Tag Archives: surveillance

The British State enters the pornography business, in public


David Davis

There really is not a lot to add constructively to this. You may not of course view, let alone possess, images of your daughter’s or your 17-year-old wife’s private parts, although nobody will change your daughter’s nappies except you (and you even as a parent will have to get a Blauschein, and soon, so to do. It’s the logical extension of existing “laws.”)

But various people may view the said images, which they will forcibly obtain at airports, for your own safety of course.

What’s a “ghost parking ticket”?


David Davis

I wonder when the time will come, when “motorists”, which is to say almost every adult, will lose patience with creeping imprisonment in Britain today?

A time when all CCTV installations in public places beocme fair game for destruction?

A time when “parking attendants” are followed home, and their houses smeared with the word “Paediatrician” in the night, their children are refused invites to other’s parties?

A time when, if one simply worked in something as harmless as a doctor’s surgery reception, one will be permanently stigmatised and ostracised?

Or when the Municipal “Co-Ordinating-Co-Ordinator of Council-Tax-Payer-Service-Delivery-Enhancement-Services” (the fellow responsible for administering all the Borough’s CCTV activities) is hauled out of his car at traffic lights and kicked to death in front of his children?

I am not a violet man: far from it. I recoil from confrontation, and would “walk away from trouble”, really. Nothing to see here, move along. But I wonder about the pent-up level of anger and irritation that I would hope to suspect is building in the hearts of my fellow-citizens.

Perhaps it’s not, at all, and we are truly lost.

To stop them getting in…or us getting out?


David Davis

BAe Systems (I thought it was on OUR side?) is developing UAVs (drones) to “patrol the coastline”, to deal with “smuggling” and “illegal immigrants”. Never thought I would hear the term “Police Aviation” used seriously and without irony.

Does not sound very libertarian to me.

If you have nothing to hide...

...then you have nothing to fear...

As the man said once… “very interrrrresting” …

 

What the British State DNA database is for


Michael Winning

(Not too many tupos I hope,)

This article may disappear. No really. Apparently it’s done so once already* and may do again. Legiron who Ive just found has posted thispiece here, which tells of a woman, a lawyer in fact, who now can’t get a job as she’s “on the DNA database”. Just that it seems. She lost an employment opportunity (with the State no less, but wait till tesco and others get on the roller) because of a wrong accuastion, and even about something trivial.

So what’s in store then for those accused – also wrongly – of worse things like British-State-thoughtcrimes? They wont’t even get shelf-fillers’ jobs in Asda or Kwiksave – let alone Waitrose!

So this is what it’s for – and there are 6 million people on it nearly, the Police sure have not been idle, all those swabs to take by force, eh? Need personpower for that, you do!

*Someone called Longrider has got a link to the piece too.

Might as well quote this from Longriderer:-

Update: The Economic Voice has more.

This effectively creates a new class of criminal, the ‘guilty innocents’. We used to have a system where you were either guilty or you were innocent. Now you can be left in limbo for 6 years. Remember also that the government’s original plans, but for the intervention of the EU, was for indefinite holding of DNA! Food for thought.

Had she not been going for a job that requires police background clearances she may well never have realised the repercussions of these new rules. Most people will just dismiss this as an isolated case to be ignored, but it could easily happen to anyone by just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just because it may happen infrequently doesn’t make it right.

Quite. Remember, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

But to cheer yous all up I’ve found this:-



Hey that is really interesting or scary


Michal Winning

Or just the usual worrying stuff, I don’t know. I got it fron something called The Register.

What is to be done?


David Davis

I was contemplating an essay about the increasing intrusiveness of State surveillance of individuals the world over, and the increasing restriction of their thoughts and writings. But then, checking in my informal way before typing, I looked about me and it seems The Cautionary Revelation has been thinking along the same lines.

Our problem as libertarians in particular is that we eschew force and coercion, based on our beliefs in Natural Rights. This is fine and quite correct of us, and honest: and it is academically consistent with a philosophy of individual liberty under a minimal Common Law. However, we have in the end to ask where we not only hold self-congratulatory conferences, and not only continue to publish learned pamphlets about why liberty is really fairly astonishingly good at sorting out everything under the sun, and begin to ask:

“What is to be done about these GramscoFabiaNazis, who have always been, if you read the subtexts, cheerfully and openly honest and frank about what they have always intended?

And it’s now even worse than in the post under this one…


…if you go to Old Holborn and read this stuff.

David Davis

A rather nifty scam…


to do these things:-

David Davis

(1) get lots of poor-people’s cars confiscated,

(2) get another nail in the coffin of non-surveillance,

(3) increase the income-stream of the insurance-arms of busticated banks owned by the taxpayer government.

The Englishman’s noticed it too. Wouldn’t be surprised in the Devil and Obotheclown say something mild also.

