Tag Archives: Political Correctness

Biased BBC: BBC EDITOR IS CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST


BBC EDITOR IS CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST

Sean Gabb

>> Monday, December 28, 2009

I’ve become increasingly convinced that the BBC is part of an international conspiracy about ‘climate change’. It isn’t simply that the reporting is so biased; it’s also because there seems to be a concerted effort to make sure that whatever so-called sceptics discover, for example over Climategate, the warmists bounce straight back with a new set of warped theories or bent facts to support their arguments. The feed of material is relentless, as if it is coming from an organised source. Over the holidays, I’ve been doing some digging on this, and I wanted to share one of my first findings.
A BBC journalist called Peter Thomson is not a household name in this country, but he’s the environment editor of the BBC programme (made jointly with WGBH Boston and RPI) The World, which on a daily basis pushes out climate scare stories to millions of people. Mr Thomson, it turns out, is also the secretary of the Society of Environmental Journalists, a US organisation, the main purpose of which is to spread alarmism through a ‘guide’ about ‘climate change’(masked of course, under the cloak of ‘objectivity’). There can be no doubt that this is a campaigining organisation which wants to achieve political change because it believes that the world needs to reduce CO2 emissions.
Mr Thomson’s activism does not stop there. He’s also a member of the advisory board of the Metcalf Institute for Marine and Environmental Reporting, yet another international organisation with alarmist goals. It, too, publishes a guide to how journalists should cover ‘climate change’; in truly chilling McCarthyite terms, the introduction explains how anyone who disagrees with “the consensus” should be ignored and that journalists should frantically pester editors to publish ‘climate change’ scare stories.
So, to recap. One of the BBC’s most senior editors responsible for environmental reporting has formal roles at the epicentre of a worldwide coinspiracy among ‘climate change’ alarmists. Not only that, he is assisting in the international propagation of so-called science communication guides, the main purpose of which are to enlist other journalists to spread the same lies in which he also believes. I suspect there’s a whole phalanx of Peter Thomsons, all feeding the BBC’s insatiable appetite to feed us with moonshine.
Update: Richard North, of EU Referendum, has kindly provided further information about BBC propagandists. Nik Gowing, a prominent – and rather humourless – BBC World Service presenter, has a no-doubt lucrative sideline in chairing ‘climate change’ conferences convened by the alarmist-in-chief, IPCC head Dr Ravendra Pachauri.

Biased BBC: BBC EDITOR IS CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST

Their friends in British State Soviets are doing this today…


…even as we speak, cadres of crack GramscoFabiaNazi*** “élite district troops”, impersonating “Councillors” and “Deputy Directors of multicultural community engagement”, and “Community Includers”…

David Davis

are talking about variations on “Winterval“.

Libertarians probably on the whole are either atheistic, or else have no interest in how others wish to celebrate what are probably harmless religious festivals. However, there is a strong strand of liberal thought which argues the need for this: a strong conservative basis of morality and of generally-tolerated and supported institutions and customs. These have to have become generally established and have fairly universal support, before a real hard-liberal civilisation can evolve to be so durable that Gramscian-animated uprooters and deconstructors can gain no traction.

Why else would the NSDAP have spent so much effort trying to cut off or subvert the roots of the host-culture in Germany and then the world? Why, indeed, are our home-grown left (and it _is_ the “traditional left) trying to do the same thing here?

***(Reasons for calling the Enemy Class “GramscoFabiaNazis”:  no 139a/2 in a series)

Climate Change, and what people really think


Update:- Good physics-based demolition of the CO2 myth over at Counting Cats….h/t the Devil

David Davis

I was intrigued just now by something Bishop Hill has done, in placing different strands of opinion about AGW and climate change generally, on a sort of Johari Window.

Here it is, but do read his piece.

Libertarian Alliance and Libertarian International Conference, London 24th-25th October 2009


David Davis

As and when we arrive at the event, outer-London-parking-controls and tribulations permitting, we shall attempt to “live blog” parts of this (whatever “live-blogging” might be: I hope someone will tell us!) We are armed with laptops which I guess is a requirement, and we assume that modern trendy venues like the National Liberal Club have some kind of internet connection…

Unbelievable: the poor bugger won’t last.


David Davis

Read about the elected Mayor of Doncaster here.

A”must-read” (please, everybody…now…)


David Davis

Here.

h/t Blazing Cat-Fur.

Oh, for f*** ‘ s sake…..


David Davis

Biohazard, envirocrime, HP sauce. What the hell are these people thinking they are doing?

More on Sean Gabb speech to Conservative-Future: trenchant comment


David Davis

I take the liberty of using this comment (freely available on the thread for this post) as a new post:-

And here’s me been trying to impose a commenting moratorium on myself. Oh well, here I go again.

Sean’s prescription for what to do when power is gained, while perhaps or perhaps not perfect in the detail, is a good one, and is the kind of thought experiment which may bring one temporary cheer. However it does not (nor, one must absolutely acknowledge attempt to) answer the question of how such a position may be gained. As such it is much like discussing which stars to visit in a starship, while ignoring the hard problem, which is how to build a warp drive.

The problem is that by not discussing in the same breath the gaining of that position, we overlook the fundamentally recursive nature of the discussion. If a government of libertarians, or of “the right” (I dispute that label, but let us let it pass for now) or of “real conservatives” (I dispute that even more as I said before) has gained office in our thought experiment, then the war is already won. That which should be done by such government then becomes a trifle, as it will have the authority to do whatever it wishes.

Unless it has gained power by subterfuge, rather than gained office by honest campaigning, this imaginary government has already told the populace that it will slash government to ribbons, immediately leave the EU, abolish the BBC, hound the enemy out of local government, strangle all the quangos and so on. It can only thus gain office if it has the support of the majority of those citizens who care. To achieve that, it must have gained a cultural hegemony and, more significantly a moral hegemony.

It will have become moral to support small government and immoral to support big government. It will have become moral to support tax cuts, to despise the enemy class, and so on.

To achieve the initial conditions for such a libertian cultural revolution, the public morality must have already become libertarian, rather than the current secular evangelical statism.

This is the Hard Problem, and it would seem at this juncture to be entirely intractable, since altering the moral hegemony requires cultural hegemony, while the cultural hegemony is driven by the moral hegemony.

What is oft mistakenly believed is that the statists/Left/whatever invaded the institutions- government, education etc, from outside. This is not true. There were always socialists inside the elite; indeed it is an elite project and always was. We, on the other hand, have no insiders; and the defenders against whom we wish to move are entirely alert to the possibility of any counterhegemonic entryism and are thus able to nullify it before it gains purchase. The Hard Problem is thus profoundly hard. 

John Sentamu is right in his observations but wrong in his analysis


David Davis

Christians are indeed regarded as “mad“. But that’s just a enemy-class-tactic. The Enemy Class knows full well – and would if pressed be mildly pleased on TV to admit – that it is evil and wicked, as does Satan. (Just look at the up-yours-junk in Tate Modern.) The point is to marginalise first, and then destroy – once they have become sufficiently unpopular –  your enemies. If Christians persist in behaving like enemies of amorality, then they will just get swept away with the rest of the reactionary trash.

Poor Dr John Sentamu thinks that droids like “Fabians”, “the Cabinet”, the makers of mass-hypnosis-TV-programmes, the upper echelons of the BBC, and the denizens of quangos, are not innately and institutionally evil beings. he is sadly mistaken, for these do evil because it’s er, umm, what they do, it’s their, er, job and objective in life.

