrast, the rest of the world with the chief exception of Britain, plus a few laggard European hangers-on, has contributed close to f***-all. What mass-popular, mass-cultural, all-uniting concept, that is freely-available via the market, has been exported from …. Saudi-Arabia? Or …. Russia?

Never mind about Starbucks: I didn’t even know what one was. But when we see MacDonald’s outlets closing, it truly will be a cultural bad sign.

*”Poor Bloody Infantry”

www.daviddavisforfreedom.com launches tomorrow, 17th June 2008


Bookmark it. Tip from Guido Fawkes.

http://www.daviddavisforfreedom.com/

(This is our 700th post.)

ITEM:- On David Davis’s Facebook proifle, it says “David Davis has no friends.” Can we all do somthing about this please?

 

David Davis: and here’s the BBC


David Davis

here… Well, there you are. I expect this will be all over the MSM tomorrow morning, if not already.

If Zanu-Laborg do not field a candidate against him (nobody else who matters, the Lib Dems, BNP, UKIP etc, will do so) then it does not say much for Brown’s and their reslove and belief in what they have done. I am particularly peeved that Brown had to buy the support of nine scratchy disaffected Ulster Prods (right as these guys may have been about the fascist pigs of the IRA in the past) to get his measure through. I wonder what he promised the buggers? Money? No, too simple, and he has none anyway, so it must be something else.

Now for bed.

DAVID DAVIS (the shadow home secretary, not me!) resigns in protest over “42 days” detention scammed in by British Soviet guvmint via shady deal with 9 disaffected N-I “prods”)


David Davis (No, I’m not the shadow home secretary!)

Sky news has it here. For overseas readers, he’s resigning to force a by-election to test public opinion about this nazi government’s plans to detain “terrorist suspects” for up to 42 days before having to charge or release them.

It’ll be interesting to see whether he wins back again. Polls indicate a large majority of British in favour of “42 days”, which is disturbing. See my article about MAGNA CARTA of yesterday, a little way down. I’m running if Firefox right now as explorer got attacked again ten minutes ago and I can’t link up yet, sorry. (I’ve done it now, so Ok.)

Sadly, Crewe-and-Nantwich is not the end of socialism in Britain, let alone the World. The British still need to have their noses rubbed in the ordure of collectivism, once every 10 years, but…


Guido has an interesting take.

David Davis

The question tonight is: “Have the voters of Crewe/Nantwich actually voted against _socialism_ (which, for new readers, is a barbarian/pre-capitalist lethal killing-blight on the face of Western Civilisation, under which mankind will be doomed to Universal Extinction in Time, and therefore the Universe will end its Life dead, as an Extinguished Object) or have they merely voted against Gordon Brown and “new” “Labour”? Not of course the same thing at all!

I think the latter.

There is still no hope, really, for a “Sea Change” – whatever one of those things is. The problem with the British is that, being as we are a good people, we feel that we ought to get our noses rubbed in Stalinisto-Nazi shite every 10 or 20 years or so, as a sort of penance for having worked hard to achieve a better life in the meantime, for ourselves and – more importantly - as a beacon to others.

So here you go…

1906…we have just (1901) expensively saved Africa and all its then-existing and subsequent peoples from the Devil, and we go and elect an administration at home, which proposes that the State ought to do more stuff. Madness.

1922…we have just (even more expensively, and we are actually bust) saved the whole world form the Devil, and we go and eletc a Labour Government. Madness. Thankfully it falls down.

1945…we have just, all over again (because nobody listened to Haig about the Armistice and Versailles) re-saved the whole world from the same Devil, and we go and fire the man who got victory, and elect a … Labour Government. Madness. (My father, a returning soldier in 1945, from Burma, confessed to me that “well, son, we were told, and thought, that we were voting for a Brave New World”. His words, not mine.)

1964…Sex has just been invented the year before by Kenneth Tynan, just a few days too late to save John Profumo (if I was an adult in 1963, I’d have PAID to shag Christine Keeler, but the lucky bastard got her for free it seems – this phrase is to be used to check if people read this blog or not) and we elect a Labour Government. Madness.

1964-1979…Labour continues in power for 15 years under various socialist PMs including Ted Heath. Madness.

1990…The British find even slight success to be a bit tiring and hard-going, and want a rest, so liberalism gets shafted and Labour gets in again under John Major. Madness.

