Could Mandelson be describing Stalin?

David Davis

Truly, Lord Rumba of Rio wins the circumlocution Grand Challenge Cup 2010, for this statement as part of a defence of his boss puppet Gordon Brown.

‘He is demanding of himself, he is demanding of people around him, he knows what he wants to do, he does not like taking no for an answer from anyone, he will go on and on until he has got a policy and an idea in the best possible form which he can then roll out.”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1252584/Gordon-bully-claims-Mandelson-PM-accused-abusing-Downing-Street-staff.html#ixzz0gCeEuD06

Truly, also, we The People are just a “human resource”, upon whose supine canvas “policies and ideas can be rolled out”.

Friday Night is Music Night: tomorrow, Dresden…

And “now”, as that not-very-nice-man John Cleese always used to say… “for something completely different.” Tomorrow if I am not mistaken is the 65th anniversary of the raids by RAF Bomber Command and the USAAF on Dresden, for which the poor Western Allies (unlike Stalin who demanded them) got to carry the can, and got to be made to feel really shitty and ruthless and cruel, for six decades and more. We can by now probably all agree that this actual raid was not strictly necessary:  the war was effectively over, apart from clearing up the already-ample rubble, burying the corpses, trying and sentencing the villains, re-connecting up the Mains Services across Europe, and getting a functioning Market Economy running again.

But Stalin, bless the evil little bugger, wanted and demanded a show of “shock and awe”, loosely coupled to a less-than-needful wish of his Armies to have all enemy comms in front of them obliterated. He couldn’t range artillery that far  – be there ever so many Soviet “Artillery Divisions” (which there were) -  and his air force never quite had the heavy-lifting capacity ours did. So he got what he wanted: Roosevelt the scoundrel loved him anyway, and nobody was listening to poor old Churchill by then. The ally that bought the time in the first place, to form a coalition of allies, was by then regarded as the least important, and moribund, with a crumbling Empire to boot.

The result was the consigning down-the-memory-hole of chaps like this one in the video below. There has never even been a campaign medal for RAF Bomber Command, which suffered about 48% fatal casualties, around 56,000 men – a higher percentage even than the Merchant Navy.

Tony_Iveson_LancasterBomber-3-271008

►

The whole sorry episode should be a real object lesson to peoples who have some vestigial abillity to appoint and dismiss their governments.

You people all around and around, including us here, ought to be bloody careful who you vote for – you might get tyrannical psychotic murdering messianinc megalomaniacs, masquerading as caring liberal social democrats. I’m not saying quite out loud that Obama is one of that crowd, but you Americans who come and watch this page should tell your compatriots that they were not really thinking straight when you/they voted for him en masse, now, were you. He’s never been anything in his life except a gauleiter, after all – and look what a society surveilled by gauleiters brought to its people…

There’s not much time left here for us to avoid it.

Stalin’s obituary form the New York Times, 6th March 1953

Michael Winning

It says over on a comment thread at Samizdata that this piece exists, and it does. It also shows that we in the West still don’t get the seriousness with which our own Enemyclass, as the Boss calls it, goes about its business of shoving us all back ot the Dark Ages.

ANPR, scumbags, duck islands, liberty and tourism

David Davis

Well, my last posting went down like a lead balloon, or should I say, in these hyper-flagged-parliamentary-expense-claim times, a concrete duck  island. But it says at The Landed Underclass that ANPR camera systems are all the rage among our Enemy Class, and can be used for all sorts of fun activities suitable for all the family. For once, I’m on the side of the Evil BBC, which has flagged this up.

True, the BBC stringers may all be irremediably-incorrigible lefties right now, complaining that one of their number, a professional member of Rentacrowd, has been victimised by these devices. But as Churchill said in 1941, about Hitler’s assault on the USSR, he might be persuaded to include a favourable reference to the Devil. (None of what I have advocated will pay in the end of course, but in these times, our enemy’s enemy is our friend.)

 

“If Hitler invaded Hell I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.”

 

I hasten to hope that the Cameroid, if and when he gets elected as he possibly will, inside the next year or so, will demolish all this stuff, but I doubt it somehow.

ITEM:- You can make a duck island now, for less than £20 !!!    Here!

Oh, the tragedy

David Davis

You cannot, you just cannot, go to Guido’s comment thread on this post, and not cry at the sadness and sorrow of people, at what has been done by the Enemy Class. Look up in particular, Blake’s7, and caesars wife, also Alan Barnes, and the replies to these people, who I believe are honest, and not Enemy-Class-Plant-posters implanted to make us feel happy.

