Monthly Archives: October 2007

Kremlin bans “cult of death”. (It’s “halloween”, whatever that now means in popular culture here….)


You can read all about it here. Very surprising, but perhaps not, for the poor assaulted Russians have been in the front line against enemies of reason, internally from intellectuals, and externally from the “east and south”, for some centuries.

Here in the North, and being a Catholic, I have running spats with aggro-chavdads every 31st October. One of whom must have come back disappointed in the night last year and superlatively-egged our car, so that I had to car-wash it five times.

No reports of untoward assaults on the house so far this evening. 

It will be time to leap to the defence of Tesco again, tomorrow morning.


Just that. Watch this space.

Parturiunt Montes; tamen, nascetur ridiculus Mus (or not.) 

The liberal (small l) enlightenment and the War against the West which brought it into being. Also use of words like “Islamophobia”. Could “Islamophobia” have been caused by Socialism infecting Islam?


I chanced on Brian Mickelthwait’s post on Samizdata about the wide and promiscuous use of this word by our masters and controllers in order to frighten us into losing our liberties to them (our masters) and I want to use it to flag certain things.

Brian found a nice post on “Metamagician and the Hellfire Club, a blog by Russell Blackford, an Australian writer and philosopher. If you go there, the text nicely illustrates the problem of understanding that exists between the secular liberal West and what our Masters call “Islam”, when I think that they think that they mean Moslems who are not “radical Islamists”, about what States ought to be allowed to do and legislate for and how, and on what philosophical grounds.

Waleed Aly (author of People like Us) is a secular Sunni Moslem and this is what Russell Blackford wishes he had said.#

My contention here is that “radical Islam” (Wahhabists aside) seems to be a rather modern infection, whose inception seems to post-date the invention of “Socialism”, which is to say, the advocacy of anihilating all the good done to all people of the world by Capitalism who have been fortunate enough to have come into contact with same (except for whoever could be a warlord, local or otherwise.) From the 17th Century during which Islam faced (and lost against John Sobieski in) its Teenage Crusading phase, until recently, inter-religional and intercultural flare-ups had been mercifully rare, and short-lived.

Churchill, in The River War, did highlight in a timely fashion Islam’s “local warlords’ ” still-abiding propensity to cause sharp local difficulties to the ordered life of modern or emerging nations and the efforts of British Civilisation to enlighten the lives of all people, but there was not some general alert, darkening the entire world. No, this seems to have happened recently. The efforts of American “Liberals” to side themselves with such people as “Truthers” , raises the possibility that Socialism may be pursuing a tactical direction allying itself with “radical Islam” so as to degrade the ability of the USA (The Last Best Hope) to resist assaults on the West from any angle.

I only raise this because the often simplest and most transparent explanations for things may be the true ones.  Could it be that the real mortal Enemy of Man, that is to say Socialism (initially defeated as in 1815, 1918, 1945 and 1989 – and progressively assaulting Man ever more virulently as Churchill’s “Strong Arms of Science” gain more benignity and strength) has mutated?  Has Socialism entered surreptitiously into the body of Islam, now a middle-aged philosophy and most probably therefore increasingly benign and relaxed towards others, especially “People of the Book”, in order to try again to bring about the Destruction of Man? I do not say this to let the Truthers off, for I think they are disgusting, ungrateful, leftist anti-western saddo turds and slimebats, oathbreakers and quislings, their souls like those of Animal Rights Terrorists foredoomed therefore to Wander Eternally After Death,  but the temporal coincidence of “radical Islam” and of Socialism’s fightback from impending disaster does interest me.

I just wonder if it’s not Islam’s fault after all, but it’s just unfortunately caught a nasty dose of a bad pre-Capitalist disease, that still hangs about despite reality and reason? Highly-educated populations like Polly Toynbee still vote for socialist/statist politicians, so we have clearly not got the vaccine right yet. 

Libertarian Alliance holds most successful conference ever (London, 27th/28th October 2007.) Watch for further reports on here.


Reports are beginning to circulate in the blogosphere and elsewhere of the LA’s best ever Conference. Accounts of it and of the input of particular speakers will shortly feature on the Alliance’s website and on this blog.

Sadly, my rheumatoid arthritis decided to ground me from Thursday last, so I couldn’t be your correspondent as I would have wished.

MORE IN THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX: JUST MORE.


Sean Gabb did a bit about this a little time ago, but this comment reproduced below is so important that I thought I would flag it up fully on the Mainblog (as opposed to on the Afterblog, the Mizzen-blog, the Foreblog or the Blogsprit.) I hope that E Zantryus does not mind; anyway it’s too late now, so there.

I admit (mea culpa) that I had not referred previously to the wikipedia entry on this matter, but here it is for us sceptics/contrarians/deniers/heretics (me? I’m a denier….soon I expect I will be a heretic) for everyone to go to and competely redraw so it contains at least some truths. Even at a somewhat cursory 30-second view, I note that the x-axes of those graphs which the writers use to show the relationship of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations versus progress of Ice Ages, are exactly reversed from those on the wikipedia Ice Age page. Interesting anomaly!

We ought to recall that one Pope, I forget which, defined “heresy”  as “an exaggeration of the truth”.

E. Zantryus // Oct 26th 2007 at 7:04 am (edit)

When you do a Google search for “Global Warming,” one of the top two results that always pops up is the Wikipedia entry for this subject. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Unfortunately, most of the people that sign up and edit this article exhibit a clear pro-global warming. This means that everyone from school children to the media are getting this highly biased view of Global Warming, when they research this topic via a Google search. Fortunately, however, ANYONE can sign up on Wikipedia free of charge in less than one minute and edit this article. I would encourage everyone to sign up and contribute to this article, to ensure it presents the correct view of global warming.

-E. Zantryus

On the 65th anniversary of Alamein, consider whether the Anglosphere could have been or ever will be the only Father of Freedom.


(I originally posted this about five days ago, but it so reduced bloggage-traffic to a stalinist gosplan-crawl, that I voluntarily deleted it, for the good of the blog. But I post it again now, in case everybody who could read was on drugs or something.) 

At 20 minutes to ten local time (raise a glass at 7.40 tonight here) 70 miles west of Cairo, Montgomery’s artillery started on the Afrika Korps and the Last Battle of the Old Empire, against socialism its new and mortal enemy, was under way. It was not the turning point in Africa; that was three months earlier, but it was the symbolic last appearance on their own, of Old Anglosphere soldiers, largely without Americans (no disrespect there, for they had their hands full in the Pacific at the time.)

Could modern liberalism and our notions of Liberty have arisen in any other culture than this one?Could they still, if there are remotely friendly ones still out there? If sovereign individual Liberty was to be expunged, erazed and eliminated in this Age of the World - and the prognosis is not good right now, or we in the LA would not need to have invented ourselves - could Liberty be reborn anywhere else? We ought to have a plan B.

Stuff going on such as the UN, the EU, Western lefty-dons who have collectively ruined the lives of modern Africans, a Russia re-enslaved, not to mention pre-Capitalist barbarian Creeds based on Tribal Survival in lands of little worth, gather like the black horizon-cloud bank of an approaching typhoon.

Candidates are few. Of the civilisations which have had the power to export themselves over the globe, that is to say mainly the European autarkies, none has a clean record. If a civilisation, or rather or instead a political “value-set” is to be propagated, then it helps if its practitioners apply it in their dealings with others with whom they come into contact, and if they apply it by example and with gentleness.

Let us first consider nations with originally comparable cultural and technological skills. 

Thus, the less said about Spanish and Portuguese activities in South America and Africa for example, the better (They can’t complain that we plundered their “treasure-ships” – their deeds in acquiring the stuff were largely unspeakable, and anyway we needed the dosh to fund our side of their war upon us and upon their Dutch and Belgian helots, prosecuted by them because we were being liberals!)

The Belgian Congo comes to mind. As a boy, I remember the harrowing radio broadcasts on the “BBC Home Service” from there in the 60s. There was no live Wireless Tele-Vision at the time, thank goodness, for I would have had nightmares at that age. Belgian Imperial Staff and their wives and children didn’t personally deserve the deaths they got, but their masters had a fine example Over the Water from Ostend, and they ignored us and our advice, totally.

French people for a long time were afraid to travel to North Africa. Perhaps they are still, I do not know. If I was them I would not risk it. But North Africa has now travelled to them. Their President’s remark about “canaille” is understandable but they also have brought hatred upon themselves.

The Dutch don’t seem to figure much: that wasn’t meant to rhyme…..Some wanted Indonesia to come to us in time! (Yep, and I can write convincing Kipling-doggerel too. A grand and under-rated poet, whose stuff ought to be taught today, but is not.) Perhaps the most populous Moslem nation in the world would not have been slaughtering so many Christians in East timor and elsewhere if it had joined the commonwealth in the late 1940s….or perhaps it still would, but we cannot know now.

What of Russia, a tangentially-Asian nation trying to be European, and facing in the wrong direction? Northern Tartars, starting form middle-Asian culture, speaking a West Slavonic Language, and trying to be French? Stupid British Chiefs of Police would say Russia – seen as a victim of a murder (not altogether innapropriate) was “in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Russia too tried to export itself (we’re still paying – vide the IRA etc.) We used to print badges saying “VISIT THE SOVIET UNION, BEFORE THE SOVIET UNION VISITS YOU“. I still have one somewhere, must polish it up to remind people.

Could any these have been the home of liberalism?

Er, probably not, but p’raps the Dutch? People like us, slooping about in the cold windy mud on the Outer Edge Of The World; to them and to us, the sea was/is a highway and never a border – just like us and the Norsemen, for by then we were probably all cousins anyway. The boats all looked the same. One was found in Canada. (The Dutch gave us the EF50 in 1940, an hour ahead of the occupiers - a cyber-bottle of champagne-substitute to the first responder to tell me what this is and what it was (& still can be) for, and why it was crucial!)

China?

Nah. Almost all of China’s history is soaked in blood and serfdom. Big place for pre-enlightenment Man to handle, so if yu wuzz a warlord, and you wuzz a wannabe-big one, then you had to reach far and butcher wide. Gunpowder and writing, that’s all (and I personally don’t believe the gunpowder bit as firmly as western lefty students tell me I should.)