The “civil liberties campaigners” apologists for mild surveillance, and the “motorists’ organisations” semi-detached arms of State Transport Control always go about rearguard actions the wrong way. They say things like “the scheme is sound in principle, but…” and “it will penalise law-abiding drivers who forget…” – all of which is quite irrelevant to the principle of defending liberty under Common Law.

The tobacco manufacturers made exactly the same mistakes in the early 1980s, when smoking and tobacco advertising was under assault. They tried to justify resisting an ad-ban by saying that it was “all about persuading people to switch brands” – rather than actively and politically resisting what amounted to State-censorship of information about legal products. Nobody was going to swallow the brand-switching nonsense, and the Enemy Class certainly didn’t.

So here we are again.

Scary evil GramscoFabiaNazi numbers about surveillance camerae in the UK. And I am pissed off, about something else.


David Davis

Here you go. Read the shit yourself.

The more I write this blog, the less I want it to be a showcase of “libertarian thought and primers” for intelligent bystanders, who either head “think tanks”, or are “intellectuals”, or know they can’t really “influence policy-makers”, or who don’t give a stuff, and all of whom have no weapons anyway.

And the more I want it to scamper for a wee at the back of The Line, run back, spit on its hands, drag its swordpoint out of the bloody mud at the linefeet, and start hewing again.

There are many friendly Libertarians who would like me to make the blog “turn the other cheek”. I really will try, honest.

But I’m not the only writer allowed onto here – it’s just that the others have more important things to do, well, really sort of all the time, like about 100% of the time. (Sorry.)

The fascist GramscoFabiaNazi pig Mao tse Tung thought that “Communism comes from the barrel of a gun”. Of course it does, that’s it’s job and modus operandi. But that’s what socialists do. They need to kill: if they don’t kill for a few days, they have to be given some defenceless humans whose lives they can “reshape”, like the Saudi executioners have to have a sheep to behead in lieu.

“Nobody is suggesting” that Libertarians should behave in the same foul and pre-capitalist way. But you have to admit: the Enemy Clsss does hold some very powerful cards, like fear and terror.

If you want a Libertarian think-tank, teaching-archive blog, which “influences Academicians and Universities and policy-makers”, over the centuries and millennia, slowly or not at all, then get writing on it. If you want it like this, as it is, then leave it to me.

(Sean Gabb is abroad so probably can’t post until an hour or so from now.  So I will forgive! But what about the rest of you?)

STATEBOOK … A new personal data-sharing resource for (no … about) the busy, compliant New British citizen


David Davis

I am indebted to The Blog Of Kev for this highly humorous and chilling reminder about the ongoing covert presence of our masters and their datamining apparatchiks.

There is really nothing more to add. Except to the list of “agencies” that can get it. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear (of course…)

The problem of bureaucrats and data has been addressed by us frequently. if it  _can_  be collected, then they  _will_  do it, because they  _must_ , since if they do not,  _lessons_  may have to be  _learned_ , later. In the meantime, they will use it.

Interesting ideas


From The Landed Underclass.

The Recording Angel

“Builders” ought to be libertarians: why do they do these things, which merely gives ammo to statists?


Plod the Unsteadier

Here.

Driver stopped by police for laughing


David Davis

They’re going to lose the general Election (unless they can rig it or cancel it) so now the gloves are off properly. Now, “Laughing behind the wheel can be an offence”.

I don’t think there’s any pretence any more that the level of civil society which we took centuries to evolve, sometimes painfully, is disappearing.

The Police are behaving openly like an occupying army, now turning to prosecuting laughing-gas-emissions. They are ideologically aided and abetted by the GreeNazis, whose job is to make the visibly-unpoliced part of your life as uncomfortable, painful and short as possible. They want you to freeze in the dark, have natural childbirth, eat muddy stunted “organic” food (no meat allowed) grown “locally” under periodic famine conditions and boiled without salt, walk everywhere, and have no internet or antibiotics.

It  _has to_  be wondered: what kind of person wants to do one of these jobs? A policeman in Blair-Brown’s open prison, or a GreeNazi-quangocrat imposing Gramsco-Marxianism on your fellow men – but not, ostensibly, yourself and yours.

I have no clue what the motivation could be to want to do this.

No music tonight, just this.


This.

The Night Duty Boy-First-Class Type Writer, commanding his Chimpanzee Shift, might put some music up as it’s Saturday: we shall just have to see.

Hat tip The Landed Underclass. That blog just gets better and better, and he will outlive us in The Line.

Some people are more equal than others now.

The Policeman concerned has found a clever and opaque way of saying he’s not the friend of all people: just those of them that happen to be powerful today.

Well then.

On totally unrelated matters, readers might like this book.

Sir “David Ormond” knows best. And, the Libertarian Party of the UK tells it to you like it is.