Sean Gabb is great, Sean Gabb is merciful. The last weekend just gone, we had long discussions about what ought to be done about the Enemy Class. Sean thinks there ought to be an event of “Truth and Reconciliation”. If in his eyes the Enemy Class publicly apologised, individually all, for what they had done, and what money they had shysted, he’d let them go.

Sorry. I would not. Everything they have destroyed, and everything they have taken, will have to be fixed. By them. With their labour, and their personal money and that of their families, to extend the full knowledge and horror, of what they have done, to more people who thought that they loved them, and who depended on them (or thought that they did, and who thought they were honourable public servants.)

And I’m not even sure I would stop there….no, I wont:-

…Our precious things which meant nothing to them and everything to us – our totally meaningless and totally fun local traditions which contravened “health and safety”, our FISH (OUR fish, OUR fish to hunt or farm as we decided, not anybody else’s) , OUR duodecimal money, our REAL money, our sovereignty, our  _unarmed_  Police, OUR local slaughterhouses, OUR privacy not theirs to give and take away, OUR museums (such as the Maritime, and the Imperial Museum of Science and Industry) which reflected our and the right view of our history, in the way WE wanted them to do – the IMSI in the 50s had a  _coal mine_  in the basement: now it has coloured plastic balls and waterslides…) And more besides that you can all name.

All these things fostered a culture of critical liberalism, inimical utterly to the Enemy Class of GramscoFabiaNazis.

I am an old, old man, and I want these back in place, for the future and for the children, before I die.

,

1st May 2009, [New] Labour Day! A tipping-point for liberty. And I want to know why people get like that.

David Davis

I am old enough to remember the time when this day was – without our being consulted – socialisticosolidaritized in Britain with the State “holiday” of the brave and victorious Workers and Peasants of the Soviet Empire. Previously in May we just had Ascenscion Day, which tended to fall at the end of the month, easter depending. Everyone (sort of) cheered, in a resigned kind of way. Stalinators here, in those times, were what his Evil Eminence Himself would have called “not serious at all”, so they just introduced “May Day”.

Which brings me to my second point. I now want to do some amateur and doubtless entirely inept forensic psychology (for I am a bumpkin) on those sorts of people who think in terms of fascism. This is to say, why some people are on purpose becoming an Enemy Class so that they can bully and push others about, in “groups”, to achieve “plans”. Nothing on the scale we have witnessed in the last 200-odd years really came about before.

The problem in Britain with Statists is that there are in my view, today, two kinds.

First kind: the “serious” ones, the Stalinators:-

There is the really, really “serious” [aka Stalin] kind, the GramscoFabiaNazis, who are (as I said yesterday regarding what they tried to do to the Gurkhas) irremediably wicked, quite voluntarily and purposefully evil, and who know and have always known __/exactly/__  what they are doing, why, and to what timetable: it would interest me greatly to understand how and why individual human beings get to be like that – it can’t __just__ have been their University Tutors, shaggable though the students might have been to them, although I frequently blame a younger Eagleton, Derrida and others for much poisoning of young and intelligent minds with Marxism. Examples in no special order are of course Julia Middleton, Kim-Il Sung, “Ted” Heath, Hitler, Ed Balls,  Stalin himself, Gordon Brown (I don’t think he’s an idiot at all [it's all deliberate], he may not even be Scotch for all we know, and he may be malingering about his eye), Mao tse Tung, “Jacqui” “Smith”, Vidkun Quisling, Tom Watson, Robert Mugabe, Dawn Primarolo (how can you give a job to someone with that name?), Francois Mitterand, the suitably-dead-butcher-pig Saddam Hussein, that guy who runs the Europarliament monkeyhouse whose name I can’t remember and haven’t time to look up, that 5-years-dead chappie Fidel Castro, his brother and successor, and so on. They employ “public relations” people, such as spin-doctors.

Perhaps being a glorious charismatic leader and killing your bugbears and others who don’t agree with you in their millions is a buzz, but I can’t quite see how. Perhaps it’s a form of autistic spectrum disorder, and I ought to ask my wife about this condition and how it in particular affects intelligent and focussed males who can’t get proper jobs as engineering-machinists, painters, bankers, dustmen, brickies, truck-drivers or shoe-cleaners. (She’s a SENCO.) Perhaps they stamped on frogs while young boys, or shone magnifying glasses on ants in the sun. We need to know.