Japan?

I admit I don’t know a lot about Japan, except that although Englishmen make the best lovers, the Japanese have found how to make them smaller and cheaper. I don’t predict that anybody will from now on stop Japan from owning nuclear weapons; the question is whether it wants to, and that’s a decision for the Japanese; the history explains itself. The tragedy is that the only hitherto use of such weapons was the strategically and tactically correct one – against an enemy nation that did not possess them. But Japan looks good, although not as good as…..

India?

India is interesting. There has not been a longer Imperial association between Britain and almost any other country on the earth except this one. I have high hopes for India, possibly the next defender of the Free World, after the fascist lefty nazis have finished degrading America (they will regret it, when they are done, and there is nobody to speak for them, and India is parhaps not ready, or even willing.) We had a bit of a rocky start with India, I freely admit, but we were the first technologically and rationally-driven nation to have to learn how to teach others how we thought it was best to live. We got there in the end, ofr it’s a fine modenr country that can feed itself, and exports food too, and has a healthily sceptical attitude towards western nazi lefty greenazis which want it to “cut its carbon emissions”. Indians, tell the Goracle-buggers to “go forth from here, travel widely, and make children by having sex”.

“The Arab World”?

Hmmmmmmmmmm. As Sean Gabb said once at a Putnet Debate, “Islam is a fine religion!” Certainly, and unlike Islam, Christianity’s outings against other “religions” as opposed to internally, were never offensive, only defensive (such as the Crusades) unless you consider how the Spaniards blotted their copybook in South America vs the Incas and others. (But I’ve already rubbished the Spaniards – worse, they LEFT THE WAR after the Madrid bombings. You don’t become an Oathbreaker and skedaddle away from pain just because the enemy has hit your homeland. Very sad all round, a very poor show, I am sorry to say. Note to guvmint of Spain; (perhaps the people would be different but they have been deselected) consider yourselves demoted to the “under-16 extra B” subs bench.) But I was doing the “Arabs”…is there actually any such entity yet? No. They are a pile of nations just like everywhere else, but none shows any semblance of intention to overthrow its current oligarchy and wholeheartedly embrace a liberal pluralist political settlement.

We could still help them to get it right in Iraq, but we will leave, just like the last time (1991) and the time before that (1926) ‘coz it’s boring and a bit too far away. 

Me? I’m half-Lebanese. It would be nice if the Anglosphere’s relations with the “Arab” “world” could turn out like the Indians, but I don’t hold out hopes.

So we’re left with India. I daren’t mention Israel because the leftie-Jew-haters are watching, and the blog will get shut down if I said what I thought about “Palestinians” and their European brown-nozers, but maybe another time.

Isn’t that interesting? We’ve just had a major electric-power-outage here, while I was (thinking about) typing about how nice Israel might be to us in our hour of travail.

Perhaps it’s down to Haliburton, keen as ever to stifle the friends of Israel so the Hallies shall not have been seen to “go to war for oil”!

So who’s going to carry the torch for liberalism, when the Anglosphere goes down?

Fat food obesity diet nazi statist food-police diet-control. People as farm animals…


We do know, actually, in our hearts, really, why the guvmint is picking on fat people.

Daniel Hannan has a good bit of bloggage today, (see above) about this rather pressing (sorry!) matter. I quote a choice bit:

“Anti-fat campaigning unites a number of disparate interests. Anti-capitalists and greenies see it as another stick with which to beat McDonalds. Snobs seize on it as one of the few acceptable ways in which they can still look down on the poor. Above all, bureaucrats descry new opportunities to expand their powers with targets and strategies, bans and regulations, publicity campaigns and task forces.

We keep hearing that we are in the grip of an “obesity epidemic”. Never mind the faux-medical language, which suggests that fatness is an affliction, rather than the result of choices. Is it really true?

Pull out a photograph from, say, a hundred years ago. Observe those jowelly Edwardians…”

To fully enslave a population, I mean REALLY properly, you have to control not only what they think, how they live, and how you shall permit them to breed (that’s coming back next, I bet you 5p) but also what they shall be allowed to eat, and what it shall taste like (remove salts and fats, criminalize their inclusion, and you can then REALLY depress the poor bastards.)

Come to think of it, when I posted about slebs not being seen eating, the other day, I forgot politicians. When did you last see a pol eating or drinking? 

“Britain seen from the North”….”Art”. What is art for? Why does it exist? If it does, what ought it to do?


I have never written about art before here, but a great deal of guff and puff is talked about it. “Society” (which I think does indeed exist in an organic sense, but not in the way Margaret Thatcher was thought by the Communist Nazis and other fascists to mean that it did not) is impacted upon by the art that goes on inside it. To me and I expect to many libertarians, Art and Science have an indistinct border – the main degree awarded, after all, by various Universities, is called “Master of Arts“, even if the recipient was a “scientist” in the modern usage of the word. Art reflects what a civilisation thinks about itself.

What’s the point of art? It’s what real or ordinary people, not “Gods” (aka Matisse who is reputed to have once said he was one) use to depict stuff to each other. For me, “art” is how you show to others where you have come form and what it looked like. Now we are Six (as the book says) a lot of it can be Brian’s “billion monkey” stuff. Google Brian Micklethwait and  “billion monkey“. People can share art in real time about what they have done and where they have been. So in this sense “modern” Art is becoming truly representational again.  J M W Turner did art, with what he had. Leonardo da Vinci did the same thing.

Dictocrats, nazis and other similar kinds of socialists all realise the iconic importance of art. To them, it is monumental, hyper-realistic, airbrushed statuary of themselves – or else just take a look at any communist-era bank notes – the Czechoslovak pre- 1989 100-crown “greenback” was a particularly fine example of craggy nordic man, stern-featured headscarfed woman both gazing intently up Stage Right, past sheaves of corn and a middle-distant panorama of smoking chimney stacks  and cog-wheels. Here it is in all its glory! Who could possibly say that this ghastly, nazi inhuman stuff is not art?

 cz-100-crowns.jpg

Or any of the murals of the butcher-pig Saddam Hussein, or that other bugger hiding in North Korea. That Jim Livingstone Wally in London would do the same on posters if he thought he would get away with it: just look at him, he’s a dead ringer for a 50s Polish Commie or the Goracle.

Go to houses where I teach, and pretty much you find on the walls, if not vastly expensive and expensively-shot pictures of the children, with or without their parents and all sprawled informally all over a white floorground, you find JACK VETTRIANO. This has to be the most hated and reviled artist in the history of the modern world. The whole caboodle is very, very funny! I personally like his stuff for he has studied how to draw people, he puts them in emotional situations which ordinary folk instinctively understand and identify with, he titles them sensitively, and they sell and sell and sell and sell….Originals go now for up to a million, so get one if you can… (…also you will have to bear not to be invited to dinner in Islington ever again, or else don’t admit that you own one – keep it for your bust hedge fund.) His own attitude to his critics, that is most of the “Art World” in the West, is refreshingly insouciant. 

But about 100 years ago something awful and rather portentiously strange happened: almost as if”art” was portending the First World War. Art, instead of being a window on the past, showing us all where we had come from and what it had been like, tried to go into the future. Like the Kaiser did whe he “dropped the Pilot”. Like “computer models” of the future (and we all know where that leads as to global warm-mongering etc) which are always and invariably wrong, art when applied to the future is blind.

Art became the name for that sector of it that the prevailing culturati-of-the-day wax lyrically and opaquely about. They did this often in front of those Classes of people whom they despise. Art thus began a downward spiral of decreasing realism amid more and more contemporary PR-hype about less and less content, enabling its producers to hide the fact that they did not know or care about how to draw anything. (At the same time public buildings became increasingly monstrous and faceless, reflecting probably the attitudes of the Enemy Class towards “lesser” people, but that’s another story, about architects, for later. Corbusier – gahhhh…. “Mr Crow” - who’d give a job to a guy like that? - I’ve said enough already, and that thing in Nuremburg that was going to need, er, six billion bricks…? Er? Ummmmmmmm? With what labour would it be built….or need I ask?)

Picasso’s works evolved further into primary-school-drawings. Matisse’s “economy of line” became an excuse to almost not draw anything much at all. Henry Moore got to waste many tons of bronze, now happily being recycled progressively by friendly and ecological metal-dealers-of-the-night. As for Miro and Kandinsky, well, your guess is as good as mine, but I’d hazard a guess as to what they’d been smoking. And I would not even like to say what I think about such “in-your-face” “statements”, as made by, say, Tracy Emin, or that sadly-obscene and obscenely sad statue that got put up in Trafalgar Square the other year: one might be arrested for hate-speech under some law or other that we have not heard of yet.

“Interpretation” is a buzzword often associated with the pretentious prose that “critics” and frequently artists themselves use, as a sort of affectation. The purpose must be to loft the importance of the “installation”, while obscuring its total lack of meaning as much as possible. here is a recent example - this is not art, it is a collection, expensively collated, of trash;

image1a.jpg

British-born sculptor Tony Cragg (°1949, Liverpool) left his native land in 1977 to work on the Continent. He now resides in Wuppertal, Germany. This work, entitled ‘Britain Seen From the North’ (1981), is typical of a period when Cragg made floor and wall reliefs out of broken pieces of found rubbish.

It features the shape of Great Britain, oriented so that east is up, north is left. At that left is the figure of a person, possibly the artist himself, ‘seeing’ Britain from the north. Because of its components, the work has often been interpreted as a comment on the state of the nation at that time, when it went through considerable economic hardship – especially in the north.

Cragg was British representative at the (43rd) Venice Biennale (in 1988), where he earned a menzione speziale. In the same year, he won the Turner Prize. In 1994, he joined the Royal Academy and in 2002 he received a CBE. In 2007, he won the Praemium Imperiale. Not bad at all for a bloke who started out as a lab technician at the British National Rubber Producers Research Association.

Jantien van der Vet alerted me to the existence of Cragg’s strange wall map, acquired by and exhibited at the Tate Modern in London.

