Category Archives: food

Queen Elizabeth-the-Useless failed in the execution of her Coronation Oath. But I expect we will all cry sincerely when she passes on.


David Davis

I am not always precisely in tune with my colleague Sean Gabb, regarding the failings of Elizabeth-the-Useless. Although he is quite correct in stating that she _could have_ blocked Rome, the SEA, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon at any time when these were issues. On any one of these – and the earlier the more chance of success – The Queen could have refused to assign her signature to any of this pretentious socialist rubbish, could have forced a General Election, and prevented the Franco-Collectivisto-Gramscian re-Nazification of Europe, saving her own subjects hundreds of billions of Sterling, not to say even trillions, in the process. We might even have got our managed-fisheries back before they were destroyed utterly (ask my father, who worked in the 70s for the MAFF, and who is now dead.). And at least up to Nice, she might also have got away with it. It would have been wise to resist early on.

But she continues to continue to soldier on, probably because she reminds the masses of their favourite great-aunt (I also have one, my aunty Betty who is actually a real aunt for I am rather old now and who even looks and sounds like the Queen a lot, and is only slightly older) or Grandmother.

As the Queen is old, and as she is a woman, and as it is not suitable to impeach or charge women for high treason – at least not “directly” – I would like to cleave to the position that “The Queen has been very, very badly advised, continually, for 61 years, in the matter of her constitutional dealings with the Continue reading

I think we need to say things about these fellows


David Davis

BCBx168CEAAfSJr

POST APOCALYPSE RECOVERY PROJECT


POST APOCALYPSE RECOVERY PROJECT
James Roger Brown
Sociologist, Intelligence Collection and Analysis Methodologist
Director
P.O. Box 101
Worthington, KY 41183-0101
thesociologist
www.thesociologycenter.com
Last updated 09/22/2011

Check back frequently, I will be adding to and improving this page.

Suggestions for inclusion may be submitted to the above e-mail address. One high priority document has not been located. Between the end of WW II and 1950 Naval Intelligence created a classified archaeology report about prior civilizations on the North American Continent. Talk to your family members who served during WW II and Korea to determine the title and author of the document. I suspect it contains maps that we need.

Introduction

Activating this Post Apocalypse Recovery Project begins an effort which there is no documented evidence has ever been done before in all of human history. The purpose is to manage information, knowledge and resources to minimize the intentional disruption of social stability caused by the engineered collapse of civilization and minimize the recovery time to develop new stable social processes among the survivors. There will be survivors. Continue reading

Voices We Should Safely Ignore


by Dick Puddlecote
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DickPuddlecote/~3/cRT0yM7NG50/voices-we-should-safely-ignore.html

I’ve counted to ten so many times with this guy recently. Lord knows I’ve tried but, Jamie Oliver, please stop with this stuff already.

Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver has criticised sports stars David Beckham and Gary Lineker for promoting junk food.

The television presenter, who forced the Government to introduce nutrition rules in schools after highlighting the unhealthy meals served to pupils, has added his name to a letter which condemns the use of athletes in commercials.

Look, guys and gals, “television presenter” are the operative words here. Say it was “London Black Cab driver”, what would be your reaction? Shut your trap? Couldn’t agree with you more.

Especially since the country won’t even listen to them on the subject of transport in London, yes. Perish the thought, eh?

So why is anyone listening to someone who has such a loose link with his subject matter, and seriously believes that the young will die before their parents because of a few cans of coke or a Big Mac here and there. The man is quite insane, or at the very least a bit of an easily-conned dick. Continue reading

Who Says There’s a Recession?


Stood behind a rather proley woman today at the self-service queue in Sainsbury. All the vouchers the machine gave her she threw uninspected into the receipt bin. I, of course, had them straight back out. One of them gave £4.20 off. By the time I’d finished going through the bin, I managed to save £7.40 off the shopping, and got an extra 300 Nectar points.

Some people deserve to live in poverty!

Feeding Medieval European Cities, 600-1500


Note: This has nothing to do with libertarianism, but it is a subject I sometimes find of compelling interest. SIG

Feeding Medieval European Cities, 600-1500

http://www.history.ac.uk/resources/e-seminars/keene-paper

Derek Keene (Centre for Metropolitan History, UK)
1998

1. The medieval city: a problematic concept

I’m taking it as axiomatic, first that the large city cannot exist without a fertile and productive hinterland (which is itself a characteristic commonly praised in medieval descriptions of cities); and second, that whatever the natural endowment of the hinterland, its productivity will to a large extent be shaped by the growth of the city. A third axiom overrides the first: namely, that at a certain level of a city’s power or wealth, and given the appropriate transport and institutional infrastructure, its demand for supplies transcends the pedological limitations of its immediate hinterland, so that that the interplay between city and country can take place at a great distance from the point of consumption. Thus we enter the world of the Kenyan mange tout, an image not entirely inappropriate for understanding at least some aspects of the feeding of medieval cities. Continue reading

Food as a weapon of mass destruction


David Davis

Michael should be writing about this, but he’s off elsewhere trying to borrow the dosh to buy another pedigree boar, as his one’s just died. Anyway, you all perceive I am sure the current trend in world food prices. My interest was triggered by this article today, clearly written by someone who knows what’s going on.

I say this because the author has skated egg-walkingly around the politically-charged issue of biofuels, which to my mind and in the view of most libertarians is a cleverly-cloaked way to export starvation – initially to those people that have the least ability, energy, resources and political clout to protest.

It has to be the correct conclusion, as the use of thsee wickedly and immorally-raised fuels serves no kind of “climate-related” purpose whatsoever. On Facebook I have just stated publicly what will happen to the politicos (and the directors and shareholders of firms which abetted their designs) as outwardly a little light amusement: but in reality, as our regular reader knows, you don’t know whether I am just joking or not.

I wonder if you know?


Michael Winning

I was looking as you do at stuff about farming and food production, and I woked out that the total of the world’s productuve acreage is a square, 2,500 x 2,500 miles. You could just about fit that into the Sahara desert, so this PR handout by greens and whingers didn’t impress me.

David McDonagh on Advertising


Advertising
The Risks that Adverts Must Run and an Authoress’s
Fear of Freedom


By David McDonagh

The jennyass, Felicity Lawrence, feels that it is a big mistake of the CONDEMS’ new Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, to dismiss the recent campaign of Jamie Oliver against obesity. Writing in the totalitarian propaganda sheet, that is so aptly named The Guardian, Thursday 8 July 2010, she protests that Lansley is overlooking the fact that it was only the nanny state could have recently saved the UK population from smoking. The Jamie Oliver campaign, backed by the state, has also worked in getting children to eat better at school, she says. Lansley was wrong to think it was all down to individual choice. Has he never heard of the power of marketing? Advertising can be used to get people to consume junk food. Andrew Lansley is not only facile, she says, but he is also clearly wrong headed in thinking that all social ills are down to individual responsibility rather than to the actions of powerful firms and their advertising campaigns.

This authoress wants to say, “Nanny does know best, Andrew Lansley.” She begins: “The health secretary’s belief that children should be responsible for their own diet choices would be risible were it not so scary” showing, thereby, a naked fear of freedom and responsibility, and a longing for totalitarian security and all round state

She indicates that Lansley is naïve to hold that “the captains of the food industry are decent chaps” who will choose not to sell junk food if only the state stops regulating them. “Lansley’s analysis of public health is so facile that it would be risible even in a prep-school debating society”, says this exceedingly stupid woman. It is unrealistic, she thinks, to expect schoolchildren to be responsible about their food.

She feels that Lansley has not even bothered to master his brief here “Figures out yesterday show that, far from putting large numbers off school meals as Lansley had claimed, Jamie Oliver’s campaign to improve school meals, and all the government work on nutritional standards that followed, has increased uptake of healthy hot meals at lunchtime. It turns out those in loco parentis, or to use that pernicious rhetoric of the privileged right, ‘nanny’, should decide what’s best for children. It works” she triumphantly exclaims.

Like so many Romantics, this is a tribal thing for the authoress. She does not seem to know that the pristine right of the French Assembly in 1789 was protectionist, as she is, and that the left was for the free trade, that she is so ardently opposed to. The Fabian Society called some old Tory ideas “socialist” in the 1890s, which was perfectly true, but they also said they were left wing. They did not fit in well with free trade, but this was widely accepted as being apt nevertheless. The dichotomy has been somewhat confused in common sense ever since.

Nor is Lansley even aware of the literature that shows that choice is a myth, she continues, as we are all ruled by the unconscious mind. He might begin his homework, she says, by reading up on Sigmund Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, he who wrote an essay on The Engineering of Consent. Advertising is more than just free speech; it is also a way of controlling those it broadcasts to, as the people all have an unconscious mind that any broadcast can enter to manipulate any one amongst the masses listening by using their modern techniques. Bernays was the first to realise that the public could be manipulated “into buying products they did not want or need by targeting their unconscious desires.” In the 1920s, he aided the large scale selling to the public of cigarettes and junk food. The state was needed to break the habit of smoking that such advertising had long built up, and it will similarly be needed to break the habit of consuming junk food too, says the authoress. With smoking, the adverts needed to be stopped first. Then the state was needed to put up taxes on the cigarettes and only later to ban smoking in public places. This long strategy alone could “quell the desires that had been so skilfully awakened” by the giant tobacco firms, she says. She writes as if there would be no smoking or eating of junk food at all if it was not for this tremendous manipulation ability of advertisements.

“Why does Lansley think the food industry has fought tooth and nail to avoid restrictions on its marketing to children? It has to catch them young, to form their palates and create their desires” she says.

This woman thinks that the founder of the Jesuits, Ignatius Loyola, was quite right to think that what we learn young enough; we can never quite analyse, or reasonably check out for truth in any way. It is worth mentioning that Voltaire was the product of such a Jesuit college.

We may hothouse the brain by early education to enlarge the brain by dendritic growth, but we cannot realistically hope to build in a special protection for any particular doctrine by any advantage in early education. And, as the pristine Romantic propagandist, J.J. Rousseau, rightly said, any material will aid brain development such that we will be able to think all the better as a result. Any ideas at all will educate us but none will stop further consideration as to whether they are true or not; quite the contrary, any will aid us to think clearly. Having learned about things – any particular things or things in general – we will be better able to think about fresh ideas than we would had we not been educated. A developed brain will better be able to think critically rather than being merely made loyal to whatever doctrines was used during its development.

Thus, the taxi driver’s knowledge of London will be as good as an intensive course of philosophy to that end. Both develop dendrites in the brain that basically boost the learner’s general ability. In the 1930s the best schools in the world were those run by the Jesuits, but they all, very oddly, confined themselves to Aristotle on physics, owing to their Thomist dogma. But their pupils soon caught up with modern physics as adults. Learning any subject will aid us to learn other subjects. Even if we could all be taught actually true doctrines, anyone might rethink them and fall into adult error, despite the fact that the external world, presumably, gives the truth a lift. Our brains simply do rethink all things. That is why this brainwashing idea is false. It assumes that we can be loyal to ideas indoctrinated but there is no way that we can prevent automatically revising all that we behold.