David Davis

Personal Privacy” will have to be sacrificed in order to fight “terrorism” and suchlike.

We already knew that, but now they’re saying it out loud. And the LPUK has a much better-argued and fuller rendition (ha ha ha ha ha! Rendition! is this another word for the lefties to lynch or have they merely invented it to sound like clever-clogs?) of the matter.

The Devil will try to corrupt everything, even toy aeroplanes…


UPDATE an hour later…

I have worked out how to say what it is that makes me sad about this particular matter. It’s that, in its ever-tightening screwhold on individuals’ liberties, this current British State takes even toys, that boys and men (and even some girls) have once liked to play with, harmlessly, and turns them into weapons of constriction.

if one was a psychiatrist, then one would, after all this is done, like to take some of these State people, put them on the couch, and try to find out, really find out, what made them do what they did? Why did a  man who sold teledrones to the Army (understandable) agree to sell them to the State Police….why did he not send the bastards packing out of his office waving a cricket bat, even, when they came to ask to buy them from him…to spy on British householders late on….?

Why did the couchee-subjects I have referred to, see the world not as other people, but as controllers of it? or as salesmen to controllers?  As controllers of other, unknown individuals’ lives, or worse, as accessories after the fact of that imposed control?

Is it just simple nasty error-ridden Gramsco-Marxianism, or is it something…..deeper? What actually motivated them to consciously err?

Can’t they understand that individuals have Free Will? That the reason for opposition to State control is that it ought not to exist?

In the end, what is it that makes someone want to be, say, a traffic warden, or a concentration-camp-guard, or a “modern”  interior-ministry-policeman?

Have we as libertarians failed in some way, to explain how this mind-set cannot be normal, and the owner of it must have suffered in some way, to get like that?

Or, does evil really exist, existentially?…..here’s the post you signed on for……..

David Davis

Now we are to be faced with this. The Law will need to be clarified on the following points:-

(1) What measures will householders be able to take to prevent overflight of their property by these robots, if they decide they simply don’t like them and don’t actually want them around, or they are a nuisance, or they keep us awake in the night, or they scare the racing-pigeons? (The helicopters are bad enough.)

(2) To what extent will _Radio Amateurs_ be prevented from  _examining_   and then  _analysing_  the frequencies and transmission-modes used? (I never said we would try to transmit on these bands or even interfere with them…we are strictly licensed to operate on certain bands, and in particular modes only. But “nobody suggests” that we can’t listen to any public transmission or signal whatsoever….)

(3) What are the “sunset” clauses inherent in the use of these extraordinary bits of machinery, considering thatw e are supposed to be living in what even this government calls a “Free Society”?

Where must the Queen’s subjects stand up, and actually draw the line in the sand?

What, for example, if you wanted to do Practical Coal Mining, in your garden? Would this stuff be used against you?

An Englishman’s castle: how does one post comments?


David Davis

I can’t do it, because every time I try, I get told this:-

“Your comment posting failed because you have submitted too many comments in too short a time. Please try again in a short while.”

If he’s reading this, can he tell us what to do?

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

Thanks for spotting this….


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

David Davis

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

Terrorism and a Police State: now Dame Stella Rimington speaks out…


….but not here – in Spain.

David Davis

As we say often, “Sean Gabb has often said that….”

Libertarian Alliance Bulletin


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have agreed to speak at the following meetings:

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

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

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

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

Society for Individual Freedom

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Libertarian Alliance home

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


David Davis

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

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

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

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

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.

“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.

Annoying pinpricks for the State, number-5632-Q: how to get off a speeding-fine


David Davis

You can try to prove your car is too slow to do what the camera said.

(Reheated) I should have thought that the answer is obvious


David Davis

Editor’s Note: this was published on 4th January 2009, at the height of the “New Labour” GramscoFabiaNazi Terror. A rather strangely forbidding and humourless man called “Jacqui Smith” was the Interior-Minister…I think. This person liked to state on the wireless-tele vision that people would come up to him in the street and ask when they could have something called an “identity card”.

The current lot in power, the LabLebLibLobLubCon “coalition” have done less than one hoped to reverse the creeping tide of police-terror overcoming us here.

The prospects for liberty in the UK continue to remain poor.

Philip Johnston asks “why is Labour so keen to imprison us?

So were Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Castro (who will continue to remain dead, thank God) Kim Jong-Il, Mao, Ho (ho ho) Chi Mhinh,  and the rest. I bet that if you asked ShootinPutin187 how many people he ought to imprison, then his list would be longer than mine or yours.

The only people to imprison are those who seriously violate, beyind the bounds of sensible argument, people’s natural Rights, which are to one’s life, liberty or justly acquired property. This could include a large and increasing majority of British politicians and bureaucrats, psychologically egged-on but not necessarily overtly supported by, those in the EU.