1997…the British elect another socialist: a real leftie, who is cleverly pretending to be a-Conservative-pretending-to-be-a leftie. Under him, this clever man Blair, Britain is turned into a Police State, so all you are allowed to vote for now is lefties. Madness.

2007…Britain is provided with a real-leftie-pretending-to-be-a-leftie-who-is-at-heart-a-Conservative, but pretends to see through the disguise, so he flops. Still madness, though.

Until we get this bug out of our system, the trait that makes us want to think we want to help the “underdog” and that this can only be done – importantly in this belief - by a Big State doing Big Things, we will never break out of the eternal cycle of “socialism followed by a little breathing space before the next round of socialism”.

No, I don’t think the war is over, it’s only one election, the Nazis played the “toff” card and lost, and they won’t do it again as it was a bummer. The bastards want us dead, or at least they want our civilisation and culture dead, and they are part-way-there. They won’t stop now.

The Conservatives are not going to make any real change in the strategic battle-lines of this conflict, so perhaps we should have hopes for a Libertarian Party.

For me, I would like to see socialism, all its historiography, all its literature, all its works, and all its Utopian ideas, actually expunged, erazed, deleted and “washed with bleach”, as far as Mankind is concerned. We can’t bring back the killed humans of course, nor can we free all the slaves, either retrospectively or even today for the millions still enslaved in oil-producing-countries (and others, less endowed) which I cannot name for libel reasons. That is the tragedy. The lost time, and the lost wealth? We will just have to stand it, and try, try to make it all up, somehow, in the fullness of deep future time, if there is enough.

But a grand collective apology, from the non-English-Speaking-World, to the Anglosphere, and in particular England, for unilaterally declaring slavery illegal in 1807, and prosecuting slavers unilaterally thereafter, would be in order. I shall not demand 235 trillion dollars, just an apology. (This was not about slavery at first, but then I shafted the plot by talking about socialism. Ha Ha.) 

Oh, and look at this about Gordon Ramsay (posted about yesterday.)


This is what we said yesterday.

David Davis

Here in the Guardian some new stuff about his antics and “leger-de-main” about “ingredients” “sourcing”. (Great newspaper, the Guardian, often but not always. how can it be so socialist, and yet so self-examining?)

Telechefs are cooks. Cooks may be great and marvellously skilled individuals, and probably mostly are. I do not know. But if they choose to cook for money, they then ought to show humility towards the people which pay them, and not the other way around.

I blame “wireless tele vision” [that's what it really is] , currently being used as an instrument of mental control by stalinist guvmints, including this one.

 

 

Is Libertarianism inseparable from the cause of upholding the British Nation? Roderick Moore writes a re-appraisal of British History…


…on a Grand Canvas. I personally agree with him.

Libertarian Alliance Showcase Publication No 1:

David Davis

Here’s how he begins. Readers will be familiar with the Gramscian deconstruction of (especially) British history, for nefarious and anti-liberal purposes.

Please remember that Moore was writing in 2001, and matters have moved much, much further down into the cesspit, as indeed he predicted:-

In the next few years, the debate about Britain’s membership of

the European Union is likely to intensify, as Euroscepticism gradually

grows in strength and the Eurofanatics start getting desperate.

It would be wise for us to anticipate the kind of arguments

that the Eurofanatics are likely to use against us, and prepare our

defences.

 

 

Their main propaganda tactic will probably be to attempt

to destroy our morale by persuading us that Britain is not

worth fighting for, because we have got nothing to be proud of in

our history and everything to be ashamed of – in other words,

they will step up the smear campaign against Britain which the

Guardian-reading intellectual elite have already been waging for

the last forty years.

 

 

As Oliver Cromwell once said, a good soldier should know what

he is fighting for and love what he knows. That also applies to

the war of ideas. Before we can regain our national independence,

we have to regain our national pride, and before we

can regain our national pride, we have to rescue our history from

the smears and distortions of the socialist intellectual establishment.

 

 

This essay is intended to be a small step towards that

goal. In it, I propose to examine some of the most important

events in British history and attempt to vindicate our reputation as

a nation.

 

THE BRITISH EMPIRE

 

“Perhaps the noblest task of the popular historian should be

to make us ashamed of our forefathers … now that the hilarious

residue of the White Man’s Burden has been chased

out of the reading books of schoolboys.”

