As it’s All Hallows’ Eve, and yet people have got the wrong day as always, and are all about cadging sweets from strangers, I have barricaded the house and turned out all the lights.
As it’s All Hallows’ Eve, and yet people have got the wrong day as always, and are all about cadging sweets from strangers, I have barricaded the house and turned out all the lights.
Make your own fireworks for entertainment on November 5th: (From “Hobbies Weekly”, September 1938.)
Schoolboys will be turning their minds to topical entertainment at this time of year. Get about three pounds of old newspaper, trim roughly to size, and roll tightly round slightly tapered wooden dowels to a thickness of about 1/4 inch of tight paper. The dowles should be about 3/4″ to 1″ in diameter. Soak the entire cylinder in papier-mache, while tightly bundled, and let dry thoroughly for a couple of weeks in the sun. Secure the dry cylinder with quite a large amount of brown paper adhesive tape. Pull out the wood formers and cut to the required length of thunderflash with a good sharp hacksaw, allowing about three inches for the combined length of the top and bottom plugs, which can be cut from wine cork and then secured with tar. A good charge-length is about 6 inches or more, so make the overall tube length about 9 or 10 inches.
Obtain about three pounds of good black powder from your chemist or iron-monger, it should be about 2d a pound. Fill the hollow dry newspaper tightly with dry powder, insert a suitable fuse such as industrial blasting-fuse or good guncotton, and plug with tar. There should be about a foot of good reliable fuse free of the exterior. Let dry. This should be sufficient for about two dozen fireworks. Clean up spillages carefully with wooden brushes andtools.
Iron filings can be profitably added to the black powder, for a golden shower effect. Your ironmonger will oblige. Do not stand within about 30 feet of the lit firework, and retire immediately the fuse has “taken”.
Bernard Jenkin (I thought he’d died years ago, I really did, I thought he was some sort of B-movie-comedian or something) is the subject of the Daily GramscoMirror’s ire today***, over an “eyewatering £63,250″. Yup, it really is. Eyewatering I mean.
One law for them.
Another law for us.
***Through a Glass, Dully.
I just thought this was rather amusing. Well, it’s Friday.
Have kids build the school’s computers…in school. Why’s nobody thought of this before?
It’ll cost next to no money, as the hardware is usually in skips already. The internet has loads of drivers for wierd unlabelled stuff such as your Zektharg-64-ultra-rage-killer graphics card with no manual. And they can play with electricity.
And…the key libertarian benefit is it’ll cut out of the loop all those hyper-expensive hardware and “systems” “suppliers, such as Alan Sugar, who feed off the teets of the State’s procurement “agencies”, charging astronomical prices for last year’s quite pedestrian kit.
I was intrigued just now by something Bishop Hill has done, in placing different strands of opinion about AGW and climate change generally, on a sort of Johari Window.
Here it is, but do read his piece.
This is a droidette of the Enemy Class, order-1. h/t Mr Eugenides. The machine is being filmed in full flight: it is awesome to behold the brass-neck of the device which is on-camera, non-human as it may be, in its destiny.
The watching of, and the listening to that, is priceless stuff. The evasiveness is nothing, compared with the sheer, astonishing separation of the machine’s perception of reality when compared with where human beings see reality to be.
I was encouraged by this here.
But I’m not holding my breath: traditionally, Good People do not make the first move against bad. This is sad and regrettable.
But this time, just for once, could it be different? Could we eat the GFNs, before they bankrupt, starve and freeze us?
I will let you read the rubbish linked to, and make your own judgements.
GramscoFabiaNazis will be dissected, perhaps on Friday.
It implies over at The Englishman’s Castle that the Global-Food-Management-Gestapo, the GFMGs (as they will now henceforth be known – here’s one who’s been hiding in the woodword for some time! Here’s another. They are mass-murderers who will try to invoke global food rationing and soon, starting in nations which they hate) while cleverly appearing to shoot themselves in the foot and perform what appear to be self-contradictory activities, so as to promote the effect of people wanting to minimize the importance of what they do, are actually following a clever and strategically-focussed agenda.
Surely, food is delightful, and absolute food is absolutely delightful? No?
The problem of an existing Enemy-Class, and – as a corollary to that – its tendency to Bathe its Hands in the Till, will continue until a revolution in the way individuls view “public service” is accomplished.
In London, at the Libertarian Alliance Conference last weekend, my boy and I, walking about Pimlico in the company of the admirable Brian Micklethwait, spied a number of quite utilitarian but suitable buildings for the battery-housing of MPs. Nothing fancy, just serviceable, warm, fairly comfortable and presumably facilities to make coffee, get up some toasty-cheese sandwiches and tea-without-sugar early before a brisk trot to the House, power the odd electric blanket in winter, and watch “Question Time” if they had to. (But they can’t, because I’ll make them be in the House…for all debates…all the time. And they won’t be able to “claim” for a “VCR machine” because I’ll opine that they ought to be able to afford one already.)
The expenses row gets better: now the bastards are whingeing that they can’t employ their wives or claim for mortgages. Look, if they didn’t think they could afford to be MPs, why ever did they stand at all? Anyway, I thought the point of being an MP away in London is that you could shag your “researcher”? She/he might hope to be your wife in due course, but that was under the Tories: we have moved on now, this is 2010, sonny.
MPs should “enter Parliament” only _after_ they have had a comprehensive education in reality and proper work, and in living like the people who will be employing them. That might mean they are all conservatives – with a small “c” - and are cynical and pessimistic about what good the State can do, if even any at all. But that’s good, surely. It will end once and for all the cultural hegemony in modern British politics of the fascist-lefty, professional-activist-Gramscian, all of whose influences have been entirely malign and without any redeeming features at all. These people were only good for acting as Pol Pot’s murderers, and have now truly become what they always were.
Incidentally, I have been politely and informally approached by Various August Libertarians, regarding my use of the term “GramscoFabiaNazi”. As a result I explained, perhaps a bit too forcefully and with a little too high conviction, not only what this term means which they fully understood, but why it is 100% accurate and will continue to be applied at appropriate points, and why it should gain traction. Thus there will be a short digression soon, and I will pen an essay to justify the word intellectually, which will be on here. But I will continue unfailingly to be the eternal foe of these bad, bad, wicked, evil sub-humanoid murderers (who deserve the punishment defined as “Eternal Life” [I explained this OK, didn't I?] ), and I will call the GFNs names and throw insults at them to the end of my strength keyboard.
But for MPs, who clearly do understand the problem but whose grasp of delightful power now exceeds the reach of morals by so much that they can find the brass-neck to protest at the protestations against them? They may find that in the end, we the People “have not the facilities to properly take their surrender”. They better watch out.
I was going to get to this but Jonathan Pearce of Samizdata has summed the facts up sufficiently clearly already. How long before nobody at all can get any kind of job, anywhere, without one of these Blauscheine? Of course, link conditional acceptance to being clear of today’s equivalent of Witchcraft – even of allegations of Witchraft! – and you’ve got the whole people…in your hands. Sorted.
In the 1960s one of the most celebrated British sit-coms Till Death Us Do Part appeared. Its central character was an elderly working class Londoner Alf Garnett (For American readers his character inspired that of Archie Bunker).
Garnett’s most noted characteristic was what we would call these days being non-PC, especially about race and immigration. The author Johnny Speight swore blind that he had no sympathy with the character’s views and he had created him only to show how bigoted and unpalatable they were. (The suspicion grew as the character of Garnett became more and more dominant in the sit-com and ever more outrageous in his words that Speight was actually peddling his own secret views. Speight vehemently denied this but the accusation followed him to his grave.)