Given that these people-troids – the British ones anyway – spend a large percentage of their time manufacturing (on purpose) petty criminals who violate life and property directly, such as robbers, muggers, burglars, rapists, car-keyers, knifers, ne’er-do-wells and rievers of all types, by purposefully designing “school” “syllabuses” which selectively disadvantage young boys and men, then these troids are the people who ought to inhabit prisons first and for the longest times. I designed a prison a little while ago, just for them. Here it is again.

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.

Very scary new stuff.


….from The Landed Underclass.

Liberty and tyranny: what non-violent and legal things could everyone do, every day, to upset and rile bureaucrats and “big-States”?


David Davis

I confess: the idea is not mine. Sean Gabb and I were discussing, in our inimitably pessimistic way, earlier this year, what kinds of things ordinary Subjects of the Crown could do, in their daily lives, to either annoy or make more difficult the lives of our political masters and their more lowly appointees.

The provisos were that:-

(1) We should try not to cause criminal damage. So 30,000 builders in 10,000 White Vans with 20,000 Stihl-Saws at 02.00 am GMT, all cutting down the posts of the speed cameras at one moment in time, will NOT do.

(2) We should not physically harm or otherwise assault bureaucrats, Ministers, MPs, their families, and the like. I recall that we could not decide what to do about “Traffic Wardens” or “Artificial Policemen“.

Please could ALL readers suggest something in the comments. Some things I can think of:-

(1) ALWAYS be seen to be filming the officers of the State, or else pretend to photograph them, while they are going about their “business” – even if you are not so doing. We all now carry little peanut-sized-thingies that not only film stuff but phone people, make tea, tell you whree you are etc. It is not (yet) a crime to make privaye movies in public places. this will increase their “workplace stress”, and with a bit of luck some of them will clock off “sick”. We will not be any the worse thereby, even though they still cost us.

(2) Place “Britain is leaving the EU: it is inevitable” stickers on State notices of all kinds. Also on the rear number plates of “official cars” and the like. Or, over the bar-code on their tax discs. This will cause inconvenience when the vehilces pass through ANPR camerae (now believed to be live) and does not cause any damage as they wash off.

(3) Place small but ostensibly accidental amounts of the wrong recyclable material (such as a large rusty steel automotive pressing like a flywheel or a Brake Disk,  into a plastic box for beer cans) into any State Receptacle designed for another sort. If what they say is true, this renders the entire bulk amout later, useless.

(4) ALWAYS ( or affect to ) smoke in the presence of a State Employee, ideally inside a building or a car (it becomes a “workplace” if there are 2 or more of you in it!) or if not, then in your house or on the street.

I would welcome lots more suggestions. I want 100 good ones by Christmas, to cheer you all up with on a special “ANNOY A BUREAUCRAT FOR THE CHILDREN AT CHRISTMAS” post………………..

SMOKING, health fascism, New Labour, and Children: two more reasons why you should smoke. And Keeley Hazell wants her little shops to stay open late.


UPDATE:- And Gordon Brown wants  __YOUR__  body…..

David Davis

We talked about this some months ago. Now also, you should smoke for the children, and also to keep up ZanuLieborg’s taxation-takings, so they can continue to dip their hands in the Till at the expense of poor-people who have nothing else much to lighten their miserable Nazi-jackbooted lives.

It is an absolute wonder, to me, that nobody else in the media-Glitterati can see that we are being marched, by jackbooted ThugNazis in our government, back to a pre-capitalist, neo-feudal society, that looks like anything pre-1381 – the date of the first bourgeois tax-revolt.

Ordinary common-or-garden Nazis were disarmingly frank and openly brutal, by comparison. They approached Mugabe’s PR skills, in fact.

Now  then….This caught my eye as the Firefox foxthingy animal-dooberry started to run just now.

What else is “to be sold under the counter” on direction from “ministers”, in due course?

Alcohol (causes death by driving), knives (kill people), tabloid newspapers and “Zoo” and “Nuts” (offend wimmin), FHM, pork (offends Moslems and contains cancer-causing chemicals), automobiles (pollute the planet), and we could all name more things that “dangerous”, “offensive” or risky in use.

You’d have thought that this junta, so keen on promoting the plight of “small shops” and “small businesses” would want to make it easier for them to sell gear to people, not harder. I don’t believe for a moment that !”ministers” who write and spout this stuff are unaware of its shining fascism: I think they mean it very, very sincerely and that they absolutely know that they can, must, and will force people to behave in defined ways predicated by themselves and theyr gramsco-Marxian “uni” Tutors. Just regard some of this blisteringly fascist prose:-

Tobacco products will be barred from display in shops despite fears it could hit small stores during the economic downturn.

The new restrictions come after an extensive consultation on measures to reduce the number of children who take up smoking and helping those already addicted to quit.

But ministers will not go as far as recommending all cigarette packaging be plain with only the brand name and health warnings printed on them.