From the way in which the Universe seems to behave in reality, as manifested by Gramsco-Marxians, it is reasonable to suppose the existence of absolute Evil.

Thanks for spotting this….


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

David Davis

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

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


….but not here – in Spain.

David Davis

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

Libertarian Alliance Bulletin


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have agreed to speak at the following meetings:

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

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

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

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

Society for Individual Freedom

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Libertarian Alliance home

Geert Wilders (never ‘eard of him.) But let’s see how quickly he gets beheaded in the street in London, and then decide who’s more liberal.


Here.

UPDATE2:- This is what Obnoxio the Clown thinks of the matter. I didn’t even know Geert Wilders was a Dutch MP and that he’s been kicked out due to some threat or other from some crack-heads from upper-Jipoopooland: sorry, you see we live in Lancashire, we don’t really get multiculti-crack-heads here, ‘cozz it’s miles away, thank God at least that Copper Wire has been discovered, so I can say something and you’ll hear it by August next year…..

UPDATE1:- I gather he’s been deported. Can’t think that Keeley Hazell would approve of that, although of course she might, it’s her choice. However – let us suppose, hypothetically, just suppose – that he’d made a movie about how misogynistically-repressive the Catholic Chruch was, about women.

That it said, for example, that they don’t allow women to be priests….or that women should ordinarily “submit to their husbands’ “demands” ” – whatever that may mean…or, even – wait for it – a movie about “what a Jesuit is really thinking”. You know the sort of thing: sinister backlit shots of faceless, unrecognisable “Jesuits”, silhouetted, saying unmentionable things, such as there is Right and Wrong……

……and that “some things are good, some things are bad”.

D’you think Wilders would get deported for that?

Neither do I.

P’raps it’s because he looks like every young female Gramsco-Marxian teacher’s nightmare-phantasm of a socialist Nazi SS trooper blond beast?

…and…he ought to have worn a nice red tie…..the blueish one is death on stilts…..

Dangerous man, young, white, sinisterly-nordic, politically-incorrect,

Dangerous man, young, white, sinisterly-nordic, politically-incorrect,

Taking offence: new service-industry entirely created by lawyers and Gramsco-Marxians, without any intellectual aids


David Davis

I don’t know if this will arrive today as WordPress seems (temporarily I hope) to have reverted to dial-up speeds. But hat tip to The landed Underclass for spotting this Michael Bywater article, which is so good it ought to go viral.

However, poor Bywater MUST learn, in true Gramsco-Libertarian fashion, NEVER EVER to refer, even laughingly, to the idea that Political Correctness may have “gone mad”. All this does is legitimise in the eyes of lookers-on the notion that political correctness has some basis in the morality of good-people – as opposed merely to being an ineffably wicked and premeditated construct of bad-people.

Yes. We may mock the pointless mountebank-intellectuals, Bandung-generation-hangers-on, and all the other associated useless-mouths and wastes-of-space – some with Kalashnikovs, some with DNA databases, some with surveillance camerae, some without any or all of these things -  who originally formulated the idea of PC. but WE must never forget how irremediably evil and wicked they are, and how and why they want to depopulate a world fit for them to live in as pre-capitalist barbarian neopastoralist murderers.

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


David Davis

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

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

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

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

Sean Gabb on Carol Thatcher, Golliwogs and Jeremy Clarkson


UPDATE:- From the Blogmaster of the Libertarian Alliance:-

To editors/ compilers/bloggers

Please feel free to syndicate this post, unedited please, in its entirety, wherever it pleases you to do so.

To reproduce by permission of © Dr Sean Gabb and the Libertarian Alliance

(Oh, and you can repro this while you are about it.) Nothing to do with the below really, except we invented the thing.)

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 180
8th February 2009
Linking url: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc180.htm

On Golliwogs, One-Eyed Scottish Idiots
and Sending Poo Through the Post.
By Sean Gabb

In England, one of those weeks has just ended that define an entire period. This is no consolation for those who have suffered, and who may yet suffer worse. But I have no doubt that it is worth describing what has happened and trying to explain what it means.

Let me begin with the facts.

First, it was reported on the 3rd February 2009 that Carol Thatcher, daughter of Margaret Thatcher, had been dismissed from her job as a BBC presenter for having called a black tennis player a golliwog. She did not say this on air, but during a private conversation. Even so, the BBC defended its decision on the grounds that any language of a “racist nature” was “wholly unacceptable”.

Second, demands are rising at the moment for Jeremy Clarkson, another presenter at the BBC, to be dismissed for having called the Prime Minister a “one-eyed Scottish idiot who keeps telling us everything’s fine”. Various Scotch politicians and spokesmen for the blind let up an immediate chorus of horror that has resulted in a conditional apology from Mr Clarkson, but may not save his career.

Third, it was reported on the 2nd February 2009 that the comedian and Labour Party supporter Jo Brand was being investigated by the police for allegedly inciting criminal acts against her political opponents. While presenting a BBC television programme on the 16th January 2009, she rejoiced that the membership list of the British National Party had been stolen and published on the Internet. Her exact words were: “Hurrah! Now we know who to send the poo to“. The natural meaning of her words was that it would be a fine idea to look up members of this party and send excrement to them through the post. The British National Party put in an immediate complaint, using the hate speech laws made during the past generation. According to a BBC spokesman, “We do not comment on police matters. However, we believe the audience would have understood the satirical nature of the remarks”. It is relevant to note that Mrs Brand was present when Carol Thatcher made her “golliwog” remarks, and may have had a hand in denouncing her.

Fourth, In The Times on the 6th February, someone called Matthew Syed wrote how personally oppressed he felt by words like “golliwog”, and how good it was that “society” was taking a stand against them. Two pages later, someone called Frank Skinner defended the employers in the north of England who prefer to employ foreigners on the grounds that foreigners are “better looking” and “less trouble”. The possibility that he has broken one of our hate speech laws will probably never be considered.

This is a gathering of facts that occurred or were made public during one week. But if we relax the time limit, similar facts pour in beyond counting. There was, for example, the pillorying last month of one of the Queen’s grandsons for calling someone a “Paki“. Or, to give myself as an example, there was my BBC debate of the 16th February 2004 with Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, an Asian immigrant who seems incapable of seeing any issue except in terms of white racism. During this debate, I asked her: “Yasmin, are you saying that the white majority in this country is so seething with hatred and discontent that it is only restrained by law from rising up and tearing all the ethnic minorities to pieces?” Her answer was “Yes”. It is possible she did not understand my question. It is possible she would have clarified or retracted her answer had the debate been allowed to continue. Sadly for her, the BBC immediately switched off my microphone and threw me into the street. Mrs Brown was allowed to continue uninterrupted to till the end of the programme. The hundreds of complaints received by the BBC and the Commission for Racial Equality were all either ignored or dismissed with the assurance that nothing untoward had taken place in the studio. I accept that Mrs Brown might not have meant what she said. Had I made such a comment about Asians or blacks, however, I might have been facing a long stretch in prison.

But let me return to the most recent facts. The most obvious reason why these broadly similar incidents are being treated so differently is that Jo Brand and Frank Skinner are members of the new ruling class that formally took power in 1997. They can vilify their opponents as freely as Dr Goebbels did his. Any of the hate speech laws that might – objectively read – moderate their language will be regarded as nullities. The police had no choice but to investigate Mrs Brand for her alleged offence committed live on television before several million people. But they made it clear that no charges would result. According to a police spokesman, “The chances of this going further are very remote. The idea that the BNP are claiming they are the victim of a race offence is mildly amusing, to say the least”. It may be amusing. The statement itself is interesting, though, as a formal admission that law in this country now means whatever the executive finds convenient.