Secondly, the “not very serious” one, the MacMillanisators:-

“Not very serious” Statists, although they either don’t murder people directly or else don’t even actually issue the orders so to do, perhaps becasue they don’t want to for moral reasons, are still often a dangerous and latent problem. They frequently look like, behave like, dress like, are brought up like, and act like conservatives, or even like liberals. They are people who can’t, not really in their hearts (for they still have some) take all the humourless pomp and self-regardingness of real, mortal deathly statism, with all its military parades, death-camps, psychiatric hospitals for those who failed to vote correctly, calling-out of all schoolchildren to mexicanwave flags on camera all day, the lack of Internal Pissports and so on, quite seriously enough. These people would, for example,  _not_  shoot Catholic priests – or Imams either – who had stood up to their People’s Courts and won anyway, whether the said priests had used Jesuitical-type/Masonic/Zionist-type arguments or not. Some examples again in no special order are Harlot Macmillan, Rab Butler, George Bush (both classes of him), David Cameron, Frank Field, Silvio Berlusconi, Nick Griffin, Jeremy Paxman (what a curious name?), David Trimble, Helmut Kohl, and many many more. Perhaps these people only stamped on ants, in the rain. They also don’t really understand “public relations”. (See the buggers above, who do.)

My third point is this.

Gordon Brown’s “government” is visibly disintegrating at the seams. This is to be applauded of course, because governments that can’t pass any legislation which they want, and are moribund and hated, are what we always wish for, if they are statist. In a Judeo-Christian civilisation that has had a certain but indeterminate measure of individual liberty for long enough, say about 300-400 years, such as ours has, the absence of an administration with “power” is a grand thing and to be wished for.

But if. as we might suppose, the less-serious-statists are about to be elected, what then? True, we might see measures such as ID cards scrapped (although you can bet 50p they won’t shred the files…) for the time being at least. We might even see a few minor parts of some government departments we had never heard of being closed. Even, dare we say it, some QUANGOs might be terminated. But not many.

The Conservatives will f*** up, in government. It is in the nature of non-serious statists, who have either no terror-police or who have not been setting these up from day one, that they go about trying to undo statist stuff rather half-heartedly and without the necessary firepower they’d need to make their changes stick – they try to do it “by consensus”… which will fail, for it is the nature of masses of people to want free stuff apparently provided by someone else.

The “non-serious” think that the Stalinators have gone away – but it is not in the nature of these bastards to do so – they are much, much more resolute, and brave, and committed, that they are given credit for: they _know_ they are right (just like we libertarians do) and they _will_ stay around, in the mud and the sewers and the stagnant puddles, until the time “non-serious” statists do f** up and get unelectable, because they have mishandled the proper and total disappearance of proper statists.

There are two solutions. There is the statist one, which is to round up all the serious bastards and kill them. We could apply it, but we ought not to and it’s evil and we should not do it. And there is the libertarian one, which unfortunately takes longer, and means we have to watch, in all our lifetimes, shedloads of colateral damage, to societies and to institutions which were of value and did good, and which we can’t stop. But the solution lies in the end in better people.

But we should not, on the ejection of this government, this year or next, if it comes, imagine like we did in 1979 that the problem has gone away: for it will not. The buggers will be back, they will hide in the woodwork of our universities and “councils” in the meantime, and we should winkle them out, seize their computers, sack them, shop them to their local papers, shame them, have their houses daubed by vigilantes, have their children taken into “care” and so on – but we won’t, will we.

And they won’t piss about for 12 years next time, before getting their terror-police-network working, like they orta-av-dunn in 1997.

Guido seems to have noiced something’s up with the British Left today too.

Labour Erith Thamesmead ballot box tampering: socialism rumbles on and what a surprise

UPDATE2:- This is what Iain Martin in the Barclay-Labourgraph thinks, and his COMMENT thread is highly illuminating. This woman, although _absolutely fabulous_ and “well-connected”, is no sort of person to be an MP, perhaps for years if not decades.

Actually, on looking at her (I never knew she existed until now) she’s rather plain and, well, sort of NewLab-Metro-looking. I’d rather have a drink with Keeley Hazell than this one, who might harangue me about world deprivation or something.

UPDATE1:- Guido has an interesting take on this one.

David Davis

Lovely day, isn’t it. Just when you thought the smeargate business would get more interesting, ZanuLieBorg tries to bury bad news with, er, more bad news but different, anything else would do.

Libertarian Alliance stalinist quote of the day

Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, who this week described opposition to wind farms as “socially unacceptable . . . like not wearing your seatbelt or driving past a zebra crossing”.