This is by no means the most extreme example of what we face; I merely had it to hand. You could cite the famous “Tate Bricks”, which I was told off by a Tate zoo-keeper for walking on in 1980, as I just thought it was a slightly raised bit of floor which I was crossing. It was globally praised to the rooftops at the time, although thankfully enough normal people were still left alive to say that it was, er, just a couple of layers of bricks.

Of course no Libertarian ought to criticize another person for his/her taste in art, or in theory in anything else, subject of course to natural rights being honoured. What I object to is another aspect of what Sean Gabb calls the cultural hegemony of the tastes of one Class, and almost always a tiny minority at that. That same Class currently likes to publicly rubbish Tesco and MacDonalds, in its media (to which it believes it owns rights of access) possibly thinking that those same masses who don’t appeciate “art”, nor who want to read utterly unreadable novels by narcissistic nobodies, also patronize these establishments.

I’m not a prejudiced old bumpkin, honest, please believe me. Perhaps if education of students AND teachers was finally taken out of the hands of the state, some of this unspeakably innapropriate nonsense-on-stilts posing as “art” would simply disappear, and the problem would go away.

SLEBS. (That is to say, “celebrities”.) Have you ever seen one eating, even on camera?


SLEBS.

Celebrities.

Do they actually, ever, eat? I do not know. Do you? Have you ever seen one eating? If not, are they human? If not, are we all being “had”?

I mean, you never see a pic of one grunching into a MacDonald’s, I mean, do you? I don’t, but perahps I do not read the right papers. Even though all their worshippers do, and almost all normal people also do.

Like not having seen Victoria Beckham eating, I have never seen Osama bin Laden eating, for example, but then that may be coz’ he’s been dead for some time in a hole in some Afghan mountains, as Mark Steyn stated four years ago, and all the videos were cleverly shot before then. Pity about the old-model Kalashnikov, but I guess they’d have had to live with it, knowing most of us would not notice the error. Anyway, Al-Goracle-the-oracle has not said that he is not dead so he must be, as He knows all about the climate.

But……..I am still troubled. Do slebs eat or not? I need to know.

Trafalgar Day. God Save Nelson. He kept Europe fascist-free for 109 years. Pity it was so short a time.


David Davis

I promised posts about the significance of the battle of Trafalgar on this day, its 202nd anniversary. This is because I wanted commentators and viewers here to discuss the value, or not, of the British international political settlement know variously as the “British Empire” and/or the “British Commonwealth”. The upshot is whether these institutions have been helpful in promoting liberalism (I PERSIST in using that word) to populations, such as the European Autarkies, whose Enemy Classes such as today’s “enarques” persist in not granting liberal freedoms to ordinary people – at least not in name if even they do >de facto<, since lives have got to be lived and transactions have got to be transacted – or even “taxes” can’t be collected! 

When I was born, it might have been possible for me to know living persons who had known very old living people who had actually fought in it, but in 2007, not now sadly. To illustrate what I mean, my grandfather had when young met a very old man who had been with one Dutch brigade which nearly broke at Waterloo (but didn’t quite break, happily. So one guy from it met my grand-dad very very much later.) Trafalgar, a similarly seminal encounter, sealed the fate of the second embryonic EUroSoviet, the natural and mortal enemy of liberalism being born in the British Isles in the late 18th century.

Whatever we may think of the “French” “Revolution”, its direct children, very quickly spawned, wanted and did try to to subject Europe” to a new slavery, under the new nationalist/socialist monarchy of a Corsican gangster, whom they have to have delighted to pretend was French. To this day, I argue volubly with Czechs and Poles (including my own wife) who truly believe that Napoleon was their saviour, and who erect memorials to him, such as near Vyskov in Moravia where he trashed the Russians and Austrians at Austerlitz in December 1805 (they call it Slavkov-u-Brna.)

The dream of pan-European hegemony over the World, often driven by a hatred of Our First Child the liberal USA - and including hatred of Euro-hegemony’s mortal enemy the British Isles, which is the home of liberalism and also of the first people (yes before the Vikings!) to whom The Sea meant “a Road” and not “a Border”, has not died. Today, Broon has signed us up to the “treaty”, that is to say the “constitution” of the “EU”, as so many “European” bureaucrats have so charmingly and frankly told is it still is – almost as though they take no cognizance of our own “extreme right wing” (as they would put it) media here! Because these “treaty” people exist in a fishtank that is without tradition of liberal democracy, and think that they are what they themselves call “opinion-formers”, they have no fear of telling the frank truth about what the stuff they do really means.

I don’t think the world (that is to say; Man) can ultimately stand against fascist nazi communist destruction (all destruction by whichever of these leftist infantile mechanisms is the same as itself) of all that Man has achieved, if from now on Libertarians don’t start themselves to take a political stand. The onward march of Statism has no effective opposition from any “parties” I or you could name now in the UK. Nobody else is going to help us, from anywhere, not even Australia or New Zealand or the Ukraine. If nothing happens, then life on the Planet is doomed since all that we have fought to learn, and could use to get off, could be destroyed. Not now, not tomorrow, not in the next thousand years, but later. Libertarians have a duty to try to affect the political outcomes of elections over the next 100 years, which is all that I think is left when a difference can be made.

Discuss.   

Why does Waitrose exist


I loved that, sorry.

 It was a search-engine-string to us, from yesterday. I might even examine the proposition myself, and ask Sir Terry Leahy the same question in a letter!

Bet it was another female British primary-school teacher, having a go with her charges, at Tesco, where I expect the majority of her charges’ parents shop.

NEW WORD PLEASE! The future strength of the English Libertarian Party will come from the “peripolitans”.


Alan Coren has died. Coffee House the Spectator blog, has stuff on him so you don’t need me as you are all good blogotrons and can get to him yourselves. But he coined a word, and I think it’s grand.

“Peripolitan”.

In Greek, all those of you who are sad socialists like Polly Toynbee who have cancelled the teaching of the stuff except for your own children, it means “around the city”. It exactly sums up what in another age would have been called the “Yeomanry”; tha backbone of classical liberalism, and the exact sort of people whom Libertarians need to win votes from, if we are to rescue the UK, and therefore by inference the rest of the World, from the cesspit of idealism.

Libertarians should be concerned about the destruction of UK farming, whether deliberately Gos-Planned by the EU, or whether merely imposed by British metro-Socialists who hate Britain, hate non-Socialist voters, and hate what makes Britain stand out.


This is about a phenomenon which troubles me in the night when I am asleep but not bolging, and ought to trouble all liberals and conservatives who value the possibility that there will be sustainable, modern Western life in Europe and also in the UK, after the EU shall have imploded.

This matters both in “Europe”, just now ground under the fascist Brussels heel, and also its occupied territories such as Britain.

Economic and independent agricultural strength needs to be maintined so that someone, most likely the UK since we have been forced to successfully estrange the Americans from us by running away from Iraq (so they won’t come to help us any more over anything - why ever should they any more? We have, though our tainting by socialism, become what the Vikings called “Oath-Breakers”) can reconstruct liberal national regimes on the European Continent, in the Anglosphere’s image of such things, after the EUSoviet has collapsed in ruin and starvation, as it for sure will do.

Libertarians ought to be concerned that the infrastructure of agriculture in Britain, which can’t exactly be put back in a day if stuff is all gone and we are a weed-and-insect-and-rare-orchid-strewn-theme-park instead, and which ultimately depends on free people freely choosing to grow and rear stuff, on MANAGED GROUND, should not be destroyed.

 Today, I have read some surprising stuff on Eurorealist, a Yahoogroups group. I do not know how to point you to a “group” on here because I am a bumpkin, so just look for “Eurorealist” on “Yahoogroups” – your are all good bloggeeks and blogo-trons. Christ knows why it calls itself “Yahoo”, it just seems silly and rather childish to me, but there you are, perhaps I am too old. Wasn’t it something you shouted in 1993 when you had just killed a great big pixellated socialist nazi monster spitting fire, on “Doom” or “Heretic”? Well, anyway…

There is a thread about the Foot and Mouth epedemic of 2001, plus connections to later events. the best thing I can do is reprint it here as it stood last on my machine;

PLease see my comments later on…………

Subj:

Re: [eurorealist] Harry Randall has a point!! 
Date: 19/10/2007 14:25:29 GMT Daylight Time
From: indyshometown@yahoo.com
Reply-to: eurorealist@yahoogroups.com
To: eurorealist@yahoogroups.com
CC: freeuk@yahoogroups.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)

Hi,
“Despite this engineered calamity it was Government
operatives, who due to incompetence? once again
released the virus in the summer of 2007 – leading to
further damage to the British livestock industry – was
this yet again deliberate?”
Judging from everything that has happened and their
unwillingness to vaccinate, I would say yes.
Lina
Ask yourselves the Occum’s Razor Question  (invariably the simplest answer tends to to be the correct one:
How did Britain ever get along prior to The EU’s CAP, MAFF & DEFRA?

Please list every single mass extermination of animals in Britain prior to
our membership of the centralised and damaging EUropean soviet.


IS IS OUR LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY BEING DELIBERATELY SABOTAGED?
AT A MEETING IN 1998 IN EU: A Decision was taken to destroy the British
livestock industry (No Ministers attended).
Information came from secretaries attending taking notes. 
PURPOSE? Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Romania and other countries from the former communist block brought into the main body of the EU (2004). Needed to contribute to the EU ‘pot’
but were unable to pay their way & make a financial contribution. It was decided that
Poland would supply pigs, bacon,
and porcine products.
Slovakia and Slovenia would be bovine , milk and beef – and
Hungary, Romania etc. would supply sheep.

November 2000. MAFF approached T G Norman,
Longtown,
Carlisle, for ‘burn timber’.

December 4th 2000. Animal activists visit Heddon on the Wall farm, Northumberland.

January 18th 2001. 430,000 Euros allocated to F & M vaccine.


 

Early February 2001. EU begins checking F & M vaccine stocks.


SURPRISE! 19th February 2001 Foot and Mouth discovered in Essex abattoir.TYPE: Pan Asian type ‘O’, a new strain NEVER before
seen in the wild.
Likely to have been developed in a laboratory. TWO
labs in the UK -
Purbright and Porton Down.