The effect of the Garnett character was the exact opposite of Speight’s stated intention because he became a character who, far from being treated universally as a figure of fun or despicable, was taken by many people as a conduit for their opinions, opinions which otherwise were even in those days severely censored by a liberal media and a political class (with the exception of Enoch Powell) which had already fallen under the liberal Omerta on honest discussion of race and immigration. (The first British Race Relations Act was passed in 1965).
Something similar to the Alf Garnett effect has taken place with the BNP. It did not really matter how well or badly Griffin did on Question Time. What counted was the fact he was on it saying, amongst a good deal of confused nonsense, what large numbers of Britons felt about mass immigration and the multi-cultural reign of terror which prevents people in any normal circumstances saying what they feel about its consequences. That Griffin was crude in his claims, lacking in examples to back up his claims even where examples were readily available, for example he failed to quote one of the many Churchill statements on race which would be considered unequivocally racist today by the liberal bigot definition, and palpably nervous was of little account. What mattered was that he was saying things which had not been said in such a forum for many a long year.
The BBC, hermetically wrapped in their liberal bigot cocoon, played into his hands. There was never going to be a detailed discussion of the issues and the choice of a panel which was not only universally hostile to Griffin and to any honest discussion of immigration, but also emblematic in its make up of the grip that politically correctness has got on this country with three members of ethnic minorities out of the five panel members – Jack Straw (Jewish), Sayeeda Warsi (Asian Muslim), Bonnie Greer (black American) – ensured that the viewer would see the programme as an exercise in liberal elite control. (Had I been Griffin, before I said anything else I would have pointed out the unrepresentative nature of the panel. Coincidentally, Greer is the woman I crossed swords with over Obama’s Nobel Prize on BBC Radio 5 a couple of weeks ago. List members will be delighted to hear that for Ms Greer the panel far from being an unrepresentative travesty “celebrated a racial mix. Sayeeda Wasi was amazing and I was very moved to hear about Jack Straw’s Jewish background. I had no idea. (Telegraph 24/9/2009″. Exactly how someone supposedly very well attuned to British politics could not know Straw is Jewish is a mystery only Ms Greer, a UK resident for 23 years, can explain. Equally difficult to explain is why the BBC think she, someone who has never been elected to public office in her life, deserves to be wheeled out to give her political opinions so often.)
Add in the chairman David Dimbleby’s grossly biased questioning of Griffin – “Is it fair that the BNP has hijacked Churchill as its own?” – and the choice of questioners (disproportionately ethnic) and universally hostile questions from the audience and none but the most dishonest liberal bigot could see the programme as anything other than hideously unbalanced and unfair.
The other mistakes Griffin made were:
(1) trying to ingratiate himself with other panel members especially Greer.
(2) Smiling too much.
(3) Getting into ridiculous discussions about whether the indigenous population had been in the islands 17,000 years or not – they haven’t and even if they had it would be irrelevant.
(4) Absurdly playing the pc game by claiming that the colour of skin does not matter, the determining factor of acceptability being how long a people have been in a country, absurd because the BNP’s position has been unequivocally that race matters right up to the present, including the banning of non-whites from membership.
The most interesting single response came from Straw when Griffin was being questioned by Dimbleby on the subject of the Holocaust. Griffin said that he could not explain his original position on the Holocaust because that would put him at risk of being extradited to places such as Germany on an European Arrest Warrant. Straw immediately jumped in and stated categorically that it could not happen. This is nonsense as Holocaust Denial is one of the categories of crimes extraditable under the warrant. As a one time Foreign Secretary, a lawyer and now Justice Minister, Straw must have known that what he said was untrue. (BTW his real name is John Straw. Whilst at university he changed it to Jack Straw, in imitation of the Peasant’s Revolt leader).
It wasn’t only Griffin who was nervous on that programme, it was also Jack Straw and Chris Huhne, both of whom were utterly terrified and incoherent when the question of immigration over the past 12 years was discussed. That is why they mainstream politicians fear the BNP: they force discussion on the ultimate treason which is mass immigration. – Griffin has given so many hostages to fortune in the past with the Holocaust denial and dalliance with the likes of the Klu Klux Klan that it tells you all you need to know about the utter failure of mainstream British parties to deal with immigration that they have had the success that they have had. Griffin and the BNP are catalysts to drive the major parties towards a more reasonable position of immigration. They are doing that regardless of the quality of the membership or leader.
Some idea of the extent to which the British people feel betrayed by their political elite can be seen from the facts that 8 million tuned in – a phenomenally high number for a UK politics programme – and over 500k of hits were made to the BNP website in the next 24 hours.
The Question Time programme is on the BBC IPlayer for another 4 days. Just go to the BBC website and type in Question time and the link will come up near the top of the page. RH
Someones, and it’s clear that they have supporters in Westmonster, don’t want there to be an English UK Government outside the EU or GramscoFabiaNazism, and we feel that we know who they are but we can all argue. Such an administration would be a single and terrible threat. The demolition of the BNP can be conducted by the BBC and its accolytes as is known to be how it’s done, for a false aunt-Sally has had to be made to take the blows. The BNP is a socialist pary so they can’t complain. They are being shot by their own side in public, as on Question Time, and we cannot really interfere.
The destruction of the BNP is the happening in a faraway country of which we know nothing. The Enemy-Class buggers created the BNP on purpose and quite deliberately through their “multicultural policies”, they then set it up as a Straw-Man, and proceeded to ritually attack it on the telly. The next target is UKIP which is what they were really exercised about.
There was a small chance that UKIP could do two things: (1) Get us out of the EU without a shooting-war, and (2) unwind some of the more terrifying GramscoFabiaNazi type legislation that we have now about things like cheese-rolling, pipe-cleaners, toys, food, beef, sheep, farmers, food, grain, water, electricity, money, farmers, farmland, what the bastards can grow and when, slaughterhouses, lorries, roads, who can park where or when, how wide your hedgerow-margins can be for bats, flies, butterflies, caterpillars, beetles and other useless inedibles and so on, oh and BIRDS….
ALL BIRDS WILL HAVE TO GO
unless Richard Dawkins can convince me otherwise at the WAR CRIMES TRIAL of the RSPB since he is a good and honest man. He can be their Mackenzie-Friend.
I hear it was a good conference. Next year maybe I’ll reveal myself. Meantime David Munchingbanana does have the right idea about what the EU ought to do about the EU head-honcho-thing, if we are all stuck with one. Not saying I’m in favour of that, just that somebody like Barreloso-of-laughs, or that Mitterand guy if he is still alive, would just have himself shot in the foot if he so much as showed his face in Chindia or the US. Or maybe that’s better? No on second thoughts let’s not have Blair, get a EUNonentity as planned. Billy-D-Banana was wrong as usual.
Truly, these people have no sense of irony, and you could not make up such screaming stuff if you tried.
Maybe the guy who used our money to have his moat cleared, actually fears that he might need to put it to its original use.
…created by those who let him on.
I link to an article of mine on vdare.com, penned in the wake of settling dust after the appearance of Nick Griffin of the BNP last Thursday on Question Time. Please follow my link and read the whole essay: for a flavour of what I said, here is an extract:-
…From the opening minutes, it was plain that this would not be—nor was planned to be—a normal episode of Question Time. The other panellists had conferred and brought along set speeches of denunciation, which the Presenter, David Dimbleby, both allowed and encouraged. Indeed, he joined in with hostile questions of his own.
It is unlikely that the audience had been fed questions to put. It was hardly necessary, bearing in mind the demographic profile—quite unlike Mr Griffin’s own electoral base. The questions were universally hostile. So were most of the audience comments.