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 lease 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

Tungsten light bulbs: buy them now…..

…while you can.

David Davis

Chris Taylor, of Shakespeare Street Southport, tel 01704 544047, still has them, for a bit.

….and Knirirr has something to say about sockets and fittings, and the EU or at least how the EU is projected to people by shops….. (the second one may get you diect to the paragraph.)

HOW TO DISPOSE OF CFL/modern/low energy light bulbs:-

(NOTE: I had in fact typed a carefully-worked out series of instrictions, for how to inconvenience bureaucrats in the course of their “business”, for this slot. But the blog would probably get shut down if I published it.

So, what you should do instead, is (a) smash the bulb, and (b) put the remains in your wheely-bin.)

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

David Davis

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

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

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

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

State databases and intrusion: 100% it’s the database that matters and not whichever gestapo is in charge of it.

David Davis

For once, the Quislingraph has got something (a bit) right.

The strategic problem about State bureaucrats is that they must make reasons for their existence, or they are redundant. Stalin understood this unstated but fundamental axiom perfectly: the logical conclusion of the existence of any given bureaucrat is to be able to “plan” and to “decide” whether you live or die. All other stuff he decides about and “plans” is just practising along the way to ultimate and absolute power. In the end, you live if you are a useful “resource” for the “plan”; you die if the “planner” has no practical use for you at all: what is the point of your life logically, for him? You are a mere cog, a slave.

Therefore, to continue to attain higher planes of existence, a bureaucrat simply must, must, has to, attain higher and higher levels omniscience about “his” population of masses.

Like the dog who sucks and licks his own penis “because he can” – I believe it’s called a “blow job”, though why so, I can’t fathom, nor the supposed attraction of it – bureaucrats have been “empowered” in this century more than ever before. And this was by the very technology that was in the beginning going to help individuals to circumvent the bastards and their wickedness entirely. I recall a lecture in the very early 80s by someone called Bernard Adamcziewski (I think? Please help?) at the Adam Smith Club in the IEA, (NOT the ASI !! ) on this very subject: it made us all so optimistic about the future.

Bureaucrats – many for sure – now probably want all this data because it is going to be so easy in theory to gather: in addition, there will be many, many “private sector firms” (I didn’t know there was any other kind?) whose directors and staff know nothing and care even less about issues of liberty, who will of coure )of course they will!) fall oevr themselves to help out. They think work is just a meal ticket, and not something that ought to have moral dimensions.

The Devil in the end tries to corrupt everything we touch. Although the Internet, for example, was initially created for military and government purposes as we know, out of evil came good and free protocols for ordinary sovereign individuals to be able to distribute and share data on a scale and speed unheard of in all the history of the world. Now of course, “Andy” “Burnham” wants it regulated and censored – but he’s not the first nor the last, although a more threatening one than the usual temporal crowd, for he’s a bloody clever bugger and his words are so honeyed, and will be bought by people like “million moms against guns” or whatever.

It does not matter whether the data is “secure”, or can only be “accessed” on the say-so of a “Minister”. If stuff “gets out”, this is the least of our worries. A leak will contain so very, very much stuff, such as on a “lost computer” or a “momory stickj (they are very big now as we all know, a gigabyte is almost free, 8 of them is about £1 apiece) that it will take even the putrescently-minded moles of the “News of the World” decades if not centuries to trawl through it.

No: the risk is that the database “project” may, possibly work – to time and to budget, well, more or less. What’s a few billion Sterling overspend between (state) friends? It’s just one delayed aircraft-carrier, or about three diversity-co-ordinator advertisements in the Guardian for a single “Police” “Force”. It’s irrelevant whether it works by 2012, by 2020, or by 2030. People are people. What they do, where they go, who they phone, who they email, and what about, is nobody’s damn business except their own.

And I’m not at all suggesting that it ought to be stopped by methods that could work – such as death-threats to directors of “private sector partners” – who ought to be old enough to know better than to tender anyway since the task itself is morally reprehensible – or even by well-planned and co-ordinated assaults on known data sites, designed to effectively destroy the data beyond recovery.

I should remind people that there are precedents for the punishment of some of the above actions. At Nuremberg in 1946, directors of firms that had tendered for and supplied things like “gas ovens”, incinerators and Zyklon-B, were either imprisoned or hanged. It’s all in “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” by W. Shirer, as you all no doubt know.

