Monthly Archives: September 2007


Celebrities. Only 34 views today by the time I blogged this. Poor show; where is everyone? You should all be saving the world, since there is no work for you to do today.

Just experimenting with the ways to get visit-figures up on Saturdays. April fool.

However, if “celebrities” brings more readers to the blog for legitimate reasons, then we might talk about them sometimes, but of course only for the best of socioligical reasons. Like why “Madonna” wants to be a Sloane, and why, er, that woman whose name I can’t remember or maybe it’s a man, wants to be, er, landed and famous, etc. And why Reg whatisname (he’s changed it to Elton something) has peculiar pictures, and, er…………who?

And…….why do all these strange people, who affect to want to destroy Western Civilisation and also have a small “carbon footprint”, as reflected in their songs, ditties, plays, films etc, want to live here, in it, even after it shall have been destroyed, as grandees? Why not in Khazakhstan, wherefrom All Apples have come? (True.) Or Mongolia, from which the liberal BBC hero Ghenghiz Khan came and liberated people from their heads? Or China, from which All Civilisation without any exception whatever has come, even gunpowder and writing and paper and art and walls and stuff? Or Burma, from which all Buddhism has come? Or Southern Rhodesia, where the Messiah Mugabe reigns yet?

If Satan created MacDonald’s, did he also create sharwarma bars? It must be so, but nobody has said.

Did Satan create this stuff (which is very nice) or not? If so, then why do they eat it all over the Muddle East? And in Queeensway, London  W2,England, at all hours of the day and night?

This is after all “fast food”, and I for one ate it in Lebanon, in 1969 (I am half-Syrian) long before it became available in London, and long before MacDonald’s had been heard of outside One-horse-town, Upper-Moonscapia, USA.

What’s different about MacDonald’s or Burger King or KFC? 

Boris Johnson strangely disappeared along with some other stuff, from little-known web-hoster in Glos

Boris Johnson is back on line, after his webhosters have pulled him accidentally (or otherwise? Funny how the pulled were all “right wingers?) in response to a suggestion by an Uzbek “commercially-involved-person” about some other blogs.

I think everybody ought to find and repeat repeat the original texts about the guy who’s got his teeth into Arsenal FC’s ankle.

Question; Why do “Russian” “businessmen” want to own British football clubs? I can’t figure that one out, try I ever so hard. Why not own Tesco? Or M&S? (Jewish by blood, they could even afford to buy it and close it down as a mega-hubristic act!) They could throttle our food supply so we have to let them buy missiles (again.) Why football clubs? They don’t matter a tinker’s toss. Can anyone enlighten me?


Katherine Hamnett fires Tesco

What do you expect from a woman who didn’t want the West to deploy Cruise and Pershing? With that mindset, she can’t want ordinary poor-people to be able to freely shop, in their cars, for what Prince Charles sneered at as “cheap food” either.

What on earth did such an upright, sincere leftist women think that she was doing in bed with the likes of a British supermarket in the first place? was she after money? 

Where would she be now if she had won in the 80s? The Gulag?

If a British Libertarian Party was to exist and it won an election, what ought it to do? (Part 7) The Union, as in the UK

I’m not certain but it seems safe to assume that the Nationalists will have de Iure as opposed to just de Facto power in Scotland, after any General election. This may turn out to be a good thing – for Scotland also. For Wales and Northern Ireland, we shall have to see.

As there will almost certainly be an absolute Libertarian majority in England, the Tories being presumably wiped out totally, the issue of who pays for whom will be critical. Since large parts of the Public Sector will be in the process of being closed down (see Sean Gabb’s new book) and feelings about English over-taxation to pay for others’ “services” will be running high, the current “bill for Scotland” will be in the spotlight. I’m not sure a Libertarian Party would be able to resist parliamentary demands for an Act to end the Union – whatever the pros and cons of this.

Personally, I think it would be sad, but only a bit (like Belgium breaking up.) I’m sure a Customs and currency Union could be cobbled up, for as long as we want one of either. This may flounder on the rock of progressive and continuing Libertarian abolition of duties on everything. “Ever Lower Taxation”, rather than “ever-closer-union”….