Carol Thatcher and Jeremy Clarkson are not members of the the ruling class. They have no such immunity. Mr Clarkson may get away with his act of hate speech because he is popular and clever, and because the main object of his contempt is only the Prime Minister. Miss Thatcher may not be allowed to get away with her act. She used a word that borders on the illegal. And she is the daughter of Margaret Thatcher. She is the daughter, that is, of the woman elected and re-elected three times on the promise that she would make the British State smaller and stop it from being made the vehicle for a totalitarian revolution by stealth. Of course, she broke her promises. She did nothing to stop the takeover of the state administration by politically correct totalitarians. But there was a while when the people who actually won the cultural revolution in this country thought they would lose. They looked at her rhetoric. They noted the millions of votes she piled up in her second and third general elections. And they trembled. As said, they won. Mrs Thatcher herself is too old to suffer more than endless blackening at the hands of the victors who now comprise the ruling class. But they still tremble at the thought of how her shadow darkened their 1980s. And if they can do nothing to her now, her daughter can be ruined, and that will now be tried with every chance of success.

It might be argued that what Miss Thatcher and Mr Clarkson said was offensive, and that they are in trouble because we have a much greater regard for politeness than used to be the case. Perhaps it is offensive to say that a black man looks like a golliwog. Perhaps it is offensive to imply that Scotchmen are idiots or that people with defective sight also have defective judgement. It might be. But it might also be offensive to millions of people that the BBC – which is funded by a compulsory levy on everyone who can receive television signals – broadcasts a continual stream of nudity and obscene language; and that it pays the biggest salary in its history to Jonathan Ross, whose only public talent is for foul-mouthed buffoonery. The British ruling class – especially through the BBC, its main propaganda outreach – has a highly selective view of what is offensive.

And it is worth replying that the alleged offensiveness of the statements is minimal. Let us forget about golliwogs and implied sneers at the blind. Let us take the word “nigger”. Now, this has not been a word admitted in polite company in England since about the end of the eighteenth century. Anyone who does use the word shows himself a person of low breeding. Whatever its origins, its use for centuries has been as an insult to black people. Any reasonable black man, therefore, called a nigger, has cause to take offence.

This being said, only moderate offence can be reasonable. Anyone who runs about, wailing that he has been hurt by a word as if it were a stick taken to his back, and calling for laws and social ostracism to punish the speaker, is a fool or a villain. And I can think of few other epithets that a reasonable person would greet with more than a raised eyebrow – “poof”, “paki”, “papist”, “mohammedan”, “chinkie” and the like. Anyone who finds these words at the very worst annoying should grow up. We can be quite sure that most of the Asian languages now spoken in this country contain some very unflattering words to describe the English – for example, goreh, gweilo, and so forth. There is no pressure, internal or external, for these to be dropped. And we know that there are any number of organisations set up by and for non-whites in this country from which the English are barred – for example, the National Black Police Association.

However, the highly selective use of speech codes and hate speech laws has nothing really to do with politeness. It is about power. The British ruling class may talk the language of love and diversity and inclusiveness. What it obviously wants is the unlimited power to plunder and enslave us, while scaring us into the appearance of gratitude for our dispossession. Because the tyrannised are always the majority in a tyranny, they must be somehow prevented from combining. The soviet socialists and the national socialists kept control by the arbitrary arrest and torture or murder of suspected opponents. That is not presently acceptable in England or in the English world. Control here is kept by defining all opposition as “hatred” – and by defining all acts or attitudes that might enable opposition as “hatred”.

I am the Director of the Libertarian Alliance. Not surprisingly, my own opposition to the rising tide of despotism is grounded on a belief in individual rights. I may occasionally talk about my ancestral rights as an Englishman, or about how my ancestors fought and died so I could enjoy some now threatened right. I may sometimes half-believe my rhetoric. Ultimately, though, I believe that people have – or should be regarded as having – rights to life, liberty and property by virtue of their human status. Anything else I say really is just a rhetorical device. This is not the case with most other people. For them, opposing the encroachments of a ruling class is grounded on collective identity – “they can’t do that to us“. Now, this sense of collective identity may derive from common religion, common loyalty, common culture, but most often and most powerfully – though these other sources may also be important – from perceived commonality of blood.

Now, this collective identity is not something that is seen at times of emergency, but otherwise is in abeyance. It is important in times of emergency so far as it is always present. People work together when they must because, at all other times, they have a mass of shared rituals and understandings that hold them together. These shared things often define a people in terms of their distinctness from others. Jokes beginning “There was an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotchman” or “What do you call a Frenchman who…?” are part of what reinforces an English identity. So too are comments and gestures and assumptions that assert the superiority of the English over other peoples. To change my focus for a moment, take the phrase “Goyishe Kopf” – Gentile brains! This is what some Jews say when they do something stupid. It can be taken as expressing hatred and contempt of non-Jews. More reasonably, it is one of those comments that reinforce the Jewish identity.

What Carol Thatcher said was part of this reminding of identity. Her exact words, so far as I can tell, were: “You also have to consider the frogs. You know, that froggy golliwog guy”. The meaning she was trying to convey was: “let us consider how quaint and absurd outsiders are. Is it not nice that we are members of the same group, and that we are so clever and so beautiful?” I am not saying that I approve of what she actually said. Indeed, she would have done better for herself and the English in general had she kept her mouth shut.  Calling someone “froggy” is neither here nor there. Calling him a “golliwog” is moderately hurtful. Saying this on BBC premises, and in front of people like Jo Brand, shows that Miss Thatcher is stupid or that she was drunk. Her words, as reported, do less to reinforce English identity than make the whole thing an embarrassment.

However – her name always aside – she is being punished not because her words were crass, but because they fell into the category of actions that must at all times be discouraged. Powerful or crass to the point of embarrassment, nothing must be tolerated that might tend to promote an English identity. I say an English identity. The rule does not apply to Scotch or Welsh or Irish nationalism. These are not regarded as a danger to the ruling class project of total enslavement. They are controllable by subsidy. More usefully, they are anti-English. The various ethnic nationalisms and Islamic identities are likewise allowed or encouraged. They are not perceived as a danger to the ruling class project of total domination, and may be used against the English. It is English identity that must at all costs be repressed. The English are still the largest national group in these islands, and will remain so at least until 2040, when there may be a non-white majority all through the United Kingdom. English national ways are the raw material from which every liberal doctrine has been refined. The English are an unpleasantly violent nation when pushed too far.

This explains why words and expressions are defined almost at random as “hatred”, and why names of groups and places keep changing almost at random. The purpose is not to protect various minority groups from being hurt – though clever members of these groups may take advantage of the protections. The real purpose is to hobble all expression of English identity. It is to make the words and phrases that come most readily to mind unusable, or usable only with clarifications and pre-emptive cringes that rob them of all power to express protest. Or it is to force people to consult their opponents on what words are currently acceptable – and whoever is allowed to control the terms of debate is likely to win the debate.

And look how easily it can be done. Also during the past week, we have seen working class demonstrations in the north of England against the employment of foreign workers. “British jobs for British workers” they have been chanting. A few raised eyebrows and warnings from Peter Mandelson about the “politics of xenophobia“, and the trade unions have straightaway sold out their members and are preparing to bully them back to work. Better that trade union members scrabble to work for a pound an hour, or whatever, than that they should be suffered to use words like “Eyeties” or “Dagoes”.