Richard Dawkins on memes is partly right. One aspect of the meme idea is that we believe, or catch, ideas like we do a virus, much as we catch a cold. But his idea that it is no use reasoning about the ideas that we thus catch, or pick up, any more than it would be to reason about a cold is clearly false, for all ideas are subject to reason not prior to adoption but at any time after they have been adopted. Thus, it is no advantage to get an idea adopted if it can be shed with ease, and false looking ideas can be shed with ease. Our minds automatically search for error and the rejection of anything that looks like error to us is automatic. We can never deliberately err, as Plato rightly said.

Earlier the authoress, Felicity Lawrence, wrote “Free choice isn’t healthy for the food industry’s menu” The Guardian, Wednesday 23 June 2010. She fears the market, loves the state yet also fears that the state has no chance unless it is very careful. I rather think that she is right that the state is not up to much, but she seems to merely imagine her supposed dangers of the market. “Traffic-light labelling was voted down in Europe only last week, scuppered by food industry lobbying of breathtaking determination and expense“. European consumer watchdogs have said that up to a billion pounds was spent by giant multinationals to get the members of the European parliament by use of emails and meetings to sway their vote, she tells us. The result is that an industry-sponsored scheme of nutrition labelling that serves only to confuse the customers emerged instead of her hoped for version of state regulation. The authoresses beloved Food Standards Agency [FSA], that had upset the giant firms in the food industry by successfully naming and shaming manufacturers for use of excess salt in their products, but it may now be abolished in the CONDEMS cuts even before it can fully sort out the big firms. There is simply too much fat in the foods that the big food companies sell today, says Felicity Lawrence, but the FSA might have put them in their place had the new government not been recently elected. “Plans are well advanced to emasculate it by returning its role in improving public nutrition to the Department of Health, whose past performance on food has been lacklustre” she says. “Another success, then, for the food industry and its lobbyists, who were hard at work in the run up to the election.”

The giant firms that produce all this dreadful junk-food for profit will not worry much over the plans that the state is making to control the advertising to children before the 9 pm TV watershed, as it can now use the internet to bypass any such regulations. It can use its adverts to get the children to pester their parents to buy junk food regardless of the planned restrictions. “This is not a world in which individuals make free, fully informed choices about food” she tells us. Rather “it is a world in which children are targeted by junk-food manufacturers from the youngest age. We live in a culture in which adult appetites are shaped by marketing that preys on our insecurities and emotional needs. It is an environment in which understanding the labels on our food practically requires a Ph.D. in food chemistry.” So she feels that the state is badly needed to protect the public from being victimised by the big firms that exploit them for profit.

But indoctrination is not as powerful as she thinks, even if we grant the idea that the adverts can indoctrinate; which there seems reason to think is false, as there is not even the time in most cases. The old adage “use it or lose it” seems to be the rule for all ideas, for if we do not use any set of ideas then they will tend to be forgotten. The general development of the brain, the growth of dendrites, will have been achieved by the use of any ideas used in education in the past. Not so the belief that the ideas in question are true, as that will depend on what the beholder thinks is the case at any one time only; even if, in revising what he thinks, he does not amend the content. The fact is that at any time, he might amend the content if it seems apt to do so. To think is to revise, even if we do not change our minds. And to be alive and in normal health is to think. We think automatically.

However, Felicity Lawrence has the daft idea that there is something called the “unconscious mind” that is the irrational enemy within us all. It will ensure that we are unhappy. That seems to be its main aim. So it urges us to do things that are bad for us. So we all need the guardianship of the state, which is, presumably, manned by politicians that lack this unconscious mind. How otherwise could they know what is best? But the idea that politicians are special in this way seems to be rather far-fetched. More realistic is the idea that there is no such unconscious mind, or any other means of manipulation through adverts.

Moreover, almost any history of psycho-analysis will show a falling off of this idea of the unconscious mind within the very movement that gave rise to it: within psychoanalysis. Any history of the movement will tell the reader about how the unconscious was abandoned by many, if not most, of the followers of Freud. . J.A.C. Brown, in Freud and the Post-Freudians (1964), for example, tells his readers that first Alfred Adler, and then many others, the majority, indeed, of the therapist followers of Freud, after a time, dumped this ‘unconscious’ meme as irrelevant to anything they thought was real. I think they were right to do so.

Similarly, the Jesuit colleges have exactly no chance of making a Catholic for life, given the first seven years. If ever such a successful former pupil is later willing to debate at any time, then all the Catholic doctrines learnt earlier will thereby run the risk of being discredited. This would be so even if the doctrines were true. If any opponents of the fondly indoctrinated Catholic ideas can get the pupil to debate then they do have a chance of wiping out any beliefs in the Jesuit creed that he was indoctrinated in. The Jesuits have no chance at all with Christianity in open debate, as Catholicism is, objectively, such a silly creed. But even if it were true it would still risk being abandoned on being criticised. Brainwashing is a mere myth, like mental illness, or irrationality, or socialism [as an alternative economy to the price system for the mass urban society] or the idea of God.

Even though all those bogus ideas – mental illness, irrationality and socialism – do give fools lots of pleasure, no one can actually believe as they wish, so anyone who discusses those bogus ideas thereby risks either being disillusioned, or even understanding an actual refutation in some cases. Bias cannot crowd out criticism, even though many fools feel utterly certain that it can. We are free to say what we like, but never to believe as we like. The one thing that Freud got right was “the reality principle”. We may not want to re-think, but we do re-think all the time; indeed we rethink any time that we do think, even if this is usually only superficially done. Any attempt to manipulate people will need to stand up to the normal test of reason or normal thinking that we all automatically do. It is not foolproof but it is a test.

In any case, the giant firms would need to compete with all the others in their adverts, even if we granted the bogus manipulation theory via the unconscious mind; but that theory looks lame so there is no need to grant it. Yet if we did, it would not be easy manipulation. Competition would ensure that.

Peter Watson in Ideas (2005) writes that the German historian of science, Theodor Gomperz said, “Nearly our entire intellectual education originates from the Greeks. A thorough knowledge of their origin is the indisputable prerequisite for freeing ourselves from their overwhelming influence” (p148) . But this is mere hyperbole, in both sentences, but complete folly in the second cited sentence, as ideas cannot gaol us in any way at all. Influence tends to push us out rather than to suck us in, thus the wider educated mind is usually the more independent mind and a man with a degree in Greek is not likely to be limited to ancient Greece in his outlook.

That we often deliberately make assumptions obfuscates the fact that we often make many tacit assumptions automatically too. Indeed, the latter assumptions are the norm. To repeat, the biologist, Richard Dawkins with his meme idea has the merit of getting the fact that we adopt ideas automatically, rather like we pick up a virus, correctly but he errs, and he errs very badly, when he says that what we automatically assume is thereby immune from criticism. E contra, we will automatically drop any assumption as soon as we see it as bogus, even if we are not right in it actually being bogus. As Plato rightly said, no one can deliberately err.

Indeed, few will think that this current common sense idea of irrationality, at least in the buying of what they do not want as result of advertising, applies to themselves. It only pertains to others; only to the masses. People may foolishly grant that they are irrational in other ways. But only the gullible masses seem open to being duped by advertising; but the masses are only an abstraction. We all feel we are better than others. It is the sort of value that we need to have, as it is, maybe, basic to survival; or at least it will have been so for our ancestors prior to the rise of civilisation. We realise that most adverts fall on barren ground as far as we are concerned. Few males want to wear the widely advertised female underwear, for example. But adverts must affect the masses, we think; even though we can also see that most people are not affected by adverts for wares that are made for the opposite sex or for products that are otherwise not suitable to most people who see or hear the advert. But why not, if they can manipulate any of us at will? Because we think about them, and in doing so we realise that the broadcast is not even aimed at us, of course. But if we do think in this way, then why should we ever grant the manipulation theory that Felicity Lawrence thinks is so silly of Lansley to ignore?

Even road-sweepers, or men selling newspapers, realise adverts have never persuaded them to buy what they do not want, though they still often feel that the adverts must work this way on the masses. The fact is that adverts persuade none. They do aid distribution by merely calling the attention of the people who already want the wares on offer to wares that they already want. That is enough to boost sales. No persuasion is needed.

Most adult people will admit that they have long forgotten most of whatever they learnt at school. I myself remember learning nothing at school on the normal day. I was very pleased never to be asked what I learnt on getting home for I would have usually had nothing to say. Most pupils seem to learn nothing on most days at school today too. That is why most nominal Catholics, sometimes even enthusiastic ones, know next to nothing about their creed, despite all those years of RI lessons at school. Most people do credit the schools with learning them to read and write, but they would have, most likely, picked these skills up as they grew up in the mass urban society. As Stephen Berry says, schools are mainly providing a child minding service. There has been no real building up of doctrine at school, let alone by the giant firms through adverts for smoking and junk food on the media. Mass indoctrination is greatly exaggerated.

Felicity Lawrence feels Lansley overlooks that the various firms have no social responsibility, beyond doing well for their shareholders. Why should they not want to sell more junk food? Bigger sales means more profits. She here overlooks that the firms have no interest in selling junk food, any more than any other food, and that firms actually sell only what is selected by the individual members of the public whenever such an individual chooses to become a customer. In each case, there is the money that the individual will need to pay whenever one wants to buy what is for sale, and that is a built-in disincentive to buy any particular good. Does the ware match up to whatever else the customer can obtain with money elsewhere? Our alternative uses of money have far more impact than any advert could ever have in ensuring that we only buy what we want, even if there was some sort of manipulation. We all do want money so we need to want any good that we actually do buy a bit more than the money that we pay for it and any manipulation, even if we grant it as real, will need to be strong to counter that. But Felicity Lawrence does not seem to realise that fact.

However, she will have experienced it whenever she has to pay for whatever she buys. By contrast, she will not have experienced the power of manipulation from the adverts, for it is not real at all. But she might think that, as this influence occurs unconsciously, she need never expect to have any experience of it. This does not seem to be a very realistic line of thought; but neither do the main ideas she accuses Lansley of ignoring look one iota realistic either. In any case, if the adverts can get the unconscious mind to buy anything, then why not get them to buy healthy food? Presumably, anything the public buys will yield a profit.

In any case, if the adverts can get the unconscious mind to buy anything, then why not get them to buy healthy food? Presumably, anything the public buys will yield a profit. Or does it all depend on the unconscious desires, as most accounts of it seem to suggest? If so, it does not even claim to get people to do as it wants but instead it simply depends on what is wanted by the unconscious mind already. Things are not looking so good for the big firms after all. They are going to need entrepreneurship with its risk of getting what the customers buy wrong, and thus making losses rather than profits. In this line of argument, it looks as if the firms do not have the alternative of handy manipulation by advertising to dodge the risk of losses after all.

Many amongst the UK public have feared greatly, just lately, that the law on product placement within TV programmes is about to be relaxed and they see this as sinister. Like Felicity Lawrence, they fear that advertisements will manipulate them through their unconscious mind by the use of modern techniques of persuasion. I recall a class in which the teacher put a case against adverts as a sort of running joke to lighten up the lesson [it was a mathematics night school class]. Towards the end of the class, he came near the end of his case against the Guinness adverts.: “Then it is on your mind that you might buy a pint of Guinness!” he exclaimed. He was a Guinness drinker and so was I. About seven of us went for a drink after the class each week. “And then you recall that you do not like Guinness!” I retorted. The class laughed. Just getting the message over will never be enough to sell a good. The good, or service advertised, will need to be wanted beforehand.