Indeed, a currency Union might be unnecessary since presumably Libertarian monetary policy (sounds like an oxymoron too) could allow many “Monies” to be legal tender, with the best and most desired retaining their value and purchasing power, and the less good, such as the Southern Rhodesian whatever-it-is, doing less well and being accepted in “fewer outlets”. I’m sure the Euro would gravitate to somewhere near its true value quicker here than it would in isolation as per now.

I was going to talk about money later. However, a return to Gold, as far as the State Bank is concerned (we shall have to have one for some time yet) might not be a bad idea, as it will be cometing with smaller and faster moneyers, some of whom will have spotted this already. It’s a bad time to buy gold as you will have noticed. Freedom and Whisky tracks it for you daily.

More on food. Fair trade or food fascism? “Fair Trade” food annoys and insults me. How about you? (Part 7 of “what should a Libertarian Party do” is tomorrow.)


Updates are shown in red, to be fair to everyone.

David Davis 


I always say that, to annoy the lefties, nazis, government-state-ownership-of-people-obesity-gauleiters, and anti-globalisation-students/food-police/carboncrats.

However, you can’t escape “Fair Trade” brands of the sort of food-product you’d expect rightly to be grown in hot poor countries, even there. Now as a Libertarian, I have no objection to people willingly agreeing if they want to, to pay more money than they need to, whether via middlemen like Sir Terry Leahy or not, for food that they could get more cheaply at Kwiksave or wherever. But I object to the snidely-implied threat or “slide” put on “ordinary” trade by calling their brands “FAIR TRADE” or its variations.

Does that imply that all other transactions concerning this stuff, from other suppliers, are “unfair trade”? That can’t have been the original intention………….or was it?

The problem with “fair trade” brands is that the word “fair” has been prostituted and lynched by the nazis, for us, while we were not looking – and for their ends and not the growers’ or ours. They play upon our sense of FAIRNESS by pretending that we, somehow, by freely being consumers of stuff that human invention is able to bring to us over thousands of miles, for little money or power, are robbing the producers of the benefit of same. “Fair” sounds good, if you believe that profit is wrong and bad, and that “TNCs” exploit people in “LEDCs”.

But if you are Fidel Castro, or Peter Mandelson, or Stalin, or the “sharers” whom the Hobbits finally encountered on their return to the Shire after the war of the Ring, then it can mean what you want us to think it is supposed to mean.

The top post on this site, put on today 14th March 2008, tells you the consequences of this line of thinking as regards British students in general.

Just thought I’d talk about food for a minute or two, thank you recombinantsocks for flagging it so importantly.

FOOD seems to be a problem for statists. They think they ought to tell us what kind and how much we ought to put into our bodies: “to be healthy”, to “not be a burden on the state” etc etc etc. Even large companies, those supposed champions of capitalism, but now seemingly ever trembling at the feet of statists, say things in their ads like “could help to keep your heart healthy”.

Recombinantsocks has been kind enough to challenge us these past couple of days in his comments, over our stance that people ought to be able to eat the food they want without interference, abatement of supply, or “state care sanctions” in the aftermath. Please seek our post “fat food individual liberty”, it’s quite recent so probably has not yet been taken down by any alert state’s nutrition-police-department.

What a let-down for individual liberty.  Sorry, socks old chap. You look like a sensible guy. I can’t think you’d get many sovereign individuals to agree with you. But by all means try.

The “turkey-twizzler” thing was of course got up by the Booby-See, to help them to help Jamie Oliver to earn money by ruining the lives and well-being of “more than 650,000+++” “kids”, while promoting food-types the “kids” don’t like, but that the people that their parents think they would like themselves to be like, would like to think that they would like their children to like.

Salad (no dressing.) Pasta, without salt. Ciabatta (what the f*** is that?) with ashes on it (without salt.) Vegetables (without salt.) No crisps (also without salt.) Boiled potatoes (without salt – tastes of ashes, like fat-free-oven-chips, just try for yourself.) What the hell is going on? British children, especially males, do not eat that stuff. How can they live and play footy? This is the North. God knows what they’re suffering in London – Boris, sort it out!

Speaking of the Booby-See, I think we have recently advocated demolishing it utterly, shredding its records, shutting it down, sacking all the staff, and offering its copyrights to anyone who wants to pay for them. Sean Gabb has written much on this one.