I should end by suggesting what can be done to counter this strategy. I suppose the answer is not to behave like Carol Thatcher. We must accept that certain words and phrases have been demonised beyond defence. Some of them are indefensible. These must be dropped. Others that are just about permissible – Scotchman, for example – should be used and defended on all occasions. We should also at all times bear in mind that political correctness is not about protecting the weak but disarming the potentially strong, and it must be made clear to the ruling class that its management of language has been noticed and understood and rejected. A strategy of apparently casual offence, followed by partial and unconvincing apology – of the sort that we may have seen from Jeremy Clarkson – may also be appropriate.

Another strategy worth considering is the one adopted by the British National Party. In a free country, Jo Brand would be at perfect liberty to incite criminal acts against unnamed and reasonably unidentifiable people. But we do not live in a free country. There is a mass of laws that criminalise speech that was legal even a few years ago. The response to this is to invoke the laws against those who called for them. As said, people like Jo Brand and Yasmin Alibhai Brown are unlikely ever to be prosecuted for crimes of hate speech. But the authorities will occasionally be forced to go through the motions of investigating, and this can be made a form of harassment amounting to revenge. Otherwise, it is useful to establish beyond doubt that the laws are not intended to be enforced according to their apparently universal working.

There is much else to be said. But I suppose the most important thing is not to behave like Carol Thatcher. It will be unfair if she is broken by her words. But if you stick your head into a lion’s mouth, you cannot really complain when you feel the teeth closing round your neck.

All told, this has been an interesting week. Understood rightly, it may turn out to have been a most productive week.

NB—Sean Gabb’s book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3

GOLLIGATE: Are people losing their fear of the PC thought-police?


David Davis

The Remittance Man thinks so. Trouble is, he currently resides in West Grombooliland. I wish I thought he was right, but I fear not. Most people today are I think silently aware of the awful powers these word-banning buggers have, increasingly, of being able to turn one’s life over in public, should one transgress their Gramsco-Marxian permitted-thought-boundaries.

To give Remittance Man his due, he does quote evidence of a “backlash”.

I fear that these days there are no longer what Chris Tame used to call, when he was alive, “enough people to make a difference”. There might have been, but the long-range Gramsco-Marxian thought-liberty-destruction project (it’s not a link yet but it might become one) has been very canny, cleverly underhand, and Fabian.

IT’S NOW A LINK

Its plan, of hauling up the ladder after a few hundred thousand (if that?) Honestiores, with all that paradise could provide for these and what some have called “their more useful servants”, is proceeding on schedule. This leaves the rest of humanity as Humiliores, dying while starving and freezing in the weapon-policed darkness of unelectricity, unfood, unlanguage and un-thought.

State “education” has now been reduced to rote-learning of PC paragraphs of stuff: ironically, “rote-learning” was what PC demonised.

The Wireless Tele Vision “News” broadcasts, to those who can’t be arsed, what they must learn.

The Enemy Class TV “producers” produce what these wretched people must enjoy.

Words that can express now-banned thoughts are increasingly criminalised.

Whole peoples, such as the English in particular – because we Showed The World The Way To The Unguarded Door Out Of Hell, are labelled “institutionally” (whatever that means?) racist/reactionary/ conservative/xenophobic/paedophile/homophobic/bigoted/mysogynist/male-chauvinist-pigs/substitute your own pejorative here.

I’m really not sure what to do about these people. I’d not like really to state on a public blog what the remedy ought to be. But there is little time left, before the terror-police kick in fully. There won’t be enough lamp-posts or time, when the time comes, anyway, so some other remedy will have to be found.

Jeremy Clarkson lynched by BBC and RNIB PC Stalinist PR apparatchiks … Carol Thatcher merely lynched earlier


David Davis

Here, Sean Gabb commented on Carol Thatcher’s PC lynching in public, for saying something in private. Now, Jeremy Clarkson’s blood runs in the street-gutters, for saying, in public, what everyone with half a brain thinks in public anyway: just take Nicholas Sarkozy’s comments on Brown’s wrecking of the economy….even the EUSoviet does not stretch itself to upend all commonsense to the extent we have been railroaded into doing by our “leaders”.

I’m sure that the vast majority of the staff of the RNIB are really nice and kind people. If, God forbid, I was blind or last my sight, I’d be grateful for their help. But they are no diffreent from the rest of us in that they have a human responsibility, a duty in reality (like us all) to resist the encrouachments of public and increasingly private thought-control and langauge-demolition, to the end of their and our strength.

When there were, in the last century, “enough people who could and wanted to make a difference”, people who forgot their moral obligations – such as the 33%-odd of German voters who voted for the NSDAP – ended up standing disconsolately (those who were left standing) among a billion tons of rubble (which we cleared away.)

As Auberon Waugh would have said: “I’m not suggesting yet that we should line up and shoot all Big-Charity-Public-Relations-Directors in the street” but these people have no less duty to actively oppose PC-word-control that do the rest of us.

These two are not the first, and I fear they will not be the last. I seem to remember that Prince Harry is being hauled on the Rack for referring to a chappie in his squad (in his own squad, a private grouping of brave men who all know each other terribly well, for goodness’ sake!) as a Paki.

So, the buggers will lop off the tall-grasses first, then they will come for the rest of us. Bastards. Rot in hell (no, it’s too good for you. The Outer Void instead.)

Gramsco-Marxian bastards destroy yet more glue holding free and liberal communities together…


in Bristol, near you.

David Davis

Just read this crap:-

Sports club removes ‘sexist’ word from name

A sports club in Bristol has been forced to remove the word “boys” from its name after councillors ruled that it was sexist.

Broad Plain Boys’ Club, which has gone under the name since 1894, faced the loss of funding unless it could show it was inclusive, so submitted an alteration.

The sports club, which does now have girl members, has changed the name to Broad Plain Working With Young People Group.

Club leader Dennis Stinchcombe MBE, 53, who ran the group for 33 years, said the rebranding was “a tragedy”.

He told the Western Daily Press: “There was a lot of history in that name and we are all very disappointed we’ve been forced to change it, especially the older lads.

“We need the funding so we have to back down. We haven’t even had any additional girls coming down – it seems another case of political correctness gone mad.” (NB he must NEVER NEVER SAY THAT – for PC is _NOT_ mad: it is directed on purpose.)

The club says it has helped thousands of youngsters since it began and relies on its £11,600 of authority funding. In 2004 Mr Stinchcombe was honoured for his efforts in helping the community.

The Labour-controlled council does fund single sex clubs including the Bristol and Avon Chinese Women’s Group.

Tory leader Councillor Richard Eddy said the club had simply been “bludgeoned into submission” by the bureaucrats.

The centre also had to recruit up to two part-time female club leaders, meaning more expense, he added.

A Bristol City Council spokesman said: “The criteria is that if you want funding, you have to show that you are meeting the needs of all young people, not a specific group of people. The name change was agreed some time ago.

“It’s all about being inclusive.”

The phrase “it’s all about…..”, as used by Gramsco-Marxians, will be listed, when uttered, as a War Crime. later.

The politically-correct drunken sailor, and destruction of culture by Gramsco-Marxians


David Davis

The Landed Underclass, in the Master-at-Arms’ Office on deck 4, brought this to our attention here on the Bridge. I wonder what the buggers will rewrite next – the national Anthem? (I forgot: they have already provided the replacement.)

Mr Eugenides guesting at The Devil does “climate change” wonderfully well.


Update1:- (from the Devil today 29th Jan 2009) where he picks up from Tom Nelson that more and more people are noticing the glaring contradictions and total lack of scientific rigour emanating form the warmists’ camp.

