The Fabian Wolf amongst the Tory Sheeple

Wandering over to Roger Helmer's blog via the happy Frog (whose smiling face always cheers me up) I discover this post entitled; 'Remind me which Party we belong to?', where I learn of a fringe event at the Tory conference sponsored by one of my particular bete noirs, the despicable Fabian Society. Although they've toned down their policies since the 1930s, when famous Fabians like George Bernard Shaw (whose works the Fabian acolytes pray to in the notorious stained glass window) called for disabled people to be gassed, and lauded any crackpot dictator to the skies (the Webbs used to have an altar with Lenin's picture on it), their underlying agenda remains no doubt the same: scientific tyranny ruled over by a cadre of cold-blooded psychopaths. I expect they would phrase it slightly differently.

Nevertheless, what the F are they doing at the Tory conference? Apparently running an event about that most cloying of words: fairness. Ooh, doesn't it just drip poisoned honey. Roger, who seems to be trying to summon the moral fortitude to leave his traitorous Party, which I encourage him most strongly to do, has this to say:

So what’s wrong with fairness? Surely we all believe in fairness, along with cream teas and roast beef? But the trouble is that “fairness” is one of those weasel words, a trap set by the mendacious to confuse the unwary. I believe in fairness, by which I mean the right of everyone to opportunity, to making the most of their lives, and to selling their labour on a free market to the highest bidder.

Unfortunately, what doctrinaire socialists (like the Fabian Society and Vince Cable) mean by “fairness” is quite different. They mean social engineering, they mean creating dependency, they mean excessive welfare, and disincentives to work. They also mean redistributive tax policies and soaking the rich. I don’t like that kind of “fairness”, because it means damaging the life chances of millions; promoting fecklessness; and damaging our national growth prospects. Above all, I don’t like that style of fairness because – well – it isn’t fair.

Self-control

I was planning to ignore that person who's just taken over that party for as long as possible. For one thing, because I feel I should move away from expletive-laden posts, and try to be a bit more erudite. So, with no promises on the future, I will cover this little snippet without the use of the F word, the C work, the W word or any reference to coprophagia.

Ed Miliband, giving his first speech to the Labour party conference on 28 September 2010, said of civil liberties, "too often we seemed casual about them".

"I won't let the Tories or the Liberals take ownership of the British tradition of liberty," he said. "I want our party to reclaim that tradition."

I beg to differ. You were never 'casual' about civil liberties. You destroyed them for ideological reasons. You rejected them a priori, due to your belief in the state as God. As for the second quote, you can't reclaim something that you never owned. What would you do with it, if you ever got hold of it, Ed? I know! You'd redefine it. Suddenly liberty wouldn't mean freedom of speech but 'freedom' not to be offended. It wouldn't mean the right to private property, but the 'right' to a big daddy state to look after you, take everything from you and give you pocket money.

Let us hope that Ed Miliband will lead his economicidal gang of fascists and dreamers to the desert of oblivion. Meanwhile, let us not forget that the decapitated state monster has grown another head and is girding itself to make war on what's left of our freedom and prosperity, and we have little time to waste in schadenfreude.

The Whore of Threadneedle Street shows her cankered cunt

No argument I can muster could do better in exposing central banks in general and the Bank of England in particular as the enemy of capitalism than the words of Charlie Bean, deputy governor of the cankerous Whore, exhorting us all to spend, spend, spend.

Mr Bean said he 'fully sympathised' with the plight of older people who depended on their savings, had enjoyed high interest rates in the past and had seen huge rises in property values. But he added: 'We want to see households not saving more, but spending more'. Dramatic cuts in interest rates since the start of the recession are believed to have put an extra £8 billion a year in consumers' pockets. But the Bank is worried this is being use to pay off debt and build up savings rather than for spending on the high street.

This is what these bankrupt banksters call 'the paradox of thrift'. They tell us not to save, when in a sound economy it is savings that provide the capital for investment and growth. Not in our casino gulag. Why bother to save, when the banksters can conjure credit out of thin air? This credit acts on the economy like cocaine on the central nervous system, and just as it's wearing off, along comes Mr Bean telling you; 'take another line, you'll be fine'.

The central banking system is a mix of gangsterism and socialism. Central planning doesn't work - unless you're one of the wankers on the central planning committee, like dickhead Bean.

Fumaphobes at it again

I can't be bothered to get irate about a Norfolk council bringing in a policy to make smokers clock in and clock out when they take a fag break. I will, however, make a few points. Firstly, the idea that it will increase productivity is not very plausible. The real reason is that anti-smokers seethe with resentment when they see smokers enjoying something that they can't participate in, and with their holier-than-thou self-regard at full amplification, they don't notice their own down-time; their tea breaks, their internet surfing, their nail-filing, their prolonged discussions of X Factor or whatever. Anti-smokers are unwise to cast the first stone in such matters, because it might bounce back and crack them between the eyes.

Smoking breaks are often work related. If two smoking colleagues need to discuss something, then they are likely to combine it with a cigarette break, and kill two birds with one stone.

Besides, the only reason smokers go for fag breaks is because of the lily-white lung crowd forcing us away from our desks. So remember, nicotine-nazis, it's for your benefit we go outside, so as not to harm your delicate constitutions.