Either way, you’d better not do any of that threatening of tenderers, you people, as libertarians are peaceable chaps who get stuff accomplished by persuasion and liberal discourse. Apart rom anything, we might want the compugeek-buggers to work for us after victory, unravelling government computer chaos set up by themselves, and finding out what the State knew about whom and how, so that such intrusion could be stymied in the future.

But I have to admit: the only time I malleted a hard disk, ever – it exploded satisfyingly. I would never want to do it again, though, since I now know so much more about the intricacies and wonderfulness of its workings.

Stalin, Putin and today’s Russia: so who’s right about Georgia now, then?

David Davis

Just spotted this, and it does not surprise me at all. We need régime change in Russia the USSR, as I keep on boringly saying. The current Russian government the New Communists should be got rid of quietly, elections should be held under scrutiny by the UK libertarian Party, and then the USSR Russia should be invited to join NATO.

I expect Tony’s got something to say about this!

Here’s a couple of good quotes taken from the article-thread…..

Irony: He wasn’t Russian. He was Georgian. But he did KILL 30 million Russians. My favorite Stalin quote: “One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.” Any person not working for the Collective was seen as “surplus” by Stalin, and he deliberately starved them to death. He was one of the most evil people in history. At least Hitler had the bad excuse of hate going for him. Stalin did what he did out of pure, callous, amoral, bureaucratic lack of empathy. He didn’t hate his victims. He simply had no practical use for them.
I HAVE been in Russia. Putin is Hitler reincarnate. He even has the “Putin Youth.” Since he has been in office over 300 Russian journalists have been murdered for speaking out against his regime. He has taken away the right of the citizens to elect their own local governments. They are now appointed by the Kremlin. Putin is a totalitarian dictator, pure and simple. The reason for all his Cold War bluster and military buildup is to keep all the oil and gas money out of the hands of the common folk and in the hands of the billionaire oligarchs. He is a fascist.

Yeah this will really help “motorists”.

David Davis

It has always struck me that the word “motorist”, chiefly used by a certain sort of robotroid which is to say bureaucrats and “planner” types, sounds rather political. Nobody I know uses it in conversation or written prose – we tend to say “driver”, or “person”. So, when it appears you just know something bad’s coming next. It’s dressed up as “streamlining the process”… “making the system more tranparent and fair” … ” helping to fund integrated public transport links”… or some such Nazi guff.

Nobody seems to have spotted that convictions for “careless driving” could have declined because … people are more careful? Because modern cars – the population of which is inevitably rising – are “smarter”? One gets the feeling that the government, saying things like this…

“The level of enforcement is steadily dropping,” the Government noted in the consultation paper.

This, it is believed, has resulted in an increasing number of cases of careless driving going unpunished.

…is merely following in the footsteps of Stalin and Mao and their foul cockroach apparatchiks, chided by their bosses for not shooting enough bourgeoisie last month…..

Why not criminalise “driving while at the wheel” while they are about it? Or they could just be honest and state frankly that “really we don’t think private “motoring” should be allowed so we are going to ban it.”

Happy Christmas. Business as usual.

Destruction of words … to change the way children think

David Davis

Subj: [eurorealist] EDUCATION: THE ENEMY AT THE HELM Date: 07/12/2008 17:20:48 GMT Standard Time From: peter@pwwatson.co.uk Reply-to: eurorealist@yahoogroups.com To: eurorealist@yahoogroups.com, nick@cre.org.uk Sent from the Internet (Details)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3569045/Words-associated-with-Christianity-and-British-history-taken-out-of-childrens-dictionary.html

TAKE THEIR CULTURE AND THEIR ROOTS AWAY AND YOU CAN BARCODE AND PROCESS THEM

You are here:

1. Home

2. Education

Words associated with Christianity and British history taken out of children’s dictionary

Words associated with Christianity, the monarchy and British history have been dropped from a leading dictionary for children.

Julie Henry, Education Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:47PM GMT 07 Dec 2008

Comments 114 | Comment on this article

Previous

1 of 2 Images

Next

Westminster Abbey may be one of Britain’s most famous landmarks, but the word abbey has been removed from the Oxford Junior Dictionary. Photo: Dean and Chapter of Westminster

Instead, words such as ‘MP3 player’, ‘voicemail’ and ‘attachment’ have been included. Photo: GETTY IMAGES

Oxford University Press has removed words like “aisle”, “bishop”, “chapel”, “empire” and “monarch” from its Junior Dictionary and replaced them with words like “blog”, “broadband” and “celebrity”. Dozens of words related to the countryside have also been culled.