The authoress knows, or she thinks she knows, that social class rather than individual responsibility decides those things. Class is still a major determinant of how healthy a person is, says Felicity Lawrence. Inequality is the big factor that causes a lot of bad health by sales of cigarettes and junk food. The fact that the crass ideal of equality is impossible, in any case, is, presumably, not realised by the authoress. She goes on about how salt is bad for our blood pressure. But any reader might think that her silly articles are not the best recommended reading for dodging high blood pressure, nor is a daily reading of that rag, The Guardian. It may help its readers if they take their daily reading of it with a small pinch of salt.

Felicity Lawrence finds the idea of individual responsibility, that she calls a Tory idea, to be “truly frightening”. This idea “which casts everything as personal responsibility – social injustice, like obesity, is indeed a moral failure, but only on the part of those who suffer it” she writes. Felicity Lawrence finds the idea of individual responsibility, that she calls a Tory idea, to be “truly frightening”. This idea “which casts everything as personal responsibility – social injustice, like obesity, is indeed a moral failure, but only on the part of those who suffer it” she writes. But, if we look at it historically, if we go back to what Tory and Whig meant up to the 1840s, or what Tory and Liberal meant in the 1850s and 60s, then she is, basically, a one nation Tory par excellence. What is more, she writes for a pristine Tory warmongering rag that campaigned against Cobden and Bright for opposing the Crimean War, and helped to get both of them thrown out of the House of Commons for opposition to that war. However, she seems to lack the historical knowledge to realise all that.

My guess is that she will be very confused as to what is social injustice. It will be linked to the rather arbitrary ideal of equality in her mind, as in the mind of anyone who writes for The Guardian, but justice bears no relation to that crass ideal in reality. There are many things that we are not responsible for – how the way the moon affects the tides or, less obviously, the earth daily. But it is plainly true that we are responsible for how fat we are at any one time. It is also up to each of us whether we smoke cigarettes, or not. Being a member of the proletariat does not mean that I have to smoke cigarettes and eat beef-burgers. Many such classified people do not follow the norm in that respect, if it is a norm. It will only happen in my case if I want to do those things. My social class has exactly no actual bearing on my choice there; none whatsoever. Ditto for everyone else. But Felicity Lawrence prefers to personify mere social class; for she writes as if she feels that a mere academic abstraction can refute a plain reality, the reality of personal choice. She is hardly alone in that folly. But only actual agents can be responsible [i.e. to be able to respond to blame] and those mere abstractions are clearly not agents. So it is merely futile to blame them. This is, basically, what Mrs Thatcher was saying when they cited her on there being no such thing as society, for when it comes to blame, society is not an agent [and it is not actually a thing either, but mere social interaction]. It does not make sense to blame society, as it cannot do anything at all. Similarly, social class does not decide who smokes or eats junk food. Abstractions simply cannot be responsible in that they cannot respond.

I do not think that there is much of worth in any plea that Lansley has in mind to make to the food industry. It would be better for him to do nothing at all.

The less state regulation there is, the better. Regulation is going to be dysfunctional. This is because the state is bound to victimise some when it taxes and to corrupt others when it favours people with handouts too. It is going to be negative sum on the whole transaction, as there will not only be the funds transferred from OY to McX, but bureaucrats will also need to be paid for the administration costs that will be involved.

Felicity Lawrence tells us that Edward Bernays had his main influence in the 1920s but the essay she recommends Lansley to read dates from 1947. Bernays brought out a book he called Propaganda (1928). It adopts the absurd idea that we have an unconscious mind. The plain reality is that what is unconscious is not of the mind, ipso facto. To be unconscious is exactly to be not of the mind.

“If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it?” – Edward Bernays

Many people who champion the idea of an unconscious mind credit the fact that things can often become clearer if only we sleep on it. To let the action of the unconscious mind work on the problem for us (for example, on a new bit of mathematics) overnight. This time, contrary to the normal idea that it is the enemy within, the unconscious mind is held to be a friend who helps us with our homework. But what has most likely actually happened is that fresh brain development has taken place overnight, in that new dendrites have emerged in the brain. This will be unconscious, but not really to do with the mind, any more than muscle development that can, similarly, occur overnight. This is not of the mind at all but of the body. Either may be owing to a decision made to exercise the mind, or the body, but the development will be physical in each case rather than being mental.

Bernays had the very widespread idea that people are irrational and he thought that this explained why they bought things that he, when considering them with his advanced theories, thought they did not really need, or even want. As we do not need most things, the former idea of Bernays looks realistic. But with the second idea, that the customer does not even want whatever is purchased, there is the built-in disincentive of parting with some money that, in each case, tends to refute the idea that we never want what we buy. Indeed, that the customer parted with scarce money for whatever was bought suggests that the customer wanted whatever was bought even more than the money that they had to pay for it, even if they did not need what they paid for. Many of Bernays epigones in marketing thought that firms made things and then got the customers to buy them by secret methods involving the unconscious mind. But that looks a little nebulous if we but think about it.

Felicity Lawrence, too, seems to think that the choice was made for people by the firms before the customers buy anything. This is quite true as far as it goes and it is simply the great risk of ordinary entrepreneurship, but Felicity Lawrence and the literature she so admires, usually written by silly psychologists and marketing experts, did not mean that the firms risked a loss in guessing what could sell. Rather that the firms might be able to cut out the risk altogether by simply manipulating what people want towards whatever they found it easiest to produce, that they might cut out the risk of making unwanted losses with the aid of Bernays’ advanced theories. They thought that the whole of the risk of guessing what the customers might buy, what they wanted enough to pay for, could be bypassed by modern techniques of persuasion. It seems clear that they did not do much conscious thinking on this unconscious idea.

Oddly, the followers of Bernays usually also thought that making a study of people was needed, to see how the customers felt. If one understood what those “unconscious desires” were, then one could use this to the firm’s advantage. It could be used to sell products the giant firms had already decided to produce, to greatly increase sales of well-established goods. One example was where they found that many housewives felt a bit guilty, in their unconscious mind, that they were having it way too easy in the home by making a cake from a popular cake mixture, so the firm recommended, on the packet, that adding an egg would be needed. That made the housewife feel that the end result was a bit more of her own work, thereby easing the guilt by quite a bit and greatly increasing sales of the product as a result.

This cake mixture example is given in a few internet accounts of those hidden powers of manipulation that I finally resorted to in an effort to find out whatever it could be that Felicity Lawrence was referring to. Yet this much repeated example is odd in at least two senses:

1) Why did the guilt need to ever be unconscious and, if it was such, how was it ever found out by the researchers? Clearly, the unconscious meme was only included as it was a beloved false idol, or a mere fad. That is its attraction for the likes of Felicity Lawrence, Edward Bernays and all the others who adopt it. It is actually a counter productive idea in the story they tell of the housewives guilt. Their love of the paradox leads them to overlook the absurdity involved.

2) Why was research, such as this on housewife guilt, ever needed when they claimed to have the advanced means that could be used to sell her anything in any case? We have been told and retold, that what is needed, or even wanted, by the mere individual housewife does not matter but that theoretical abstractions, like the unconscious mind or social class, decides whatever she does. So why all this research into what it is that she desires? If sales are to be achieved by manipulating desires on the unconscious level, why not just get on with it then? That the masters of the advanced techniques seemed to think that some research was needed suggests that they did not consciously believe in the power of their own advanced means of manipulation.

Many who dislike the market ironically greatly over-estimate the power of money. They think that state services always would work, if only more money was supplied to them, for example. They also think that adverts simply must have a great effect merely owing to the money that goes into them. If the adverts did not persuade people then lots of money would never be spent on them, it is claimed. But adverts aid distribution even when they do not begin to persuade people of anything. It is enough that they remind people of what they advertise. Most people who reject the market do so on the idea that it is about greed and selfishness, but the market is, ironically, where the workers are all institutionally geared to serving others. This is so clearly the case that it might be far more aptly labelled as institutionalised altruism. Profit is a sign that wide sections of the public have been served by the firm who reaps the profit. By contrast, I fear that the state invariability mucks society up. It is always a negative sum activity, which is intrinsically uneconomic and thus dysfunctional and wasteful. So the CONDEMS seem to be on the right track in their aim of replacing the state sector with private sector jobs.

Some people feel that adverts are propaganda, and that is indeed the case, but they think that propaganda is all lies,ipso facto. The state used what it called propaganda against other states whom it was at war with in 1914 and 1939, but this wartime use of words by the state was indeed a war of words, rather that an attempt to recruit or propagate, so it might have been more aptly called polemics than propaganda. Propaganda sets out to persuade rather than to alienate or to discourage or to demoralise. It is out of place in war. So “wartime propaganda” is something of a misnomer.

In a moment of rare candour Galbraith remarked “You will find that the State is the kind of organization which, though it does big things badly, does small things badly, too.”

However, it is not the case that propaganda has to persuade. There simply is not the time to persuade in most adverts, though there is the occasional lengthy advert in magazines, which may be mistaken for an article, and may be of a similar length. It might have an opportunity to break this advertising norm by successful persuasion. However, most adverts are merely drawing attention to the item advertised. The notice of the Libertarian Alliance [LA] monthly meetings is an example. They draw attention to the meetings in the hope that those who see the advert will already want to come along to such meetings. Adverts rely on people wanting the ware, the good or the service that they set out to promote beforehand. The LA adverts are part of the distribution in the making of those LA meetings. They act merely like the ringing a big bell, but ringing a big bell only works in the wake of the achievement of any needed persuasion. They work only on the idea that what they call attention to is already desired. The persuasion needs to have been, long since, done before any advert can have an effect. Entrepreneurship in general also does not set out to persuade but rather to guess what people will, or might, want. It similarly conforms to what is out there already, or to what might soon emerge out there, rather than attempting to get people to buy what is simply easy for the giant firms to produce.

Entrepreneurship embraces the unavoidable risk of error, but the likes of the late J.K. Galbraith, or nowadays his son James, tend to feel, with Felicity Lawrence and The Guardian readers, that this risk can be taken away by the sheer power of advanced modern advertising techniques. It is merely naïve to think otherwise, we are told.

However, the reality is that if the ware being advertised is not wanted beforehand then the adverts will merely be barren. Thus the adverts for junk food will be lost on those that think it is aptly named, that the food being advertised really is junk. Adverts do not usually have the time to persuade, even if such rejecters of junk food could be persuaded, and entrepreneurship is not about persuasion anyway. Rather it is about guessing correctly the likely desires of potential customers. The adverts merely seek to draw attention to the product they set out to promote. They can only help to distribute what the customers already want.

Adverts are propaganda, but they are usually also post-persuasion phenomena. They only work on the already persuaded. They are wasted on the people that do not already like the ware, or service, advertised. They aid sales greatly, but only by calling attention to wares that people already want. Recent adverts have been less widely broadcast, but rather more like narrow-casts, thus they are better aimed at the target people who are more likely to already want the product promoted. This is simply to cut out the realised barrenness of the older wider broadcasts. Why would firms bother with all this if they had known how to get anyone to buy anything, as the authoress, Felicity Lawrence, and many others seems to hold?

The facts concerning the wares or services on offer do not usually even matter to adverts, apart from occasionally the facts of access, as to where and when they are on offer; i.e. merely the facts saying “it is here!”