Rather than Question Time, this was an hour in which Nick Griffin was put on trial before the nation, following the sort of process that a Communist police state might have envied. It was all set up to be grossly unfair.
I believe that Mr Griffin is planning a formal complaint to the BBC about bias. Sadly, he is missing the point. Whatever unfairness was meant, he was given the opportunity of a lifetime to do two things—first, to show the world that he was not a sinister crank; second, to tell the world directly and in brief what he was in politics to achieve. Judged in terms of this opportunity, his performance was an embarrassing failure….
Today, we learn that Griffin may be asked back onto this programme. I might leave speculations, of a conspiratorial kind about the reasons for this announcement, to our Blogmaster.
Guido distinguished himself as is customary, with his very entertaining and constructive after-dinner speech entitled “Get Your Skates On For Liberty”. If my private video of it comes out suffucuently clearly, taken on a rather poor digital still machine, I will upload it here when we get back to our own stable home wireless.
The Libertarian Alliance will shortly be publishing Antoine’s winning Essay. As soon as possible too, we shall upload full video of all the sessions from yesterday and today.
It is worth reflecting on many places still today, where this material may not be available, or at best subject to restriction and ceonsorship by State servers.
As and when we arrive at the event, outer-London-parking-controls and tribulations permitting, we shall attempt to “live blog” parts of this (whatever “live-blogging” might be: I hope someone will tell us!) We are armed with laptops which I guess is a requirement, and we assume that modern trendy venues like the National Liberal Club have some kind of internet connection…
…gets on or appears to get in the way of the Enemy Class Project.
I am back. [GROAN....I hear you all say: I bet you preferred Michael who held the Fort while I was out and about.] Happily I missed all the hoohah and Wireless (you get it) Telly-Telly stuff about Nick Griffin and the staged public demolition of his policies, by those who either have the same policies or will have to institute completely identical ones. Which is to say, The Enemy Class.
As an Enemy-Class-ist, the problem you have when you want to (a) disenfranchise, and (b) marginalise and ultimately exterminate the culture of, a whole very very large section of the people of a nation which you have decided to eraze, out of misplaced but correctly-targetted revenge for successes of real liberalism in the past by others, is this. It is that you have to demonise the people who see a Main Chance, and can speak up for it, however mistakenly. You do not, yet, through your incompetently GramscoFabiaNazi faith in historical inevitability, have access either to terror-Police, or not many, nor have you taken care to set up “Vernichtungslager” or even concentration camps: worse, you have failed to label the proposed Concentration Camps as “positive-health-and-dietary-amelioration-supplement/education-augmentation-facilities in relocational-theatres”….
Really, over this BNP scruck, they the Enemy-Class are on a smallish hiding to nothing, at least from now on.
If they said nothing about the BNP at all and just let it go and be, then its support will grow because it simply says the things that the disenfranchised Old White Working Class (and other bits) wants to hear being said. [That does not imply that what it wants is a right solution.]
And if they demonise it, then that will then just amplify the feeling that there is a class – the Enemy Class – that is the enemy of the aspirations and hopes of ordinary individuals who know nothing political, have nothing much in this world in the way of goods and chattels, and just want to be allowed to get on with grubbing along in even slight comfort before dying, and without too much in the way of hegemonic interference. Which is pretty much what has happened to nearly 100% of all humans since the beginning of history.
Really, it’s the hegemonic people’s fault. They hegemons will really all have to go, as Michael said yesterday.
All this is good for us. really.
Ive been told off for spelling mistakes so I’ll try to be carefull.
But in the meantime do eat one of these.
The fascist left have guaranteed that Nick Griffin of the BNP will get prime time billing tonight or whenever it is. What they don’t get is that we all know they’re spitting tacks over the BNP exact;y ‘coz it’s stripping votes off what they think is their own little Pocket Borough. Ive just learned about these and that’s what Labour thinks its’ entitled to. So they are climibing the wall with anger and rage at the BNP, which is just a socialist party realy but a more nationalist one than they like.
You know, if libertarianism os to get off the ground ever, and les’t face it we are not exactly winning right today, all these bloody people may just have to go. I don’t care where or how, just go. Gone. Deprived of power, amployment (they don’t do anything worthwhile anyway) and the ability to influence events. It’s just too effing difficult to deal with them and their whingeing and obfuscation of everything that’s objectivly right. I’m not saying the BNP is right, far from it: why does everybody have to be seen to say loudly that they think the BNP’s wrong even though everybody knows you know it is?
But the sort of people writhing in public rage for TV consumption, at the BNP’s man being on the telly, are the same sort of people that attack and try to shut down power stations. This doesn’t make the BNP right, and it just shows up where the enemies of liberty and free speech are coming from.
Sorry about that rant, I couldnt help ot.
Well we are a dangerous and uncontrollable people as everyone know and it’s surprising it toook so long. Can’t have people rebelling now, can we.
How has it come to this that the UK now has machinegun-police on our streets, what did we do wrong. This will be hailed as a “success”, it will be “rolled out”. You’ll see, and remember what I said.
I just chanced on this. It looks very fine. The Officers of the Libertarian Alliance will, naturally, be thinking of ordering some, for the Committee, but sadly funds do not run to this sort of extravagance. So it’s “theory A”, then.
No I dodn’t think so, legiron has an interesting look at the people who tried to close an actual power station and complanned of being bitten by tethered policedogs. Well I don’t know, you can stand and jump about further aways.
Perhaps theye didn’t intend to close it really, and perhaps it just was a publicityy stunt. But I don’t know. KNowing some of these people colsely as I do, I fear them now. Maybe my friemf David Davis is right, we will have to kill and eat the bastards after the lights are all out and all other the people are frozen to death. I am going to do a poll, I hope it woks.
You cans ee what Daniel Hannan thinks here. Please wread hole thing.
The Conservative Challenge
By Sean Gabb
(Text of a Speech Given to a Conservative Association
On Friday the 16th October 2009)
On Friday the 16th October 2009, I spoke to a Conservative Association in the South East of England. Though I did not video the event, and though – on account of the heated and not always good natured debate the followed my speech – I was asked not to identify the particular Association to which I spoke, I think what I said is worth recording. Therefore, I will write down my words as best I can recall them. I have suppressed all the questions, but carried some of the answers into the main text. Otherwise, I will try to keep the flavour of the original.
Because of transport difficulties that prevented many people in this room from arriving on time, I am beginning my speech an hour later than expected. I am honoured by the Chairman’s apology for the delay. However, the series of conversations and arguments with which those of us who were here entertained ourselves while waiting have given me the idea for a speech that is still on my stated theme, but that I think will be more interesting than the one I had in mind. Now, this theme – “The Conservative Challenge” – has been routinely given to speakers at Conservative gatherings since at least the 1880s. The question that must always be answered is how we can remain the free citizens of an independent country in ages that have been progressively hostile both to individual freedom and to national independence. I did have a plan loosely worked out in my head. What I will do instead, though, is take some of our bar room discussions and summarise or expand on them as seems appropriate. I will do this by giving short statements of what was said to me, and then by giving my responses.
1. This has been a bad Government
I disagree. Oh, if you want a government that defends the country and provides common services while keeping so far as possible out of your way, the Labour Government elected in 1997 has been a disappointment. This does not mean, however, that the Blair and Brown Governments have been a failure in their own terms. They have, on the contrary, been very successful.