The publisher claims the changes have been made to reflect the fact that Britain is a modern, multicultural, multifaith society.

But academics and head teachers said that the changes to the 10,000 word Junior Dictionary could mean that children lose touch with Britain’s heritage.

“We have a certain Christian narrative which has given meaning to us over the last 2,000 years. To say it is all relative and replaceable is questionable,” said Professor Alan Smithers, the director of the centre for education and employment at Buckingham University. “The word selections are a very interesting reflection of the way childhood is going, moving away from our spiritual background and the natural world and towards the world that information technology creates for us.”

An analysis of the word choices made by the dictionary lexicographers has revealed that entries from “abbey” to “willow” have been axed. Instead, words such as “MP3 player”, “voicemail” and “attachment” have taken their place.

Lisa Saunders, a worried mother who has painstakingly compared entries from the junior dictionaries, aimed at children aged seven or over, dating from 1978, 1995, 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2007, said she was “horrified” by the vast number of words that have been removed, most since 2003.

“The Christian faith still has a strong following,” she said. “To eradicate so many words associated with the Christianity will have a big effect on the numerous primary schools who use it.”

Ms Saunders realised words were being removed when she was helping her son with his homework and discovered that “moss” and “fern”, which were in editions up until 2003, were no longer listed.

“I decide to take a closer look and compare the new version to the other editions,” said the mother of four from Co Down, Northern Ireland. “I was completely horrified by the vast number of words which have been removed. We know that language moves on and we can’t be fuddy-duddy about it but you don’t cull hundreds of important words in order to get in a different set of ICT words.”

Anthony Seldon, the master of Wellington College, a leading private school in Berkshire, said: “I am stunned that words like “saint”, “buttercup”, “heather” and “sycamore” have all gone and I grieve it.

“I think as well as being descriptive, the Oxford Junior Dictionary, has to be prescriptive too, suggesting not just words that are used but words that should be used. It has a duty to keep these words within usage, not merely pander to an audience. We are looking at the loss of words of great beauty. I would rather have “marzipan” and “mistletoe” then “MP3 player.”

Oxford University Press, which produces the junior edition, selects words with the aid of the Children’s Corpus, a list of about 50 million words made up of general language, words from children’s books and terms related to the school curriculum. Lexicographers consider word frequency when making additions and deletions.

Vineeta Gupta, the head of children’s dictionaries at Oxford University Press, said: “We are limited by how big the dictionary can be – little hands must be able to handle it – but we produce 17 children’s dictionaries with different selections and numbers of words.

“When you look back at older versions of dictionaries, there were lots of examples of flowers for instance. That was because many children lived in semi-rural environments and saw the seasons. Nowadays, the environment has changed. We are also much more multicultural. People don’t go to Church as often as before. Our understanding of religion is within multiculturalism, which is why some words such as “Pentecost” or “Whitsun” would have been in 20 years ago but not now.”

She said children’s dictionaries were trailed in schools and advice taken from teachers. Many words are added to reflect the age-related school curriculum.

Words taken out:

Carol, cracker, holly, ivy, mistletoe

Dwarf, elf, goblin

Abbey, aisle, altar, bishop, chapel, christen, disciple, minister, monastery, monk, nun, nunnery, parish, pew, psalm, pulpit, saint, sin, devil, vicar

Coronation, duchess, duke, emperor, empire, monarch, decade

adder, ass, beaver, boar, budgerigar, bullock, cheetah, colt, corgi, cygnet, doe, drake, ferret, gerbil, goldfish, guinea pig, hamster, heron, herring, kingfisher, lark, leopard, lobster, magpie, minnow, mussel, newt, otter, ox, oyster, panther, pelican, piglet, plaice, poodle, porcupine, porpoise, raven, spaniel, starling, stoat, stork, terrapin, thrush, weasel, wren.

