Friday, 31 December 2010
If you're ever looking for quotes to illustrate just how derranged the anti-smokers are, it's a good place to start.
Thursday, 30 December 2010
If so, what would be good petition demands to make? It is wise to use a little planning, in order to co-ordinate action.
First up; the festering sore that is our continuing membership of the hated Brussels Federasty. My preference is to leave straight away, but I guess forcing a referendum is slightly more likely. Thus:
We demand a binding in/out referendum on Britain's continuing membership of the EU.
What next? Isn't that enough? My God, it would be momentous, and it's probably better to train our fire on one spot, especially one so exposed as this. There are plenty of jokey petitions I'd be willing to sign. There's bound to be one on the death penalty, which I won't, based on the belief that the state can't be trusted with such power, and they'd execute the ones I'd rather let off, and let off the ones I'd rather execute, besides the fact that it's not at all likely to achieve anything. The same could be said of the demand for a referendum on our continuing membership of the hated Brussels Federasty, but it's a worthy fight, and something to unite behind. On top of this, it is something that will have some support within Parliament. It is up to us to force this on to the political agenda and keep it there.
But let me give you another example of how ’seriously’ the euro-elite take the protection of children. You may remember the Marc Dutroux case in Belgium. It could be called the most horrific example of child rape and murder in Europe since the war.
Known as the beast of Belgium, Dutroux is now serving a life sentence for a series of child kidnappings, rapes and murders in 1995-96. He kept some of his victims locked in a dungeon he had built in his basement. Two eight-year-old girls starved to death there after Dutroux was arrested and served a short prison sentence for car theft: his wife didn’t bother to open the dungeon door to feed the girls.
Part of the great mystery and scandal that accompanied the case was the relentless incompetence of the authorities, at that time led by the Justice Minister, Melchior Wathelet. For years, as victims were kidnapped and murdered, police files were full of reports and tip-offs that Dutroux was selling young girls. Yet Dutroux stayed free. In the end Mr Wathelet was forced to resign in disgrace. And his reward for incompetence in the administration of Justice was - to be appointed a judge at the European Court of Justice.
Wednesday, 29 December 2010
Remember; they don't own your body. Do not allow them to bully you or pressurise you to take their filthy vaccine. Also remember, if you miscarry they will choose not to believe that it is linked to the vaccine, even if it happens within hours of the vaccination.
Instead of listening to that doctor with his targets and bonus payments, read some of these experiences.
This recent flare-up is over the Pope's comments on the child abuse scandal, which I would say have been willfully twisted to claim he has excused and justified such crimes, which he has not. What you could say is that he has sought to spread the blame wider than the Church, onto society as a whole and the amoral, decadent zeitgeist which pervades the culture, and this seems a little clumsy, in the circumstances.
Anyway, to further enrage the Dawkinites, here's a lovely hymn from the Choir of St. John's Catholic Chapel at the University of Illinois - 'Lord of All Hopefulness':
'Tax Freedom Day' has lurched forward to May 30th this year. That is five whole months when you will work as a serf to the State your overlord and receive no reward for your labours.Yes indeed.
This is undeniable evidence that the State is still growing. The Cameronian Conservative party has failed to check public spending, every morning another special interest group from the public sector is on the BBC predicting disaster for the country if they are not allowed to carry on sucking at the teat of the state. Cameron and 'fair and greener' Clegg are indulging in 'bread and circuses' politics whilst watching the State expand like a cancer.
Tuesday, 28 December 2010
Socially and economically diverse Huddersfield ... needs mixed classes: mixed by attainment level, attitude to learning and social and ethnic background. It needs flexible grouping of pupils within its mixed classes; it needs a challenging curriculum underpinned by careful personal, continuous assessments; it needs teaching methodologies based on pupils' exploratory talk, and it needs the continuous sharing of learning outcomes so that all the pupils benefit from each others' learning.What a woolly-headed nincompoop. I may be judging him harshly. He may be good at his job, but he sounds like a robot programmed with the kind of progressive-era nonsense that has wrecked the education system in the Anglo-Saxon world. If our schools were not a state-controlled near-monopoly run by people who all sound like this fellow, we could see far more clearly whether such cockwaffle works, and people could choose whether they want this approach or another for their children. Reading his opinions, it's no wonder most children leave school in a state of uselessness as far as most businesses are concerned, which is why they generally choose a Polish worker who'll get on and do the job, rather than sit around expressing his feelings towards it.