Sales from vending machines will also be restricted as research has shown children can buy cigarettes from them easily even though they are supposed to be in places where shops owners and pub landlords can supervise them.

Experts are keen to build on the success of the ban on smoking in public places, introduced in England in July 2007, and the increase in the legal age to buy tobacco to 18.

The main opponents have been concerned at the impact on small businesses during the downturn and a surge in illegal tobacco smuggling into the UK.

Last night a Business Department source said: “We know that business has been resisting this but there are times when the consumer’s interest must outweigh that. We believe the public are with us on this move.

“We have asked smokers’ views on this too. There is no doubt that the vast majority want to quit.”

It was reported last month that Business Secretary Peter Mandelson was attempting to block the moves because of the effect on small newsagents and corner shops which rely on cigarette sales for up to a fifth of their custom.

Research has shown that children recognise many brands of cigarettes and prominent displays of products helps to reinforce their familiarisation which influences them to take up smoking. A study in California found children aged between 11 and 14 were 50 per cent more likely to smoke if they had been exposed to tobacco marketing in corner shops.

Shelves full of cigarettes also lure those trying to quit smoking into buying more packets or tempted those trying to quit to buy them, the Department of Health consultation said.

Almost a third of smokers thought removing cigarette displays would help them to give up.

The products will not necessarily have to be placed under the counter but should not be visible, ministers will say today.

It could mean that cigarette packets are covered, placed in a cupboard or a back room.

Launching the consultation in April, health minister Dawn Primarolo said: “It’s vital we get across the message to children that smoking is bad. If that means stripping out vending machines or removing cigarettes from behind the counter, I’m willing to do that.

“Children who smoke are putting their lives at risk and are more likely to die of cancer than people who start smoking later.”

Other countries have already banned the display of tobacco at the point of sale or are planning to do so including Iceland, Thailand, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway.

Latest figures show 22 per cent of adults smoke in England, which is down by 1.9m since 1998, and the Government is on target to reduce this to 21 per cent by 2010.

However almost 30 per cent of those in routine and manual jobs still smoke and rates are not dropping in this group as fast.

Smoking is one of the leading causes of early death and accounts for 87,000 deaths in England each year and smoking related illness costs the NHS £1.5bn a year to treat.

Among children nine per cent of 11 to 15-year-olds smoke regularly, rising to one fifth of teenagers aged 16 to 19. More than three in ten 20 to 24 year olds smoke, which is the highest of any age group.

And…I’m sure that Keeley Hazell would not want her little local shops, in Bromley, to go bust through lost ciggy-sales…the sales merely lost to the pushers, at £125 for 20 smacks! I’m not betting on it, but I’d guess the “street” price of 20 “Marlboro’s”, not legally manufactured by Philip Morris, at all, to be about £5 or £6 per spliff… and that’s for starters, until it gets more difficult to supply….

Sorry Im not allowed to smoke on film....

"Sorry I'm not allowed to smoke on film...."

Quite funny


From A Nation of Shopkeepers. Truly, we are in the shit, and it’s ‘coz we have just been rather asleep and have not been paying attention to what the buggers were up to in the undergrowth.

Sean Gabb on the DNA Database


file:///C:/user/Sean/Writings/Sean%20Gabb%20Website/flcomm/flc155.htm

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the
Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 155
26th October 2006
14th June 2006
|

On Opposing the DNA Database
by Sean Gabb

(Update by blogmeister: this subject is topical and we spoke on this blog about it earlier today, at this link. )

Last Monday evening—the 23rd October 2006—I was called into the London studio of Sky News to put a case against constructing a database of DNA samples from the whole British population. Tony Blair had been on his hind legs again, braying for the final abolition of freedom in this country. Watched by about a million people, I am told I did rather well in opposing him and his kind. So now, revising an article I wrote back in 2000, I will put my case in writing.

The main problem whenever this sort of proposal is made, is that debate is constructed in terms of either consenting to exactly whatever is proposed, or doing nothing at all about crime. Within this structure of argument, opponents can be presented as indifferent to crime, or even as more interested in the rights of criminals than of their victims.

The secret of winning such debates lies in persuading enough people to reject the assumptions that underlie the structure of debate.

Let us briefly examine these assumptions.

First, it is assumed that a DNA database is essential if crime is to be reduced. This is not so. It would be better to legalise drugs. Millions of consenting acts that are presently illegal would then drop out of the crime figures. At the same time, competition from legitimate suppliers would bankrupt the criminal gangs that have turned parts of London and Manchester into low-intensity war zones; and lowered prices would reduce the vast number of burglaries and street crimes now committed by drug users.

For those acts still criminal we could have much stronger punishments. The notion that serious threats to lock criminals away for very long periods, or to flog or mutilate them, or to hang them, will have no deterrent effect is so laughable, that only someone with a Sociology degree could propose it; and only a fool could really believe it.