It is understood that Animal Rights activists had ‘assisted’ links to the Government Labs.
It is confirmed that Animal Rights activists from Norfolk visited Heddon on the Wall farm.
 

It must be remembered the F&MV outbreak
orchestrated in 2001 led to
the needless slaughter of an estimated 12-14 M
animals, mostly perfectly healthy.
Despite this engineered calamity it was Government
operatives, who due
to incompetence? once again released the virus in
the summer of 2007 -
leading to further damage to the British livestock
industry – was this
yet again deliberate? 
September 2007, Bluetongue discovered in cattle. 
October 2007, Bluetongue spreads from cattle to
sheep. Peter King,
NFU’s chief livestock adviser, said “The biggest
concern is the economic
impact this is having on the price of meat when we
farmers were already
struggling with foot and mouth and low market
 prices. It could have
serious implications on the supply of British lamb.
This particular
strain of virus we have here is very different from
the kind that is
found in
North Africa” (ST report 14/10/07)October 15th, report considered to make UHT milk
ONLY type available
to:


(a). reduce CO2 emissions by reduction in
refrigeration plant.
b). reduced by half UK livestock.


Source: Report Today programme R4 15th October 2007.
This will of course lead to a huge increase in  transport costs, as the
sub standard (not fresh) UHT is trucked to Britain -
a Country which,
until EU interference & The CAP, was all but self
sufficient in both
meat and dairy products.


> DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS! Paper prepared with acknowledgment to Greg Lance-Watkins. More detailed information available at:
WWW.SilentMajority.co.uk
<http://www.silentmajority.co.uk/>

Click on
 Foot in Mouth from Menu
Harry M Randall 15/10/2007YOU MAY find the clip of Interest:http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-66755815706353489


http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1155273392140890250


http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=118230605129915010
 

Now, I am the last person to be swayed by conspiracy-theories, given as I am to fiendishly enjoying taking part in the public flaying and later, slower, slaying, of 9/11 “truthers”, wherever I may find them. But on this food-matter I remember at the time, in early 2001, how neatly the destruction of many, many thousands of “small stock farming enterprises” fitted in with the metro-socialist view of “Britain” and “The Countryside”. There were no votes for Blair and his babes in “The Countryside”, or at least not very many (so these isolated “new” Labour voters wouldn’t matter, not affecting the many small  (new labour) Rotten Boroughs in the “cities”) and so whatever the countryside did that was rather smelly, and sort of unfamiliar to Notting Hill, would have to go.

If it was convenient for Blair’s masters in the EU to “plan” another future for the “Countryside of the English Regions”, then he would go along with it.

Moreover, destroying the primary capacity of the British Isles to produce useful protein-based food for itself would, in the medium term, strengthen the grip of Brussels on our Windpipe IF we should ever decide to LEAVE. (Remember, they NEED OUR MONEY, or else socialism in Europe is dead – and that means VERY dead.)

Yet again, I see the UK as the last bastion of liberalism – and therefore a hope of any form of minimal-statism continuing to exist after the USA (understandably) retreats back into Isolationism having been pilloried (yet again) over Iraq and Iran and what will surely follow on.

The EU sees this too, ‘coz the sum-total of the IQs of all those fascist enarques cannot be exactly zero.

They have to break us in our Island or lose the war.

All over again.

Oh, well, here we go, all over again, all over again. Dear God, I beg You; will this battle ever end? How Deep is Your Cup, that we have to drink from? 

Got to unblog now as I have a long-running dispute about knex, between my two children, to sort out.  

“EU Treaty”. Gordon Brown. So he’s gone and done it, despite us. No referendum (yet.)


The Torygraph has the story here. The usual pretentiously serious nazi twaddle, entirely lacking in originality, was spouted……

“It is now time for Europe to move on and devote all our efforts to the issues that matter to the people of Europe – economic growth, jobs, climate change and security,” he said.

 These poor sad fascists and commies and always declaring “time to move on” (nothing to see here?) - always planning to devote (future) efforts to stuff –  always to things “that matter to the people” – (which people? The one that exists or the one the politicians want to elect?)

What’s the betting, anybody who’s an expert out there, on there being a referendum – one that will be craftily worded by the guvmint?

.

Surveillance cameras: what is to be done about this imposition?


Samizdata has an interesting analysis of the problem of the UK being the most state-videoed nation on the planet, and yet our crime statistics are not good. They put us somewhere near outer-Jipoo-poo-land, where the guvmint lives behind mined and wired walls and rides about in “Mercs-4-Jerks” so it does not matter to them.

The point made is that “criminals” live by one set of rules, which they understand perfectly and which the criminal-processing-bureaucracy also understands. Camerae are of no deterrent value whatever, for the criminals know what to say at every turn, and the law-abiding with lots to lose fear to get tangled up. Samizdata contends, probably rightly, that while camerae inconvenience us since we would not want to brush with the state and indeed do not know how to, they do not inconvenience the Wicked Classes, who have taken a decision to be like that.

I wonder if it’s time to get tough universally on criminals? That is to say, people who violate the Natural Rights of others? Yes yes yes I KNOW bureaucrats do this too, but that’s a different battle, where we’d choose different ground to fight on….

A criminal taking or dealing in drugs would not concern us since he is probably not harming anyone at this moment – merely degrading his own life (I think all drugs ought to be legalised by the way.) A criminal stealing our car, or rummaging in our garage, or mugging our wife, is a different matter.

It is becoming increasingly clear that bad laws ought to be, indeed must be, broken, and broken and broken again and angain and again, on the wheel of reality, until they are no more. It must now beocme the duty of good-people to break laws that give advantage to bad-people, given that it will take two or three (or more) generations of time to eradicate the socialist-driven production of bad-people, and we can’t just go out today and kill all the bad-people (even if we mostly know who they are, and where they live….)

Bad-people who, say, mug us, or break into our houses and cars to take things that belong to us and not them, ought to not complain if they find themselves partially-dismembered or punctured in the chest with a handy pen-knife, and left to bleed to death, or shot in the face at less than a yard with a b-b-gun, and blinded. Further, we might then need to confiscate their mobile, while kicking them repeatedly in the balls, so they can’t ring for the police or an ambulant thingy. They have interfered with our Natural Rights (there are no others as we all know.) We might then stamp all over them and put them in the wheelybin, or bury them in the back garden. The more of such people who would disappear without trace, the more word would get round that it may not be as profitable as was thought, to be like that. I can’t see that the “police” need to be much involved at all, since their attentions only end up a hinderance to the law-abiding  – under the current settlement about law and crime. (An interesting development would ensue when the Wicked Classes begin to inform the Police of their own whereabouts when just about to commit some nefarious deed….then we will know we are winning.)

Interesting statistic for bloggers


I have roughly calculated that the half-life of a post on this blog (read strictly as hits per post per day elapsed) is about 48 hours. I wonder if other friendly blogger-visitors’ stats show the same thing?

Polly Toynbee just can’t stop taking herself so deeply, deeply seriously. Is Euroscepticism “crazed” or are the Nazis who oppose it?


Here’s some fun stuff about Polly Toynbee. I think we ought all to take every opportunity to poke ridicule at the dreadful woman. Newmania put this up, it so amused me that I have had to relay it in full!

She ought to get out more, and talk to some plebs now and again. But she probably thinks they smell, or something.

Devil V Polly Celebrity Fight

 

I was reading La Toynbee yesterday as she used all her witchy wiles to brand Euroscepticism as ‘crazed’. As I read I thought …lumme Devil`s Kitchen may explode if he sees this ..Well sure enough…“Newmania,

I shall indeed be commenting on Toynbee’s fatuity.”

Fight fight fight ….I shall be looking forward to Devil v Polly and suggest you popm into his blog soon. There may be …language ( On Blog roll)

 

Fat food obesity government control fascism diet-police ( gotcha !!! )


That’ll get the buggers search-engining to us here. Hopefully LOTS and lots of…..teachers. (Of “science”, although you might not believe that at first.)

Thanks to Perry of Samizdata for flagging it. Sorry Perry, but I really needed another controversial post before lunchtime as I have to got to work after then.

The Booby-See has decided that some new pile of  “experts” has the moral authority to tell us that how much we eat is not our fault and we NEED TO BE TOLD. By the GUMMENT. Ah, yes, of course, Sir!

 The subtext is so ghastly, so Marxistly-fascist in its underlying assumption of the rightness of terms used in its own hegemonic discourse, that it JUST HAS TO BE reprinted, in part, here;

Obesity, the authors concluded, was an inevitable consequence of a society in which energy-dense and cheap foods, labour-saving devices, motorised transport and sedentary work were rife.

BMI SCALE

Underweight: Less than 18.5

Normal: 18.5 to 24.9

Overweight: 25 to 29.9

Obese: 30 or more

BMI is calculated by dividing weight in kilograms by height in metres squared


Graph: BMI at a glance

A success story

Dr Susan Jebb of the Medical Research Council said that in this environment, it was surprising that anyone was able to remain thin, and so the notion of obesity simply being a product of personal over-indulgence had to be abandoned for good.

“The stress has been on the individual choosing a healthier lifestyle, but that simply isn’t enough,” she said.

From planning our towns to encourage more physical activity to placing more pressure on mothers to breast feed – believed to slow down infant weight gain – the report highlighted a range of policy options without making any concrete recommendations.

Industry was already working make healthier products available, the report noted, while work was advanced in transforming the very make-up of food so it was digested more slowly and proved satisfying for longer.

But Sir David said it was clear that government needed to involve itself, as on this occasion, the market was failing to do the job.

Just look at the graphy-stuff too. So much is assumed about how people ought to look and how “big” they “ought” to be. Don’t know about you, but I couldn’t force my body to shag what they define a a “thin” woman, even if you paid me quite a bit.

Also, I think that  any inhabited Biome that has animals in it that have invented “energy-dense, cheap foods” without help from socialists, has won the battle for survival over the rest of the inanimate universe. We can now go to the Stars, in time hopefully, and the Life Of The Universe will not need to terminate at the Next Asteroid-Hit on The One Planet (there may only be one – has anyone considered that?)