The whole aim, then and now, was simply to drawn attention to what was on offer. That is why they so often use women, those masters of drawing attention to themselves, and they will use them in advertising any ware at all. It is the ability to draw attention to themselves, mastered by women, that the advertisers seek to use. It does not matter one whit that the ware being promoted has nothing to do with women. It is not sex, but the arts of attraction that women have mastered, and that makes them so very useful in all sorts of adverts. Adverts really are still, in effect, rather like the pristine adverts in the seventeenth and eighteen century, that did actually ring a big bell to call the attention of people to the goods on sale. The whole aim, then and now, was simply to drawn attention to what was on offer. That is why they so often use women, those masters of drawing attention to themselves, and they will use them in advertising any ware at all. It is the ability to draw attention to themselves, mastered by women, that the advertisers seek to use. It does not matter one whit that the ware being promoted has nothing to do with women. It is not sex, but the arts of attraction that women have mastered, and that makes them so very useful in all sorts of adverts. They draw attention not only from men; for females are even better noticed by other women who, presumably, have no sexual interest in them at all [though the PC crew might object to that; how they still love Freud, who held by dogma that we were all polymorphous perverts.] Adverts are there merely to draw attention: nothing more. But that is enough. It is all that an advert ever seeks to do and it is all it needs to do. It is not about persuasion. Still less is it about any manipulation. It does not even need to be agreeable. It only needs to draw attention to the ware, or service, that it seeks to promote. Maybe to rub people up the wrong way will draw their attention even more successfully than to be agreeable. That is a point for any advertising firm to seriously consider. They will need to think about the risk of failure, for advertising can never remove that risk.

However, we liberal propagandists need to realise that it is best to inform people if we are to persuade them. We do need to win the public over to seeing that the state is a big mistake and that taxation is anti-social rather than a sign of welfare. But adverts do not need to persuade. They do not need to tell the public much about the wares being promoted, but there may well be a need to state the time and the place where access to the wares promoted may be had, though with many, or even most wares, this might be well known already. So most adverts will need only to draw attention to what is being advertised.

This theory of adverts as unconscious manipulation, as advanced techniques of persuasion that can get people to part with needed money to buy anything that the giant firms can easily produce is not very persuasive. But this is what the authoress, Felicity Lawrence, rather stupidly and unrealistically, thinks is so very realistic and she is brazen enough to say that Lansley is facile to ignore it. The very idea of it is absurd, as there can be no unconscious mind, ipso facto. Similarly, there are no means that the giant firms have to get people to pay for things that they do not even want. So the whole line of thought is a mere brutum fulmen. There is no reason at all for this authoress to fear freedom.

Some very nasty people are NICE


David Davis

Spotted this just now.

And so it goes on


Michael Winning

In spite of the imminent unravelling of their government, the zealots carry on screaming

It says so in the Daily Mail.

Look I don’t mind recycling, doen it for years here anyway. But this breaks the bounds of ridiculosity (is that a word?)

Stop complaining about supermarkets, and start attacking Soviets who stop you helping the “little shops”


David Davis

Michael mentions “little shops” just below, but aside from the taxation-threats lined up by the GramscoFabiaNazi food-rationists against foods, of whatever kind, this caught my eye. Below is comment (just inside the 1,000 character limit) which I’ve posted on The Daily Wail:-

Modern supermarkets are the greatest boons to Mankind. If you didn’t want them, they’d not exist.

Admit it: you know you must, and you _/know in your heart/_ that these places exist because _/you/_ the customers want them to.

You, I, everyone here all know that we couldn’t function, in the post-modern, socialist hell-hole of frenetic slave-labour just to pay basic bills and taxation, that is “Britain, a Young Country” (remember that Tony Bliar gag?) without these convenient, cheap places.

Yes, “little local shops” are lovely. But Councils, which is to say “Soviets”, have ensured that you can’t either drive to them (pedestrianisation) or park near enough to enough of them to buy enough at one trip to make it worthwhile to try.

RIP UP all pedestrianisation schemes. (Wicked pernicious town-wrecking, on purpose by Stalinists.)
SAW OFF all parking meters and block in the holes.
SACK the “wardens” so they can go and serve you your fresh veggies at “little shops” instead.

Aaaaaaah…..that’s so sweeeeet


Michael Winning

The Dark Lord is going to join an oil company….

What further prtoof do we all need, of the iniquitous connection at social levels, between Enemy-Classpersons and otherwise normal persons in things such as oil firms?

THere’s nothing wrong with being an oil co or working for it. Just that these outfits seem to play into the hands of people who’d demolish them, such as greens and peope who throw green stuff at people like Mandelson.

Food rationing coming soon: it will be called “choice-editing”.


David Davis

They’re after your children again.

Has nobody among these GramscoFabiaNazi “researchers” considered that children need to be fat in places like Stockton-on-Tees, because it’s effing cold a lot of the time? (So your children can, indeed must, be fat, or they will be uncomfortable.)

And that in wealthy, hot Sussex, way-down south of here, it’s just, well, hot? (So your children can, indeed must, be thin, or they will be uncomfortable.) They have successful vineyards, for f***’s sake.

Anyway, those effete southerners are too close to all those “Haute Couture” designers in strange places like London and Paris who seem to think all humans ought to be 3-meter-high-skeletal boys with a scowl, so they probably get to like thin children…

And of course, picking and treading the Sussex grapes, for the Political-Enemy-Superclass to crow about in venezuela and Cuba, in the traditional pre-capitalist-barbarian grape-treading-manner, gets you fit and thin.

Buy this book now


David Davis

I am obliged to The Englishman’s Castle ticket-office-and-souvenir-bookstall, for flagging up this book, which we all ought to buy a number of copies of and force our GreeNazi friends to read.

“Is farming the root of all evil?” – the buggers are really having a go at us now…


….they’re ‘avvin-a-luff… gotta be.

David Davis

Having read a Jared Diamond book a few years ago, I began to think the bugger was suspect at the time (Guns, germs and Steel.) Now I know he’s a member of the Enemy Class after all.

Whiffing: this is a guy who is taking the piss. Die for the children, and do it now or else..


I was about to transmit a Libertarian Alliance Easter Message 2009. But this stuff really, really pissed me off. Sorry. Maybe it will come later, or maybe you’ll all just have lost out this time, because of “David Edwards”, described as a “Harvard Professor”. (His problem is that his institution is a bit, well, post-Rennaissance…)

David Davis

Now then, look here…..sonny. When you need to eat chocolate, you need to  __EAT__  it. All right then? Not just “smell” it, you scumbag lefty rationing bastard: you bite it, chrunch it, chew it. Look, you bugger: poor-people pay for people like you to have what you think is a job. So do something more useful, like getting all us humans to Mars in time for the polar bears to die on camers for Al Gore. Even including lifting all the poor people, whom you despise and don’t really like very much ‘coz they don’t drive Bentleys, OK?

The “no calories” scam is a dead-giveaway: “no calories” means no food. They don’t want us to have food, and I think we ought to begin to ask why.

Better you go and break stones with a mallet all day, in the Chinese Highlands or somewhere where they are building a power station or 512.

THIS device here….

 

Real Chocolate to be rationed, except for the Enemy Class and their children

Real Chocolate to be rationed, except for the Enemy Class and their children

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

…..is one of the harbingers of FOOD RATIONING. Soon.

Just regard, for a moment, savour, and regard this ineffably-insufferable neo-Stalinist twaddle:-

Invented by Harvard professor David Edwards, Le Whif comes in four different flavours: raspberry, mint, mango and plain.

He worked with his students at Harvard University to develop the product and said he was inspired by thinking beyond normal ways of eating food and into the future.

He said: “Over the centuries we’ve been eating smaller and smaller quantities at shorter and shorter intervals.

“It seemed to us that eating was tending toward breathing, so, with a mix of culinary art and aerosol science, we’ve helped move eating habits to their logical conclusion.

“We call it whiffing.”

I call it dying, of starvation, personally. But there’s no accounting for tastes. Perhaps “Harvard Professor David Edwards” – “call me Dave-the-Death” – loves death, as indeed many, many representatives of certain meme-blocks of young hominid males say now that they do.

Bloody hell! I thought the RSPB was a charity, until I discovered Wind Turbines.


David Davis

This is shocking and obscene. I’ve filed it under pornography.

What I thought was a charity about birds and wildlife, but is probably a quango instead, has a “Climate Change Policy”……

Here’s an extract:-

Ruth Davis, head of climate change policy at the RSPB, said the charity was promoting the development of wind power because the evidence of the increasing impact of global warming on birds was “truly terrifying”.

“Left unchecked, climate change threatens many species with extinction.

“Yet that sense of urgency is not translating into actions on the ground to harness the abundant wind energy around us.”

She said the solutions were largely common sense, including a clear lead from government on where wind farms were built and clear guidance for councils on how to deal with applications.

here’s another extract:-

The Government must step in to provide a clear lead on developing wind farms more quickly without damaging wildlife or alienating communities, the RSPB urged.

Make up your own mind what these people are for.

Obnoxio socks it to the “foreign aid” industry


David Davis

Good sharp analysis from the clown. The comment thread is worth a trip to the piece on its own (and you can ignore my bit, for I’m just being a vain name-dropper.)

Denying AGW is mental disorder – official … and Bella Gerens added


UPDATE:- Bella Gerens added to blogroll. An important recent omission corrected.

David Davis

My attention was drawn kindly by Martin, on a comment on this post, to the fact that I may be “psychological” (as my mother use to trumpet to me year-after-year as a boy) being as I am a AGW “denier”. It also says so in The Landed Underclass, so there’s clearly no hope for me.

Here’s the links to the event if you want to go along:-

One. (Christopher Booker)  

Two. (The University concerned.)

Clearly, I will have soon, very soon now, to be “admitted” to a Government Health Farm, to be treated for my errors, until such time as I see the error of my ways and am thus fit for execution.

Truly, one is so sorry, and also one apologises hyper-profusely, to The State, to the UN-IPCC, to Al Gore, and to all the other godlike people and august bodies (who all have no thought but that for our good) for spoiling their day by deciding they’re completely mistaken and incidentally a load of thieving, grasping, knowledge-corrupting GreeNazi scumbags, who want to kick the rest of the world except themselves back into the Endarkenment.

Monty Don, a rich BBC-Tele-Gardner, savaged by Bella Gerens


David Davis

I’ve commented about this poor, sad, unhistorically-educated Monty Don chappie on The Landed Underclass, earlier, but Bella Gerens does a better academic demolition job on him and his hypotheses.

Yes it’s nice to play at growing a few veg – even keeping a few chickens, if you can stand the slimy shit, are prepared to shoot, gas or snare the inevitable foxes and hawks (beware of the RSPB Gestapo*** on that one!) and stuff their corpses in your wheelie-bin, and if you can bear, as a metropolitan dweller, to kill, pluck, draw and then cook and eat the poor bastards when the time comes.

I don’t object to play-growing. But it won’t feed a nation of 60 million, no way Monty. You can afford to, but we can’t.

***Hawks are of course quite OK, and ought to be allowed to predate your stuff all they want, but your food-birds are of no interest ot them whatsoever.

Real bread


David Davis

I don’t normally go out of my way to support people who gas on about what we here satirically and ironically call ___people who really understand their” ___ bread/beans/grain/beef/meat/whatever they are gassing on about in the weekend colour supplements (it just means they are astonishingly expensive and proud of it – a good position to be in) but this just drifted in, and it’s kind of local.