David Davis

We ought to use him to warm the planet for it will need it. Antarctica is of course getting both colder and warmer at the same moment, so the “mystery of global warming’s missing heat” is of course solved: the models predicted it all along. So pay up, taxpayer-suckers.

Not a bail-out


No, not at all, at all at all at all.

David Davis

Lord Mandyperson of Rumba of Rio, who I cannot find it in my heart to like or trust at all, although Tony my old mate insists he is very bright and interesting and I’d be charmed to have the bugger (sorry) to dinner***, is going to not bail out the UK car industry. What he has just found out is that all the workers live in Labour constituencies Pocket Boroughs, and if the same fate befalls their firms as did nearly Northern Wreck, then he’ll have some explaining to do in front of the Gorgon.

Can’t have the electorate labour voters suffering from our polices, now, can we.

***I’m sure he’d be charming to have as a dinner guest. I’d dispute amicably with him till Kingdom Come. The trouble is, I don’t know anybody else who likes or who trusts the bugger or who – more to the point – would turn up, if Mandy was scheduled to appear. He and I and Tony would have to scoff the grub ourselves.

Ahhhhh… climate change truly is irreversible…..


….so we have to act even faster to reverse it….

Er…ummmm?

David Davis

Jenny McCartney doesn’t understand liberty. Poor sad woman.


But the situation she leaves the rest of us in, by publishing her self-flagellations, is worse.

David Davis

Politically-correctly-rewritten Christmas Carols…this just has to be a wind-up, since…


even the usual Gramsco-Marxian Anglican Vicars, with which we are saddled by the Nazi-State, can’t really care that much about this.

Surely?

David Davis

They can’t care….not really care, not that much? Or do they just think they’re now into the tidying-up-operation, after the slaughter?

I shall certainly have acerbic stuff to say about these supposedly-Anglican shitbags of devil-sputum, and it will be somewhat less mildly-critical than in this post today…in our Libertarian Alliance Christmas Message….to be published sometime soon.

The main point that I have to keep on, and keep on, and keep on, making about Libertarianism, is that it can and only will survive in a functionally-liberal, which is to say, Judeo-Christian-based, civilisation. One of these did actually manage to arrive and get off the ground. It used to be called “The Anglosphere”.

It’s no use just going on and on up our own arses, talking to ourselves, describing what the plant looks like in its perfect shape.

You have to think about the pot and the soil too. We have to maintain and preserve and improve the culture, in which liberty and individualism flourish. Perhaps I am a Gramsc0-Marxian-turned-upside-down.

Destruction of words … to change the way children think


David Davis

Subj: [eurorealist] EDUCATION: THE ENEMY AT THE HELM
Date: 07/12/2008 17:20:48 GMT Standard Time
From: peter@pwwatson.co.uk
Reply-to: eurorealist@yahoogroups.com
To: eurorealist@yahoogroups.com, nick@cre.org.uk
Sent from the Internet (Details)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3569045/Words-associated-with-Christianity-and-British-history-taken-out-of-childrens-dictionary.html

TAKE THEIR CULTURE AND THEIR ROOTS AWAY AND YOU CAN BARCODE AND PROCESS THEM

You are here:

  1. Home
  2. Education

Words associated with Christianity and British history taken out of children’s dictionary

Words associated with Christianity, the monarchy and British history have been dropped from a leading dictionary for children.

1 of 2 Images
Westminster Abbey - Words associated with Christianity and British history taken out of children's dictionary

Westminster Abbey may be one of Britain’s most famous landmarks, but the word abbey has been removed from the Oxford Junior Dictionary. Photo: Dean and Chapter of Westminster

Oxford University Press has removed words like “aisle”, “bishop”, “chapel”, “empire” and “monarch” from its Junior Dictionary and replaced them with words like “blog”, “broadband” and “celebrity”. Dozens of words related to the countryside have also been culled.

The publisher claims the changes have been made to reflect the fact that Britain is a modern, multicultural, multifaith society.

But academics and head teachers said that the changes to the 10,000 word Junior Dictionary could mean that children lose touch with Britain’s heritage.

“We have a certain Christian narrative which has given meaning to us over the last 2,000 years. To say it is all relative and replaceable is questionable,” said Professor Alan Smithers, the director of the centre for education and employment at Buckingham University. “The word selections are a very interesting reflection of the way childhood is going, moving away from our spiritual background and the natural world and towards the world that information technology creates for us.”

An analysis of the word choices made by the dictionary lexicographers has revealed that entries from “abbey” to “willow” have been axed. Instead, words such as “MP3 player”, “voicemail” and “attachment” have taken their place.

Lisa Saunders, a worried mother who has painstakingly compared entries from the junior dictionaries, aimed at children aged seven or over, dating from 1978, 1995, 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2007, said she was “horrified” by the vast number of words that have been removed, most since 2003.

“The Christian faith still has a strong following,” she said. “To eradicate so many words associated with the Christianity will have a big effect on the numerous primary schools who use it.”

Ms Saunders realised words were being removed when she was helping her son with his homework and discovered that “moss” and “fern”, which were in editions up until 2003, were no longer listed.

“I decide to take a closer look and compare the new version to the other editions,” said the mother of four from Co Down, Northern Ireland. “I was completely horrified by the vast number of words which have been removed. We know that language moves on and we can’t be fuddy-duddy about it but you don’t cull hundreds of important words in order to get in a different set of ICT words.”

Anthony Seldon, the master of Wellington College, a leading private school in Berkshire, said: “I am stunned that words like “saint”, “buttercup”, “heather” and “sycamore” have all gone and I grieve it.

“I think as well as being descriptive, the Oxford Junior Dictionary, has to be prescriptive too, suggesting not just words that are used but words that should be used. It has a duty to keep these words within usage, not merely pander to an audience. We are looking at the loss of words of great beauty. I would rather have “marzipan” and “mistletoe” then “MP3 player.”

Oxford University Press, which produces the junior edition, selects words with the aid of the Children’s Corpus, a list of about 50 million words made up of general language, words from children’s books and terms related to the school curriculum. Lexicographers consider word frequency when making additions and deletions.

Vineeta Gupta, the head of children’s dictionaries at Oxford University Press, said: “We are limited by how big the dictionary can be – little hands must be able to handle it – but we produce 17 children’s dictionaries with different selections and numbers of words.

“When you look back at older versions of dictionaries, there were lots of examples of flowers for instance. That was because many children lived in semi-rural environments and saw the seasons. Nowadays, the environment has changed. We are also much more multicultural. People don’t go to Church as often as before. Our understanding of religion is within multiculturalism, which is why some words such as “Pentecost” or “Whitsun” would have been in 20 years ago but not now.”

She said children’s dictionaries were trailed in schools and advice taken from teachers. Many words are added to reflect the age-related school curriculum.

Words taken out:

Carol, cracker, holly, ivy, mistletoe

Dwarf, elf, goblin

Abbey, aisle, altar, bishop, chapel, christen, disciple, minister, monastery, monk, nun, nunnery, parish, pew, psalm, pulpit, saint, sin, devil, vicar

Coronation, duchess, duke, emperor, empire, monarch, decade

adder, ass, beaver, boar, budgerigar, bullock, cheetah, colt, corgi, cygnet, doe, drake, ferret, gerbil, goldfish, guinea pig, hamster, heron, herring, kingfisher, lark, leopard, lobster, magpie, minnow, mussel, newt, otter, ox, oyster, panther, pelican, piglet, plaice, poodle, porcupine, porpoise, raven, spaniel, starling, stoat, stork, terrapin, thrush, weasel, wren.