When I was a boy in the 1950s, we could only DREAM of such foods. We were told that “spacemen” might be able to have some while in flight, and we slavered violently for the stuff, only being able to imagine what it would taste like. Now, thanks to the USA, the Free Market and fast-food-joints, we can share in Paradise, even while we are still alive.

Why have to eat huge amounts of tasteless, slow-to-digest food, when you can eat small (or larger if you want, it’s your body after all) amounts of tasty, fast-to-digest food? We have a short gut after all, only 35 feet or so.

Perhaps the Government thinks we are cows, and wants to slaughter us all. Then of course we can’t vote against it ever again.

Dig this blog! http://strangemaps.wordpress.com


Good stuff here. Fun, geeky interpretations of the world. I save lots and teach with them.

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com

A few are not to my liking as they are anti-American; thinkers and map-geekers tend to be anti-American on the whole, since America invented Macdonald’s the Fifth Horeseman of the Apocalypse, and Cola drinks - the True Fourth -  furthermore, thinkerizing and ideas are something that “modern” “Liberals” (that is to say, socialists and wannabe-definers-0f-culture) do a lot of; conservatives on the other hand, having to work, and also to keep the planet running meanwhile as they are expected to do, do not “do” ideas much. We smell of pig-poo sometimes, and drink beer, but intellectrons smell of (what? I have not met many recently – what is “the Next smell“?) and probably drink wine from somewhere in Cuba. I do not know.

But many of the maps – and there are many, many dozens now on the archive – are very fine and illuminating.

Given that Gordon Brown seems to have shot himself in the foot, is it worth Libertarians trying to hijack the Tory Party again?


Chris Tame was always in favour of this strategy in a long term sense, but only IF the Libertarian Movement in the Western World decided to have a political presence in time. (I think it is inevitable; discussssssssssss…………)

Any thought of it went into abeyance since the assassination of Saint Margaret Thatcher and the consequent wrecking of the Tory Party by John Major and the pig Heseltine (I hope he has learned better in his old age. What a disgustingly self-serving chap he was before now. But I’d mitigate his punishment bearing in mind the sheer tonnage of Rubber Chicken he ate in the 70s and 80s, in his tireless pursuit of Conservative elctoral success. What a trial that must have been.)

Until now. The Tories have been panicked by Boredom-Goredon in his hubris, into hastily cobbling up the most liberal set of proposals to emerge from them this side of 1997.

It’s sooooooooooooo funny! It’s like they are a caveman faced by a previously invisible and silent Giant-Short-arsed-Bear, diving at him from some bushes fifteen yards away, and thinking – “f*** – which way to jump?” They jumped correctly – probably to their initial amazement, and I expect much to the chagrin of “Steve” “Hutton”, whatever that thinkotron might be in reality. I mean, the man is/was in advertising, and has/had no hair. Got to be a socialist in deep cover.

Perhaps we should try to take the Tories over again? What does anyone think about this? After all, there’s not many young pinstriped estate agents in it any more, who thought in the 1980s that we were all saddo geeks coz’ (1) we didn’t work in the sort of offices they did, and (2) we thought stuff, a lot of the daytime and into the evening too. Moreover, there are very few “old people” left in the Tory machinery, since most of these have died under the darkness of socialism since 1990. many of these, grand conservatives and old Liberals that they were, would have been scandalized by the kind of Clear Blue Water that we would want to place between us and The Enemy Class. 

The Tories have already just begun an involuntary and unstoppable journey up the potential gradient of liberal ideas (unless they are stopped and pushed back down by other sleeping Huttotrons in their midst. We can’t predict beforehand how many of these delayed-action-Mines have been emplaced.)

Perhaps they need a further push?

Oh well, everything has been said about Al Bore and the Nobel Peace Prize, except this.


Firstly, let us not forget that the scutineers for this honour had to themselves honour their obligation to morally assault whoever is the president of the USA. This is normal and we should be innured to it now. After all, smell old Arafat got it. (He’s smelly now for sure.) They couldn’t give it to wicked nasty Saddam Hussein as we’ve happily hung him. Clinton wouldn’t do as he’d disqualified himself by being a US president, and is probably even on speaking terms with the present one. So it had to be someone public which would look like a hurting for Bush. John Kerry has done jack-shit of anything, so it had to be Gore.

Thus, in this year’s award, therefore, they achieved the devoutly-to-be-wished-for “One-Stone-Solution-To-A-Two-Bird-Problem”, since poor old George Bush is so hated by all the world for being himself ,as well as for being a Free World President and an American one at that. (He ought to publish his memoirs, except I don’t think there’s a book-house in the Western World that would take them. One envisages the poor bugger paying dinners $000′s of his own moolah to let him speak at them, the vitriol seems so deep into which people want him sunk. I wonder why? He is a Christian after all, and the man even prays, which is more than I do.)

Secondly, I’m not quite clear what an award for pedalling false, wickedly perverted, utterly pornographic travesties of “science”, of the most extreme Joseph Mengele sort, in a movie that frightens children (and today’s British schoolchildren are not easily frightened, let me tell you) has to do with “peace”.

Yes, when all the power stations are offline except for coal ones in Chindia and Nuclear ones in Iran, and every sort you care to name in what will pass for Russia, then there will be peace of a sort. It may indeed be the sort of peace the Nobel-guys and Al gore had in mind, but not billions of other innocent humans who will either starve owing to “bio-fuels”, or die freezing in the dark.

This morning I trawled the blogstats for this blog, and I followed up a search-engine string that someone used who came to us here. It was;

“children” + “global warming” + education”

Using forensic psychology and seeing the links it googled (I was shocked by the nazi-Gore-like content thrown up, and you ought to be too – google it!) I divined that this searcher could be something like a British female primary school teacher, probably white and in somewhere like South Yorkshire, probably under 30 and studied social anthropology or some such at a John-Major-University. I have saved some of the  sites I found and will be flagging them to you now and again.

Oh, for f**k’s sake; can’t the Smoking-Nazis take a blasted joke?


Jeremy Clarkson, the great conservative, and his friends James May and Richard Hammond lit pipes of (wait for it) “tobacco”, on “Top gear”, this Sunday just gone, 14th October 2007. I give that info for free in case the DPP wants witnesses, since it appears that they have flouted the Law! I watched it in horror; not at what they did which was satirical, funny, and a poke in the eye for the Nazis who are trying to rule us, but in terror of Armed Police bursting into the studio and doing a de Menezes on the three presenters, who were having a huge bit of fun at the expense of the nasty wicked anti-smokers who seem sadly to exist.

We here on this bolg share Chris Tame’s view of smoking, which is that it is an evil smelly habit, and I for one would not do it if you paid me.

But other people’s bodies do not belong to me, to do with and put stuff into as I wish - I wish that last truism wasn’t the case as regards Lucy Pinder’s or Keeley Hazell’s body, but I guess I can’t have everything in life. (They are welcome to contact me.) Nazis of course don’t think like that, so the buggers are probably going to try to sue the programme or the prsenters and fine them…..wait for it…..£50. Each.

Bad Laws ought to be broken every day, until they wash away into the oblivion of remembered history.

Here’s the stuff in case the link goes down.

Jeremy Clarkson burned by smoking ban

By Tom Chivers

Last Updated: 1:17pm BST 16/10/2007 

Jeremy Clarkson was burned in more way than one after lighting up a pipe in the Top Gear studio.

 
 

 

Clarkson and his co-presenter James May appeared to breach the anti-smoking laws as they pulled pipes from under their chairs during a discussion about Porsche merchandising.

Mr Clarkson, 47, then carried out his own punishment for the alleged crime by putting the pipe in his mouth the wrong way around, burning his tongue and running from the stage.

A spokeswoman for the BBC said: “During an item in last night’s Top Gear, making fun of car merchandise, the presenters lit up branded pipes, which contained herbal tobacco.

“We are very upfront about the style and tone of the show, so viewers know what to expect.

“There were no complaints from members of the audience present during the filming.”

The BBC also said that it had only received two complaints from viewers of the show.

 

However, the anti-smoking charity Action for Smoking on Health (Ash), demanded an apology from the Corporation. Amanda Sandford, spokeswoman for the charity, said: “Smoking in a studio is illegal. Anything that causes smoke is prohibited.

 

“We would hope that programme-makers make some form of apology. It was meant to be a fairly light-hearted part of the programme, but the law is the law and it’s not appropriate for the BBC, especially for a programme that’s very popular and seen by a lot of young people, to be openly flouting the law.”

 

Ms Sandford admitted that there are occasions in live theatre that demand on-stage smoking for artistic integrity.

The 10 most memorable TV moments since 1957…it did NOT say WHO was polled about this matter!


I have just spotted this on Hot Air.

The results are here. To reproduce;

(1) 9/11

(2) “Princess” Diana’s funeral

(3) The 1969 moon landings

(4) The fall of the Berlin Wall

(5) Bob “Geldof” saying on TV “give us your f*****g money”

(6) “The Two Ronnies” sketch “four candles”

(7) Somebody called Ricky Gervais dancing on something called the office (can somebody help me about this one please? I have not the slightest clue what it’s about…?)

(8) A Mr Monty Python talking about a dead parrot (can somebody help me here also?)

(9) The England world cup win 1966 (I pesume this is to do with football as it is quite ancient)

(10) The assassination of JFK 1963

You could assume the research-sample was British, since “Princess” Diana came so far up, and Bob “Geldof” came fifth as not many other countries would know what f*****g means, and would merely have thought he was saying “give us your /…/ money” and sort of coughed in the middle. On the other hand, the Moon landings did so well, along with the Berlin Wall and JFK, so perhaps it was an international panel of Old People. Although why would they, being old, care at all about some English Foot-Ball victory or other? Are not there loads of these every week in every town?

I can see why 9/11 came top, even though the audience might be youngish and therefore subject to the thought-dictates of Popular Culture about how many minutes one’s memories ought to linger and be avilable to one. If someone you don’t know, who says he wants you and everyone you know to be dead, comes and kills three thousand people from the sky in front of you, and even gets on the telly,  then I guess it’s more exciting even than “Big Brother” or Simon Cowell who seems to be famous (I had to be told who he is.)