But I shall watch this one as it is up the road, and I’m the Director of Northern Affairs…so I guess there’d better be a few. Some people like bread – I don’t go for it in particular, but (as we also say here) if this was Stalingrad, I would eat it (the bread, I mean, er, not Stalingrad.)

There was an Iragqi woman in the DT Saturday supplement last weekend – she was proferring a _water tap_, at £5,635. We say that  she really understands her taps.

Stop Climate Change (errr?)


David Davis

Be like Dirty Harry and make these dudes’ day. Via Counting Cats and The Devil.

TESCO, government and markets: two (2) cheers for Sir Terry Leahy


David Davis

I am not in the pay of Tesco – really I am not – honest, guv.  But it deserves two cheers or at least its CEO Sir Terry does (not three  -  for reasons I will explain, and which Sean Gabb has explained below) for his spirited defence of Markets discovering the best way to allocate resources, as opposed to governments decreeing (see Sean again.)

I expect this piece by him was absolutely as far as his own “in-house” Communications Department apparatchiks would allow the poor bugger to go. Everyone knows of course that, to a first approximation, 99% of all “communications executives”, which is to say PR girls people, are left-leaning graduates of things currently called “universities”, who have studied “journal-ism” or “media studies”. There will be enough exceptions to prove me almost not quite totally right, so I await brickbats, but I feel that Sir Terry’s private views on these matters are stronger than he was allowed to express.

Because Tesco, and its plans for giving people what they want to buy, is the prime target for assaults by greenies and anti-shopping Stalinists (who like “local” shops and “car free town centres” – an oxymoronic position if ever I saw one) it falls to poor Sir Terry to do the defence. I urge you all of you who appreciate crypto-Stalinist circumlocution, to read the whole thing here about why the local Stalinists bureaucrats don’t want Tesco to expand an already successful store where parking is free – but want it to take a site nobody wants (it’s been empty for three years!) in a town centre nobody can park in except for money to the Soviet.

Sir Terry does not get the full three cheers, for he tries to defend Government’s action in propping up a gasping banking system, which, like Hitler’s Generals who first shunned him – then lauded him – then were in hock to him, ought to have seen through this government’s debauchment of money earlier. Then, they should of course have opposed it in the first instance – but they didn’t, so here we now are. (Like Hitler’s generals in the Bunker.)

The Stalinist terror-drink-police will come for you next…


UPDATE:- Lots of useful links out, from The Devil, to other state fake-charities etc, specially those which castigate you for drinking more than you oughta on “at least one day a week”….disaster: all that excise tax-take, and they don’t even thank you.

David Davis

….arriving at a “supermarket” or “off-licence” near you. They’ve done the pubs, kicking them into the bloody dust, so now it’s the turn of the “middle class professionals”. I wonder which fake charity staffed by State-sponsored-scumbags is behind this one? Obviously not a real one then, they have better things to do.

And here’s the Beeboids, direct. And why do nasty gestapoid-Gramsco-Marxians always, always always get so het up about “strong lager”? Eh? Eh? Who ya’-lookin’ at then? Gorra-problem?

“Fast-food for poor-people day” at the Libertarian Alliance: I hope this fella got really rich.


David Davis

The Doner Kebab King (someone we’d have once called a “Turkish Guest Worker”) is dead. Long live the Doner Kebab. Can’t think what I’d have dome sometimes late at night in London, without it. I was young and rich then, and “went out”.

Fun on Tuesday morning – and what’s a “Heston Blumenthal”, pray tell?


David Davis

Spotted at the Woman In Black, quite by accident. I can’t quite get this late-90s/early-Noughties manic obsession with celebrity chefs, who seem to spend all their time prancing about and swearing, inside the Wireless Tele-Vision apparatus, and who also want to go about spoiling the eating-fun of poorer people than themselves. I’m sure there’s a good libertarian reason for this guy* wanting to upset customers of “little Chef”, but I can’t right now see what it is – however clever with grub he may be. Sorry.

But I hope they do well: if you’re in the middle of nowhere, like in Wales, and Wales is closed (often the case, try buying a burger when you are at Wales early on a Saturday morning, like 9 am) then a Little Chef can at least save you from dying of malnutrition.

*I guess he must be good though…as a generally safe rule, bad cooks don’t get famous.

The “science” bit in here is an absolute scream … and lower down, the Devil baits Polly Toynbee again – great theatre


If I’d wanted to make it up, then even with my own hyper-vivid imagination, I could not have done better. After this, you just gotta-eat-potatoes, it’s such a scream listening to that patronising lefty cooking-celeb woman. I nearly had a heart-attack pissing myself with mirth. Better not, or else my son will do the blogging and then you’ll all be really sorry.

David Davis

And here’s The Devil’s go at naughty Polly the lefty, and the champion of not letting poor people fly to places.


Is this true?


David Davis

From The Remittance Man we learn this: householders will be visited by bureaucrats dispensing advice (here’s the original source) about cooking with leftovers…..

Sometimes we here, on whichever of the duty-typwriting squadrons is on “watch”, are tempted to emulate the language of Obnoxio The Clown, or the Devil himself. (He’s uncovered a previously unstudied State-Bogus-Charity in that one…Obnoxio’s latest just refers to some bureucrat or other as a c*** . )

But this is a family blog, so, apart from saying shit and crap which is rather weak playground stuff now, we only go so far as to merely write f*** (sometimes even c*** these days.) And also we only show pictures of Keeley Hazell wearing bras (until we get bored with her and we go and get someone else. Possibly Lucy Pinder – anybody got any preferences? See poll below. If in doubt, go here and select someone else.)

To get back to the point, the government is bust, the main world’s private banks have feverishly bought themselves into virtual bankruptcy by queuing for 15 years to buy each others “securitised” pigs-in-pokes, Gordon Brown is printing money….and then they all go and spend it on what? Food-police. Here’s an exerpt:-

Home cooks will also be told what size portions to prepare, taught to understand “best before” dates and urged to make more use of their freezers.

The door-to-door campaign, which starts tomorrow, will be funded by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), a Government agency charged with reducing household waste.

The officials will be called “food champions”. However, they were dismissed last night as “food police” by critics who called the scheme an example of “excessive government nannying”.

WE MUST ALSO BEAR IN MIND THAT THIS IS ! “ALL ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS” !  People who have purchased food are entitled to dispose of it how it pleases them. The bought food DOES NOT become State Property: it belongs to the householder.

No bureaucrats yet come round to tell you not to throw a brick at your Wireless Tele Vision, thus rendering it at least partially if not fully unserviceable, whenever Jonathan Ross come on screen: why should they come and tell you what to do with food whiche displeases you?

It’s all very sad: it’s as if the poor government buggers just can’t kick the gravy-train (sorry) habit, even when there’s really no money, as opposed to just the appearance of no money.


How to live the simple life on your farm in new Hampshire…


David Davis

but for how long, now Obama’s in power and the gathering endarkenment will force you to stay there?

“The Simple Life” is all very well, in a highly-industrialised and successful free-market-Western-civilisation. But anywhere else, it’s a crock of s*** .

What Greens are really up to…..


…..and Simon Heffer on Victorians. (Just incidentally so right, that one.)

David Davis

But I quite accidentally chanced on this stuff today. We all know that most GreeNazis have been articulating their beliefs with quite disarming frankness for decades. So it’s good to find more people (b)logging their progress for the rest of us, sadly too busy to do much about it.

As Auberon Waugh would have said, “I’m not suggesting that we should arrest, tie to MacDonald’s restaurants and then publicly tar-and-feather all lovable sandal-wearing-greens; but  more does need to be done to combat the Green Terror”.

It won’t let me paste any links, not get rid of the bloody italics, so here they are:-

http://windfarms.wordpress.com

http://windfarms.wordpress.com/agenda21/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auberon_Waugh

Israeli “atrocities” ! Coming soon to a TV channel near you!


UPDATE:- The Remittance Man has also picked up on an aspect of the Israelis’ problem – which is beginning to be one of PR, in the face of…..the world community (as represented by “western” media.

….and Hamas does not need to attack Israel: discuss…

David Davis

Those whom the Gods media and “international Community” wish to destroy, they first make mad accuse of atrocities and violations. You can tell what’s in store for Israel in the next epoch of the ongoing struggle to abolish it: even the Daily Quislingraph is giving prominence to UN “allegations” that a “safe house” full of evacuees was shelled.

And quite why Indonesians riot to clse a KFC “to show solidarity” with “palestinians”, is quite beyond me, I fear. I didn’t know KFC was Jewish? (It’s the sort of thing my old mother would have automatically known, or pre-assumed: she believed that “The Jews” ran every successful business in the world – a not unreasonable assumtion I guess.) I can’t seem to embed it, so here’s some silly film footage of the buggers:-

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1488655367/bctid6767414001

Everybody’s got it in for the Jews now, you cna tell. What an extraordinary and absolutely global volte-face, and in just under 40 years. I expect that the next principle people to be graced with the all-purpose left-Nazi portmanteau of involuntary genocide will actually be an imaginary one this time: the “Palestinians”.

But they can take comfort that, in just under a century, although there may then be no Jews left, the following will happen: aged but rich, successful and highly-westernised Ghazi-refugee emigrés, sitting surrounded by their equally successful decendents who will be the world’s diaspora of lawyers/bankers/doctors/scientists, in affluent westernised places like Peking, Pyong-Yang, or even Noo-Yoork, will collectively lament the global amnesia about their own holocaust of 2009. They will wonder, sadly and confused, about the world’s apparent forgetfulness of the plight of their people, as the pan-palestinian-enclave from Syria to Aden is assailed by the better-armed and highly-technological Hittite usurper-state.

And God saw what man had done in his hubristic wind/fart-turbine-ness, and lo, He Was Wroth


David Davis

And yea, verily did God smite the false turbines in His Anger, to teach Man a lesson about “fossil fuels” which God had Laid Before Man Without Let Or Hinderance.

And God said: “Men: why hast ye pandered, in despite of my strictures and manuals (RTFM) to the energetics of the Devil, when all you saddo buggers had to do was pump out of the ground the stuff I furnished you with?  C***s. “

I’m sure that actually it’s due to the Flying-Spaghetti-Monster.

Burning women? NO! … Smoke your own foods? YES!


David Davis

Thought you might all like this. In case it ever goes off, I’ve put on the whole thing. Libertarians ought to be concerned about the creeping State campaign to abolish food that tastes of anything whatsoever. Also, as bought food becomes scarcer owning to clampdowns on lilberal capitalism and free sale of goods without rationing, people will need to know how to grow, farm, gather or otherwise get their own food, and then how to make it taste nice and also LAST LONGER (there is likely to be less electricity to run fridges, even those which survive the coming endarkenment and are still working:-

Smoked foods: how to make your own

It may be illegal to light up a cigarette in a pub, but home-smoked foods are a trend that’s being ignited.

Rose Prince with a plate of trout and prawns

Home smoking: Rose Prince with a plate of trout and prawns Photo: Andrew Crowley

My father used to smoke Player’s Perfectos. They were short, plump and fantastically strong. I knew this last bit first hand, having stolen a handful when inadmissibly young, and tried them out in a hollow box hedge in the garden. He stopped keeping his cigarettes in a box after that.