The purpose of the Government that took power in 1997 was to bring about a revolutionary transformation of this country – a transformation from which there could be no return to what had been before. The English Constitution has never been set down in a written document, and there has never been any statement of fundamental rights and liberties that was protected from change by ordinary legislation. Instead, these rights and liberties were protected by a set of customs and institutions that, being legitimised by antiquity, served the same purpose as formal entrenchment. It can be hard, in every specific case, to justify trial by jury, or the rule against double jeopardy, or the idea that imprisonment should be for a specified time and no longer, or the right to speak freely on matters in the public domain. There are principled arguments that satisfy in the absence of strong passions. But, strong passions being granted, the best argument has always so far been that these things have always been in England, and that to change them would be to break the threads that tie us to the past.
It would be childish to argue that the Ancient Constitution was in good health until 1997, when it was suddenly overturned. Unless there is an catastrophic foreign invasion, constitutions are not destroyed in this way. Ours had been sapped long before 1997. To say when the tipping point was reached, and by what means, would take me far beyond my stated theme. However, what remained of the Constitution has, since 1997, been dismissed as a set of “outmoded” relics, and large parts of it have been swept away. Those that remain have been transformed beyond recognition.
Let me give myself as an example. My first degree was in History. Much of this was taken up with a study of late antiquity and the early middle ages. But some of it was given to English history between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. Of course, the Constitution changed within these periods, and had changed much since then. But I could take up the debates of the Cavalier Parliament, or a pamphlet written during the American War, or a case published in the State Trials, and find myself within a conversation of the English people. I was not in the same position as a French undergraduate, who, for anything published before 1791, would find himself in a world of institutions, and territorial names, and weights and measures, and monetary units, and general assumptions, as alien as those of a foreign country.
This has now changed. Anyone who, this month, has started a degree in History or Law or Politics will find himself in the same position as that French undergraduate. We have new legislative bodies all over the country, and new principles of administration, and new courts with new procedures and languages, and new lines of authority terminating in bodies outside the country. The work is not yet complete. But already, the conversation of the English people has been made largely incomprehensible to those born since I was an undergraduate.
Whether the changes can be justified as improvements – or whether they could have been made with more regard for economy and consistency – is beside the point. The main purpose of change has been to seal off the past. That past has been delegitimized in order to strip rights and liberties of the associations that used to protect them. Not surprisingly, we find ourselves in a country with a Potemkin democracy, where speech and publication are censored, where the police are feared, where we are continuously spied on as we go about our business, where we can be imprisoned without trial or charge for a month, and generally where we find ourselves having to deal every day with administrative bodies given powers that others who have not yet had felt them still cannot believe possible.
On any normal assumptions, the country has been governed very badly since 1997. On the assumptions of the Government, things have gone very well indeed.
2. This country is ruled by people who have been corrupted by bad ideas.
Again, I disagree. For centuries now, England has been governed by people rather like ourselves. Sometimes, they have governed well, sometimes badly. But we have never had to doubt their fundamental good faith. This has changed. The people who now rule this country have not been led astray by bad ideas. Rather, they are bad people who choose ideologies to justify their behaviour.
There are ideologies of the left – mutualism, for example, or Georgism, or syndicalism – that may often be silly or impracticable, but that are perfectly consistent with the dignity and independence of ordinary people. These are not ideologies, however, of which those who rule us have ever taken the smallest notice. These people began as state socialists. When this became electorally embarrassing, they switched to politically correct multiculturalism. Now this too is becoming an embarrassment, they are moving towards totalitarian environmentalism. Whether in local or in national government, their proclaimed ideologies have never prevented them from working smoothly with multinational big business, or with unaccountable multinational governing bodies.
It is reasonable to assume that, with these people, ideas are nothing more than a series of justifications for building a social and economic and political order within which they and theirs can have great wealth and unchallengeable power.
They tell us they want to end “child poverty” and “build a more equal society”. In fact, they have employed an army of social workers to terrorise every working class family in the country – an army of social workers backed by closed and secretive courts, and that may even be selecting children for legal kidnap and sale to barren middle class couples. They have pauperised millions with policies that keep them from achieving any reasonable independence and subject them to the bullying of credentialed bureaucracies.
They tell us they want a more “inclusive” and “diverse” society. They have certainly welcomed the mass immigration that they enabled the moment they came into office. It has been useful for impoverishing the working classes – in their attitudes and behaviour once perhaps the most conservative people in the country. It has also provided much evidence for their claim that the old England into which we were born has passed away, and that we need a new constitutional settlement – a settlement much in need of censorship and endless meddling in private choices. Even so, they make sure to live in white enclaves and to send their children to private schools where class photographs look much as they did in 1960.
They tell us they want to save the planet from “climate change”. If they have made Phillips and Siemens rich from their light bulb ban, they still fly everywhere and drive everywhere, and light up their own houses and offices like Christmas trees.
These are bad people. They must be regarded as such in everything they do. And we must hope that they will one day be punished as such.
3. The country is misgoverned.
Let me go back to my first point. There is no doubt that everything done by these people has involved huge cost for little of the promised benefit. We have computer systems that do not work. We have new bureaucracies that do not achieve their stated purpose. The National Health Service, for example, has had its budget doubled or trebled in the past twelve years. Yet the waiting lists are as long as ever, and the hospitals are dirtier than ever. Medical incompetence and even corruption and oppression are now everyday stories in the newspapers.
Again, however, these are failures only on the assumption that money has been laid out for the purpose of improving services. It has not. The real purpose of washing a tidal wave of our money over the public services has been partly to raise up an army of clients more likely to vote Labour than anything else, and partly to give these clients powers that tell everyone else who are the masters now. On this assumption, the money has not been wasted at all. It has indeed been an “investment in the future”.
What is to be done?
I often speak about an electoral coup in which a genuinely conservative government came to power and set about undoing the revolution. This involves shutting down most of the public sector. I am not saying that poor people would no longer receive their benefits or medical attention free at the point of use. These are not in themselves expensive. They may have undesirable consequences in terms of smothering personal responsibility and voluntary initiative. But these are problems to be addressed over a long period during which no settled expectation need be denied. What I do say is that the bureaucratic machine that bleeds us white in taxes and grinds us into obedient uniformity should be smashed to pieces that cannot easily be put back together. It should be smashed because we cannot afford it. It should be smashed because it oppresses us. It should be smashed because it is an agent of national destruction.
I once wrote a book about why this should be done and how to do it. Sadly, it will not be done in the foreseeable future. We shall probably have a Conservative Government within the next nine months. But this will not be a government of conservatives. If we want a preview of the Cameron Government, we need only look at what Boris Johnson has achieved during the past year as Mayor of London. He has not closed down one of the bureaucracies set up by Ken Livingstone and his Trotskyite friends. The race equality enforcers are still collecting their salaries. The war on the private motorist continues. Rather than cut the number of New and Old Labour apparatchiks, he is currently putting up taxes. David Cameron will be no better. He may be forced to make some changes and to slow the speed of the transformation. The transformation will continue nevertheless.
We need to speculate on the purpose and nature of counter-revolution. It is useful to know what ought to be our long term purpose. It inspires us to action in an otherwise bleak present. But we need also to know what present actions are to be inspired. My advice is that we need, in all our thoughts and in whatever of our behaviour is prudent, to withhold our sanction.
Any system of oppression that does not rely on immediate and overwhelming – and usually foreign – violence requires the sanction of its victims. We cannot all have guns put to our heads all day and every day. We therefore need to believe, in some degree, that what is done to us is legitimate. We must believe this if we are to obey. We must believe it if those who oppress us are to keep their good opinion of themselves. I suggest that we should withhold that sanction. I do not say that, without our sanction, the illegitimate power that now constrains our lives will fall immediately to the ground. I do suggest, however, that it will be insensibly undermined, and that it may therefore collapse suddenly in the event of some unexpected shock. This is how Communism died in Eastern Europe. It may be how the New Labour Revolution will die here.