But in the fullness of geological time, and (non-arrival-of) Asteroid-hits permitting, I think that the Moon Landings will be seen as the more important piece of telly, since the threat to civilisation highlighted by 9/11 comes from a newly-fasciated-dualisation of two tactically-based world-views, both quite recently founded within the last 14 centuries, and both based on absolutely fundamental errors in how they perceive reality. One claims to be a religion equipped with a fully-specified Vulgate to be swallowed, but fails all objective tests for this property; the other does not claim to be one, but many of its thinkers think it ought to be.

But the poll was interesting.

LABOUR on the ropes. Tories; can you keep it up for two more years plus?


Knocked for six in the “polls” (to what extent do we believe them?) “New” Labour apparatchiks start coming out with viscerally Tory policies. Like tax breaks for marriage etc. All very well and good for the Tories, but as a week is a long time in politics as the last fortnight’s events have shown, banana-skins-a-plenty could still await.

As for “New” Labour, that just about shows up what sort of hollow, evil, twisting, self-serving outfit it always was and is. Either they believe their media-tropolitan chatteratis’ Fabian claptrap about all “forms” of family being “equally valid” and are now merely trying to salvage votes, or else they never believed it all along and are relieved at the chance to “let it all hang out”.

I don’t think libertarians would want to have any fixed views on what “kind of family structure” is suitable for “all people”, preferring to leave individual situations up to individual decisions. A tax system – assuming we levied any tax at all !!! (Minimal-Statists will presumably support some kind of defence budget) – would be fiscally neutral towards all kinds of household. In that way, the majority preferred houshold structure would be “discovered” by families themselves preferring to be organized one way rather than another. No other kinds would need to be either supported or penalized.

The only current role of a guvmint party in this ought to be the redress of financial and social wrongs towards the family structure that works best empirically in western civilisation, which is the Nuclear Family of children fathered by one resident father and one resident mother, and two parents of different sexes being morally bound in and present. once this desirable state of affairs is achieved, guvmints ought to just get the hell out.

Reminder of dates for your diary. 21.10.07 and 23.10.07


Two reiminders for you to flag;

Sunday 21st October is TRFALGAR DAY, when this blog will feature posts and discussion about the EU, its machinations and its role – or lack of one, as the case may be.

Then…..

On Tuesday 23rd October we remember Alamein, and discuss the role of the British Empire in giving birth to Libertarianism. 

You know what? I’d like to rename the Empire and call it something else, but the word has been lynched by the ghastly Eagletonian Marxist-Imperialists, so the battle will be hard and long; and “Commonwealth” just makes images of the unspeakable pig Robert Mugabe jump into my mind. I don’t know why, but it just does. Great word, exactly descriptive, but it’s been lynched too.

Sorry always to be so rude about Marxists. But I can’t help thinking it’s a character-deficiency that they can only have deliberately set out to acquire. It seems in ordinary life to be impossible to live it reasonably and humanely without becoming conservative. Anybody who has ended up somewhere else must have taken the decision to be there, despite the impingement of reality.

Ten days to Trafalgar. What is it about this time of year?


On 21st October 1805, not yet being alive, I did NOT manage to hold a drinks-party to celebrate Nelson’s posthumous victory over the Wicked Classes. But the British managed, on the afternoon sea outside Cadiz, to delay the early earnest attempts to forge a EuroSoviet for more than 100 years. Up to then it was the longest and most expensive war we had ever fought. Not until we were tired, broke and asleep would such a pig-in-a-poke be sold to people again.

Two days before our Alamein workshop on 23rd Oct, we will stage another, here (Sunday 21st Oct) when readers will be invited to opine about the EU and its works.

Twelve days to Alamein: the Last Battle of the Old Empire.


Twenty-one years ago, I was rich and used to live in London. I had a drinks party on 23rd October 1986 and the nicely printed invites said “(your writer)….at home….for the 44th Anniversary of Alamein.” Everyone who was anyone was a “Sloane” then. But more importantly, 90%++ of the attendees (it was packed) knew what the date meant. Even the girls with pearls; especially, since most of their fathers were or had been Officers.

My boy, yesterday, in the top history set of his year, didn’t know what the Battle of Waterloo was; he thought it was something in South London. (Look, I DO try! Hard.) I didn’t even try him with Alamein; history-teaching by helicoptering the children in to “topics”, “without trace” destroys any kind of continuum of historical knowledge, which is the objective of course.

This post is about the Empire, and how it un-knowingly gave rise to the society in which Libertarianism could be born. On Tuesday 23rd October, the 65th anniversary of Alamein, this blog will run a discussion-feature on whether the Anglosphere could have been the Only Cradle of Freedom or not. Comments from readers will be published as fast as they can be processed.

Now I know Libertarians will sneer, gasp and cough at the very thought of “empire”, recalling as it does to us the dark days of the USSR, the Third Reich, Saddam’s evil plans for the world, the pig whose name I won’t pronounce and who runs Venezuela and who brown-nozes Jim Livingstone who tyrannizes London, a certain religion which alleges a claim to a monopoly of truth, other generally irremediable statism, and the like. But the British Empire was nothing like that, having come into existence rather accidentally, almost as an afterthought to the actions of individuals who sort of did freedom-stuff around the world, for a little time.

To help my boy, and to correct the mis-representations of a number of history teachers here in the North, whose students ask me for help, I wonder if readers want to comment about this Empire that never really was, and what was good and bad about it? Specifically, whether and how libertarianism could have come into being as a position to take, in any other environment?

Alamein was the last great battle, and start of a campaign, fought by British Imperial soldiers on their own. British; Rhodesian; Australian; Indian; Canadian; Jamaican; Ghurkhas; Trinidadians. What must the Axis have made of that? How in all morality could they think they could have won? But that’s an historical detail, and for the history books – except they have been purged.

The West’s values are better. Yes, they are. Next question?


Thanks to Samizdata for flagging this to me. no Spectator yet due to nasty socialist Restraint-of-Trade Unions arguing about our money, with nasty socialist postal monopoly in the UK.

The West’s values are better.

Now, THAT is how to blog; that’s the Real Thing. (Wish I could do it…)


Got this from Kathy Shaidle via Mark Steyn today. Wasn’t really intending, today, to say anything about the Socialist-Poverty-Industry-moocher-thieves, sliders and slairs, that is not already being thought by readers, but it’s a rollicking fun read.

AYN RAND and 50 glorious years of Atlas Shrugged


 Readers might like to follow the link below; anyway I have reproduced the full text.

(On October 10, 2007–the 50th anniversary of the publication of Atlas Shrugged–the Wall Street Journal published “Capitalist Heroes,” Atlas Society founder David Kelley’s tribute to Ayn Rand’s great novel.)

The Wall Street Journal

Capitalist Heroes

By DAVID KELLEY

October 10, 2007; Page A21

Fifty years ago today Ayn Rand published her magnum opus, “Atlas Shrugged.” It’s an enduringly popular novel — all 1,168 pages of it — with some 150,000 new copies still sold each year in bookstores alone. And it’s always had a special appeal for people in business. The reasons, at least on the surface, are obvious enough.

Businessmen are favorite villains in popular media, routinely featured as polluters, crooks and murderers in network TV dramas and first-run movies, not to mention novels. Oil company CEOs are hauled before congressional committees whenever fuel prices rise, to be harangued and publicly shamed for the sin of high profits. Genuine cases of wrongdoing like Enron set off witch hunts that drag in prominent achievers like Frank Quattrone and Martha Stewart.

By contrast, the heroes in “Atlas Shrugged” are businessmen — and women. Rand imbues them with heroic, larger-than-life stature in the Romantic mold, for their courage, integrity and ability to create wealth. They are not the exploiters but the exploited: victims of parasites and predators who want to wrap the producers in regulatory chains and expropriate their wealth.

Rand’s perspective is a welcome relief to people who more often see themselves portrayed as the bad guys, and so it is no wonder it has such enthusiastic fans in the upper echelons of business as Ed Snider (Comcast Spectacor, Philadelphia Flyers and 76ers), Fred Smith (Federal Express), John Mackey (Whole Foods), John A. Allison (BB&T), and Kevin O’Connor (DoubleClick) — not to mention thousands of others who pursue careers at every level in the private sector.

Yet the deeper reasons why the novel has proved so enduringly popular have to do with Rand‘s moral defense of business and capitalism. Rejecting the centuries-old, and still conventional, piety that production and trade are just “materialistic,” she eloquently portrayed the spiritual heart of wealth creation through the lives of the characters now well known to many millions of readers.

Hank Rearden, the innovator resented and opposed by the others in his field, has not created a new type of music, like Mozart; rather he struggled for 10 years to perfect a revolutionary metal alloy that he hoped would make him a great deal of money. Dagny Taggart is a gifted and courageous woman who leads a campaign — not to defend France from England on the battlefield, like Joan of Arc — but to manage a transcontinental railroad and, against impossible odds, to build a new branch line critical for the survival of her corporation. Francisco d’Anconia, the enormously talented heir to an international copper company, poses as an idle, worthless playboy to cover up his secret operations — not to rescue people from the French Revolution, like the Scarlet Pimpernel — but to rescue industrialists from exploitation by ruthless Washington kleptocrats.

Economists have known for a long time that profits are an external measure of the value created by business enterprise. Rand portrayed the process of creating value from the inside, in the heroes’ vision and courage, their rational exuberance in meeting the challenges of production. Her point was stated by one of the minor characters of “Atlas,” a musical composer: “Whether it’s a symphony or a coal mine, all work is an act of creating and comes from the same source: from an inviolate capacity to see through one’s own eyes. . . . That shining vision which they talk about as belonging to the authors of symphonies and novels — what do they think is the driving faculty of men who discovered how to use oil, how to run a mine, how to build an electric motor?”

As for the charge, from egalitarian left and religious right alike, that the profit motive is selfish, Rand agreed. She was notorious as the advocate of “the virtue of selfishness,” as she titled a later work. Her moral defense of the pursuit of self-interest, and her critique of self-sacrifice as a moral standard, is at the heart of the novel. At the same time, she provides a scathing portrait of what she calls “the aristocracy of pull”: businessmen who scheme, lie and bribe to win favors from government.