Acorn, allotment, almond, apricot, ash, bacon, beech, beetroot, blackberry, blacksmith, bloom, bluebell, bramble, bran, bray, bridle, brook, buttercup, canary, canter, carnation, catkin, cauliflower, chestnut, clover, conker, county, cowslip, crocus, dandelion, diesel, fern, fungus, gooseberry, gorse, hazel, hazelnut, heather, holly, horse chestnut, ivy, lavender, leek, liquorice, manger, marzipan, melon, minnow, mint, nectar, nectarine, oats, pansy, parsnip, pasture, poppy, porridge, poultry, primrose, prune, radish, rhubarb, sheaf, spinach, sycamore, tulip, turnip, vine, violet, walnut, willow

Words put in:

Blog, broadband, MP3 player, voicemail, attachment, database, export, chatroom, bullet point, cut and paste, analogue

Celebrity, tolerant, vandalism, negotiate, interdependent, creep, citizenship, childhood, conflict, common sense, debate, EU, drought, brainy, boisterous, cautionary tale, bilingual, bungee jumping, committee, compulsory, cope, democratic, allergic, biodegradable, emotion, dyslexic, donate, endangered, Euro

Apparatus, food chain, incisor, square number, trapezium, alliteration, colloquial, idiom, curriculum, classify, chronological, block graph

Extremely satisfying news…for a change.

UPDATE 2: Sean Gabb commented on 26th October 2006, about this same problem when the DNA database was, reltively, in its infancy, and was being masturbated over in public by Tony Blair.

UPDATE 1: Philip Johnston in the DT has opinions about what the Stalinists government will now decide to do.

David Davis (not that one, no, I’m just the duty-bumpkin )

The Police are going to be “asked” (I guess that’s what it will be) by the European Court of Human Rights to “wipe” the DNA records and perhaps other info on “about one million people”. Knowing today’s British-State-Policing-Strategy-Directors, whoever they may be, as we suspect that we do, we wonder how soon this landmark event will take place – think what it is…..the absolute destruction of pinpointing information on about a million British males.

Of course 99% of them are males: what did you expect? And a higher-than-average percentage of them are “black” too, and “young”. This is also wrong and should be addressed, but there may be other socialist-based reasons for this apparent crime-apartheid, such as the education system being designed to fail young males in particular as this is deliberate, and the multicultis deliberately separating the socialisation of “young black males” from the culture they live in, via media-music, “rap” (whatever that may be) State schools, Maxo-Gramscian teachers, and ministers who “groom” the said teachers to be lefties, and the like.

Do you think for one minute that the feminazis would have kept so quiet about such a terror-tool, as they have done – their silence is deafening – if even a slightly appreciable percentage of wimmin (of any sort whatever) were on it?

Nay: it is good that there is a “ruling”. I can’t say, personally, what notice the “Police” “Forces” of this state will take, yet, or at all. They may, they may not. They may make a show of “destroying” “records”, of a sort. This will be for Sir Paul Dacre’s benefit.

But it is good that the EU Soviet is at least pretending to look out for people’s interests, in some things, sometimes. Sean gabb and I both agree that the EU is “a” problem for liberty, but ultimately it is not “the” problem – which is our home-grown (sadly) bureauNazis.

I have recently been criticed on here for bandying about the word “Nazis” too freely. I have therefore decided, that, in the manner of Margaret Thatcher, who read the Guardian each morning and then decided to do the opposite of what it recommended, that I do not use it freely enough. Stalinists of even more kinds than before will now be dubbed what they are: Nazis.

The essence of freedom and individual liberty lies in the free use of language, its ability to adapt to changing threats (threats change all the time: Nazis are no more stupid than we are: just wrong and thus bad becuase they have freely decided to forcibly promote socialism.)

They, the leftie Database-promoting-bastards, such as the Home Office, and some Police chiefs here I expect, must live and be and bear it, to thank the German language and its colloquial orthography, for the spoken grammar that gave rise to the single most sound-bitey word I can find, which describes best all that socialists stand for and do. Remember that Stalin was always Hitler’s ally: his only mistake in the war, which was I guess fortunate for him and for the USSR (sadly) was that he had not properly read “Mein Kampf”, and what it said about which brand of socialists Russia was going to be for.

Old Brian on Damian Green, a good analysis.

David Davis

Brian Micklethwait at Samizdata cuts this to the bone for you. He thinks that, when the junta government starts to arrest opposition politicians for doing things that it itself has been doing for decades, its time is up.

I’m not so sanguine as him. I think it’s just got worse. But either way, we will live in “interesting times”. I’m not so sure that I’m brave enough, or unconnected-enough, to want to. I have wives and children etc.

See what you all think about Will Rhodes Portmanteau, on the same thing.

BNP membership: BNP: I’m sorry – I have to ask now…why do people get so worked up? Do they steal your clientariats’ votes?

David Davis

Yesterday, we posted this guff about the BNP membership list.

Yep. It’s old news now.