I expect this will not increase productivity. I suspect they'll not bother to measure in any case. The anti-smokers will still resent the smokers disappearing off to their conspiratorial conclave, but they'll no longer have any moral highground to preen themselves upon.

Will Hutton: there's no fool like an old fool

Will Hutton's still cranking it out, but he's obviously getting on in years. As I peruse this extract from his latest book, Dr Will seems at first to make a reasonable diagnosis of the illness, but then comes the following and I realise he's still wedded to the economic equivalents of leeches, tobacco enemas and trepanation with a rusty screwdriver:

It has fallen to the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in coalition to attempt some, if not all, of the necessary initiatives that might change British capitalism – notably banking and political reform – but it is an open question how determined it will be before well-organised defence of entrenched and privileged positions by the financial, media and bureaucratic elites. Worse, its repudiation of Keynesian economic policies in circumstances that demand more Keynesianism than at any time since the 1930s threatens to overwhelm its best intentions. The consequences are a potential national calamity.

From this point onward, Hutton spirals downward in a description of our dysfunctional society, coming over like a good Fabian from the late 19th Century, which would be all very laudatory if he hadn't just (above) made clear his recommended course of treatment is the very same stuff that got us to this place. Keynes said famously; 'in the long run, we're all dead', and he is indeed dead. We, however, are living in Keynes' long run, and the ruins Hutton sees and sighs over are the consequences of the very policies that Keynes championed - government intervention, unsound, inflationary monetary policy and central planning. And yet, for Will (chi et arrivato a la frutta), all the blames lies on capitalism, free markets and individualism - in other words liberalism - in other words all the ideas that have been trashed over the last one hundred years by the growing power of the central state, aided by the pseudo-economic snake oil of John Maynard Keynes.

A sentry's dilemma

An idle curiousity in Aden and the British involvement there led me to the website Britain's Small Wars, which features many individual recollections from military men, such as this one from Kevin Webster, who spent 8 months in Aden as a 19-year-old member of the RAF:

One night, in a sentry box outside the hospital, I was gazing down at the Cold Store at the foot of the hill. Part of the brief was to keep an eye on the place, which was a frequent target for terrorist attacks. Suddenly, a figure appeared from out of the shadows below a block of flats. He was acting furtively, looking left and right. Then, two more joined him. They huddled together, and I saw the flicker of light as they lit up cigarettes. There was a curfew in place, and they knew they shouldn't be out there.

One of the men pointed to the Cold Store. He seemed to be looking for something in the folds of his robe. The signs were disturbing. Totally disregarding the orders we'd been given, I quickly snapped off the safety catch and chambered a round. I took aim through a link in the wire fence in front of the box. The Arab moved slowly towards the gates of the Cold Store compound. I could reach the telephone that connected with the Ops Centre, but the suspect might throw a bomb before I could call for help. I calculated the range, flipped up the backsight and set the wheel to 200 yards. Too far for him to hear any warning I was supposed to shout. This was no harmless paper target I was pointing my Lee-Enfield at, but a living, breathing human being. He might be completely harmless, just having a smoke with his mates. He might have kids. For the first time ever, I was pointing a loaded weapon at another person. A mass of thoughts raced through my mind - would I squeeze that trigger?

The week before, I'd been on patrol when a mortar bomb fell close to us. These people were not the kids I'd played war games with in the back streets of Bradford. All my training in the ground defence classroom, all my hours of practice on the range told me that if necessary I would have to shoot this man and had the ability to do so. Sweat began to run down my body in rivers. I thought about the oath of allegiance I'd sworn down at Hereford the day I got the Queens Shilling (or rather 30 shillings). Was this what it was really all about? Did this nameless Arab pose a threat to the defence of the United Kingdom and Colonies? What if I fired and they discovered he wasn't carrying a weapon, would I be court-martialled? What if I missed and he got his grenade over the wire?

It seemed like an age, but was probably something like less than half a minute, from the moment I slipped off that safety catch before the situation was resolved. At the end of the street leading to the Cold Store, the lights of a vehicle came round the corner. The headlights were very close together, which could only mean one type of vehicle - the ubiquitous Land Rover. The man in my sights turned and fled back into the building, along with his compatriots. Thank God for the British Army!

I unloaded my rifle and made a call to Ops Centre. Panic over. My hands were trembling as I lit up a cigarette. That was the best cigarette I ever smoked in my life. To the day I die, I will never know if I would have shot that man. I just thank the Lord I didn't have to.

Silencing the independent voices ... or rather not

In a Guardian article on the much-trumpeted, yet-to-materialise 'bonfire of the quangos' I find this from Labour's John Denham:

Labour accused the government of playing politics with jobs. The shadow communities secretary, John Denham, told the BBC: "If you've got a government coming along saying: 'Let's silence all the independent voices, let's silence the people who speak up about equalities' ... they are really saying: 'We will be able to do whatever we like and there won't be anyone able to shine a spotlight on what we are up to'."

It's worth pausing to review the upside-downness of his reasoning. Firstly, he calls quangos, organisations that are set up and funded by the state, 'independent'. Question: independent of what or whom? The mandate, the raison d'etre, of these quangos is dictated by the government legislation which creates them. The government bankrolls them. The notion that the removal of government money will end their existence is clear evidence of their dependence on the government.