One of the myths, endlessly repeated through what is called “Middle England”, is that the Police are among the victims of Labour rule – that they have been forced to act in ways that they find abhorrent or absurd. But this is only a myth. The Police are no friends to respectable people in any class or race. When I was a small boy, I was reduced to tears by what seemed a gigantic policeman in a tall helmet. One glare of his bearded face, and I was straight off the municipal flower bed where I had thrown my ball. He spoke to my grandmother before moving to other business, and that was the end of my transgression.
His sort retired decades ago. They have been replaced by undersized, shaven headed thugs – frequently with criminal records – who take delight in harassing the respectable. If you are robbed or beaten in the street, they will be nowhere in sight. If you approach them to complain, they will record the crime and send you on your way. If, on the other hand, you try defending yourself or your loved ones, they will prosecute you. They will do nothing about drugged, aggressive beggars, but they will jump on you if they see you smoking under a bus shelter. These people have been given powers that move them closer to the East German Stasi than to the uniformed civilians many of us can still remember. They can arrest you for dropping a toffee wrapper in the street. Once arrested, you may be charged, but you will more likely be released after being fingerprinted and having DNA samples taken and stored. We do not know what other body or government will be given your DNA. We do not know what future oppressions it may enable. Regardless of any littering charge, you will have been punished already.
We should not regard the Police in any sense as our friends. They are not. This does not mean that we should have no dealings with them. There are times – insurance claims, for example, where things must be reported. There are times when the Police are needed, and when they may give some limited assistance. Even so, we should on no account behave to them as if they were uniformed civilians. They are an armed, increasingly out of control pro-Labour militia.
We were all of us born in a country where the phrase “The Law is the Law: it must always be obeyed” did not seem absurd. Yes, it may not have been quite as we were told. By and large, however, it was a law made by our representatives and with our loose consent – or it was made by Judges rationalising honestly from assumptions grounded in common sense notions of justice. It is that no longer. For all its blemishes, the old laws of England were there to stop us from knocking into each other too hard as we went about our business. Its function was reactive. The function of law nowadays is transformational. It is there to change the ways in which we think and live. So far as this is the case, the law has been delegitimised.
And this is how we are to regard uses of the law. At the moment, The UK Independence Party is being edged towards bankruptcy over some matter of a political donation. It seems not to have complied with the requirements of a law made in the year 2000 that effectively nationalises all political parties – and that may one day be used to control what policies they advocate and how they oppose measures with which they disagree. Again, there are complaints about how the BBC has invited the Leader of the British National Party to appear on Question Time. It is said that the BNP is currently an illegal organisation because of its internal rules. The alleged illegality is based on a novel interpretation of a 1976 law, as amended in 2000, that is itself illegitimate.
There was a time when it was enough for us to be told that someone had broken the law for us to think ill of that person. But times are altered. When the laws themselves are corrupt, they lose moral force. It is no longer enough for us to be told that someone is a law breaker. Whatever we may think of these parties for what they advocate, they are to be seen not as law breakers but victims of political oppression. To think ill of them purely for their disregard of the law is rather like calling Alexander Solzhenitsyn a jailbird on account of his time in the Gulag.
The Law is no longer the Law. It is a set of politicised commands made for our destruction as a free people. It no longer deserves our automatic respect. Yes, the laws that protect life and property are still to be respected. But it is now rational to inspect every law thrown at us to see which do bind in conscience and which do not. I know that this is a dangerous principle to announce. There are many people for whom the law is a unified thing: say that one part has no binding force, and all parts are weakened. But this is not our fault. We have not made the law disreputable. We are simply facing a state of affairs that has been called into being by others.
I have already mentioned the remodelling of the Constitution. As a people, we have long amused foreigners with our respect for titles and old forms of government. I once chaired a meeting addressed by a Member of the House of Lords. This was before the Internet, and I spent nearly an hour in a library clarifying that he should be introduced as – let me change the name – John, Lord Smith of Wilmington, rather than Lord John Smith or Lord Wilmington. This was all good fun. It also had a serious point. I was helping maintain one of those innumerable and seemingly absurd customs that among were the outer defences of our rights and liberties. Our Ancient Constitution may have struck outsiders as a gigantic fancy dress ball. But it covered a serious and very important fact. This was an imperfect acceptance of Colonel Rainsborough’s claim that “the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he”.
But, again, times are altered. The more gorgeous events of the fancy dress ball have been retained. But the underlying substance – the protection of rights and liberties – has been stripped out. This being so, all obligation of deference has lapsed. I will not defer to the man whose name has been changed by a sheet of parchment sealed with wax to Baron Kinnock of Bedwellty. Nor will I call Peter Mandelson other than “Mr Mandelson. Nor, unless I am in his court, and he is likely to take more against me than he naturally would, will I address the former Communist Stephen Sedley as “My Lord”. Nor will I acknowledge his Knighthood out of court. I am not yet sure if it is appropriate to stop recognising hereditary honours, or those granted before 1997. But I certainly regard all honours granted since 1997 as void. They have the same legitimacy as those conferred by Cromwell during the Interregnum. No – Cromwell was a great man who did honour to this country and who deserves his statue outside Parliament. Recent honours have the same status as those conferred by James II after he ran away to France. They are to be seen as a badge of ridicule and disgrace on those who have accepted them.
Now, this may seem a pedantic and self-indulgent point. But it is not. These people should not be allowed to wrap themselves in any remnant of the associations that once bound us to the past. And they evidently enjoy playing at nobility. I once did a radio debate with a police chief who had been recommended for a Peerage by Tony Blair. He was annoyed by my substantive arguments. He was reduced to spluttering rage when I addressed him as plain “Mister” and sneered that his title was a sham. Bearing in mind that it is not illegal to drop their titles, and how it upsets them, I think it worth doing on every convenient occasion.
And it is part of what I would see as a more general approach. Conservatives often denounce what is being done to us as a “breach of the Constitution”. It is really no such thing, because the Ancient Constitution has been abolished. As said, the fancy dress ball continues in something like full swing. But “the poorest he that is in England” has been stuffed. We do have a constitution in the sense that every organised community has one. Ours says that whoever can frogmarch a majority of placemen through the lobbies of the House of Commons can do whatever he pleases. I did hope, earlier in the present decade, that the Judges would intervene to limit parliamentary sovereignty. The Labour response, however, was to pack the bench with their own people. Therefore, since it has been destroyed, or has been suspended, we are in no position to claim that the Constitution has been breached. The obvious result is that we should not regard ourselves as morally bound to recognise any of the authority that is claimed and exercised over us.
And if our people ever get into power through the electoral coup that I mentioned earlier, I see no reason for recognising any purely “constitutional” limits to the nature and speed of our counter-revolution. For example, regardless of the withdrawal mechanism in the Lisbon Treaty, I would be for just repealing the European Communities Act 1972 as amended. That would be complete and immediate withdrawal. If any Judges tried to block this, I would have them removed. I might also be for passing an Act voiding every previous law made since the first session of the 1997 Parliament. Otherwise, I would prefer to declare a state of Emergency under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, and then repeal hundreds of laws by decree. A slow revolution can take place when those at the top have the numbers and staying power to take it slowly. When there has been a revolutionary or counter-revolutionary seizure of power, change must be swift and determined if it is to be a success.
There must be a return to constitutional norms – and the extraordinary measures that may enable this return must not be allowed to set any precedents of their own. Nor – let me emphasise – do I hope that our reaction will involve violence. But if conservatives are to bring about a reaction, so that we can again be a free people in an independent nation, we have little positive to learn from Burke’s Reflections. There comes a point beyond which a constitution cannot be rescued. I think we have reached that point. There can be no patching up this time, as happened at the Restoration in 1660, or after the Revolution of 1688. By all means, we should not innovate just for the sake of neatness. But we shall need to innovate. We shall need to create new safeguards for our rights and liberties that take into account the country in which we live.