Economists have also known for a long time that trade is a positive sum game, yet most defenders of capitalism still wrestle with the “paradox” posed in the 18th century by Adam Ferguson and Adam Smith: how private vice can produce public good, how the pursuit of self-interest yields benefits for all. Rand cut that Gordian knot in the novel by denying that the pursuit of self-interest is a vice. Precisely because trade is not a zero-sum game, Rand challenges the age-old moral view that one must be either a giver or a taker.

The central action of “Atlas” is the strike of the producers, their withdrawal from a society that depends on them to sustain itself and yet denounces them as morally inferior. Very well, says their leader, John Galt, we will not burden you further with what you see as our immoral and exploitative actions. The strike is of course a literary device; Rand herself described it as “a fantastic premise.” But it has a real and vital implication.

While it is true enough that free production and exchange serve “the public interest” (if that phrase has any real meaning), Rand argues that capitalism cannot be defended primarily on that ground. Capitalism is inherently a system of individualism, a system that regards every individual as an end in himself. That includes the right to live for himself, a right that does not depend on benefits to others, not even the mutual benefits that occur in trade.

This is the lesson that most people in business have yet to learn from “Atlas,” no matter how much they may love its portrayal of the passion and the glory possible in business enterprise. At a crucial point in the novel, the industrialist Hank Rearden is on trial for violating an arbitrary economic regulation. Instead of apologizing for his pursuit of profit or seeking mercy on the basis of philanthropy, he says, “I work for nothing but my own profit — which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage — and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner.”

We will know the lesson of “Atlas Shrugged” has been learned when business people, facing accusers in Congress or the media, stand up like Rearden for their right to produce and trade freely, when they take pride in their profits and stop apologizing for creating wealth.

Heriot and Mortuary. Do we really, really want to live in a country which still practises these, er, pre-capitalist and barbaric practices?


I refer you all to David Carr’s grand post below. In pre-capitalist times, here (and I expect it was worse in “Europe”, for most things are) it was the custom of the local Church, and of the local warlord, to come round at your death, or send his/their agents, and mug your grieving relatives of “the best beast” for the Church, and a portion of specie for the Lord. It was reckoned, from as early as the 11th century and probably rightly, to be a good moment to do that since the TV crews had not yet got their act together to provide “Good Television” of the family’s collective grief.

Magna Carta went a little way towards rectifying the injustice in principle (to the disgust and horror of Philip the Fair and of Louis of France) but not very much. And of course, initially, only for the “Barons”, who had most to lose to an autarkic state since they more or less voluntarily positioned themselves closest to it – really, in real terms! A few feet away most of the time, as it constituted a wooden box or boxes called the “exchequer”….

Now that the State is supposed to be “limited”, there is no rational explanation for mugging poor grieving people of their departed’s wealth. It is not a right that grievers themselves possess, and that is pointed towards the property of other grievers. Therefore, not possessing such right, they cannot delegate it, either to others or to any agency.

Therefore there can be no IHT.

LA Comment re Inheritance Tax Changes


Move over, Darling.

  

In his pre-Budget speech today, the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, announced a change to the Inheritance Tax (IHT) regime which has been universally reported in the press as an “Inheritance Tax Cut”.

 

Sadly, it is nothing of the kind.

 

In order to understand what the government has actually done, it is necessary to understand how IHT affects most families.

 

IHT is a tax charged on the value of a person’s estate at the date of their death. It is charged at a flat rate of 40% on all value over and above the threshold which (this current year) is set at £300,000. Each person has their own threshold and, of course, married couple or civil partners have two between them and although all transfers between spouses (provided they are UK domiciles) are entirely exempt from IHT, when the first spouse dies, one threshold is lost

 

The effect of IHT then is that of a generational tax, i.e, the burden falls on the children who have to pay the tax on all value over £300,000 when the last surviving parent has died.

 

The lost threshold can be saved by the expedient of a trust arrangement in the Wills which will preserve both thresholds even after the death of the first spouse and thus enable the surviving spouse to bequeath twice the threshold upon his or her death.

 

In the current year, two thresholds equals £600,000 – the exact same amount which the government has triumphantly announced as a “tax cut”.

 

In fact, what the government has done is simply remove the necessity for the trust arrangements in the Wills in order to preserve this extra threshold. It is neither a cut in the rate of the tax or an increase of the threshold level at which the tax bites. It is, it seems, a sleight-of-hand designed to deflect growing pressure for reform of the entire IHT regime while giving an appearance of ‘doing something’.

 

Some families may experience some marginal benefit from not having to pay the legal and administrative costs of the creating the will trusts but this must be balanced against the cost to those people who have paid good money for such arrangement and will now likely have to pay again in order to undo them.

 

Of course, single people are left precisely where they were.

 

The government may feel that it has bounded away from danger without any real cost. They must not be allowed to get away with basking in the misleading press headlines. Pressure must be maintained on the government to substantially and realistically raise the threshold for IHT (so that the burden of it is lifted from the vast majority of ordinary people) or, better still, abolish this iniquitous and wicked ‘generation’ tax completely.

  

David Carr

9th October 2007.

        

From the man-who-writes-headlines-as-long-as-his-posts…time to defend TESCO again – this time from WAITROSE…what is to become of us all? Are we supposed to get poor and/or starve?


Yesterday, I was alerted by Dr Sean Gabb to the staff directive by Sainsbury’s, that Moslem checkout staff who objected to scanning alcohol products would be absolved of this duty. Dr Gabb has duly fired off a letter to Sir Philip Hampton, to which he will receive at best a non-informative reply. I bet you all 1p each this will be the case. The Daily Telegraph will have it in its archives, but unfortunately I can’t help you as to the date as Mrs Blogger used it to line the bins (which were emptied by the Soviet in the meantime.)

But it’s not what this is about. We have another report that Waitrose, the smallest and most expensive of the “big” supermarket chains in the UK, is “calling on the competition commission” to take steps to hobble Tesco in its consequential success in the UK grocery markets.

I say consequential, for it is consequential not on a desire to demolish competitors, but merely to apply a good and economical Business Model to the objective of serving customers with more of what they want at prices they are willing to pay. Apparently Tesco’s “Land Bank”, which I assume to be Tesco’s property and not that of either Waitrose or the State, is “bigger that “Waitrose’s trading space”, and “they can’t need all that”……..I ask you! What is to become of us in a climate of opinion when intelligent and presumably highly-paid and well-educated Officers of a well-regarded company like Waitrose,  start saying things like this – in public?

Waitrose has chosen to follow a different model. That’s OK. That is the choice of their managers, and it will be subject to ultimate approval – or not – at general meetings of their owners. That is to say; Shareholders (or partners (who are frequently employees) since they are something to do with that untypical organisation John Lewis plc.)

Let me give you an example from the North, an area I know well as we live here. When Morrisons bought Safeway (for too much money as it turned out) they moved into the old but fairly nice Safeway hyper in Southport from their old crappy site on a poor street in the town, which has now been “pedestrianised” (that tells you all you need to know!) Then, Morrisons made a bad decision! They turned the (now their very own) Safeway in Formby, a nearby coastal and genteel large-village in which very very very many footballers’-wives live (I tell you, really, they do!) into a MORRISONS! Imagine the consternation at all the shee-shee barbecues in the place! “We CAN’T shop at Morrisons! We can’t even send the servants, for someone will recognize the car(s). Nobody will ever come to our houses again…we can’t even throw away the BAGS, as EVERYONE WILL KNOW…..”

Oh dear. Ummmmmmmmmmm……..Bad error. 

So, it was corrected. “Morrisons Formby”, gasping for cash and air, was sold to WAITROSE. Smiles all round at the barbecues, since Waitrose is reassuringly empty and expensive. The riff-raff from all the 60s/70s boxy little houses round REDGATE will be kept out! And no chavs coming up from Crosby either…. or from Woodvale, those odd Lancashire folks from three miles up t’-road, who live in, er, boxy houses, near an “air base”.

Meanwhile, the origial Morrisons in a crap part of Southport remains empty. (IDEA – if “farmers’ markets” are so great, why has not someone done it to it? There is a 600-space car park on two floors right above it. It rains up here a lot, and the place is fully under cover.) Its emptiness doesn’t matter to real people who are overtaxed and poor, for there is a grand and large TESCO, about one mile away, where the staff smile at you even if you are a bit scally right now today, and ask if they can help, and where YOU CAN PARK FOR FREE for two hours. Even Sir Terry Leahy can’t imagine his customers wanting to spend longer than that in his shops…..

But what in heaven’s name is going on, when a small expensive supermarket with a defined market niche with which it ought to be happy and grateful (and into which its competitors do not want to tread or else they would have done, for they are not cretins, not on that salary) tries to grass up a big cheap one to the guvmint?

All I can say is “Atlas Shrugged“. If, in what is still in practice a slightly-free market for groceries and light consumer goods, the broad mass of consumers REALLY WANTED to “end their obsession with cheap food” – as the sad, mad, tormented Prince Charles calls it, then Tesco with its existing business model would be perceived as “cheap”, “mass food”, junk etc and the like, and would fail. Waitrose, with its sausages for £3.99 for eight, woud succeed and would have “40% of the UK Grocery Market” or whatever it is Tesco has – and Tesco would be vulnerable to a JLP bid! or one by Sir Philip Green, it does not really matter, the outcome would be the same.

Poor old Charles Windsor. He’s finally, at last, legally got the woman he has always loved (I believe he did nd does love her too; I am sadly old enough to have watched it all unfolding tragically, and to have seen Spitfires flying in RAF Service, before that.) Why does he have to meddle in the tactical day-to-day affairs of the mass of his poor subjects? Their food, and their diet, for Christ’s sake? Ok OK OK, Poundbury’s nice, yes, but England has thousands of these villages, real ones not pretend ones; just ruined by socialism, their post offices and schools closed by State-fiat, their farms burned to the ground by state-DEFRA-clearers with guns and terror-Police, and which could be restored much more cheaply by returning to a smaller State, which ought to do little or nothing at all about literally anything.