Secondly comes the idea that 'the people who speak up about equalities' will also be silenced. Clearly these people must only be doing it because of the tax-payer-funded salary they receive for the work, for otherwise they would continue the fight, and moreover, according to Denham, they must be the only people speaking up about equalities (whatever that word means). Everything inside the state, nothing outside the state, right John?

Finally comes the view that, without these quangos 'shining a light' on government action, the government will be able to do whatever it likes. Thus, for Denham, it is not the people, not a system of democracy that is responsible for holding the government to account, but rather government-funded organisations. In this way he answers the age-old question: 'who watches the watchman?' The task will be performed by the watchman's brother-in-law, who the watchman has appointed to head up the CWW (Commission for Watching the Watchman), panoramic views from London headquarters and gold-plated pension included.

Gamble along

Jett is offered a deal.

Something I first heard on a gramophone

continued...

The end

Worshipping a false idol

Business Secretary Vince Cable renewing his vows at the Keynes Society's annual get-together

More from the moron:

But economic recovery will not happen automatically, by magic. Government has a key role. It has to sustain demand. That is basic Keynes. Liberal economics also requires us to remove obstacles to growth led by private enterprise. Among them is the threat to recovery from a credit squeeze by banks on small businesses.

Soggy ashes

From Keynes to liberal economics in the flicker. Between Cable's ears the two are synonymous, you know, like fire and water. Little bit of each should do the trick.

(pic)

In praise of Vince Cable

... Only joking. What a twat!

Damn, and I was going to do a serious piece, critiquing his conference speech. I was toying with the title 'straining out flies and swallowing camels', which is part of the problem. I also want to deride the mainstream reputation Cable enjoys for 'being right about the economy'. No, he was a quarter right, and not when it mattered. All he did was point a finger out the window and say it's raining. He didn't see the storm clouds gathering, neither did he mark the crimson tinge to the sky that fateful morn. Even less did he check the forecast from reliable sources.

Rhetorical question: Is it too much to ask for a government minister, for business no less, and a self-proclaimed 'liberal' to understand what the word 'capitalism' means? Or to use it in a context not wholly pejorative?

Capitalism and laissez-faire yet again trooped out for straw-man assassination, the usual association of free markets and greedy bankers. We can debate the word, but whatever he means by it, this speech is anti-capitalist, and the tragedy is that this is based on ignorance rather than ideology - not evil, just wrong.

We can all hate the bankers, but attacking the bonuses is straining out the fly. You have to look at the monetary system itself. You can't ignore the case for sound money, and if that's too fucking much to ask, at least recognise the mechanisms set in motion by the money - credit system we have, and understand the business cycle it provokes.

Bollocks to Huhne and his wanker friends

I love this:

Motorists and holidaymakers face paying hundreds of pounds a year more in green taxes to help low earners, Chris Huhne has signalled.

... I guess a casual visitor may not immediately understand my objection. If that is you, let me point out: this is a libertarian blog. It's not right-wing. It's not left-wing. It's against the government. It was against the Fabian Nightmare from Shitstreet Labour government, and it is - from day one - against the cuntish coalition.

The government needs no more taxes. It already has too much. Earlier this week I was arguing with commenter Stephen, who objected to something I didn't say, so let me say it now: the state is no better than a bunch of mafia gangsters. In many ways it's worse - the mafia dresses better, for starters.

This tax will not help low earners. It will punish widely, including low earners - whatever that means. Owning a car does not make you a rich man. Neither does taking a holiday. Who the fuck do these Huhnes think they are? They resent common people taking a holiday. It's only their greed for our money that motivates them. Huhne can fuck off.

Hmm, I realise that I am lapsing into lazy language, but these bastards need insulting and now. They haven't had not nearly enough insults - and they're gonna be around for years, fucking things up. Governments are shit. That's the rule. Find me an exception - cos this one ain't one, that much is sure.

Government declares war on all private property

What's the best way to get out of a recession? Well, obviously, if you understand economics, you cut taxes and cut expenditure for starters. But, what do you do if you are the British government? In that case, you declare war on the people, and like a swarm of locusts you descend upon them to destroy whatever's left of the economy. Now, not only is the government putting forward the idea that it will take all of our earned income, and then pass on whatever they deem is appropriate, Nick Clegg is calling for thousands more stasi inspectors to prey upon the ordinary people of this country.

The political scene is very clear: Labour = Conservative = Liberal Democrat = jumped up fascistic feasters upon scat. Different people, same never-ending feast: The last of the private wealth of the nation, fed into the salivating, scat-flecked jaws of the state.

Menger on money

Carl Menger, the great revolutionary, speaks. Here's an extract from Chapter 8; 'the theory of money' of his 'Principles of Economics', published, as you all I'm sure know, in 1871:

2. The Kinds of Money Appropriate to Particular Peoples and to Particular Historical Periods

Money is not the product of an agreement on the part of economizing men nor the product of legislative acts. No one invented it. As economizing individuals in social situations became increasingly aware of their economic interest, they everywhere attained the simple knowledge that surrendering less saleable commodities for others of greater saleability brings them substantially closer to the attainment of their specific economic purposes. Thus, with the progressive development of social economy, money came to exist in numerous centers of civilization independently. But precisely because money is a natural product of human economy, the specific forms in which it has appeared were everywhere and at all times the result of specific and changing economic situations. Among the same people at different times, and among different peoples at the same time, different goods have attained the special position in trade described above.