Acorn, allotment, almond, apricot, ash, bacon, beech, beetroot, blackberry, blacksmith, bloom, bluebell, bramble, bran, bray, bridle, brook, buttercup, canary, canter, carnation, catkin, cauliflower, chestnut, clover, conker, county, cowslip, crocus, dandelion, diesel, fern, fungus, gooseberry, gorse, hazel, hazelnut, heather, holly, horse chestnut, ivy, lavender, leek, liquorice, manger, marzipan, melon, minnow, mint, nectar, nectarine, oats, pansy, parsnip, pasture, poppy, porridge, poultry, primrose, prune, radish, rhubarb, sheaf, spinach, sycamore, tulip, turnip, vine, violet, walnut, willow

Words put in:

Blog, broadband, MP3 player, voicemail, attachment, database, export, chatroom, bullet point, cut and paste, analogue

Celebrity, tolerant, vandalism, negotiate, interdependent, creep, citizenship, childhood, conflict, common sense, debate, EU, drought, brainy, boisterous, cautionary tale, bilingual, bungee jumping, committee, compulsory, cope, democratic, allergic, biodegradable, emotion, dyslexic, donate, endangered, Euro

Apparatus, food chain, incisor, square number, trapezium, alliteration, colloquial, idiom, curriculum, classify, chronological, block graph

….and following the Eurofacist “song” “contest”, we thought we’d tell you about this little ditty…


…..but I bet we won’t be allowed to sing it.

David Davis

I wonder what music it’d be set to? Anybody got any ideas?

Gotta be a wind-up, or else the buggers are more confident than we think


David Davis

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm…..sounds also like tye are back-tracking as soon as it gets published, so it’s probably real.

Also, our people MUST NEVER NEVER say “political correctness gone mad” – that merely legitimises “political correctness”, as I have always warned. It is not mad, and it can’t go mad. It is simply bad.

You must NOT sing from the same hymn-sheet any more….


….for it “could offend atheists”.

David Davis

A little while ago I published a reference to this nonsense, in which I got upbraided a bit in the comments by old Tony Hollick – for supporting the allusion to expressive abstratctions in Latin which everyone understands.

I can’t find a live link today, but Salisbury council Soviet says we must not “sing from the same hymn-sheet” any more as atheists could be offended. Can’t tell if it’s a wind-up but I sadly suspect it’s true.

I wonder if Hazel (chipmunk) Blears thinks that “Right Wing Blogs“, such as this one here, or this one here, are “singing from the same hymn-sheet”, and if so, what phrase she would use?

More about banning of Latin in everyday discourse, and British Soviet Stalinists’ attitudes to that


David Davis

Here’s Gerald Warner today. I also flagged up this pretentiously socialist rubbish now going on, a couple of days ago.

Gerald is especially good, and far better than me, about the importance and fundamemtalness of Latin (and by implication other languages from which we have extracted loan-words and grammar) in our language.

I add that the freedom of language underlies also the freedom of thought and (by inference) action, which we libertarians spend so much time banging on about. This publishing house is going great guns in especially Latin: I use their books (this is the Latin link in particular – get them!) to teach with in this language and have helped a couple of students already (it is a slow business, pulling the planet out of the Dark Ages despite the best efforts of ths Stalinists) and they are very traditionally-oriented and very good indeed. Order their stuff please.

Phone them if you want, on 01580 764242. I’m sure they take credit cards.

Additionally, if you are an extreme right-wing-fascist-imperialist-running-dog-of-the-boss-class-toff, and also a member of the Bullingdon, (only stalinists and people who can’t say “shibboleth” call it the “Bullingdon Club” so one knows in a NANOsecond whom to exclude and distrust – it’s like saying “horse-riding” when you mean “riding” on a horse which is the only thing you can do – you can’t ride a sheep, can you) which is to say most libertarians if they are honest about themselves and their political anticedents (liberal-left-lower-class-grammar-school-type-boys-made-good), then you might like Harry Mount’s book.

The british-stalinists’ gloves come off at last: frontal assault on the English Language


David Davis

3rd November update: here’s Gerald Warner in the DT.

Use of “Latin based” phrases banned by councils, as “ELITIST”, and “DISCRIMINATORY”.

These f*****rs either don’t learn about how hated they are, OR they know it and are just continuing to bully and threaten because they know that they can, OR they have no sense of the ridiculousness of their position.

While idly perusing the Dead-Tree-DT just now I spotted this asinine move by Soviets Councils. At least the correspondent and the classical scholars consulted did not use that phrase which I most hate (apart from “Survival of the Fittest”): “Political Correctness gone mad”.

To win, death-eaters and other types of stalinist, including Nasis and Marxists also have to destroy our language. To me, this is an act of war against a society which represents the least unfriendly environment for libertarianism. Here I go again.

Libertarian Alliance showcase publication 20: Affirmative action, social terorism and trade Union freedom…


David Davis

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/econn/econn099.pdf

Dr Jean-Louis Caccomo, Affirmative Action, Social Terrorism, and Trades Union Freedom: The Failures of the Fallacious Concept Of ‘Social Justice’, 2003

Affirmative Action, Social Terrorism, and Trades Union Freedom: The Failures of the Fallacious Concept Of ‘Social Justice’
Dr Jean-Louis Caccomo

Economic Notes No. 99

ISSN 0267-7164                   ISBN 1 85637 570 6

An occasional publication of the Libertarian Alliance,
Suite 35, 2 Lansdowne Row, Mayfair, London W1J 6HL.

© 2003: Libertarian Alliance; Jean-Louis Caccomo.

Jean-Louis Caccomo is a lecturer in the Département des Sciences Économiques et de Gestion at the University of Perpignan, France. His speciality is economic dynamics and he wrote his thesis on the economic analysis of technological change.

The views expressed in this publication are those of its author, and
not necessarily those of the Libertarian Alliance, its Committee,
Advisory Council or subscribers.

FOR LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY

The tendency to confuse the rhetoric of racism and exclusion with the functioning of the market economy is a disturbing sign of deep intellectual regression and mental manipulation. The moral and philosophical foundation of market individualism is not a smug cult of blind egoism, but rather a commitment to judge individuals without regard to attributes such as skin colour, ethnic origin, religion, socio-economic status, or sex. An individualistic society refuses to consider people on the basis of such attributes, insisting that before one is a man or a woman, a peasant or a professor, black or white, blue or white collar, one is an individual.

As long as we hold supreme the value of the individual – a value which can neither be dissolved in a group nor reduced to the sum of specific attributes – a just society can only be founded on a respect for individual choice. Only a State of Rights can guarantee Continue reading

… but further to that one below, will the EU remain “the” problem, or even cease to be “a” problem?


Guido is saying “let’s sit tight and hope it won’t be worse than the buggers think”.

David Davis

Right now as I type, the world of money, shares and commerce seems to be coming apart at the seams. Nobody seems to want to buy Banking shares for any money at all this morning – not surprising since people will only learn the full list of more horrors this afternoon. Then, the Prime-Mentalist is screeching at poor little Iceland “Och-aye, the Noo, Jummieh!!! Where’z ma f*****g money????” (Not helpful I should have thought.) And the Euro waits in the wings to see what its walk-on lines are going to be.

It’s all very well for those clever people who were optimists-in-full-possession-of-the-facts a few years ago to say “we’ve bought gold!” But most people don’t own more gold than is worn on one finger, and sometimes not all of that. There are other priorities for most families, like just keeping going.