This means, I increasingly believe, a republican constitution. There is nothing wrong with the principle of hereditary monarchy. I suspect that the division of authority and power that took place between 1660 and 1714 contributed much to the freedom and stability of England during our classical period. The problem is not the institution of monarchy, but the person of the Monarch.
When she came to the throne, Elizabeth had what seems to have been almost the universal regard of the people. She has spent the past 57 years betraying the people. Whatever the constitutional lawyers may claim, there is a contract between Monarch and people. We pretend to treat whoever wears the Crown as the Lord’s Anointed. The wearer of the Crown agrees in turn to act as a defence of last resort against tyrannical politicians. That is the truth behind the phrases of the coronation oath. The Queen could, without bringing on a crisis, have blocked the law in the early 1960s that removed juries from most civil trials. She could have blocked the subsequent changes that abolished the unanimity rule and the right of peremptory challenge. She should have risked a crisis, and refused her assent to the European Communities Bill, or demanded a fair referendum first. She could have harried the politicians of the past two generations, reminding them of the forms and substance of the Ancient Constitution. She had the moral and legal authority to do this. Had she spoken to us like adults, she would have had popular support. She did nothing. I believe she bullied Margaret Thatcher into handing Rhodesia over to a communist mass-murderer, and made repeated noises about South African sanctions. And that was it.
Whatever her failings in the past, she had every legal right to demand a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty. This had been promised by every party at the 2005 general election. When the promise was withdrawn, she would have had public opinion and much of the media behind her in refusing to give assent to the Treaty’s Enabling Act. Again, she did nothing.
We are continually told about the Queen’s sense of duty. All I see is much scurrying about the country to open leisure centres – and otherwise a total disregard of her essential duties. If the Constitution was in decay before she was even born, she has spent her reign watching all that was left of it slip between her fingers.
It may be argued that she is now very old and will not remain much longer on the throne. The problem is that her son will be worse. She has been lazier than she has been stupid. He is simply stupid. So far as he insists on using his powers, it will be to drive forward the destruction of England. His own eldest son might easily be an improvement – but he could be decades away from the Crown. We are in no position to wait on what is in any event uncertain. The Queen has broken the contract between her and us. Her son will do nothing to repair the breach. We live in an age where hereditary monarchy must be strictly hereditary or nothing at all, and so we cannot waste our time with new Exclusion Bills or Acts of Settlement. If, therefore, we are ever in a position to bring about a counter-revolution, we shall need to find a head of state who can be trusted to do the job of looking after our new constitution.
I could go further on this theme. I know that many conservatives – and a few Conservatives – have lost faith in democracy. Undoubtedly, representative democracy has thrown up a political class that is separate from the people, and that is increasingly hostile to the rights and liberties of the people. But I cannot think of a lasting new settlement based on Caesaristic dictatorship or a limitation of the franchise. My own suggestion would be to select most positions in the executive by sortition – to choose rulers, that is, by a lottery – as in ancient Athens, and to settle all legislative matters by local or national referendum. Most judicial business that had any bearing on the Constitution could be put before juries of several hundred people, chosen by the same random process as criminal juries now are.
But, you will agree that this takes me far, far beyond my stated theme. It would make what has been a long speech longer still. I will close by observing that if you want to be a conservative in an England broken by revolution, you need to look beyond a rearguard defence of forms from which all substance was long since drained.. The conservative tradition may have been dominated since the 1970s by Edmund Burke. But it does also contain the radicals of the seventeenth century. And – yes – it also has a place even for Tom Paine. If you want to preserve this nation, you must be prepared for a radical jettisoning of what is no longer merely old, but also dead. The conservative challenge is to look beneath the plumage and save the dying bird.
NB—Sean Gabb’s book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3
Michael (see below) might be able to hold the fort a bit.
But I and Peter Davis will attempt to liveblog the Libertarian alliance Conference, in London this weekend. If you can, please apply now for the last few places. See http://www.libertarian.co.uk.
You could have a little look ere it is quite entertaining.
One tends to run out of descriptive superlatives, for use to describe the depredations of the GreeNazis, and to describe what it is that they have in store for the rest of humanity. It is only slightly comforting that no nations outside Western Europe or North America are going to pay heed to them, except with machine-guns and flame-throwers. This is very good, for Man will survive, and Man will Go To The Stars, after all – involuntarily owing to the effect of the terror fo totalitarianism, rather than as we would have wished, as primary libertarians: we will fight that battle later, probably in space, so there is still hope. Although Man will not fight it from The West absolutely and by virtue of first realisation, which is sad for me.
But I guess it does not matter in the end for Man as such, for the degree of genetic variation among all humans is remarkably small for a species so old, nearly 80,000 years and counting! As Darwin unwittingly showed on the Galapagos Islands, speciation occurs astonishingly quickly.
It is, indeed, both very heartening and exciting to note that no “climate change protests” at coal-fired power staions, are oging on in Chindia or North Korea or the USSR, or even in Venezuela or France.
I really have nothing more to say about these murdering droids who clearly hate people so much that they want them to die freezing and starving in the dark. (Demonstrators, under the banner the Great Climate Swoop, included supporters of three pressure groups – the Camp for Climate Action, Plane Stupid and Climate Rush.) Except that the State which they love, since it keeps and proposes to keep such meticulous records of everyone – including them presumably – will be their ultimate downfall. It will probably sweep them up in its maw as latterly-redundant-useful-idiots, and spit them out as machine-gunned skeletons for UN “observers” to agonise over in a wasteland like the Killing Fields – except that this wasteland will be of their own creation, if other places and times are anything to go by.
But if they still persist in loving the State which appeasr right now to adhere to their energy-policies by its pronounsements, then records will exist which will enable vengeful and starving mobs of Sovereign Individuals to go after, kill, barbecue and eat the said action-stupid-rush droids. It’ll be the least we can do for them, literally. And maybe we’ll get some nitritional benefit, while we slowly starve to death in the cold.
IF YOU WERE IN Stalingrad….
…you would have EATEN IT. So quit complaining, eat your effing food you have bought and eat it bloody on time.
And DON’T give the fascist GramscoScumpig Hillary Benn (what an effing stupid name to gove a boy…Hillary which is a girl) any cause to earn money doing the only things he can do which is to gramscify you and all you stand for and love for.
The Czechs have given in. (Who can blame them? Not I.)
BUT they have betrayed Britain!
Shame! We wuzz robbed! Klaus knuckles under! Munich! Death! War! But….
Poor guy, what can he do? We are not ultimately his problem. Like they were not ours, in 1938.
We will have to look to ourselves. AND I don’t care what Cameron says or pretends to say or not say, about “referenda” and on whay terms, or means or does not mean, for it is quite irrelevant. Nothing will change unless individual Tory politicians in power are forced at gunpoint to do so and to yield to majority opinion and gracefully accede.
We have all known this, for many many years, which is why all the thousands and thousands and thousands of liberal blogs exist: we all pretend it is otherwise, but it is not.
In the early 1990s in the warm wet afterglow of Soviet-Imperialist dégringolade, I used to, while over there, tell my Czech and Slovak friends about the deceptive and only partially-visible undercurrents embedded in “the End of History”, and that “The Germans are Not Your Friends”. Happily I guess, they did not believe me for a moment about the Germans, for there are many German car factories in the Czech republic, employing thousands of Czech and Slovak workers, and turning out not Trabants but rather snazzy VWs rebadged as Skodas, and also a lot of Skodas. Rovers and MGs are now of course Chinese. This is probably for the best, and probably a good thing for us all, if all factors are taken into account. I also warned them about the post-Gorbachev-USSR, but that will be another future story, the end of which cannot yet be perceived.