In the earliest periods of economic development, cattle seem to have been the most saleable commodity among most peoples of the ancient world. Domestic animals constituted the chief item of the wealth of every individual among nomads and peoples passing from a nomadic economy to agriculture. Their marketability extended literally to all economizing individuals, and the lack of artificial roads combined with the fact that cattle transported themselves (almost without cost in the primitive stages of civilization!) to make them saleable over a wider geographical area than most other commodities. A number of circumstances, moreover, favored broad quantitative and temporal limits to their marketability. A cow is a commodity of considerable durability. Its cost of maintenance is insignificant where pastures are available in abundance and where the animals are kept under the open sky. And in a culture in which everyone attempts to possess as large herds as possible, cattle are usually not brought to market in excessive quantities at any one time. In the period of which I am speaking, there was no similar juncture of circumstances establishing as broad a range of marketability for any other commodity. If we add to these circumstances the fact that trade in domestic animals was at least as well developed as trade in any other commodity, cattle appear to have been the most saleable of all available commodities and hence the natural money of the peoples of the ancient world.

(pic)

To my international readers

Ever since discovering the stats tab (courtesy of Mark Wadsworth making the same discovery), I have taken an interest in the viewing figures for this blog, which are not huge, by any means, but certainly spread across the globe. You are all very much welcome, as are, of course, those of you more closer to home. It shows, even with my lonesome blogstead, how the internet has revolutionised communication between the people of this planet.

Feel free to comment, as it's often only in receiving comments and responding to them that any particular subject gets more than a cursory mention, and for all of you who have arrived here, due to certain derogatory remarks I have made towards Barroso appearing in google searches and have left disappointed, may I tentatively suggest you seek psychiatric help.

O'Reilly calm shock

This is an interesting clip, for one thing because I've never seen O'Reilly being so calm and measured. It's from earlier in the year and Jon Stewart lands some great blows, pointing out the way Fox attacks the Democrats for some things, on which it remained totally silent when the Republicans did the same things. It's from some months ago, but not much has changed since.

'The preservation of Liberty'

Continuing from the posts below regarding the Tea Party, here is a great speech from Ron Paul, entitled "The Failure of the Keynesian State," delivered to the Mises Circle in Houston, recorded Saturday, 23 January 2010, with introductory remarks by Mises Institute president Douglas E. French, and by Institute founder and chairman Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

It is important that the current opportunity provided by media attention to the Tea Party and continuing economic problems, is not wasted, but rather exploited to the full, to put the case for individual liberty, sound economics and a sane foreign policy, and there is no better spokesman than Ron Paul.

Links: Ludwig von Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell.

No to taxation — no to tyranny — no to slavery

A rallying cry I fully endorse, the last line from this piece 'The Tea Party as a Leaderless Movement' from Lew Rockwell's site, saying something similar to what I wrote below. As Lew puts it:

"More and more of us are withdrawing our consent, the one deadly,non-violent threat they face. It is the role of LRC to stoke this rebellion. Thanks to all of you who make that possible. And what a great time to be alive! We have much work to do, but so much to look forward to. Fighting the bad guys by changing hearts and minds is not only essential to all we believe in, indeed to the future of our freedom, prosperity, and civilization, it is a heck of a lot of fun. Let’s roll!"

So take heart, my friends. Resistance is Victory.

GOP leaders and Democrats unite against the Tea Party

The Tea Party genie is out of the bottle. This movement is causing all kinds of problems for the Establishment, especially because its original message is neither Republican nor Democrat but rather Constitutional, and the leadership of both parties have a severely guilty conscience when it comes to the Constitution, both having violated it egregiously. The Republican leadership can't decide which way to jump. They want to control it, so they can neutralise it. They don't want to let in any outsiders to their cozy club, not least outsiders that actually believe that stuff about low taxes, small government, states' rights, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, these Benedict Arnolds would rather the Democrats win than that happen.

Meanwhile the demonisation from the left-wing media continues apace, on this side of the Atlantic as well as in America. Here we have the scumbag Guardian doing its job to keep everyone on the plantation and within the two-party-paradigm. This is how they describe Rand Paul, Senate candidate in Kentucky:

An ophthalmologist and founder of Kentucky Taxpayers United, Paul is running for a Senate seat in Kentucky. He has built his political career on a platform of abolishing most taxes and has called for a "modern-day revolution" against a dominant federal government.

Paul created a stir this year when he criticised part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which abolished segregation, and Jim Crow laws as unconstitutional because it bars business owners from excluding someone on the basis of race, religion or national origin. Paul says "community pressure" should govern such issues, not laws.

As Republican leaders recoiled at the damage done by his comments, Paul released a letter saying he "abhors racism" and that he would not back any efforts to repeal the civil rights act.

Paul wants to see the abolition of the Federal Reserve and its role in controlling money supply and interest rates. He opposes national government involvement in the provision of health care. And he favours changing the constitution to ensure that the children of illegal immigrants do not become US citizens.

But Paul is not afraid of contrarian positions. He opposes the US Patriot Act, cornerstone of neo-conservative legislation passed by the Bush administration after 9/11 which permits widespread intrusions on personal liberty including warrantless searches and surveillance. He says he would have voted against the invasion of Iraq. He also favours the legalisation of marijuana for medical use and believes US states should decide the issue of same-sex marriage, although he is opposed.