I didn’t really resent the smoking – as far as I knew he had been born with a cigarette in his hand – except in the car. Our family car had no back seat belts and, in addition to the wind up windows, little sail-shaped vents that opened outwards; especially convenient for smokers to flick their ash, but ineffective ventilators. On long car journeys, we four children bounced around on the back seat, gradually kippered.

I miss cigarettes in pubs, or at least those people who like a cigarette with a drink. Most days the tumbleweed blows through our local, even though it sells quite decent food. In September this year, the British Beer and Pub Association reported that between January and June, there were 36 pubs closing each week, five per day. It is impossible to predict, with fuel and beer prices so high, what proportion of the blame falls upon the government’s decision to ban smoking in pubs. But why did the pubs kill themselves by never installing proper ventilation? Most just stank.

The only smoke to be sniffed now in restaurants is a whiff of it wafting off a slice of smoked salmon. Occasionally, however, something more interesting is going on with chefs “home-smoking” their own fish, pork and duck. The latest trend is to hot-smoke food over burning tea. ‘Lapsang smoked’ is the thing, turning up in a number of restaurants as a long-lost Chinese method. Salad of tea smoked venison with parsnip and quince was an inviting item on a recent Claridge’s menu.

It does not work, of course. Most recipes for tea smoking insist you combine the tea leaves with rice and sugar and the food tastes like it was stuffed up the chimney of a waste incinerator. I tried smoking over the leaves alone, only to get a less confused, mildly smoky tang. It all became rather expensive, too. For any real effect you need lots.

Using wood chips might not be innovative, but their vaporising resins genuinely transform something relatively humble, like trout or pheasant, into an elegant delicacy. Buy a cheap stove-top smoker (see below), or sacrifice an old roasting pan and metal rack to the tar, using foil for a lid. It is all very easy. A whole fish can take as little as fifteen minutes and a duck breast about 30-40 minutes.

But which foods work and which do not? With raw prawns, I found only the shells tasted smoky. Far better were foods like whole fish and breast fillets from game and poultry, all of which benefit from gentle cooking, after which they taste delicately of the oils in the smoke and are unusually juicy. Slices of aubergine also taste good, if dressed after smoking with olive oil, ricotta cheese and a few toasted sourdough breadcrumbs.

Remember that the hot smoking method ‘cooks’ the food – you will not end up with transparent slices of fish, as with cold smoked salmon. And, once you start smoking your own food, it is a good idea to keep a record of your successes and their related weights and timings, variety of wood chips and any additional herbs or spices.

If there is anything left to say about this easy cooking method, it is the bleeding obvious: remember to open the window.

SHOPPING BASKET

You can build your own stove-top smoker by placing wood chips in the bottom of a roasting pan, a sheet of foil on top, a wire rack on top of that – for the food – and finally a lid made from foil. I found it better, in the end, to buy a purpose built type.

Stovetop Smoker with Lid costs £43.99 from Nisbets, which can home deliver (0845 1405555; www.nisbets.com This spacious, simple gadget is made from stainless steel that holds the smoke inside without allowing it to escape. It made a good job of my brown trout (see recipe) and duck breasts. As it’s made of steel it warps slightly when hot, which makes the sliding lid a bit sticky, but it is otherwise practical and cleanable. Put the wood chips in the bottom of the pan, lay over a specially designed tray followed by a rack. Oil the rack, put the food on top and then the lid. Place over a medium heat – timings for cooking are provided. Four varieties of wood chip are available: alder, cherry, hickory and white oak – £5.49.

The delicate flavour of brown trout, cooked over alder smoke, turns out to be quite extraordinarily gentle and subtle. Waitrose is the place to go for brown trout from an organic British farm.

Franklins (01767 627644 for prices; www.franklins.co.uk sells duck breasts, quail, game birds and chicken. John Franklin rears, kills and dresses poultry on his Bedfordshire farm. Visit the farm shop or ask for home delivery.

Hamas does not need to attack Israel: discuss.


David Davis

The pointless slaughter being described, although no different qualitatively from all other pointless socialism-induced-slaughters of blameless civilians which have ever occurred and will ever occur in the future – as they will – is the result of just one thing: a Stalinist outfit deflecting our gaze from its own deliberate uselessness as regards the supposed requirements of “its” citizens captives, and towards instead a pretend-enemy: in this case Israel.

Israel is an increasingly vulnerable target of course, as memory of three things as follows: the historiographic-philosophical reasons why Jews think they exist as an identifiable entity (largely un-understood), the Holocaust, and 9/11, all recede into folk-legend….or, worse……..cease to be aired on British mainstream “Wireless Tele Vision”.

In the minds and dark hearts of people such as Hamas, whatever that might be, and its friends, whoever they may be at any given time, it is easy to demonize Israel. Israel , seen across a barbed-wire fence, represents the negation of all their deeply-held beliefs about how rights and duties work. Israel has made the Hamas-driven poverty in the Gaza strip hideous, because Israel, just a fence away, has shown what can and will be achieved instead in a pluralist democracy. Israeli democracy is not perfect, but then neither is Gordon Brown’s, Nicholas Sarkozy’s or Tony Blair’s. But it is a galactic distance improved from that exercised by Hamas, if they do at all, inside Gaza.

I cannot think of a war, in those centuries of history which I have studied, in which either or both sides did not accidentally or even deliberately kill “women and children”, or even civilian non-combattants generally. I’m not sure either what today’s British lefties are silent about the fact that there’s a poor woman trying to save her “nine children” from Israeli shellfire.

Rather than blame the Israeli Navy for threatening her children with its shrapnel, should they not ask why Hamas has not arranged doctors to prescribe her the “Morning After Pill”, to be obtained at any secondary school “student services office” near her home?

Why should she have nine children, but any of my teenage students, if they wish, ought not to? She probably started when she was 14 or 15. Why ought they then not to? We ought to celebrate diversity and adopt it surely? No?

Where is the moral equivalence that we seek from these lefties, when we need it the most?

Hamas is saying it’s going to do a Stalingrad:-

A Hamas delegation travelled to Egypt to discuss ceasefire terms but its leaders vowed to continue the rocket attacks and said its were committed to attack Israeli troops “in every street, every alley and at every house.”

So what do “ceaefire terms” mean, then, when you say you’re going to do FISH to the end regardless?

I thought Israel was (a) suppling electric power, (b) sending in “aid” (consisting of food and medicines etc) and (c) had evacuated the Gaza Strip of Israelis some years ago?

What do the buggers want? Spaghetti?

it also does not look to me, a bumpkin from Lancashire, that the Ghazis are doing much growing of stuff. look at this Googleearth image:-

Don't grow stuff if the enemy gives it you!

Don't grow stuff if the enemy gives it you!

Frightening, scary, State food stuff. We also discuss breasts and their relationship to state planning, so watch it.


David Davis

Here. read the whole bloody thing, it will make you tremble.

There is an extraordinarily large number of useful outgoing links in this article, to other resources you can use to blog with yourselves, and show up some of this Nazi statist nonsense about food and diet.

One corollary of this project, sadly, is that girls’ breasts will get smaller if they are forced at prepubertal and pubertal ages to eat unsalted lettuce and boiled pasta, any other similar tastelessly-pointless crap like that and nothing else. (Just read a standard good biochemistry book. And lettuce and pasta need salt: you KNOW it makes sense.) Giving a developing woman enough sugars and fats will increase the probability that her “chest” will become satisfactory for the purposes it was intended for, when the State decrees she is old enough to have sex: this, worryingly, seems to be about age 11, since many secondary schools now dole out “morning after pills”. “D”, “DD”,”E” or even “F” cups (if you get lucky) or thereabouts seem to promote reproduction of humans. “A” (or worse, poor girl “AA”) I think, do not.

We shall be back to the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s, when as a student you actively tried not to get a shag, since you knew you’d be disappointed when her clothes came off in your student-digs later. (I didn’t know what these things called “boobs” were before about 1962 so I can’t tell you about breasts under rationing, sorry.)

Perhaps that’s what the lefties are really after? Do they really think we are overpopulated, and is the auto-erotic/visual repression of the male sex drive part of “the project”? Perhaps the Enemy Class really really does not even want any slaves? Does it merely want to inhabit the planet on its tod? Really? Really alone? Discuss.

Good resolutions for 2009 from Natalie


David Davis

This is what she’s going to do!

Obesity: it gets worse – now, tasty foods are to be banned!!!


David Davis

The robotic-Gramscian-cockroach-troidatron known as “Tam” “Fry” has surfaced again. We did him just recently here, and the Landed Underclass is to be thanked for spotting it first. We and Landed did him for having stuff like “National” and “Forum” in his junta’s title, when it’s certainly no forum, and “National” when used by socialists implies “Nazi” – as I keep on being belaboured on-line for pointing out.

Now, the Tam-Fry troid is saying that it’s not enough for the “food industry” to “give £200 million” to the anti-obesity campaign, so as ot try apparently to deflect legislation. The Tamtron-Machinetroid (it clearly does not eat, and is clearly not a humanoid) is going to enforce what it likes anyway – that’s the gist.

What, oh what, OH WHAT is it? About people who run private sector companies that do things which people want – like food and cigarettes? WHY do they cravenly crawl, and cave in, and play up to the Stalinist nonsense with which they are threatened?

The correct answer to this troid-tron-challenge would have been to say:-

Look. Fats and salt and sugar makes foods taste nice. That’s what people want. If they could eat tasteless starch and protein, then mammalian genes would have eveolved to make bodies that found this stuff nice. fats are esters, which are the only molecules that taste of anything, except salt and some sugars. So, f*** off to your concentration camps and health farms, Mr Fry.

Sue us!

Just look at this Nazi stuff:-

Ben Bradshaw, the Health Minister, warned that obesity was rising so fast that by 2050 four out of 10 children and nine out of 10 adults will be overweight or obese.

He promised that the Government would not shy away from bringing in new rules to force food companies to play a part in changing the country’s eating habits. Limits could be imposed on the amount of fat and salt in certain products.

He said: “We have already made progress on things like labelling and fat and salt content working with the industry. But … if this three-year campaign does not succeed, we don’t rule out regulating in future.”

Tam Fry, a National Obesity Forum board member, told the BBC that greater regulation of the food industry was needed to tackle rising obesity.

He said: “What we fear is that the industry is very willing to give £200 million to the campaign as a way of deflecting the Government’s interest in regulation.

“Unless you get the food to the right quality and unless you avoid the prospect of advertising junk food to children, you are going to have a continuation of the problem.”

The Government’s Change4Life campaign will begin tomorrow with television, magazine and national advertisements urging people to adopt a more healthy lifestyle.

The action is being taken after forecasters said obesity was rising so fast that by 2050 four out of 10 children and nine out of ten adults will be overweight or obese.

As it gets colder, and sterling becomes toilet-paper, we shall be glad to be able to have chip-butties.


David Davis

I have even met builders, with whom I worked a bit last summer as a second-fix trade-polisher on a housebuilding job, who had crisp-butties for their tea-breaks (many.)

The Landed Underclass tells us, I am happy to relate, that the Vegan stuffed vine leaves are off in 2009 because of Sterling’s continuing fall. I can’t say I’m very sorry about that, although I do like stuffed vine leaves, preferably full of a nice lemony mixture of minced lamb, rice, pine nuts, coriander and other poncy (but scrumptious) Wireless Tele Chef type comestibles. However, his main point is the most cunningly marvellous exposition about foods in general by a proper doctor, the kind who knows about war and stuff. We’d all really prefer to get treated by guys llike that whom he describes, if push came to shove: and not the sneering hectoring sub-types of “professionals” like State “dieticians” whom I met in a certain famous children’s hospital not 30 miles form here, a few years ago when our new-born (now five) was rather less well than he orta-av-been.