In this way, all pupils can learn, at their own pace and in their own way. Teaching like this is very demanding. It requires a whole school ethos that is respectful of every member and focused on learning; it requires us to move away from an utterly discredited notion of "ability"
“If we can agree as a society the values that underpin helping each other we can unlock huge potential for a stronger, bigger society.” (My italics).I'm sure I'm not the only one to have noticed how the concept of society on the one hand and the state on the other have been totally merged. To get things back in perspective, let me point out that the state is to society what the tapeworm is to the digestive tract. It goes on:
"Under the proposals, which will lead to plans for legislation in the spring, people could also be prompted to give money when they fill in tax returns or apply for passports, driving licences and other state services.""State services"? I think predations is a more apposite term than services. The last thing I will be in when I have to cough up the outrageous price of a passport is a charitable mood. If Maude and his parasitical pals want to encourage charitable giving, they could do no better than cut back on their plundering of our resources. And finally:
"Ministers have concluded that individuals and businesses need to be reminded of the “warm glow” that results from helping others."What utter vermin these ministers are. They must really believe that we need them. The warm glow I desire is the warm glow of a burning Parliament building with all these piratical scum locked inside.
UPDATE: Others are covering it with a similar level of bile: Longrider; Snowolf.
Part 1 - Mises and the Austrian School (by Jörg Guido Hülsmann)
Part 2 - Value, Utility and Price (by Jörg Guido Hülsmann)
Part 3 - Division of Labour and Money (by Hans-Hermann Hoppe)
Part 4 - The Theory of Banking (by Hans-Hermann Hoppe)
Part 5 - Capital and Interest (by Hans-Hermann Hoppe)
Part 6 - Praxeology: The Austrian Method (by Hans-Hermann Hoppe)
Part 7 - Business Cycle Theory (by Jörg Guido Hülsmann)
Part 8 - The Economics of Deflation (by Jörg Guido Hülsmann)
Part 9 -Theory and History (by Hans-Hermann Hoppe)
Part 10 - Welfare Economics (by Jörg Guido Hülsmann)
Part 11 -Law and Economics (by Hans-Hermann Hoppe)
With thanks to Nielso's channel, and The Copenhagen Institute and Liberator who first made it available.
"We can still believe in the sincerity and good intentions of these people, but only by assuming an appalling lack of understanding on their part of the most elementary economic principles."** This refers specifically to proponents of a universal minimum income, who were thick on the ground at the time of his book 'Man versus the Welfare State' (1969), but can be generally applied to advocates of socialist, interventionist, managerialist policies.
The quote is taken from the chapter 'Income without work'.
Monday, 27 December 2010
That spirit is one of freedom, of breaking down barriers, much like the punk era in music (a little before my time). The lessons from punk for bloggers, I would say, are as follows: Do it yourself. Don't follow, be your own leader. Don't wait to be patted on the head. Set your own standards. Make your own rules. Break them when necessary. But realise that this is only for a brief moment: the revolutionary moment. As soon as it has come it is past. When everyone's dressed like Johnny Rotten, it's over.
PFI is the nexus where meet in disastrous combination Labour's utter lack of understanding with regard to economics, their grubby short-term, self-serving, self-aggrandising urges, their pitiful naivety in money matters, and the corporate interests ready to exploit such doltishness. Thus, all around the country, 'public sector' bodies, such as local councils find themselves financially fucked, and yet tied into contracts for decades to come which will suck dry whatever liquidity they can muster.
Tragically, the public's memory is short. Soon Gordon Brown will be no more than an ogre with which to scare naughty children into behaving. More terrifying still is the notion that Labour could ever get back into national government.
On both issues, I don't know the truth, but one thing is certain: had Obama ever produced his birth certificate, he would have killed number one stone dead. But rather than this, he made do with a release of something called a 'certificate of live birth' which has no authority, insofar as it cannot be used as a substitute for a birth certificate.
Personally, I think Obama's hiding something, probably that he claimed money as a foreign student when he went to Chicago. Also his mother seems a little spooky, what with her interesting life, connections to various Foundations etc. What I also note is how this issue brings together an army of twisted Grauniad commenters to vie with each other in heaping abuse on America and (perhaps paradoxically) worshipping the ground Obama walks upon, and then in the middle of that, like a moment of sanity in an acid trip, comes this from J G Fox:
The Grauniad pond-life pause for a moment, unsure how to respond... and then go back to their hate-fest.