He opposes abortion in all cases but is in favour of access to the morning-after pill.

Again we see the use of the phoney Civil Rights Act 'controversy', and again we see the Guardian doesn't know what the fuck its talking about, by calling his positions against the Patriot Act and in favour of marijuana legalisation 'contrarian'. These are standard libertarian views. It's just the Guardian can't grasp what a libertarian view is. He's against the Republican leadership, he's not a Democrat, so ... he must be a far-right extremist, but I'm confused because now he seems liberal ... That's right mother fuckers, it's real complicated isn't it. Why don't you go have a nice lie-down, your brain's obviously not used to thinking.

It is imperative that it is the ideas of the Tea Party be central. Leaders can be bought off, manufactured, built-up and knocked down, but if the ideas that brought so many people together can stay the focus, then there is hope, because those ideas are what made America great.

I do not know the guy in this clip, Mark Levin, and expect I will disagree with him on other issues, and he gets in some cheap shots, but what he's saying indicates that there is something stirring in America, at least I hope so.

The tories: change we can believe in ... that being no change at all

The idea that the new government represents a change of direction is rapidly descending from tragedy (their position regarding Brussels: namely on all fours with their trousers round their ankles, clutching a bottle of poppers) into farce, with Michael Gove's latest announcement, the only explanation for which I can suggest is that he found it doodled on a scrap of paper down the back of his office couch, where it slipped during a blue-sky imagineering wankathon under the last government. Or else he's had an attack of the vapours.

Anthropology corner

The ideal libertarian society, as imagined by social democrats such as Sesenco

I am of good cheer today, due to the discovery of a hitherto unknown tribe of libertarians, dwelling within the liberal democrat party. I had heard legends to this effect, but had assumed the harsh climate would have killed them off long ago, with little to sustain them but the sparse and somewhat poisonous JS Mill. Happily I was mistaken in this regard.

Nevertheless, tenacious as they must no doubt be, I don't envy their position. If only some kind of Operation Magic Carpet could be organised...

A theologico-literary parlour game

Via Calling England, I come across this table showing the various circles of Hell, as described in Dante's Divine Comedy:

With regard to the late, lamentable labour leadership, Gordon Brown will surely be sent to the 5th Circle, where he can sulk to his heart's desire, and Blair should, in deference for his greater crimes, progress down the 9th Circle, where the lake of ice may cure his vainglory after, say, 10,000 years or so. Prescott; take your pick, but the gluttonous 3rd Circle seems appropriate. But what about Mandelson? Where should he reside?

The mother of all lunatic diversity courses

Feel the fury, with this classic Mail story. The loony left is alive and well down in Brighton, with plenty of our money to spunk on 'leading on diversity' courses, where staff are required to imagine themselves as a seven-year-old girl, a refugee from the submerged South-East of England experiencing hardship at the hands of callous Hindoos and Chinamen, and once their brains have stopped reeling, they are flipped into a parallel world where heterosexuality is a despised minority pastime.

During section one:

The course attendees are told that while in Sindia they can expect to hear comments such as: ‘Why do you insist on eating that bland food? What you need is a good masala’, ‘Do your parents really force you to drink alcohol at the age of ten?’, and ‘What do you call an English virgin? A contradiction in terms’.

Bland food, huh? Yeah, we hate foreign food. That's why you never see Indian restaurants or Chinese restaurants in England. Later on...

They are asked to consider how they would respond if people asked them: ‘What do you actually do in bed?’, ‘Don’t you think heterosexuality may be a phase you are going through?’, and ‘Is it possible that what you need is a good gay lover?’

Hmm. Not sure that society is going to last too long. What should however be remembered is, no matter how absurd these training courses are, conformity is strictly enforced, and any facetious responses, such as may be provoked by asking adults what they do in bed, will be dealt with sternly. It makes you happy to pay your taxes, don't it?

Emerging trends: the marshalling of society

It may not actually be an emerging trend, rather something that I am noticing in various places, but let us start with this final line from Antonio Maria Costa's defence of the (indefensible) continuing worldwide UN treaty-led prohibition of drugs:

The prohibition versus legalisation debate must stop being ideological and look for the appropriate degree of controls. Drug control is not the task of governments alone: it is a society-wide responsibility. Are we ready to engage?

I will leave the fisking of Antonio's threadbare argument, as Tim Worstall has already given it a good seeing-to, pausing only to question what exactly he means by saying that the debate 'must stop being ideological'? Presumably that all of us who reject his views should shut up because he's right and that's the end of it.

Instead I will dwell on this very last part. Governments can't do it all themselves, society needs to shoulder its share of the burden, and then the direct question 'are we ready?' The rationale of this question is built on a number of presuppositions which cannot go unchallenged. Firstly that governments can't do it all alone: By stating this truism out loud, he implies that it would be desirable if they could, if governments were indeed all-powerful. A passing knowledge of history will suffice to refute this repellent idea. Secondly that it is society's responsibility to step up and fill the gaps left by our less-than-omnipotent governments. But what is this society, and who are the 'we' to whom his challenge is addressed?