In the meantime, a new threat to individual liberty and small-nation-self-determination has emerged. If you are here, you know all about it. It is called the EU. Now you must be told, if you are new here and also perhaps not a Subject of The Queen or even a citizen of the wider Anglosphere, that “the EU” was not what was originally being sold to us here. What was initially aggressively, and very, very, very submissively sold, as an “honest, Guv, this is a really really great train, you ought to be on it” thingy, to the British was a “Free trade Area” or “Common Market” – we should have got our hackles up at that already but didn’t. We already could have had free trade but it was supressed by the GramscoStalnists in power in the UK from 1945 to 1979. The Schumanno-Monnetia-Nazis thought we’d bite on “Market” and fail to notice the barbed tarantula-sting in the “Common” bit, and they were quite right. We were had.
It did help them of course, that in the decades involved we did have more or less perverted-GramscoFabiaNazi-collectivophile administrations: these saw the way things were blowing in Europe and the world, saw the nice food with olive oil and garlic and the lovely sexy girls and the warmer and drier and more predictable weather and the vineyards and the cheap sex, and jumped in, on our behalf but for them and not us. (Why else did upper-class women throw wine over Sit Ternece Conran at parties, as a punishment for selling glass Tuscan pasta-jars in Habitat for £3.99 so “everyone” could buy them?)
To the British Enemy-Class, the EU is about power, money, unaccountability for expenses, junkets to Bamberg (twinned with Bedford!), sex with expensive “escort girls” (and you can pass it through as “entertainment”, which it of course is) and “calling for harmonisation”. To British people who can afford it, the EU is about lovely, lovely, sexy food at “bistros” that we were “just passing”, not having to “change money”, sex with expensive British chavettas in Ibiza so you can chat them up while pissed, getting English beer in Benidorm, garlic to make everything taste of something, and being able to fly to Prague for “stag” “dos” for 99p return. Oh and “buying that really great farmhouse, to live off the land”….
All this of course is not what Europe was really about. Not even Jean Monnet, the Great buroNazi, envisaged that it would be that easy to defeat the Real Enemy. We did that ourselves. Europe, as in the “EU” is about recreating a Reich.
That’s why you have to keep voting until you give the right answer….until the Terror-Police are here which means you are relieved of having to vote, for the choice is the right answer or else to be killed. They are a little late with the Terror-Police, but I am sure this is being worked on even today.
Poor Vaclav Klaus, noble and intelligent chap that he is, cannot help us now. It is even the fate of his people’s principal politicians who mattered to be like that. How ironic and sad can you get? So. Either our history as a nation, and as the foundry-crucible of libertarianism, comes to and end here, or else something is done. There is no long-term strategic problem, as the history of Russia and the USSR has shown, in denouncing and repudiating things laughingly called “treaties”. We should look as a nation to our own interests. If we are a libertarian nation, then we ought to look out for our own interests even more fiercely, since we shall find ourselves under open threat even from those whom we once called our friends – as I have always warned and will continue so to do. There is no founding libertarian doctrine that says a nation state, once it has discovered itself either again or anew, ought to observe treaties that are inimical to its survival and which have been made by its predecessors.
Even Westminster says that no Parliament can irrevocably bind its successors.
So, well, there you are.
Shall we just go, now?
The whitehall buggers don’t really want people to have energy at all. Greenazis really have beocme what they seemed to be.
I don’t know whether to be sad for him and (worse) for us, as he was so important such that we have lost a strategically-focussed-cultural icon, or worry about the rest of the human race. It’s difficult to know how to comment, given the sort of civilisation I’d like and really really prefer Britain to be part of, compared with the one we seem to inhabit.
I don’t know quite what Wootton Bassett would make of it: perhaps they do care too.
Had the same problem with that youngish black chap Madonna, whe he died recently, while trying always to be white. Can’t work that one out at all. Madonna was quite OK when he was younger and black, and he sang and danced quite well too, I can’t see the problem. He clearly was almost as famous as this Gately chap. What’s the matter with these people?
Hitherto, as you all know, I have never failed to disagree with libertarians such as Sean Gabb, in regard to British Foreign Policy. In particular this refers to our prosecution of wars in iraq, Aghanistan, and elsewhere, since the arrival of the national-socialist-imperialist Government of New Labour.
Watching the Fall of the Twin Towers, nearly nine years ago now, I was convinced that it was right of Blair, be he even a GramscoFabianof the First Order, to immediately stand at the side of the, indeed _our_ First Child, the USA. Whatever “evidence” of WMDs or mobil ice-cream-van-launchers, or weaponised dustbins ready to receive non-recyclable-waste in under 45 minutes or whatever, he was right to support the removal and encompassed subsequent death of the wicked muderer Saddam Hussein. If Blair had said “Britain must go into Iraq purely to kill Saddam Hussein - a horrible Untermensch which killed its first human victim on purpose with a provided gun while being aged eleven - and then we shall either go home or stay to kill more of his willing supporters and relations who have profited by him”, I would have supported that, and indeed it was one of the few right and good decisions Blair took in his life.
He did not need to lie about WMDs to convince me of a good and right mission for the Forces of an upright and moral nation. He should have trusted the People, and simply listened. In those days we would have supported him. I did anyway, even though he was – and is – a scumbag socialist. Go back to the headlines of 2002 and 2003 and 2004 even, and just read them.
But he did the unthinkable. On being found to have lied, he therefore shot us in the foot in full view of our enemies by going ahead on what most people decided were false-pretences. Without doing the obviously needed thing, and changing to what the real motive for the war ought to have been all along. It was almost too late, but not quite.If he had come clean immediately, half our enemies’ support would have melted away – it would almost have been enough to go on. And it would have been _public_ which is what’d have mattered. The next rubbish might then not have come about…..
Our enemies are primitve in some ways but clever and modern in others. They, like dogs, can smell fear and the stench of death. It is fatal to smell of fear and death. They know when the heart of a combatant is not in it: they know when the people at home are not “behind their boys”. This is invariably fatal, and it loses wars, always and everywhere. Look at Vietnam for an even more expensive object-lesson: the feeligns of the heart of the American People, as projected to the Enemy by the American media, gave off a certain smell. it may not have been the right smell in the end, but it did the trick and we duly lost, as was demanded.
Blair didn’t look: he is “post-modern”, whatever that means, but I think I have decided.
Sean Gabb said we have no vital national interest in these places, unless I have totally misunderstood. Although he is my very good and old friend, he is here quite wrong in my opinion: we, the British, and also British Libertarians as a an interested subset, do have such things. It is not in our interest, as liberals and libertarians, whether the prevailing state or us as a group, to for long allow a crowd of media-friendly, powerful and charismatic, sexy, mountebanks – with zillions of cheap guns, bombs, money, friendship with unfriendly regimes such as the USSR, and access to limitlessly-industrial amounts of modern plastic explosives, detonators and charge-shapers - to promote the idea that liberalism and non-invasive-individual-liberty of conscience, worship, thought, deed and word are a wrong thing for Man. It is our Jihadist duty to go after these buggers to the ends of the earth if need be. if we do not, then we set a bad example for those who would follow liberty.
Strong horse, weak horse. The late Osama Bin Laden will continue to remain fully dead throughout 2009 and 2010, but he did speak the truth on that one. We are not dealing all the time with samizdata readers here: those whom we hope to awake from their darkness in the fullness of time still, in a lot of cases, only know about mis-sold-nags and dust and disease.