The problem arises of course where the State, whether nanny, jackbooted or otherwise (I can’t tell the difference) steps in. I quote from landed’s quote from the Daily express:-

Tam Fry of the National Obesity Forum said …: “As prices rise and incomes fall, people will be drawn to the cheaper, less healthy processed foods, which are precisely the sort of things we are trying to wean people away from. Once habits change, it becomes hard for people to go back, especially because cheaper junk foods are so seductive.”

I have not previously heard of the “National Obesity Forum”, but I bet it’s (a) not a national movement and (b) it’s anything but a forum in which people engage in civilised discourse.

The libertarian issues are as follows:-

(1) If people are to be “weaned” off certain foods, and forced to eat others which they desire  less, then they are the state’s farm animals. I do feel quite sure that this is what “Tam” “Fry” does truly intend, although he’d not see it like that. he’d be “helping” people. Like Stalin did.

(2) If there was a real market in food, then the price of Vegan stuffed Vine Leaves would reflect demand and also the affluence (or otherwise) if the clientele that would go for it.

“Organic” Death-Farming was always a criminal fraud, and now it is exposed in its obscene nakedness


Although a not-very-nice subject for Christmas, this organic-socialist-farming nonsense needs to be nailed through the heart, where the nail belongs, or it will kill more people. Let’s do it now.

It also causes death to starving millions labouring under socialist paradises, reducing as it does on purpose the total gigatonnage of foods that could otherwise be grown using fertilisers, pesticides and other modern conveniences necessary for the large-scale mechanised farming that humans require, and therefore driving up the price.

David Davis

Thanks to Obnoxio (again) for the hat-tip to this marvellous and uplifting news……

They want to….what? Let’s get this right…..“They want to establish new organic ground rules before the market becomes even more depressed next year.”

Oh. They want to do capitalism! Good. Serve them right. Like the cockroach Castro (who is still sadly dead) should have been condemned to be the MD of a small private company in the USA, making stuff in difficult times. For ever!

I feel better about the recession now, than I did.

DISASTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Peter Davis

Within the last hour of this post, the value of the Pound Slerling has gone below the value of the EURO!!

this is a terrifying prospect, but as of 23:11 GMT, £1 is worth 0.72 Euro cents (my keyboard cannot do euro signs, funny though, because it can do everything else though, even these: Ψ Φ ♦ ♣ ← ↑ → ↓↔ θ Ξ ¿)

Libertarian Alliance Christmas Message 2008


David Davis and Peter Davis

Things look bad. Really. We don’t know what to say to comfort you all this year. The socialists – all over – are even more entrenched than ever before….and here naturally: why? Of all in the places in the world, they hate England the very, very most of all, and want us dead. Or at least our culture, which amounts to the same thing. Socialism is, in its inception, specifically anti-English, which is to say, anti-liberal. Why else were we forced into so many wars in the time when We Knew Who We  Were?

War is always bad, and represents the failure of the enemy to reason with us, for we are right. (The West IS right. All else is “solutions” which are “less good”.) But the problem is that we don’t any more know the answer to that previous question – about our identity. The Enemy Class has hidden it.

Also in Russia the Stalinists triumph again, under the wicked cockroach Putin. He marched into a sovereign nation in early August as you all know, on a Glivice-type-1st-Sept-1939-pretext, and the West bought into it in spades, lauding him. Where is Georgia now? Does anybody know? I have heard nothing for months. Have you?

In Australia, Kevin Rudd does his socialist and republican stuff. The poor Queen will go to hell in Oz soon as Rudd will see her voted out, but that in itself does not matter for she has done nothing to discharge her duties against this mob, of which Rudd is just a late acolyte. Australia will now hit the downpipe into the sewer slightly later than the rest of us as it actually makes stuff which Chindian guys want, like Iron and Coal and Uranium, and, er, beef and wine and things to eat, and probably zinc and tin and things so I will check (not copra or sisal or jute I expect, not now.) In the USA the Onebama is getting psyched up to pull the levers of his people’s self-destruction: I shan’t be surprised if “New Orleans”, if still above sea level, or even below, gets shag-loads-a-money belonging to other people, in return for returning  “Democrats” Stalinists. A truly rotten borough, it is, to be sure to be sure.

And in other places where what the State does matters because it’s always harmful, and we are all still even going to die after it all. All is black, and the endarkenment comes surely upon us, or so it would seem. Gordon Brown is still in power – not that any other of all the available socialist parties would do any better – and his friends have taken down the fabric of the Western Capitalist system by sleight of hand. The LPUK remains our last best hope, but I expect it’ll be years before they’re in a position to challenge for the job of taking the state down to a manageable size….even if by then elections are allowed, which we doubt.

The database DNA-nazistate, powered forwards as it has planned to be by high-profile murders or disappearances involving usually young and attractive females whose sad stories are marketable by the Quisling Press, now has nearly five million persons trapped in it, probably for ever: of these, we can be sure that most are males, and a disproportionate number are young black males. But under diversity rules, this I am sure will be rectified as part of the task of increasing its size.

The West is involved in slightly over two wars at once (something like (1.418)², and therefore it’s an irrational number and impossible to calculate exactly) against brave and unfazed people whose message they think is simple: who freely and frankly admit, loudly and with fortitude and resolution, that they mean to take us down, bouyed up as they are by their own strong sense of self-worth and also that of the pre-capitalist-survival-guide that drives them. The contrast between that and the Uncertain Trumpets which ought to be braying for Classical liberalism, is stark. The blame for this unforgiveable situation lies here in the West, and very particularly in Britain, where we have allowed an internally-logical, quite deliberately-driven, quite uncrazed and rational Enemy Class, planned for a very very long time, to rot us and our culture and civilisation from within. It is no use trying to “be tolerant” to left-wing-academics and so forth, if they mean to destroy the system that gave them liberty to undermine it.

The unspeakably vain and evilly-pompous, cockroach, “Robert Mugabe”, continues to loud-hail the world that black is white and white is black, striding about among kilo-deaths, and silently cheered on by an almost equally-hobbled Africa as he marches his unwilling slaves towards the cesspool, blaming us. Perhaps this is part of the “Global Community’s” punishment of us, by it, for Ian Smith being right: we are made to watch a horrible tragedy, with our arms tied behind us and our eyelids propped open. Yes: that’s it – the Left is shooting our child, and making us watch.

“New” Labour – as if it ever was: how could so many have been taken in so fully by so few? – has comprehensively knackered what was a vaguely thriving economy. Even the French are laughing at us. And, he even has the crust, the immortal rind, to say: “what I meant was – ‘an end to Tory-boom-and-bust’ … “.   As if the “socialist” sort of boom and bust feels any different?

The Pound Sterling tracks relentlessly down towards the Euro. In one sense this does not matter since they are all “fiat” currencies anyway, so the real absolute value of any of them can’t ever be determined. But it makes worse the temporal problems of buying stuff, since “New” labour has completed the process of ensuring that we neither make anything, nor grow anything to eat.

So, what ought libertarians to do this Christmas?

(1) Against the coming Dark Age, which is not a sudden phenomenon but has been planned for us for ages and ages and is only now beginning to look as threatening as has been intended all along: build and stock a large private library. Save in it whatever you think was important knowledge and literature. Lots will be banned, so get it while you can. Also, add artefacts to it, such as scientific instruments. Copy it to DVDs and leave lots of them about in safe places. Some computers will inevitably survive, and the stuff will be able to be read and used.

NOTE: say nothing about it to anyone – not even people you trust! Mobs burn libraries ‘coz it’s fun, as they have been implicitly taught to do on the Wireless Tele Vision over the past 10 years or so. The burners can dance up and down going “yay!!!” in their pink pyjamas, and the burnees can sob on the Wireless Tele Vision, as is required.

AND…..It’s no use doing what the Montana-Millenarians always advocate, which is along the lines of stocking up on matches, petrol and tinned food. What will you do when it’s gone, as it will be eventually? You can’t sink a tank for 10,000 gallons in the garden in somewhere like Solihull, now, can you; you couldn’t even afford it if you wanted to either! You can grow food if you know how, and you can make matches similarly….sod the petrol, cars will be banned soon anyway.

(2) LAUGH at the bastards. Take the piss. Mercilessly. Be funny. be funny, and be it very very very hard. We face death, so laugh, for this is Hastings all over again. Liberal blogs are far, far better written, by far wittier people, who think on their feet far faster than socialists, and therefore are a grand and clean-edged weapon in the fight. Spit on your hands, wrench out your sword-point from the bloody mud in front of you, where you left it while you went back a few yards for a piss, now get it up and hew, and hew, and hew, and laugh while you do: it will un-nerve the bastards.

Just look at some of these in no special order! Guido, The Devil, the Libertarian Party, Obnoxio, Tim Worstall, Samizdata, Brian Mickelthwait, Nation of Shopkeepers, The Landed Underclass, Trooper, The Englishman, Kerplunk, Mark Steyn, blazing cat fur, and many, many others whom I have forgotten or accidentally omitted.

Let’s have some music.

Here’s the Hollies, with ideas about altruism that are theoretically incorrect unless viewed through an Libertarian Individualist prism:-

And here’s King George V, the opposite of a fascist – I just though it was nice:-

And finally, I wanted to give you a live soundclip of King George VI, speaking as he was on 25th december 1939, but i can’t download one. So here’s his text:-

GEORGE VI (r. 1936-1952)
Christmas Day Broadcast, 1939. Britain and France had declared war on Germany just three months earlier on 3 September 1939
The festival which we know as Christmas is above all the festival of peace and of the home. Among all free peoples the love of peace is profound, for this alone gives security to the home.

But true peace is in the hearts of men, and it is the tragedy of this time that there are powerful countries whose whole direction and policy are based on aggression and the suppression of all that we hold dear for mankind.

It is this that has stirred our peoples and given them a unity unknown in any previous war. We feel in our hearts that we are fighting against wickedness, and this conviction will give us strength from day to day to persevere until victory is assured.

At home we are, as it were, taking the strain for what may lie ahead of us, resolved and confident. We look with pride and thankfulness on the never-failing courage and devotion of the Royal Navy, upon which, throughout the last four months, has burst the storm of ruthless and unceasing war.

And when I speak of our Navy today, I mean all the men of our Empire who go down to the sea in ships, the Mercantile Marine, the mine-sweepers, the trawlers and drifters, from the senior officers to the last boy who has joined up.

To every one in this great Fleet I send a message of gratitude and greeting, from myself as from all my peoples. The same message I send to the gallant Air Force which, in co-operation with the Navy, is our sure shield of defence. They are daily adding laurels to those that their fathers won.

I would send a special word of greeting to the Armies of the Empire, to those who have come from afar, and in particular to the British Expeditionary Force. Their task is hard. They are waiting, and waiting is a trial of nerve and discipline. But I know that when the moment comes for action they will prove themselves worthy of the highest traditions of their great Service.

And to all who are preparing themselves to serve their country, on sea or land or in the air, I send my greeting at this time. The men and women of our far-flung Empire working in their several vocations, with the one same purpose, all are members of the great Family of Nations which is prepared to sacrifice everything that freedom of spirit may be saved to the world.