The central argument of his article is predicated on the notion that in the absence of drug prohibitions, a large portion of us will be whacked out on drugs, that the only thing preventing us being so now is the drug laws he supports. So surely he cannot expect the general weak-willed commonality to be banding together against the illicit narcotics trade? In which case, society must mean, not all of us, but a certain part of us; a coalition of the willing, a smaller body of the 'elect' amongst the doomed masses, which, if the first person plural of the question is to be taken literally, includes executive directors of United Nations Offices, and who else?

The term 'society' is being used to denote a kind of supernumerary, auxiliary force to drive home the state's agenda, in the same way as bands of armed irregulars are seen to operate in low intensity warfare, giving the government a measure of plausible deniability for the worst excesses of their forces. Thus the fake charities, tax-payer-funded lobby groups, UN-accredited NGOs etc. fan out across the societal landscape, a veritable janjaweed of concerned citizens, clearing a path for their uniformed allies.

The reason for this post, as stated in the opening paragraph, is that this is not the first time I have seen this notion. It seems inherent to Cameron's 'big society agenda', and is also found in the recent Demos report linking conspiracy theories and terrorism, where it is stated:

Civil society must play a more proactive role in confronting the lies and myths of conspiracy theories when they find them. Fighting conspiracy theories is something that, by definition, is almost impossible for government to do; but civil society groups do have credibility to do so more effectively.

Hidden within these exhortations to society, however defined, to do more in whatever particular case in point, is the brooding power of the state, which intends to relinquish nothing. Rather than backing off, admitting that its interventionist strategies do not work, and handing back the responsibility and the money it purloined from us for our own purported good, an even greater mobilisation is called for. The age of state-mandated voluntary service is upon us.

What does Finland and Biafra have in common?

Easy question to those who know; this piece of music, Finlandia by Jean Sibelius, part of which (circa 5:12 to 6:45) was adopted as the national anthem of that brave, unfortunate, betrayed nation of Biafra.

Only the good die young.

Inadvertent irony

Dear old Grahnlaw, I'm sure he's a decent chap, even though he supports that gang of crooks, maoists and child-molesters in Brussels. I try to leave him in peace, not wanting to put my dirty boots on his nice, clean carpet, but the below made me laugh:

In my humble view, the “State of the Union” address and debate constitute institutional innovations of a highly symbolic nature, not to be buried into an obscure provision of an annex to an agreement.

I wonder if he would understand why?

The oldest racket

Thomas E. Woods Jr discusses one of his lesser-known books 'We Who Dared to Say No to War', an anthology of anti-war writings from the 1812 War to the present, and sets out why a libertarian cannot go along with gung-ho, my-country-right-or-wrong-ism.

One of the essays included, and referred to above is Murray Rothbard's 'War, Peace and the State', wherein it is stated:

The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence ("aggress") against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.

Recorded in Auburn, Alabama, at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, 21 July 2010.

ATF: America-Trashing Fanatics

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms show themselves yet again to be America-hating gun-grabbers intent on destroying the Bill of Rights and private property, in the case of Paul Copeland, thrown in jail for six months for selling a firearm to an illegal immigrant.

The man to whom Copeland sold the gun was carrying a Texas driving licence, and has not been arrested nor deported. The facts show that Copeland has been set up to further ATF's campaign to shut down gun shows and private sales. That said, shame on the jury for failing in their duty.

Hat tip: Infowars

9/11: nine years of lies and never-ending war

It is my sober duty to point out to readers that I am one of those evil, crazy 9/11 truthers, who believes that something very different from the official story took place on this day nine years ago. I take no great pleasure in doing so. It's not an opinion I sought out, but rather one that forced itself upon me, when I realised some years ago, that I didn't want to think about it too much, that I was afraid to know the truth. This was intolerable to myself, as someone who believes that one's opinions should fit the known facts, and not the other way around. Resolving to look at the evidence with as objective a mind as I could manage, I was quickly convinced that the official version of events had more holes than a Swiss cheese.

Oh no, I must be one of those conspiracy theorists I've heard all about, spreading the mad bad contagion of counter-factual unreason. You see, it's my flawed psychology that makes me take an interest in such things as forensic evidence and the laws of physics, the string of coincidences, the many historical precedents for false flag atrocities and the criminal element deeply embedded in the American power structure, that smuggles the drugs and kills presidents.

So, I will not be spending the day burning korans or calling for Mecca to be nuked. We should remember the victims of that terrible day, and the first-responders who have suffered so much since, forgotten and spurned by the politicians who rightly lauded them as heros, now left with debilitating lung disease and no help to pay their medical bills. It does not lessen the monstrousness of the crime to question who did it.

Links: Washington's Blog; Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

The Tea Party through the eyes of a Guardian hack

The question of how many angels can fit on the end of a pin was apparently something of a controversy back in the day. Whatever the answer, I doubt if it exceeds the number of sleazy insults Michael White fits into his article on the Tea Party.

Right from the first two words, we know what to expect: 'Paranoia politics'. That's right, Mickey. Believing in low taxation and individual liberty is a mental illness.

As he continues in his description of the 'simplistic populism' in US politics, which I suppose means a straight-forward, popular message which he don't agree with, we learn that Sarah Palin is the movement's 'patron saint', and here the whole angle is exposed.