(Dennis Potter, 1967. Quoted in James 1994, p. 602)

Dennis Potter was one of the few men in Britain who could use

more words than Neil Kinnock to say even less…..

 

…….so read more here:-

 

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/histn/histn039.pdf

 

A half-hour trip into any British State secondary school, by which age the child-inmates are thoroughly deconstructed historically, will confrim the truth of what he says.

We were complimented the other day on some poetry we published (not ours!) So here’s some more, also not ours.


David Davis

I have no clue who wrote this (it wasn’t one of us, I just found it saved on here somewhere) but I believe it to be recent, that is to say, inside the time of the current interregnum between the full demise of the UK and the full rise of the Fourth Reich. It’s author is probably “Ethnic English”, and may have some slight historical knowledge of folk-lore, predating the current British State-directed Schools History Syllabus.

The rhythm of the scanning is really quite wonderful, if you say it properly. It brings back memories of the olden-times, when the proper appreciation of poetry was also believed to contain an understanding of mathematics and, er, all that other stuff that is now not taught. No wonder that britain’s modern schoolchildren, in especial boys, have neither the understanding nor the will to encompass grand, polemical English.

It has, so far as I am aware, no title:-

 

Arrow of Agincourt! War-axe of Hastings!

Grey-Goose-feather’d Bodkin thro’ armour and bone!

Shall we of such forefathers be but as playthings?

Meekly accepting the crumbs that are thrown?

(See CHORUS below for every verse if wanted)

 

 

They fasten upon us their fetters of paper

and bind us in chains of their Treaty of Rome….

They claim us as vassals! By pen of foul traitor

rule over the Land that our Fathers call home.

 

 

Rise, Yeomen’s fury! Come, Seawolves in Longships!

Let us fling to the skies the fierce Viking “Ahoy”!

Scream fierce the wild Pibroch! Sing loud Men of Harlech!

O these are the mem’ries they cannot destroy!

 

 

By guile they would flail us, who could not assail us

but reeled from the steel of the Eorl and the Gael!

Shall we bow to such masters? Across our bright waters

yet guarding our freedom? Our Moat without fail?

 

 

Can paper bonds bind e’er the strong limbs of giants?

Can traitors or treaties make warriors tame?

Let us cast off their bonds like the mists of the morning!……

 

 

CHORUS:-

In the Roar of the Lion, the leap of the Leopard

the Truth Will Prevail! And our Freedom Proclaim!

 

(These last two lines can be sung or shouted, double-speed, after every verse if desired.

A quantity of beer is also required to be provided as this is a friendly and benign song, to be shared in the company of mates, such as in the Pub.)

Tomorrow is St George’s Day. In the twilight of nations, it’s good to think on what we’ve done and could do.


David Davis

I would like “England” to be an idea. Really. It is so good and so right, so inevitable if you take to its logical conclusion the philosophy of Natural Rights together with ordinary conservatism, which is to say “liberalism” (our definition, not the Democrats’) which is what humans do when left alone to get on with stuff that needs to get done. 

We ought to be so deeply proud of what we (really) are and what we have done, and can still do, that the entire world of all human beings ought to be given the chance to be part of it.

We nearly did it, so very nearly. This was the closest that Man got to “take-off”, ever. (Read Paul Johnson’s “Enemies of Society“.) The British Empires (the Second one, ended 1776, and the Third one, possibly still alive?), the latter originally meant to be run by a man and a couple of boys just out of Oxbridge, did more good, to more people, for less loss of life per billion people per unit time, than any other human institution – and it wasn’t even planned.

The great truth that England – the UK, whatever’s your bacon here – is an idea, is behind the last 60 years’ institutionalised destruction, by Marxo-Gramscians including tragically many, many native ones, of whatever can be dubbed an “English” (or even British?) icon, custom, saying, object, word, or place (such as Southern Rhodesia) or even a joke.

Never, never underestimate your enemy. If he is this thing, then he has probably realised that you are so right that he has to Invoke the Devil in order to destroy you. All the evidence points to the fact that this civilisation to which we belong, and to which we gave birth, engenders hate in pre-barbarian-blood-ridden competitors that is out of all proportion to our size, population, and age.

Long Live St George, whoever he might have been.