The EU of course continues to steam on, rearranging its deck-chairs to suit the sunbathing bureaucrats…there is talk of measures to “regulate” blogging, for example (see post below) as if the Brussels machinery had too little to do in reality, which is probable. I think measures like this will get harmlessly swept away in whatever happens to the Euro in the next few weeks.

This is not to say that the (very, very much nastier) British pro-EU bureaucracy will not get-a-hold of draft directives, and merely implement them as is they were real ones, while nobody is looking. It’s called “gold-plating” in political circles, I am given to understand. I would not put it past them even to ram stuff through even after the EU was dead (a nice thought) so great is their visceral hatred for English culture, tradition and institutions (why did we think they wanted to do the jobs they do? Why would someone want to be a “diversity outreach officer”, or a “parking attendant”, or this, or this? (that one’s even an “Australian Government Initiative” – that makes it even worse, for the cancer has meta-statised elsewhere.)  Why did real Germans and Austrians – and others – hurl still-living humans into incinerators? I don’t see the moral difference really – we are merely arguing about degree.)

A tangible and to-be-wished-for benefit of this mess is that the EU will start to unravel also. The continental bureaucrats will probably live with that, continue to draw their salaries and lottery wins perks for as long as they can, and then retire to Tuscany or wherever, and pretend they are just jolly old folks who never really believed in the whole EU thing in the first place (they probably didn’t, either.)

But we should watch out for the astonishimg vindictiveness and ferocity, which I believe will emanate from the UK’s home-grown and now frustrated pro-EU establishment. This will come when it is found out that the whole shooting-match has gone belly-up overnight, and that these wicked, cruel and highly-motivated stalinists have lost their official authority to terrorise, erase, threaten, fine, regulate, confiscate and terminate.

Our problem will be what Frodo had, when he came home to the Shire, and found all sorts of riff-raff in charge.

Words now banned by The Guardian … good name for a newspaper out of “1984″


David Davis

From last week’s Spectator:-

According to Rod Liddle, these are some of the words and phrases banned by the Guardian:

active homosexual; career women; Third World; blacks; Asians; Australasia; Bangalore; primitive African tribes; crippled; in a wheelchair; hare lip; ethnic minorities; handicapped; spinster; committed suicide; gypsies; Bombay; illegitimate daughter; air hostess; Siamese twins; Calcutta; deaf ears; illegal asylum seeker; province of Northern Ireland; grandmother; bachelor.

Full article:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/2189336/part_3/why-has-the-word-grandmother-been-banned-by-the-guardian.thtml

The Marxist twaddle award of the day goes to….


This! (Will make you splutter into your cornflakes.)

Marxist twaddle award of the day (a new award from the Libertarian Alliance)


David Davis

Children banned from reading their own published football results, because it will make them too competitive.

Hat tip The Remittance Man (whose new blog also seems to have got an ASBO! Some of the ladies and aunties are nice though – shame about the need for occasional appearance of thigh-boots and all that leather and rubber nonsense.)

Destroying the English Language: benefits of this as a War Strategy for socialists


David Davis

Via Trooper Thompson, who re-alerted us to the underground machinations of buggers and bastards who work while we sleep and who manage our schools and colleges, we are reminded again that the assault on civilisation depends on a successful assault on language, by the destroyers.

They mean, on purpose and out of sheer wickedness and out of love of all that is evil and base, to undermine the intellectual mental disciplines inherent in high-level-languages, and especially English.

I cannot find a comparable situation involving an anti-grammaitcal-assault, on any other widely-spoken language, anywhere in the world. If bloggers can help me find one, I would be grateful, although it would undermine my thesis.

Disciplined use of language defends and immunizes people automatically, against pre-capitalist barbarism creeping back into the nooks and crannies of what we have built.

Hugely funny


Hugely funny.

David Davis

Interestingly sinister extension of “Political Correctness” into other language-denial-areas.


David Davis

The Blog of Walker comments on criticism by the Racist left, of alternative use-of-language.

Sean Gabb to speak at the Oxford Union, 6th November 2008


Posted on behalf of…

Sean Gabb

Sean Gabb (away from home computer)
Director, The Libertarian Alliance
sean@libertarian.co.uk

I have to find out what the title of the debate will be, and will let all of you eager commentariat, wetting yourselves with anticipation, know what it’s about asap.

No doubt, Sean has – as usual - got himself stuck in a waterlogged trench opposite the Socialist Politically-Correct-Deaths-Head-Hussars, about something or other, and it will be an amusing show…. – DD

Let’s hear it for the Tayside Police! (Good chaps, they know that a dog is Man’s best friend)


David Davis

Here.

I don’t know what to make of this one.


David Davis

Do what you can with it. The Devil is known for polemics, but I wonder what is really going on here?

You can’t get more Orwellian than this


David Davis

Something to laugh at behind your breakfast newspaper. All this stuff continues to comfirm that the purposeful destruction of an entire civilisation and culture is the point of the agenda.

It’s either a wind-up, which got released too late for 1st April, or else the Enemy Class is so sure that liberal civilisation is all-but-extinguished, that it is tidying up little details of staggering triviality.

Here’s some more stuff about the torments endured by the British State Police, in the execution of their “monthly” “Targets”.


Here.

Now, I had, about 11 minutes ago, updated this beautifully with great libertarian thoughts. But for some reaosn i was cut off and it was not saved, even as a wordpress draft, which I find upsetting. I can’t be arsed to think of it all again as I am still very angry about the virus attack on my machine, which I regard as a personal assault.

But, either attitudes to crime and punishment among “legislators” will have to change, or “the” “Police” will simply have to go. The latter is more difficult as it will be hard to find the few dozen Policemen needed for a few months, after a Hard Libertarian Political Triumph even in a minimal-statist political climate.

Libertarian Alliance Showcase Publication No 5: State Your Terms! On The Mis-Use of Language to Convey Subtle Collectivist Messages


David Davis

Neil Lock, in this 2002 LA publication from our Library, gets to the root of the problem.

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin177.pdf

I notice it in British GCSE and A-level science and geography papers and text books all the time.

Canada Free Speech Threat Human Rights Commissions Mark Steyn Ezra Levant McLeans Magazine fun explanation of the facts


David Davis

I can’t speak for the Libertarian Alliance’s members as a whole (and I would never presume to do so!) but we the Officers are generally persuaded that “Militant Islam” – or indeed even just plain vanilla unleaded Islam, as practised more or less harmlessly by most Moslems - is not the severe existential threat to Western Civilisation that our temporal “masters” in the, er, West thump the table about. We think they (our , er, “masters”….hurrrumph…make a suitable skeptical face here) do this in order to impose ever-more-draconian restrictions on our freedom and (worse) our thoughts and langauge in the course of, er, ordinary discourse.

Activities of this kind, by “masters”, constitute a part of the process of de-reasoning called “Political Correctness“.

The real threat to This Civilisation is really the evil scheming toads who have been through Western Universities after the Gramsco-Eagletonian march through them by the socialist left. Most of them now have political power in the West, for that was (and IS) for them the whole point of their existence. There are indeed many, shocking though it may seem to real people in real countries, who have never had what you and I would call a “job”: they have gone seamlessly into the state bureaucracy after graduating, and have ended up as bureaucrats or stuff like MPs or “representatives”. These people have been corrupted into the human equivalent of Orcs (who as Tolkien students know were all made by Morgoth and his servants, in the Image of Elves) and as God gave Man the gift of Free Will, then it’s quite apparent that these people have therefore unquestionably chosen to do Evil freely, instead of to do Good.