The Tea Party started back during the Bush era, a true, grassroots, libertarian movement. It was going up against the establishment, both Republican and Democrat, and this was what alarmed the Washington elite and their media lapdogs. The people, or at least a large number of them, had figured out that there was no noticeable difference between the two parties. From Clinton to Bush to Obama, the same policies carried on rolling, and the big government had kept getting bigger. The elections of 2006 had brought the Democrats into power in Congress and it had changed nothing.

The establishment had a problem. For the Republicans, the necessity was to climb aboard the bandwagon and take it over, so they had to turn the anger away from all politicians and focus it on Obama, as if the problems started with him. For the Democrats, the necessity was to make sure the disgruntled people of the left did not desert them, for continuing every policy that Bush had put in place, so they had to demonise the Tea Party as racists and extremists, and in a crowd of many thousands, their cameras would seek out the few, often planted, provocateurs to fit that narrative.

This being the case, the Tea Party may have run its course and done its job. Let Palin and the neo-cons have it. The important thing is the ideas and principles that brought it into existence, the love of freedom, the belief in the Bill of Rights, the rejection of the corrupt, two-party, big-state system.

Michael White talks of paranoia, plots and conspiracies. He cannot take the risk of engaging in rational argument. He cannot admit that libertarianism could be an intellectual position, based on analysis of history and economics, an understanding of the follies of interventionism and a philosophically-grounded love of individual freedom. So he dismisses a straw-man 'know-nothing movement' that only a dumb hick would ascribe to.

No mention throughout of the one man who stands for the original and best Tea Party movement: Ron Paul, or that it started back in the days of Bush. No, that would only confuse Mickey's readers.

It's no mystery why a pampered Guardian journalist hates the free market. Without the state subsidy, for running all those public sector non-jobs, the Guardian will be sunk, and that day can't come soon enough.

Update: I thought I'd add this amusing clip from recent history - a democrazi infiltrator, trying to give Rand Paul a bad name, by dressing up like a dunderhead and carrying a racist sign. (more here on Tyler 'I'm a Rand fan' Collins). To see the desperation in his eyes when he's identified makes me laugh. Nevertheless, such obvious smear tactics provide the raw material for hit-pieces such as Michael White's.

It's like bonfire night every night

With the visit by the Pope soon upon us, the anti-Catholics are working themselves into a lather the country hasn't seen since the Gordon Riots. Courtesy of Julie Burchill, I learn Ratzinger is not only guilty of the destruction of Coventry, but it's his fault Wayne Rooney's been shagging around.

This shit is getting tiresome.

Ring the fucking bells. The enemy's coming

If any of y'all are still feeling like we won something by kicking labour out of power, let me slap you round the head to get your attention. Read this story.

Fuck the tories. They are cunts. They are just the same as the last bunch. They love the big government just the same. The only difference is they want to be pulling the levers of power.

Oh, they're better than labour cos they're more efficient. They'll run the SAME SYSTEM more efficiently. But the SYSTEM sucks, so the more efficient, the worse it gets.

Hat tip: Longrider

The tax blunder and what it tells you about our money system

Austrian economists have generally been outside the mainstream, because they don't tell the politicians what they want to hear, and stick resolutely to the concept of sound money. John Maynard Keynes on the contrary was clasped to the bepustuled bosom of big government ever since he came up with a pseudo-economic justification for running up massive debts and inflating the currency. Funnily enough, this was what governments loved to do, and people will always believe a lie if it's what they want to be true.

The alternative, which to the short-term view of a politician is unpalatable to say the least, is to raise the necessary money through taxation, but people are much more aware of what they pay in taxes than they are of the surreptitious devaluation of their money through inflation, and as Keynes pointed out, we're all dead in the long run, so fuck it.

The people are generally unhappy when government openly takes their money away by raising taxes, and may even resist. The last major revolt - if that's not overdoing it to call it so - was over the poll tax. As Murray Rothbard noted, Thatcher's mistake was failing to introduce the new tax at a minimal level. Once in place, it could be raised with much less opposition. But by bringing it in at the level her government did, it hit the pockets of a lot of people at the same time, causing the revolt.

The current government may be about to provide another illustration of why governments in general prefer inflation to raising taxation, by cocking up the tax codes of some millions of people, and then trying to 'make good' this mistake by clawing back the missed moolah in the current year. As the Mail notes, there is a legal case for resistance to such a measure, and with safety in numbers the peasants may soon be trying to locate their rusted and cobweb-strewn pitchforks to drive off the hated revenue men.

At this stage, no one's sure who will be affected. I don't know if I'll be leading the charge or cheering from the sidelines, but I sure as hell know what side I'm on.

May the spirit of Wat Tyler arise!

Papal visit security breach: can we have a refund?

Unlike some, I have no particular animus against Pope Benedict and the Catholic Church, indeed I find the stock, anti-Christian tirade about 'sky-pixies' etc. as tiresome as it is unoriginal. It's not really rebellious to attack the Church any more. The Inquisition's shut up shop. Still, knock yourselves out, atheists, it's a free country and you have free will (although you may view this latter as just another 'Bronze-Age superstition').

That aside, a bundle of tax-payers' cash is being spent on Benedict's visit, and it seems, true to form, the state is proving that we might as well take our hard-earned money and set fire to it, for all the good the state will use it for - at least we'd get some value this way (calorific value, that is).

So, millions of quid is diverted to pay for security, and then someone goes and leaves the plans behind after a liquid lunch. That's the government for you: price is no guarantee of quality.