Then the laws regarding self-defence could be changed. It is a scandal that respectable people in this country are not allowed to use whatever force they think necessary to defend their lives and property. Tony Martin was put in prison for the bizarre crime of “murdering” a burglar. If he was to blame for anything, it was for his moderation in not going after the other two thieves who broke into his house, and executing them as well.

Each by itself, these reforms would take us back to the crime figures of about 1970. Combined, we might find ourselves back in the 1950s. Of course, the authorities affect horror and even incredulity at the thought of doing these things. They would rather have their DNA database.

Second, it is assumed that a DNA database would reduce crime. Undoubtedly, it would have some effect, but this would be mostly against those criminals likely to be caught and punished in any event. There might at best be a small drop in the cost of policing.  But anyone aware of the optimistic claims made when finger printing was first introduced must know that the more intelligent criminals will simply take more care to hide their identity. That will need more this time than wearing gloves. But I doubt if it will need anything very hard or expensive.

It is, of course, true that some crimes would be solved by having a DNA database. In his comments the other day, Mr Blair mentioned various rapes and murders that were only solved decades afterwards by accidental matches of DNA samples. But something still more effective in the fight against crime would be making everyone in the country go about with a bar code tattooed on his forehead. This would reduce any number of petty frauds. Given the right sort of scanning machines in public, it would allow lost children to be found in minutes, and allow the authorities to keep an eye on known criminals. I can easily multiply the number of alleged benefits a salesman for the big computer companies might make to the Home Office. But I ask instead—would you willingly present your face for the tattooist’s needle?

This brings us to the third assumption of the debate—that a DNA database would be used only for crime control. Even granting that our present rulers are entirely to be trusted—at the very least a dubious assumption—we cannot be sure what they will be like a generation from now. But we can be sure that a database set up now to cover those who are arrested will, without any positive extension, soon cover most of the population. It would a useful tool for any government wanting to exercise the tyrannical powers it now has only in theory.

As Albert J. Nock once observed, every time we give a government power to do things for us, we also give it the power to do things to us. I cannot think of a better illustration of this truth than a DNA database.

You may huff and puff and insist you have nothing to fear from a database of your DNA. After all, the authorities keep promising how much safer it will make you. But do you want your children to go on that database? Can you be sure that some demented government scientist two decades from now will not decide that the surest way to heaven on earth is to stop certain people from breeding? Can you be sure that your children will not show up negative on a DNA database that will have enabled an old authoritarian fantasy to be made into bureaucratic reality?

Are there no criminal tendencies somewhere in your family background? No racial or sexual characteristics that may one day be again be as unfashionable as they have been in other times and places? No bad eyes or flat feet? No predisposition to obesity or illnesses that it will for the foreseeable future be expensive to treat on the National Health Service?

Bear in mind that, with a certainty not known since the 1940s, the relevant scientists are proclaiming that your destiny is in your genes. This may be true. Whatever the case, it is and will remain the consensus. Can you believe it will never be attractive to politicians ignorant of the science, but struggling with the problems of crime control and ballooning health budgets?

Do you want grandchildren? Or do you want to risk seeing your genes scientifically combed from the general pool?

Or do you want your DNA samples handed over to foreign governments? I imagine data will soon be shared between the various governments of the European Union, which will certainly include Rumania and Bulgaria and possibly Turkey as well.

Or do you want your DNA samples at risk of theft from thieves? I cannot imagine what use it might be to them. But who can say what things will be useful in the future?

Or do you want the police to use your DNA samples to get you falsely convicted of a criminal offence? This has been happening with fingerprinting as long as it has been around. With finger prints, it is a matter of using sellotape to copy prints from one object to another. I imagine the police will soon find ways to do this with DNA samples. And the courts will be just as willing as with finger prints to take DNA evidence as effectively conclusive proof of guilt.

If your answer is what it ought to be, let us turn back to an investigation of what other measures may be available for the fight against crime.

This is the framework within which debate on the DNA database should proceed So long as the present framework of assumptions continues unchallenged, there can be no effective opposition.

I am pleased with how well I put my case last Monday evening. But I am sure that others can and will do better.

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.

Damian Green and Christopher Galley: let’s suppose DG “groomed” CG. What then?


David Davis

The Daily Quislingraph carries a “report” that Damian Green, arrested (and then bailed, why only that? What’s wrong with “release without charge” – as he has done freedom a service?) for allegedly being in possession of “leaked documents”, obtained them by “grooming” (ummm, what’s that?) a “civil servant”, allegedly the eponymous Christopher Galley, who is of course, still “disappeared” as of now.

If so, and if “leaking” is OK if the New Labour Government Stalinists do it (as they have been for years if not longer) then, under the principles of a level playing field in liberal pluralist democracy, it’s OK for the opposition to take advantage of “leaks”.