Such is the spirit of the Empire; of the great Dominions, of India, of every Colony, large or small. From all alike have come offers of help, for which the Mother Country can never be sufficiently grateful. Such unity in aim and in effort has never been seen in the world before.

I believe from my heart that the cause which binds together my peoples and our gallant and faithful Allies is the cause of Christian civilisation. On no other basis can a true civilisation be built.

Let us remember this through the dark times ahead of us and when we are making the peace for which all men pray.

A new year is at hand. We cannot tell what it will bring. If it brings peace, how thankful we shall all be. If it brings us continued struggle we shall remain undaunted.

In the meantime I feel that we may all find a message of encouragement in the lines which, in my closing words, I would like to say to you: ‘I said to the man who stood at the Gate of the Year, “Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown.” And he replied, “Go out into the darkness, and put your hand into the Hand of God. That shall be to you better than light, and safer than a known way.”‘

May that Almighty Hand guide and uphold us all.

“I have no pity for the poor”… Libertarian Alliance Guest writer spot 1. Angry Capitalist writes…


Angry Capitalist

(The Libertarian Alliance does not necessarily endorse or refute the views expressed by guest commentators on this blog.

In the case of poor-people, the Blogmaster thinks this:-

That it is the Messianic duty and obligation of Libertarians to act as follows: that is, to help to Teach the Poor How to Live as Sovereign Human Beings with Free Will.  By valiantly casting off their burdensome chains of socialism and state welfare, and lead them, Moses-like, to the Sunlit Uplands of Free Capitalism and Liberty.)

I Have No Pity for the Poor

There it is. I have uttered those words so contemptible in modern society that the mere allusion to such a sentiment is beyond reproach. Please forgive me, but I no longer have the patience to deal with those who wish to remain mired in the lowest depths of the social order. Are there not means available to these people who perpetually contend for the scraps from the table of those of those who actually contribute to the betterment of our world? This is not to say that I have no compassion for those who are infirmed, whether it be in a mental capacity or those suffering permanent injury to their persons, or those who, now beset by the ravages of old age have fallen into poverty. No, it is not these poor souls of which I am speaking of when I condemn the poor, it is those amongst this division of society who crave not advancement or a better life for themselves but are content to permanently siphon wealth from the upper reaches of the ladder. These dregs are, in my opinion, to be held in the highest form of contempt.

What affliction causes a man to sit for hours on end idly passing the time caring not for what he can contribute to our world and instead expends a tremendous amount of effort into devising new and original ways to defraud the rest of us? Has he no self respect, no drive that motivates him to succeed. The tools are there if he were to only seize them with his own hands and use them in a constructive manner. How sad it must be to lack the basic motivations inherent in the simplest creatures who determine to not provide for themselves and instead depend upon others to provide their basic sustenance. But does the blame rest solely upon their shoulders, or are there more treacherous actions afoot?

The argument could be made that those capable of productive contributions to the social order are held bound in their dire circumstances by forces who are content to exploit their misery for political gain. Yes, in a sense the poor are victims, but not of the sort most in positions of power would have you believe. They are victims not of exploitation by the wealthy, but by our adversaries on the left who wish to manipulate their plight into successes at the ballot box. The left is more than willing to talk from both sides of their mouth. One voice cries out for compassion and government sponsored charity, while the other whispers behind the closed doors of the party offices that these people are our path to power and control, keep them subjugated long enough so that their corpses can line our road power. They promise everything and deliver nothing, again and again, nothing. Strangely enough the poor continue to flock to these charlatans, believing every lie that they are told, despite the fact that they have been told the same thing time and time again, yet they remain in their desperate situation.

These are the reasons why the poor deserve contempt. Not out of the sheer fact that they possess no wealth, but because the do not possess the where with all to realize a lie when told to them, even more so when told to them multiple times. Blinded by envy for those amongst us who produce and consume by the sweat of our brow, they are unwilling to break free from the collectivist chains that hold their minds shut and seek a way other than state sponsored assistance to alleviate their suffering. These poor wicked fools deserve everything that they have, nothing, and despite all of the promises made by their master, that is all that they will ever have. I do not shed a tear for their plight; no I shed a tear for their idiocy and lack of self respect. I pity the poor not because of what they do not have but for what they cannot see. Before them lie untold opportunities available to all men in a free county, yet they are unwilling to seize upon them because it is all to easy to sit and wait for the government to pull them along. They sit and consume promises of equality and wealth if only they continue to despise those who possess more, but theses dreams are never fulfilled. Until these hapless simpletons desist in their self inflicted misery I shall offer no compassion and continue to heap contempt by the score upon their plight.

village nature slovakia chicken


David Davis

That’s a fun search engine string that hit us specifically today.

ZIMBABWE “is a death camp” … Let me count the reasons!


David Davis

All praise to Guido Fawkes for yet again trying, vainly I am afraid, to highlight the plight of the poor wretched (“native” almost entirely) Southern Rhodesians.

“Zimbabwe”…is S. Rhodesia called that, like for the reasons “Mumbai” and “Beijing” and “Ho Chi Minh City” are now, in British State school “geography textbooks”, compiled by people called Jim somebody-or-other, or Fionualla something-else ???

Never mind: in the hearts and minds of all normal non-homicidal human beings who are also not Marx-crazed or Hitlerite or other Unity-type socialist maniacs, it is Southern Rhodesia. So why has the poor place gone tits-up?

(1) We ran away before we’d finished:-

Like everywhere else in Africa, a place largely of darkness in enlightenment terms, we -which is specifially to say, the British – had hardly arrived and unpacked our coaling stations, plantation kits, factories, churches, mines, laws, power stations, morals and teaching, before we were panicked out of the place by post-war leftist guilt and manufactured socialist “anti-Imperialism”. It is not necessary to mention all the actual and true colonial powers here, such as the French, the Germans, the Belgians (beneath contempt – just look at the Congo…) the Portuguese (almost as bad) etc. All the governments of these European triumphalist big-government-battleship-wielding-bureaucrat-bastards have not understood the first thing about what global exploration and improvement of the conditions of “native peoples” was for. These European “Empires” – real ones – are therefore entirely irrelevant to the ultimate fate of Africa except insofar as they have increased the distance up which that sad continent has to be pulled by true liberals and capitalists with some decent morals.

(2) We let our universities, here (and over there) get run ( = bad) and taught in ( = worse) by Gramsco-Marxians:-

I’m sorry, but this is quite unforgiveable: we ought not to forgive ourselves for falling asleep on the job – of Teaching The World How To Live. We actually allowed real people, who we knew hated what we stood for, to teach not only students here that the West was “decadent” and “capitalism” was wrong, but to teach Africans that too – and then send them back to run the bloody place!

There will come a point when Libertarians have to decide something important: to what extent ought we to prevent, by force if necessary, the enemies of freedom, liberty and humanity from doing any more harm?

At The End of All Things, even libertarians may feel that they have to exact some mild retribution for the damage done by socialism. In theory, socialists certainly would not be allowed within a given distance of children, sensible schools or those universities which are awake, if they wanted to teach their fiction. But I suppose we’d of course have to let them set up private institutions of “learning” if they were so dedicated – that would fix them.

And they can always blog if they have the stamina, and can write well: if they do, people will come to their blog. If not, then not.

(3) Western politicians:-

We allowed people in developed First-World nations to become politicians, who had been through the same mill I have just described. We allowed them to throw around other people’s money, which meant that theye didn’t evaluate its objectives well: and we allowed them to exert media influence, by letting their friends into the BBC etc. They promoted a climate of guilt, implicit in which was that everything we did in Africa was wrong, and everything Africans now do to eahc other was thus right, by induction. Their minor friends wrote geography and history text books, promulgating the same messages. (Read one: any one after the rot set truly in, in about 1990. You will be astounded.)

(4) The United International Marxist Dictators’ Subsidised Clubhouse with free prostitutes and dinners for all delegates all the time and no taxation of salaries, located in the West United Nations:-

You all know about the “United Nations”. And about the “non-aligned” (which is to say, anti-liberal) countries, and what role these play and have played in the deliberations of this clubhouse. And because of this institutionalised corruption, “peacekeeping forces” – especially those predominantly staffed by forces that don’t include the Anglosphere – can favour which side they like (as in Darfur) or run child-abuse scams (as in the Congo.) They betray their irremediable amorality by taking advantage of the very people they have supposedly been sent to “help”. The UN can also, and does, thwart real and justified attempts by the West (us, not the other Europeans, who should never have arrived in the first place) to rectify some of the damage done by our running away in under even a whole century.

(5) We did not take umbrage and react at Mugabe’s GENOCIDE against “white farmers”:-

Had we done so immediately (white people are people too, and can bleed, die and lose stuff) the butcher Mugabe would have piped down – I bet 5p – and none of this tragedy might have happened. But we could not, as the will of people here was constrained by the prevailing climate of policial and BBC discourse about “Africa” and “White Imperialism”. We had to grit our teeth and sit by and watch, while a more or less working economy, which was a net exporter of foodstuffs and other things, was systematically trashed in front of us.

I’m sure that the pig Mugabe is eating well, and has clean fresh water, the poor babe. And that his “staff” also do, plus their probably German- or Belgian-made guns. (probably more highly regarded by him that eprfectly OK and much cleaper Chinese or Russian equivalents. or maybe all his kit is South African?)

Perhaps South Africa – which could terminate that bastard today if it wanted to – is allowing all this misery to carry on, as it make the place look less bad than it really is.

Good


David Davis

Tesco excels itself in adaptability and speed, yet again. “Ugly veg”? Look, it’s just food, OK? The EU ought to have kept the f*** out of the situation, years ago.Supermarkets will fail in a week, if they don’t offer what their customers want. they are faster and leaner than bureaucracies, even if their head offices pretend to emulate them – possibly for the best of political-survival-reasons.

AS biofuels sadly catch on, and real-food acreage falls sharply, the world WILL be in real and renewed danger of starving, so I guess we all ought to do what we can, and Sir Terry Leahy also thinks so, good for him.

Let’s hear it for the Decaying-Rubbish-Police…..pooooooooooo….


David Davis

And…..what if you don’t want to actually hand over your food waste to the Soviet, for “recycling”…but you want to do it yourself?

We compost ours, thus dutifully adding to our carbon footprint (as you ought to, the plants can’t live on fresh-air, you know!) and then dig the sttuff into the soil a year later. Removing our right to this would deprive us here of a valuable “resource”, and also incidentally of our paid-for property…

They may be rotting bananas, but threy’re OUR rotting bananas.

GM crop trials: from aftermath news….


…we have more info.

David Davis

I spoke about this stuff earlier.

Here’s an idea for the anti-GM “food terrorists”


David Davis

If the “government” is planning “secret locations” for GM food crop trials, they had then better not fence them off so transparently as to scream as though with a loud-hailer where they are. “Activists”, then not knowing what is GM and what is not, will then have to go about the nation destroying and burning all food crops regardless.

This will be good in the end, as we will all then know what they really think – not about what sort of food we all eat, but about humanity in general. Let them come into the open: let’s make sure these trials are not labelled or fenced.

If there has to be a proper war between civilisation and those inside it who would destroy it, then let it be brought on now.

Good analysis of the current scenario regarding Global Warming and the “skeptics”


David Davis

Here.