Sunday, 26 December 2010
To the casual browser, the story writes itself. Obviously our wicked industrial ways has roused Gaia to punish some more poor peasant farmers in the third world, by turning their fertile fields to desert. I must remember to send a cheque to the charming Dr Pachauri...
Instead I read the article. Apparently there has been a 20% drop in rainfall and a rise of one whole degree in minimum temperature, all in the space of a mere 60 years. I also note the experts are concerned in a change in tea flavour but admit it cannot be attributed to climate change alone.
I look further to the Tocklai Tea Research Association where I find a page devoted to climate change, which has a few charts that Chris Snowdon may want to take a look at, and scares readers with facts such as:
"Using the records of coastal tide gauges in the North Indian Ocean for more than 40 years, it has been estimated that sea level rise was between 1.06 -1.75 mm per year. These rates are consistent with 1-2 mm per year global sea level rise estimates of IPCC."Hmm. So about 1 cm every 5 to 10 years? Or about 10 cm every 50 to 100 years? You know, I think we can cope. It's not exactly like trying to get out of the way of a pyroclastic flow, is it? It strikes me that most of so-called climate science should really be named climate history, seeing as it involves pouring over data from the past. Due to the randomness and chaotic nature of those figures, the patterns that emerge cannot be relied upon to predict the future. Not that they shouldn't stop trying, of course. But I wonder how much of it is any more worthwhile than applying the same methodology to the past lottery numbers and attempting to predict next week's winning combination?
Friday, 24 December 2010
So, to all of you who have visited this year, I wish you well, and hope that God will bless you this coming year and lead you in righteous ways.
(pic - Botticelli from this site of Nativity Scenes in Renaissance Art)
Thursday, 23 December 2010
This is why I hate the state. Not only because it is nothing but a crime racket, but because it poses as our protector, when all it does is harm us and feed parasitically upon us.
I would like to help this family. I don't know the details of the case, but I do know a terrible crime has been committed because that's what the video shows. The power of the internet means that such cases cannot be hidden away like the perpetrators would like, such as the leading thug in the video, who declares he doesn't like being filmed (@2.13), standing menacingly inside somebody else's home, and later as they attack the child, one tries to cover the camera.
Hat tip: Dick Puddlecote
Wednesday, 22 December 2010
"Some important countries have agreed to the ban, including the USA, China and the EU."That's right, in the BBC matrix, the EU is a country. That's how the scat-feasters of Brussels see it, of course. But not me. Not now. Not ever.
DEATH TO THE EU, AND FUCK THE BBC (less subtle, but heart-felt).
Monday, 20 December 2010
The post title having suggested itself for obvious reasons, it reminds me of something I meant to mention, for no other reason that it has brought me pleasure in my new job down in South London to discover, hidden away so as you'd never even see it unless you knew what to look for, a wonderful pie and mash shop, of which there are sadly few left. Walking through the door, it felt like I'd stepped through a time-warp 40 years or more, an impression helped by some old crooning crimble number on the radio at that moment. Everything was as it should be; the dodgy wooden benches, the vinegar, the tiles on the walls, the stout yeo-women serving in their pinafores, my fellow customers, who looked like they'd been their since the three-day week, and of course the marvelous pies, drowned in liquor (whatever that is). Definitely nourishing. Most certainly Obscure.
Chairman of the Committee for Vexatious Oppressions, Keith Vaz, declares:
"Current gun law is a mess. It needs to be simplified, [and made] clear and consistent to be properly understood by both those using firearms for legitimate purposes and those in charge of enforcing the law."So let me help you out, Vaz - and note that there is a difference between the Law and the fucking reams of legislation you petty tyrant wankers jiz out - here's the Law:
"To vindicate these rights [the liberties of Englishmen], when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next, to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and, lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence."Sir William Blackstone
Commentaries on the Laws of England
Chapter I - Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals
Pretty clear, Vaz. Now fuck off.
Hat tip: Militant Libertarian
Sunday, 19 December 2010
I think it is very important that the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) come up with solutions to protect children.Hmm, what a soft, velvety glove Mr Vaizey wears. See how delicately he caresses the throat of the ISPs. The aim, I imagine, is to ensure a default block on everything, until it has been approved by the state.
'I am hoping they will get their acts together so we don't have to legislate, but we are keeping an eye on the situation and we will have a new communications bill in the next couple of years.'
As usual, the assault on free speech comes via pornography with, no doubt 'extremism' following behind, a term vague enough to target any kind of anti-government comment, or any kind of information that the state does not wish us to know, such as information revealing the crimes their operatives commit, and the lies they tell us.