The problem arises when one side tries to upend the playing field , or do the equivalent of “rocking the table” in Billiards and Snooker. This of course is transparently what ZanuLieBorg is doing to our constitutional settlement, and what it has set out to do at least since 1997.

An administration which:-

(1) Creates one new crime a day, by arbitrary definition,

(2) Wants to bring in ID cards by force or stealth,

(3) Forcibly nationalises Banks for spurious reasons based on new and arbitrary definitions of solvency,

(4) Wants to not have its rotten and pocket boroughs in inner cities merged into fewer bigger ones,

(4) Fills the nation with CCTV camerae,

(5) Is creating a very very large and immortal DNA database by stealth, (mostly of young whilte males now, but you just watch what will happen in a couple of years)

(6) Has deliberately decimated and downsized the Farming Communities really quite early on (cunning move that was, before any of us really noticed!) (they are Kulaks and thus conservatives by and large) by burning their animals at the point of a gun, trampling their fields with “ramblers” (who are clearly mostly lefties or they would have better things to do), closing their shops and Post Offices, and allowing the EU to dictate what produce of theirs could be sold to whom at what price,

(7) Has removed the intellectual basis of anti-Stalinist opposition to wickedness, in the Lords, by gerrymandering it by force,

(8) Has passed what amounts to an Enabling Act, for ministers of this Junta,

(shall I go on? That’s all I could type in a minute flat.)

An administration which does all this, is Nazi. Plain and simple. Now, it bcoemes the DUTY, first of opposition MPs, and then the rest of us, to oppose it. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to share the fate of the poor miserable German people in 1945. As I keep on saying, it could be argued that they did bring a terrible retribution and fate upon themselves, by failing to reject what were ostensibly and frankly portrayed socialist/ultranationalist policies, clearly outlined to them in successive elections and publlications – not to mention violent events.

Any Conservative MP who thinks that he ought to suborn the Civil Service, directly or otherwise, to find out more about the nefarious things going on under the surface of this government, ought to do so – it’s now his duty. This is war. In the pursuit of truth, particularly in what passes for “government” and the things it tries to cover up, and if socialist (as this outfit is), then it is always and invariably a lot – bad laws should be broken. Publicly and often. While the “media” are still nominally free, this strategy will weaken the masses’ belief, in time – and it will take time – in the cases for their retention.

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.

I’ve just put this on another blog but I have to share it with you here.


David Davis

Please go to Big Brother Britain, if you fell that you’d like to, for more good stuff.

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.

Big Brother Britain: hot new minimal-statist blog focussing on the obvious…


…outward and also more covert signs of the Pan-Opticon State.

David Davis

I am pleased to have been asked to write for this blog, which is quite new and deserves support from all varieties of liberal and Libertarian. My objective is to put up something today to kick off, so watch this space, even though my access privileges over there don’t yet let me upload files. I do not intend to merely repeat posts from here onto there: different blog objective, different content.

Ideally, all committed free-marketeers and pro-liberty-people might try to visit it once a day, as they do ours here.

ITEM:- UPDATE…I can now put stuff up attached and embedded! So let’s all help it take off. The more bloggers we have, the harder it will be for the enemy class! And the more good stuff for all you lazy buggers to read !

I think they are just making it up.


David Davis

Poor old Obnoxio the Clown has just blown another fuse, poor old chap, about “Jacqui” “Smith”, described as an “interior” “minister”, who apparently wetted her knickers in public about the rush of people wanting to “pre-register” for an ID card. I think she did it on purpose, because winding the old chap up is so easy….I do fear for his blood pressure sometimes.

I have heard of “pre-selling” – this is or was a legitimate sales-related activity where you, say send in a “Key Accounts Manager” to, say, Tesco…then they have lunch paid for by you and you negotiate a price for two million dozen etc, but “pre-registering” for an ID card? Nah.

Tom Harris MP thinks “an awful lot of people – perhaps dozens” are worried about our trend towards a police state


David Davis

Interesting comment thread on that post on his blog. About 97% critical of him I would guess. Brave guy, then, anyway.

And here’s Middleborough cops trying to interdict private photography in the street:-

Fingerprinting of parents of nursery school children is of course, “not planned”.


David Davis

CICERO !!!

… = … Come in, Children, Eat, Relax, Obey……

I am astounded as usual, by the extent to which private outfits will sell rope to the hangmen.

As usual, Mr No-One, is planning to extend this scheme.In fact, more cleverly than is normally the case, he does not even get a mention.

Honeycomb Solutions (I bet you 50p that 90% of firms called “solutions” are hand-in-c*** glove with stalinist statists) says this. the article positively shimmers with all the statist planning buzzwords, and has prbably been written by the Department for Child Abuse Children (I expect there is one.)