However, there are even some evil toads labouring under Islam. Probably not as many as we have on our side, but irritating all the same.

This was on a hat-tip from Girl on the Right (see blogroll) and explains in a good Western way what is going on in Canada right now. Humour and ridicule directed towards your enemy is the cardinal weapon of Western liberal spin and propaganda (oh yes, we must have some too – it’s only fair) against unfathomable evil, and should be used more and more.

Scurrilous ditty about that forbidden thing, Englishness and England, the home and birthlace of libertarianism


David Davis

From: tess nash
To: 
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 11:19 AM
Subject: THE BRILLIANT EFFECT OF POETRY IN POLITICAL COMMENT

PLEASE CIRCULATE
Thanks
TESS NASH
ST IVES
*****************************************************
Apr 19th 08
The Last Laugh
David Prowse – The Cornwall Poet
pub WESTERN MORNING NEWS – 19 April 08
******************************************
 
More needless legislation, that’s the answer to our ills!
As the credit crisis deepens and we wrestle with our bills,
But never mind the real world, the new approach to care
Is to sidestep other problems for the one that isn’t there.
 
So by courtesy of Europe, via Harriet’s brigade,
We shall seek out innuendo in establishments of trade.
And we’ll pounce upon employers, whose poor beleaguered staff
Detect offensive mischief in a giggle or a laugh.
 
Thus ogling at the barmaid, though she wears a see-through dress
Could constitute behaviour causing anguish and distress!
Her boss could be in trouble for the sparkle in your eye,
So don’t ask to see her etchings or they’ll ship him to Shanghai.
 
A phrase like “Here you are my love” when paying at the bar
Is the sort of sexist chatter that takes friendliness too far!
Forgo your foolish banter and remove that silly grin!
Or mine host will be reported, and the fuzz will run him in.
 
It seems our lords and masters find suspicion in a smile.
They’d rather we were fashioned in their own robotic style,
To pull our carts submissively like oxen in a yoke;
To pay our tithes and taxes, but never share a joke.
 
To smile away our troubles was a British thing to do!
It was humour that sustained us and would bring its people through.
We laughed at one another, we would give and we would take,
Yet we all linked arms together when the storms began to break.
 
You somehow get the feeling with each order and decree,
They don’t want us to be British in the way we used to be.
They don’t want us to be different or, in any way, alone,
For they denigrate all reference to a culture of our own.
 
We have laws already with us for the idiots within,
Whose ridicule is based upon the colour of your skin.
We have laws that deal with sexists and the bigots of our time!
Do we need another statute making levity a crime?
 
Offence is all around us if offence is what we seek -
We can conjure it from innocence wherever people speak.
Well, I, too, am offended, by pomposity’s pretence,
As another lawyer’s charter takes the place of common sense.

CHARLES MOORE is quite good today on NEWSPEAK … and the ruin of Britain


Here.

David Davis 

We all know how politicians, and socialist Eageltonized Nazi Gramscicrats, who have got into the position of running our lives for us while we slept, have corrupted language evilly, to hide their wicked ends which they have in store for the world. (See MORGOTH. You all know where to find it. Sorry; I just don’t feel as positive about poor old put-upon and perscuted Morgoth this afternoon as I do normally….)

Libertarians ought to read today’s article by the wicked Conservative old-Etonian Charles Moore, though. It will cheer them up.

Libertarian blogger spanked. They don’t like me over at “strange maps”. I criticised a Grayson Perry map….


….which I thought was

(a) anti-English -a and I am a libertarian, and now perceive that “Englishness” as it is expressed popularly and “liberalism” are increasingly convergent, 

(b) made fun of people with disabilities such as Tourette’s Syndrome and agoraphobia, which are very unfunny conditions to have, 

(c) was just, er, well, not very good  as a piece of art…being my usual mealy-mouthed self, I used the word “crap”. I could have said more but that was somebody else’s blog and I don’t swear and curse on other people’s blogs (only here, and only sometimes, and devilskitchen does it better anyway,)

I also suggested that some of the voluble commentators who wetted themselves over it needed help. Perhaps this was over the top, but I was angry that seemingly otherwise-normal, articulate and intelligent people would wet themselves in a positive way, over, well, nothing very impressive or admirable.

Being a libertarian does not mean that I must not can’t make objective judgements about what is good or bad.

I got lambasted by various people who thought the map was the greatest thing since sliced bread. The Masterblogger of “strangemaps” himself indeed berated me, in public! (That is his right, for the blog is his property.)  But this blog got at least 44 hits it would not have got otherwise, so I guess it makes me what we called in the 1950s a “Yellow Journalist”. OK.

Thankfully I guess, I didn’t venture my opinions on Grayson Perry himself and his (implied) “artistic” proclivities, or else I would be banned from the internet, my computer would be seized by the police, and I would end up on the sex-offenders’ register for my beliefs about Perry’s “art”. (See “political correctness”, on this blog, earlier, about 2 days ago.)

Strange Maps is a great blog by the way. Everybody ought to go there from time to time, for you will learn things that astound you, and some things will even be useful. You can find the map in question by looking for “Every Englishman is an Island”.

“Political Correctness Gone Mad”. I wish…God, how I wish, that it was just some sort of madness…..


  David Davis

……and that this was true and it was just a bad dream, and not a misrepresentation of what “PC” is really for. How many, many times do you read in the papers about some poor, sensible human being, tormented by The Forces of Darkness in the form of officials of some British Soviet or other?

A nice old lady who is forbidden to tidy her grass verge outside her house and plant plants on it, because she must wear a hard hat and a yellow-fascist-jacket, and have cones to stop the traffic?

The Soviet of a large British city which celebrates “winterval”, whatever that is? (Must be Nazi….it sounds sort of neopastoral/Nordic/pagan.)

The (many) schools which do not stage a Nativity Play any more (it’s supposed to be “offensive” to other “faiths”) and in a Christian Nation?

I could go on. You know them all, for you – and the entire civilised world – are all irritated by the supposed need these threatening leftist busybody stormtroopers have for upsetting ordinary conservative people, as some sort of displacement activity to make up for their staggering lack of social graces, or of educational/cultural qualifications of any actual value whatsoever.

“Political Correctness”, as a phrase, shows all the marks of self-regarding intellectual arrogance plus an assumed monopoly of the truth. (And I thought the fascist left derided monopolies?) We liberals, being not (infantile or grown-up) leftists but on the “extreme-right” (their term for our position, not ours!) by contrast know that we ARE correct. This is because history bears out the truth of our hypotheses, about how and why the world and civilised human society functions as it does.

Moreover, we do not distort the terms of civilised discourse by banning the use of certain words that we think can define concepts with which we disagree.

To associate the English word “correct”, with (a) political discourse, and (b) the censorship of words so as to lead to the censorship of ideas, is a crime. I only have to wonder for how long a War Crimes judge will send each of these min-Gramscians to prison for, when we finally get our teeth into their bollocks, in return for all the harm they have done to people.

Merry Christmas, and peace and goodwill to all men – but not to you buggers who are trying to destroy our civilisation. I’m sorry, but I can’t make myself extend the Forgiveness of God at this Christmas time to you bastards. There is too much at stake, too many defenceless people alive whose lives you plan to ruin,  and your gloves have been so very, very off, against us, for so long now, and we have run out of patence with you evil imbeciles.

You understand force and threats and death and abolition of cultural ideas you don’t like; so be careful that your ideas don’t end up perishing in the same way. Better just to become real liberals and forget all that childish Marxist stuff, before it’s too late for you to recant.