And by seeing this post, you will just inflate our stats becasue we have moved on. But if you call in here, it’s nice (you suckers and Chè-lovers) but anyway we were greatly pleased as we got shagloads of traffic from left-wing sites wanting to know why we were interested …go on….you WANT to know, you just WANT to, you student-activist Chè-JCR-”organiser”, you! You just orgasmically can’t keep away! You just might scoop the scalp of an “extreme-right-winger”! (Rare animals, those, ought to be protected by PETA, you know. Against hunting, and for “bio diversity”.)

Here’s a poll. YOU MAY TICK MULTIPLE ANSWERS. I need to  know some things. I want to ask lefties and others:-

For those who read this far, we are interested not because we like the BNP, for as it is a left wing party we of course do not,  but because we just want to know WHO would and WHO would NOT be prepared to stand up for freedom of conscience, in a Statist State, if put under fire.

Those of you who glibly slag off the BNP and want its people lynched, would find that, when real Stalinists (who are “serious” (or not) as Stalin said when he criticised the IRA delegation for refusing to shoot priests) catch up with you, you will have no time left at all.

BNP membership list: let’s see if this “government of all, for all” will prevent or officially outlaw discrimination against individuals for belonging to a political party.

It’s created a criminal offence a day since May 1997: another one can’t be that hard, surely? Or…are some crimes “more equal than others“…?

David Davis

Discrimination on the grounds of race, sex or religion is (rightly) illegal. Except for, of course, as regards the human rights of a person who, say would not want to employ someone for reasons best known to himself, but we’ll let that pass for now.

The Libertarian Alliance, I must first state, does not agree in any way with the policies of the BNP, nor does it support any of them. It supports no political party whatever, with the possible unofficial exception of the LPUK.

I’m sure we’d all not want to live in a society where, if you belonged to a certain political party, you could be persecuted, officially or otherwise, victimised, or lose your job, livelihood or home. That smacks of the worst days of nazism in the Third Reich, and of the days of Stalin and Mao – and many other hoodlums we could mention. And indeed we have done, and recently. Nasty, low “Chè” had people killed, even personally by him sometimes, for not thinking the right things. Keeley Hazell would not approve at all, at-all-at-all.

Here’s a poll: YOU MAY TICK MULTIPLE ANSWERS:-

But now we have this. I was alerted to it by this in the DT just now. I have no idea what Lancaster Unity is, not having previously heard of it, but, given that we don’t view the BNP positively for the best of philosophical reasons, Lancaster Unity does not seem like the sort of people we would really like to share a nation with either. They are probably a bunch of students up the road from somewhere, who have more fire in their bellies than sense or wisdom about how the world operates.

The fact that they are a “left wing top 100 blog” is a dead giveaway, but the blogosphere is a truly Free Nation, and they have every right to say what they please, as do we.

The Global-left is scared shitless of the BNP, since it views that party as a direct and mortal competitor for the votes of the effectively-disenfranchised Old White Working Class and its heirs of the moment whatever those may be. Whereas we as Libertarians have no position on this either way, since we see this spat as mere extremist infighting within the envelope of the Left. We also regard everybody – including people like “Unity”, as disenfranchised by a single oligarchical Enemy Class – which happens outwardly to behave right now as if it was part of the “left” – but that is a mere tactical accident of current events.

Correct me if I’m wrong: but I don’t think this government, a left-wing government, cares about the fate of people who have decided to support what some of the left thinks of as the wrong left-wing party which cares a bit about the fates of some left-wing-supporters, against another but larger lot of left-wingers who don’t care about the first lot of left-wing-supporters.

It’s Germany in the 20s/30s all over again, isn’t it.

The British Left (can we call these outfits “British Internationale Parties”?) is wetting itself with delight (here’s a typical example) as I suppose can be expected. Although as I have said in the comments here, it’s strange that today’s leftists don’t exactly see themselves as friends of the BNP: we here certainly are not their friends, but the Left they share most of their objectives. Very strange really.

Nah.

David Davis

No, sorry. This is a wind-up. There are not thousands of Moslem young men after our blood, here, in the UK. Yes there may be a couple, maybe two or three, here and there in sad places like Luton and Leicester, and maybe (even sadly as it’s North?) Bradford…or even Blackburn (a sad socialistically-socialised city – just try driving round it sometime) or even somewhere else. But “they’ve” got tabs on the poor sad buggers. This is just all part of the Police-State-thingy that we whinge about.

These poor young men are not really trying to kill us all. I now believe Sean Gabb more than I did before.

No: they just want to have sex with other Year-10 and year-11 girls, just like their chums do, who are Christian secularised.