As a Libertarian, one understands the concerns of the two parents of a child, for the wellbeing of their property, which is to say: the child. However, the fears of the majority about such things as abduction, molestation, paedophilia, assaults on children, and the like, all no more common now than 50 or 100 years ago, ought to be set aside in favour of the concern for civil liberty that this wedge-end-measure suggests will be the caes in more places in the future.

Who can say how long before it is used to prevent a “Fathers 4 Justice” father from getting his “kid” back from the State?

Surveillance and “management” … of what?


David Davis

I am indebted to Sofia for sending me the link to what’s below. Scary stuff when you integrate it all.

Let’s make every british subject into a policeman, and then there won’t be any crime.


At all at all at all.

David Davis

Now, we will be faced with handheld fingerptint scanners. Then anyone who even mildly dipleases the every increasing occupying army of “More Policemen On The Beat” – whether they are real or artificial ones – will be able to have his pawprints forcibly taken, and deleted afterwards kept on file for ever and ever.

Truly, the solution must be to force everyone to be a Policeman – whether he will or no. Then we can all spy on each other all the time, for ever, and crime will be a thing of the past, even though there will be more indictable offences than ever before.

What good people we shall have become!

The British political class and enslavement: I have revised the poll below as it was constructed in haste:


David Davis

I didn’t think enough about the last post before publishing it. Sorry.

YOU MAY VOTE FOR UP TO TWO ANSWERS:-

(1)

Did they turn us into barnyard-animals by public-culture-degradation and removal of schooling, in order to be able to tyrannize us overtly with our consent, so as to show that the idea of wanting Liberty can then be destroyed inside a Free People?

Or…

(2)

Did they destroy the idea of Liberty, in order to turn us into their barnyard-animals because they are pre-capitalist-barbarians, and wanted to have some animals to mistreat and shag?

(3)

The political Class in Britain today does not know what it is doing and is flying blind, carried along by the masturbatory howlings of its predatory hangers-on and suppliers who sell stuff to it, and who have been to the wrong universities, or too many (unis), for too long; the cameras and systems are arriving under their own momentum and the consequence is unintended,

(4)

The Political Class in Britain today only has the best interests of ordinary people at heart, and is acting in the role of teacher/benefactor/moral mentor, so that everything has to be noted and seen at all times from the cradle to the grave,

The question does vex me often.Try this one instead:-

…UPDATE…and I have just found this, this morning.

Barnyard animals and tyranny: the role of the British State in the downfall of liberty.


David Davis

(1)

Did they turn us into barnyard-animals by public-culture-degradation and removal of schooling, in order to be able to tyrannize us overtly with our consent, so as to show that the idea of wanting Liberty can then be destroyed inside a Free People?

Or…

(2)

Did they destroy the idea of Liberty, in order to turn us into their barnyard-animals because they are pre-capitalist-barbarians, and wanted to have some animals to shag?

The question does vex me often. Either way they are wicked. here’s a poll:-

Here we go down, further into the cesspool


David Davis

“Jacqui” “Smith”, described as a “Home” secretary, is re-proposing what we have feared all along.

If criminals and other chappies, such as “terrorists”, are plotting stuff, then it’s not our problem. There is no moral burden on us, non-suspects, to have to prove our innocence, in ways such as “not having communicated with suspect X”, or “not having accessed “suspicious” websites”, or “not being found by mobile phone records to have been in place Y at time T”.

The Remittance Man has gone into the timeline in more detail than i have done.

The way to not have a war on terror, and thus not have to use such a spurious war (which you can’t have anyway, it’s tautological) as an excuse to put a Police State in place, is to have had the right foreign policy for the last 100-odd years instead of the wrong ones.

Failing that (and it’s failed, yes) the West ought to have looked better ot its own defence against all sorts of marxist and pre-capitalist millenarian rubbish, not just “militant” “Islam”. Regarding Islam, I’m still not really clear that there’s any other approved type, in default of “deeply respected and globally-famous Imams” saying otherwise. I’m also not entirely clear that Islam is a religion in the logical sense – although sean Gabb is on public record as saying “Islam is a fine religion” (see and try googling “Libertarian Alliance + Putney Debates”, I can’t momentarily find the link) and I remain to be convinced, but that’s an argument for another day.

No: if the British State wants to monitor everybody, all the time, and store the “product” as the stuff is called, then it will have to make a better case than it possibly aiding in detection of supposed “crimes”. Crimes I always thought were against someone’s life, liberty or property. In the theoretical absence of socialism 9devoutly to be wished) most crimes are property crimes; there is even today, despite the almost complete absence of firearms, relatively little murder (try surviving in Venezuela today under Huggy-the-Chav) and even this State is still not in the big league yet when it comes to depriving people of their liberty. I cannot see this measure as but a sledgehammer to crack a nut, unless of course there is some subtext? Like pan-national surveillance of everybody, all the time?