Libra (23 SEP-23 OCT)
In eight years, Hitler managed to gain and lose an empire that stretched the breadth of Europe, while in the same amount of time you've just about managed to paint your bathroom. Even taking into account all the bad Nazi stuff he's still better than you.
Harsh, but not far off the truth with regard to my 'Glorious Five Year DIY Plan' (year 6 and counting).
"Theoretically, public broadcasters can take their existence for granted. Whether you tune in or not, they will get their taxpayer money. A downside of this situation is the loss of a profit incentive. If good work is not connected to pecuniary reward, things go askew – as shown by the inefficiencies of government initiatives the world over. So why do public broadcasters bother to produce outstanding content? Why do their allegedly leftist journalists meticulously include the views of conservatives?"Great questions, Theo, but wipe the shit off your nose, can you? The iniquity of the 'television licence' is the main reason I stopped having a television in my house. I recommend it to everyone.
"A deeply worried Naomi Wolf, author of The End of America, fears that both TSA actions and the threatened use of the 1917 Espionage Act against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, a journalist, signal a rapid escalation on multiple fronts toward the end of liberty for all of us. Historically, the state always uses the excuse of national security as a tactic to subjugate citizens, forcing nakedness and sexual intrusions upon us, unless and until, courageous acts of resistance and mass opposition finally force these totalitarians, like the TSA, to back down. But we must act if we are to have a chance."
It seems to me a good example of the flaws in the regulatory principle. We do not need regulations, what we need are clear, generally-applicable laws. Regulations encourage people to focus not on the end, but the means. It makes everyone an arse-coverer. The goal becomes not preventing the bad thing happening, but rather ensuring that if and when the bad thing happens, you can't be blamed; you followed the regulations.
A simple example can be seen in speed limits. The end is that people drive safely. The speed limit is the supposed means, but any driver knows that obeying the speed limit does not in any way guarantee that you are driving at a speed that is appropriate to the road conditions.
Other examples abound, such as in the area of child protection. The end is to ensure that no dangerous kiddie-fiddlers get the job of school caretaker. If that happens, everyone scrambles to check that regulations were followed, and if so, phew, someone else is to blame.
In the case of environmental disasters, the establishment voices chime in about how the polluter should pay, as if this is a new concept. At Euractiv I learn: "Successive man-made disasters have seen the EU adopt rules to enforce the 'polluter pays principle' on companies responsible for major environmental damage." What this illustrates is how far we have been taken from simple, generally-applicable laws, for it was always axiomatic that were there had been harm to someone's property, whether by negligence or malice, the guilty party was to make good this harm.
In an essay entitled 'Conservation in the free market', in which he argues (as ever!) that whatever the question, in this case conservation and environmental protection, the answer is found in private property rights, Murray Rothbard states:
[F]rom the beginnings of modern air pollution, the courts made a conscious decision not to protect, for example, the orchards of farmers from the smoke of nearby factories or locomotives. They said, in effect, to the farmers: yes, your private property is being invaded by this smoke, but we hold that “public policy” is more important than private property, and public policy holds factories and locomotives to be good things. These goods were allowed to override the defense of property rights resulting in pollution disaster. The remedy is both “radical” and crystal clear, and it has nothing to do with multi-billion dollar palliative programs at the expense of the taxpayers which do not even meet the real issue. The remedy is simply to enjoin anyone from injecting pollutants into the air, and thereby invading the rights of persons and property. Period. The argument that such an injunction prohibition would add to the cost of industrial production is as reprehensible as the pre-Civil War argument that the abolition of slavery would add to the costs of growing cotton, and therefore, should not take place. For this means that the polluters are able to impose the high costs of pollution upon those whose property rights they are allowed to invade with impunity.Whether the company involved in the Hungarian disaster can wriggle out of responsibility remains to be seen. They should not be able to, and would not be able to, if the law was clear and general.
There was an old woman who swallowed a fly,
I don't know why she swallowed a fly,
Perhaps she'll die.
There was an old woman who swallowed a spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
Perhaps she'll die.
There was an old woman who swallowed a bird,
How absurd! to swallow a bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly,
I don't know why she swallowed the fly,
Perhaps she'll die.
I imagine my readers will know the above ditty, which continues on with the woman swallowing a succession of ever-larger animals until a horse finishes her off. The original problem she faces is real, but the course of action, though seemingly logical, is unlikely to solve the problem, indeed it is very likely to create a worse problem. Her best bet would be to do nothing, and let things take their own course. The problem will probably resolve itself without her intervention.