This is a First World Army, trying to fight Third-World-Guerillas – admittedly in difficult terrain, but this is 2009. The problem of Afghanistan can only be:
(1) either that the wrong kind of campaign is being fought…we are trying to be even too reliant on vehicles and mobility in force, and should deploy more special forces at night on foot (but we don’t have more than five…)
(2) that the politicos in charge of “paying for it” don’t want it to succeed. They, which is to say: Gordon Brown and the Enemy Class, want us to “lose”. This, to them, is a morale-destroying-weapon to do with our very civilisation and sense of ourselves, both of which they hate. that oculd secondarily explain the lack of “kit”: the more dead young boys that are flown back, the better for the Enemy Class. (I always said they were evil droids, didn’t I!)
Given that Jeff randall is probably right about the mobility of anti-liberal, anti-Western-Canon terrorism, it probably does not matter in the end if we stayed in Afghanistan for “30 or 40 years” (perish the thought!) or if we left today.
I am not sure that Gordon Brown and Barack Obama, who [with the exception of many dedicated Danish Doctors and Nurses] deploy sadly almost all the forces that really matter, really really deeply want The West to win in Afghanistan, if indeed “winning” here now means anything substantive. It is a hallmark of a civilised people that they grieve quite a lot and voluntarily, and now in public, see Wooton Bassett (poor sods) over even what would a mere 90 years ago have been regarded as a paltry death-toll for even just one day of fighting. That we should now regard eight deaths in one day of fighting as politically and morally unacceptable, says a lot for us still as a people, and points optimistically to some kind of recovery of moral fibre and nerve, although I cannot yet define what.
It is too late now to “leave Afghanistan” without it looking to our enemies abroad, which are many but largely impotent, and the Enemy Class at home which is few but all-powerful, like a major defeat. To both kinds of enemy, imagery is terribly important for they are both primitive and pre-capitalist-neopastoralist, in their different ways. Both kinds of enemy will interpret our leaving as a major strategic victory for them.
What will happen?
Israel will feel weaker and more isolated, and may have to develop Nuclear Weapons.
The government if the USSR will feel more able to lift more firms’ wallets – both foreign and domestic – more openly.
OPEC, with USSR money, will be able to orchestrate demos at British “Unis”, by “students” who will shout that “Afghanistan was all about oil” while burning effigies of “George W Halliburton”.
Some institutional destruction will be able to be accomplished too, such as various Lieut-Colonels, of the remaining old British Army Regiments that survive, being arrested for “war crimes”.
The ID card programme will be accelerated, since “The War On Terror” “knows no borders”. Cameron will expedite this as fast as Brown would have done, and anyway all the Enemy-Classes’ political dinner-partners, all of whom “design” on “Apple Macs”, will need the bloody money, and quick, or they lose their cottages to RBS “Money-Sense”.
But, all in all, would we all be worse off if we left Afghanistan? Perhaps not. I do not know, do you?
Daniel Hannan is directing fire upon the EU BuroNazis, but for how long can Klaus stand, against EU commands to his own politicians to “impeach” him? The EUBastards must truly fear a Cameron rearguard action on Lisbon. Wonder why?
English libertarians have not, historically, taken the EU very seriously. It’s just them silly EuroNazis mountebanking about in the way they love to, and it’s over there somewhere, and it was only going to be about “regulating” pipe-cleaners and fish. But now it starts to resemble the dark sprites in the Ark-opening-scene towards the end of “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, we should worry.
Oh, Ithink it was peter simple
I was contemplating an essay about the increasing intrusiveness of State surveillance of individuals the world over, and the increasing restriction of their thoughts and writings. But then, checking in my informal way before typing, I looked about me and it seems The Cautionary Revelation has been thinking along the same lines.
Our problem as libertarians in particular is that we eschew force and coercion, based on our beliefs in Natural Rights. This is fine and quite correct of us, and honest: and it is academically consistent with a philosophy of individual liberty under a minimal Common Law. However, we have in the end to ask where we not only hold self-congratulatory conferences, and not only continue to publish learned pamphlets about why liberty is really fairly astonishingly good at sorting out everything under the sun, and begin to ask:
“What is to be done about these GramscoFabiaNazis, who have always been, if you read the subtexts, cheerfully and openly honest and frank about what they have always intended?
…we can all do this if only a little bit, and without cryogenic storage facilities too.
We even do it a bit in the garden here.
You can also spread interesting seed, such as herbs and agricultural plants, inside “places of outstanding natural beauty” and others such as SSSIs. This will, secondarily, have the exciting and humorous longer-term effect of confusing government “scientists” and “English Nature”. Just one of the many ways to help the planet while annoying the State legally.
….as he owes so much money.
A pity, as he’s already past his “eat-by” date.
I thought “Jacqui” “Smith” stood up for women.
Ahhhhh…only /some/ women….
I dunno, I just saw this and wondered.
In my day, if you found yourself up against Carter-Ruck, you just either caved in _/before/_ receiving their first letter, or else you could just die in the nearest gutter without bothering anybody at all if possible, as you’d be tainted and marked by the Hand of Death, and nobody would be able to go near you for fear of getting fleeced in tandem. Now it seems different.
I’ve no idea who it was that suggested the Internet is like a living creature – interpreting censorship as damage and routing around the stuff – but it does seem to be true. Good for whoever it was, and good for Guido who I believe was the first to strike, here.
…and so it comes down to this: “Europe” is to be treated as a unitary Reich (again) so that one lot of people can claim civil torts against another lot, and all inside the unitary border. And the idea is that we’re all lovey-dovey now and nobody will raise a peep in contradiction. Ever-closer-union. That’s the style, that’s the way to get the money!
If the “Sudeten Germans” can get compensation or “their” property back now, where will it end? Will the Pomeranian, Posen, East Prussian and Silesian Germans want the same? Where does that leave Poland? Will the USSR give up most of ByeloRussia and the Ukraine? What will Hungary want to do about Slovakia and Romania/Transylvania? Will the Basques try to confiscate parts of Spain and France, so they can get back to blowing each other up? Will England be able to demand Monmouthshire and Pembrokeshire from the People’s Democratic Republic of Wales?
i do not know.
And who is to “pay” for all this big game of musical chairs?
Good for Klaus to stand up to the Murdering GramscEUBastards. But I fear it will come to nothing, and we shall simply have to have a war. We’ll just have to see what comes out of the machine at the other side.
I can’t think that’s what the Brussels-Nazis have planned for or wanted, but then wars always occur when one side fails to correctly interpret the other side’s intentions. They haven’t even got a EUArmy. So perhaps Klaus ought just to stick this one out until the whole rotten wicked edifice comes crashing down, as it will.
Many years ago, I had a yahoogroup called “aftereurotyranny”. It may still be there: I have not checked since 2001, being depressed about the future of lliberty in the EU. The plan was to create a group of people who would (1) actively strive to undermine and eventually destroy the EU, and then (2) actively work to obliterate all the supra-national structures and communautaire philosophy, followed by (3) very very active and authoritative regime0change programmes in any European nations whose governments might be even remotely suspected of favouring any kind of Gramscian bureaucratic stalinist nonsense. It seems it might be needed again.
Poland has gone: the Irish allowed themselves to be bribed, and also have their ballot-boxes evilly stuffed, under theor noses. If Klaus can’t hold the line – such that Cameron – or the Bastard Brown (never forget: he could rig it and win) succeeds in failing to offer the British a referendum, then libertarians ought to begin considering how to proceed, in regard to their well-articulated views about conflict, as the skies darken.