The spread of “out-of-town” supermarkets is an inevitable result of State interference in all aspects of the lives of individuals, and the social and economic patterns that they stupidly want to apply to their ghastly little lives – as the metro-mediarati see them. But without GOSPLAN and a fully-effective Terror-Police presence, all Tesco will do, it being nominally if not practically free, is respond – better with success, and less well with failure – to the wishes of its customers as expressed through what passes for the free Market.

The VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION plans VIRTUAL MUSEUM about GLOBAL VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM


The link to their mainsite is here  . For anyone who can’t follow it for any reason, I copy relevant details after the next para. For myself as a Libertarian, I query the single focus on mere Communism, this being just one of  the mutually-loathing and self-described forms of extremely-impelled Statism. For details of exactly what type believes in exactly what sort of authoritarian repression and exactly how much of what sorts of implementation of same, ask any passing Marxist, or Terry Eagleton. But we ought to support these good people.

1521 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20036

Tel: (202) 608-6186E-mail: info@victimsofcommunism.org  •  Web site: www.victimsofcommunism.org 

October 4, 2007

Attention: Dr Tim Evans

President and Director General,The Centre for the New Europe


 
 Dear Mr. Evans: As you will recall, we dedicated the Victims of Communism Memorial in June. It was a great success, encouraging us to move ahead with our next important educational project – the Global Virtual Museum on Communism. 

Please find enclosed our Prospectus.

We welcome your comments and endorsement.  Depending on the success of our fundraising efforts, we plan to launch the Virtual Museum on June 12, 2008 – the first anniversary of the Victims of Communism Memorial dedication. 

I look forward to hearing from you. 

With best wishes,   I remain  

Sincerely, Lee Edwards

Chairman, The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation  

P.S. As I am traveling, please feel free to contact our acting Director of Public Affairs, Ed Priola, at (202) 627-9018 or edpriola@aol.com if you have any questions or concerns.

UCL Libertarians now on blogroll


Here they are!

Long live Miss Moneypenny: the finest Prime Minister Canada never had.


Lois Maxwell, the actress who held most of the early James Bonds together, died recently. Mark Steyn has a kind and stirring piece about her in McLeans.Ca, here.

As we descend into the coming Dark Age, we will need the folk-memory of Heroes, and the fireside stories to tell our little-ones, of their brave deeds and words. Those who battled, and sometimes even successfully on rare occasions, against the Forces Of Darkness: Cromwell. Nelson. Gallileo. Gerald Hartup. Winston Churchill. Clive of India. Roger Moore. Richard Hannay.  Mark Steyn. George Lazenby. Margaret Thatcher. Steve Thoburn. James Bigglesworth. Roger Scruton. Richard North. Douglas Haig. Hugh Dowding. John Terraine. Sean Gabb. Eddie Shah. Chris Tame. James Wagland. Rod Liddle. Barnes Wallis. Charles Moore. And many others. And Miss Moneypenny.

Libertarianism spends too much time arguing with itself about the minutiae of how this or that thing can be done by private individuals and not by guvmints. Forget it; the argument is won, simply by viewing an average British daily newspaper, and seeing how guvmints behave in all respects about everything.

For people to learn how to become Sovereign Individuals, and so to be able to be everything they want to be, it is not enough simply to see how guvmints corrupt and destroy. They must be able to have the faith to be able to do what they think they can do. Getting guvmint out (totally) of education and “child care issues” is a tentative starting position, but then people have got to have the examples to follow instead.

You don’t climb a vertical cliff-wall in Llanberis Pass just because it’s there, but because you have just seen somebody else go up it himself, and wave to you from the top.

On other minor matters, nothing much to do with this, I recommend a hard-SF novel by Jerry Pournelle, “Inferno“, a second-copy of which belonged to Chris Tame and which he kindly gave me in about 1994.  Am reading for third time.

Sainsbury Complaint


 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2558198.ece

 

Monday, 08 October 2007

 

Philip Hampton

Chairman

J. Sainsbury plc

33 Holborn

London EC1N 2HT

   

Dear Mr Hampton,

 

I am writing to object to your policy of allowing some Moslem employees to opt-out of serving your customers by scanning alcohol products despite assurances by the Moslem council of Britain and various other Islamic groups that this is not a requirement of Islamic law. This policy was reported in The Sunday Times on the 30th September 2007

 

As a Sainsbury’s customer I feel offended that I may be served by a Sainsbury’s employee who, for his own personal reasons, feels that my purchases are “unclean” and refuses to handle them. Furthermore, I am not willing to be delayed at your store in order to accommodate the prejudices of your employees.

 

I am further concerned that your decision on this issue will lead in future to your allowing other groups of your employees not to serve me with pork, beef, meat products, toiletries tested on animals, condoms, Christmas cards, books of Bible stories, imports from Israel, or anything else they may insist they do not like.

 

Therefore I will no longer shop at any of your stores until you reverse this decision.

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

Yours sincerely,

   Dr Sean Gabb

LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE JOINS DENUNCIATION OF WAR ON “VIOLENT” PORNOGRAPHY


In Association with the Libertarian International
In Association with Backlash
Release Date: Tuesday 2nd October 2007
Release Time: Immediate

Contact Details:
Dr Sean Gabb (Libertarian Alliance Director), 07956 472 199, sean@libertarian.co.uk
Deborah Hyde (Backlash) 07960 171 951, info@backlash-uk.org.uk
Derek Cohen (Backlash) 07970 988 425

For other contact and link details, see the foot of this message
Release url: http://www.libertarian.co.uk/news/nr056.htm

LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE JOINS DENUNCIATION OF WAR ON “VIOLENT” PORNOGRAPHY

With the full support of the Libertarian Alliance, Backlash’s Deborah Hyde will argue tonight that anti-porn laws ignore the evidence about the use and impact of pornography, infantilise women and bring legal systems into disrepute.

As part of the debate at Trinity College Law Society in Dublin, Ms Hyde will criticise the British Government’s new Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. This seeks to criminalise the possession of so-called and vaguely defined “extreme pornography”.

She will say:

“When a government says there is no evidence a new law is needed, when there is no evidence of harm and when the purpose of the law is to tell MPs it’s OK to impose their own personal morality on the population, we need to be worried,”

She will add that the main proponents of current proposals use incendiary language and unproven, anecdotal evidence to try to justify the law. This language also denigrates law-abiding citizens who are harming no-one, limits their freedom and stigmatises their sexuality – all despite there being no evidence of harm to others.

Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance, says:

“It is no business of the authorities in a free country to police the imagination. If these proposals become law, they will be another weapon in the arsenal of the police state built up in this country since 1979. We stand wholeheartedly with Deborah Hyde and everyone in Backlash to oppose them.”

The Libertarian Alliance believes:

* That what consenting adults do with each other on their own property is their own business;

* That if these consenting adults wish to publish any of this to other consenting adults, that also is their own business;

* That there should be no laws against the possession of any text or image, such laws being against the historic Constitution of England and being an excuse for an already corrupt police force to fabricate evidence;

* That the one legitimate function of the criminal justice system is to protect life and property.

END OF STATEMENT

The Green-Nazi-Police plans for “food waste” will end in tears.


Today I had the personal bad fortune to have to unload the small plastic regulation State-Soviet Nazi bin of “food waste” that we keep well outside the kitchen (‘coz it smells!) into the slightly larger State-Soviet Nazi bin which a truck of some description comes each week (we hope) and “empties”. So far, it does, but it’s been only abour two months since the  – naturally compulsory – “INITIATIVE” began, and it did take the NHS about 30+ years to grind to its present halt.

It has been much colder than usual here lately – undoubtedly owing to “global warming” – but the staggering profusion of life-forms I observed inhabiting the waste material astonished even me, a Biochemist.

You know….those faux-science TV progs (“PURE SCIENCE, SHEER DRAMA, UTTER CRAP”) where the producer is commanded to insert the Scottish-Female-Voice-Over line…….”WHUT THEY FOOND NEXT….WUS USTOONISHING…..”

What did we do with food waste before? If we was ‘ungry, we ate it. If not we either composted it in our own gardens (we still do here) or fed it to the blasted birds, even stuff like bacon which disappears inside 12 hours, or when I wuzz’ a “lad”, we slipped it all into t’-boiler with t’-coal, and it fizzed somewhat, went red-hot, and warmed t’-’ouse. 

Or latterly, when coal became illegal coz’ coal was for poor people with chimneysm and caused “fog”, we just poured it into t’-dustbin , shoved on some “Freshbin” to kill t’-flies, and it was taken every week and simply incinerated or safely landfilled like everything else.

Now, all manner of unidentifiable s**te sits about in the open all week, warmed by Al-Gore-gases and incubating Christ knows what (He probably does, but unlike another “god” I could mention, He Knows what Suffering is, and He Takes It along with His people.)

Some of the colours of the species growing on the material had to be seen to be believed. Next time I will photograph them. I’ve seen a few bug-cultures in my time, but not that many in one place.

Was this potential State-directed public health disaster an accidental result of more State Planning, or was it all planned to be part of the self-flagellational aspects of us giving the buggers more money than before?

I wait to be told.

Tory Conference: I wanted to say they’d said something Libertarian, but so far I can’t.


At least “Zak” (or is it “Zac”, or “Zack”? I think we should care for he is dangerous and ought not to be on the loose) has not made much of a media impact in this Blackpool business so far, so we have some small comfort.

Death duties at £1 million, no stamp duty up to £250,000 for first time buyers. What does £250,000 buy down south now? A Nissen hut or something? I think they’ve got cold feet at the thought of “losing” all that lovely house-transfer-tax. I would mind less if they spent it (all of it) on proper flying artillery-in-space, or “Atomic Sumbarines”, to threaten the enemies of the West, but even the Tories won’t, I suppose sadly.

And what’s this stuff about “non-doms”? (That wasn’t a misprint, was it?) Coffeehouse over at the Spectator has tried to do some sums, and reckons they would at best break even. Why should rich British people who choose to live abroad more or less permanently be penalised for failing to appreciate the delights of Brair-Blown’s stalinist paradise of “plans” and “the future” (just like all the other such ones I fear, like Cuba) ?

Surely, the deal ought to be to get them to spend more of their (already taxed somewhere) money, here? No? Have I missed something?

No, the Tories are still a socialist party as of Monday night.