What's this? Labour crooks call for truth? Irony overload

Talk about death bed confession. After more than a decade of lies and corruption, New Labour's Prescott is apparently furious at the Met's failure to investigate allegations of News of the Screws hacking his phone, and is calling for truth.

According to the Graun:

Prescott said the letter showed there was "a compelling argument to reopen the police investigation and fully report on the findings to the public".

He added that he was pressing for full disclosure of all documents – including the invoices – and was prepared to seek their release through a judicial review. "We need far greater transparency to ensure not only that justice is done but that it is seen to be done."

Prescott was of course exposed for fucking his secretary, something he cannot help alluding to with a sly grin whenever given the chance.

Here's the news flash, John. On behalf of the public, for whom I am the self-appointed spokesman, we don't care. There are plenty of crimes from the New Labour era that warrant investigation and many documents which should be fully disclosed. Prescott's government was built on lies and spin, indeed it prided itself on media manipulation. Leaving aside the war crimes and cash for honours, we could focus on Mandelson's relationship with Deripaska, which reeks like Billingsgate during a binmen strike.

It's late. I will say no more for now.

Those evil gringos

If you're an American and you're bothered about the wide-open border with failed narco-state Mexico, you're likely to be denounced as a racist by your president and the federal government. If you're a sheriff down near the border, don't expect any help, but if you're lucky, the feds will erect some signs to warn citizens not to enter certain areas, as they have been effectively abandoned to the cartels.

Meanwhile Robert Rodriguez is releasing 'Machete', a movie likely to do for la Raza what 'Birth of a Nation' did for the Klan, playing out like a cinematic Plan of San Diego. It's all good clean fun, I'm sure, stoking up a race war.

Two things before all others are necessary; firstly to secure the border, and secondly to end the ruinous drug war, which only benefits the violent criminal gangs, including those within the governments of America and Mexico.

Aluminium in baby milk. Doctor: "we've known for years"

From the Mail:

Traces of the metal in milk from some of the UK's leading products were found to be much higher than is legally allowed in water, according to scientists.

One formula made by Cow & Gate – specifically marketed for premature babies – had the highest level of all, with more than 800 micrograms per litre.

European law states water can contain no more than 200 micrograms of aluminium per litre. Chemist Dr Chris Exley, who led the study at Keele University, Staffordshire, said: 'We've known about the high aluminium content in infant formula for many years and there is evidence to show it is potentially quite dangerous.

It has been linked to neurological diseases and bone defects in later life and there are even links with dementia. [...]

Dr Exley, whose team tested 16 of the UK's leading formula milk brands for children up to the age of one, said: 'It is concerning, especially when the product with the highest level of aluminium we found was aimed at premature babies, who are likely to be the most vulnerable of all. It is really shocking.

I know there are scare stories virtually every day, and you could worry yourself to death if you took them all seriously, but, according to this doctor, this has been known about for years, and it doesn't seem that anything is going to be done to address this issue. I guess the legions of do-gooders are too busy confiscating jam sandwiches out of children's lunchboxes, and sending letters to healthy children telling them they're obese and going to die of diabetes. If it doesn't involve bossing the rest of us about, they're clearly not interested.

American hero

When it comes to fighting the good fight, Ron Paul is in a class of his own. In his struggle for liberty for the American people, he has many times stood alone in Congress, the sole voice of dissent against the bi-partisan behemoth.

Let us see how many Congressmen will join him in his call for an audit of the gold in Fort Knox and the New York Fed. He runs a risk, because if the gold really is long gone, as many suspect, the guilty will be desperate to prevent the truth being known.

That Demos report in summary

Conspiracy theorists in many ways resemble the Sawney Bean family. Don't be like them!

Do you trust the government always and in every way? Are you aware that no government has ever lied, or hidden the truth from the people? Do you rest assured that politicians, police or other 'public servants' are in fact incapable of committing crimes?

I'm sure all my readers will be able to answer with a resounding Harry-met-Sally-esque 'Yes! Yes! Yes!', because round here, we know the government, indeed everyone in the state from the lowliest postie to our most exalted Ministers, all love us, and want only the best for us. Their wisdom may not be perfect or infallible, but it's close enough! Right, everyone?

If, however, you have answered 'no' to any of these questions, I'm afraid I must ask you to turn yourself into the authorities immediately. You are an extremist, if not already a terrorist then likely to become one in the future. You are probably insane, and certainly a danger to yourself and others. Please, for pity's sake, go directly to the police and demand to be incarcerated and lobotomised. Do not speak to anyone, you may contaminate them too. If you know of anyone else who would answer 'no', denounce them.

For the rest of us, we must be vigilant. Conspiracy theorists are all around, spreading lies, the poison of distrust. Take steps to protect your loving state. If you meet anyone asking questions, ridicule them. Don't be ensnared by their 'evidence' - it will be lies. If you have any history books, burn them, take no chances. Most importantly, try not to think. The government doesn't need you to think, only obey and believe.

Summarised from the Demos report: 'The Power of Unreason'

What the fuck happened to America?

Watch this clip of two California sheriff's deputees who push their way into an old guy's house, and tazer him. As he lies on the floor, writhing in agony the nazi cock-sucker says 'stop resisting' and tazers him again.

America, you better wake up soon.