However, having embarked on her strategy, meeting with more misfortune, she decides to push on with more radical action. If something needed to be done with regard to the fly, how much more urgent is action now that the spider is loose?
This rhyme comes to me when I consider state intervention. Whatever the case in point, we are usually somewhere around the old-woman-swallowing-a-goat stage, in other words far down a road that should never have been taken, for reasons that were clear at the time and are even clearer now. But, cry the interventionists, we must do something. This woman needs help. There's a goat on the rampage inside her belly. The experts agree. Public opinion demands. So bring the cow.
Later, when she is dead, horses hooves protruding from her bloated, ruptured torso, the interventionists will blame us for standing in the way as they led up the camel.
Thursday, 16 December 2010
In his latest missive, he justifies his views by claiming that drugs make people more likely to rob, cause car accidents, under-perform in work etc. So, what? Punish the robber for the act of robbery, punish the drugged up driver for the actual harm they have done and sack the lazy worker. In the first case, he is falling for the exact same bullshit that our tender-hearted judges do, every time a criminal plays the violin about how 'it was the drugs wot made me do it'. The day judges stop treating drug addiction as some kind of mitigation is the day criminals stop claiming addiction as the cause of their wrong-doing.
Hitchens' main error, in my eyes, is that he believes that the state should outlaw immorality. When he says that taking drugs is immoral, he has a point, but it is not for the state to rule on questions of morality, which will always be subjective. The only valid basis for declaring something a crime is that the act aggresses against another person or their property. Taking drugs does not do this. It may indeed harm the body, but that body belongs to the perpetrator. You cannot commit assault against yourself, any more than you can steal from yourself.
The state does not own me. It is none of the state's business what I do to myself. I do not need the state to protect me from myself, and I will not accept its claim to do so as a valid justification for violating my liberty and my property, so bring back some Victorian values and get rid of these ridiculous drug laws.
Monday, 13 December 2010
For the time being, the coalition looks weak. All they seem to have achieved is to blast a double-barrel's-worth of buckshot through the Lib Dems' credibility, and roused the socialist masses in their atavistic hatred of all things Tory. Meanwhile the blue-rinse brigade have to choose between wilful gullibility and admitting that they're still out of power.
“A Swedish Armed Forces (Försvarsmakten) employee warned an acquaintance to stay clear of an area in central Stockholm on Saturday where, several hours later, two explosions went off in what is being called a terrorist attack,” reports The Local, an English-language Swedish newspaper.
The TT news agency obtained a copy of a text message sent to the military staffer. “If you can, avoid Drottninggatan today. A lot can happen there…just so you know,” it read.
Armed Forces spokesperson Jonas Svensson initially said he was unaware of the message but would be checking into its origins. Swedish military sources later acknowledged the authenticity of the message and said they were “preparing how the issue will be dealt with”.
Hat tip: Infowars
Sunday, 12 December 2010
I'm sure the militant atheists will not be throwing up barricades, but the National Secular Society can always be relied upon to provide a contrary quote:
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, criticised the decision to give so much time to the Bible readings.
"It is fair enough to have a programme devoted to it, but the coverage is so excessive it beggars belief," he said.
"The BBC is supposed to be for everybody, not just Christians, so to devote a whole day to a minority, which is what Christians now are, is unfair to other listeners who may want something different."
Now, the man can hardly be expected to say anything different, given his position. However, whether you like it or not, the King James Bible has had an incredible influence on the English language, and its anniversary is well worth celebrating. I doubt that Sanderson would object to Shakespeare taking over the airwaves in the same manner on a similar occasion. His statement about Christians being a minority may be true, but you don't have to be religious to recognise the great poetry and power in this work, and rejecting the King James Bible, as an Englishman - if not also as a native English speaker from somewhere else, is almost an act of auto-deracination. Let me add to this point by citing George Orwell's essay 'Politics and the English Language', where he quotes from the King James and then renders it into a parody of the 'modern style'. Orwell was not, I don't think a Christian, but this did not prevent him appreciating the clarity and beauty of the language.
Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:
I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
Here it is in modern English:
Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.
This is a parody, but not a very gross one. ... It will be seen that I have not made a full translation. The beginning and ending of the sentence follow the original meaning fairly closely, but in the middle the concrete illustrations -- race, battle, bread -- dissolve into the vague phrases "success or failure in competitive activities." This had to be so, because no modern writer of the kind I am discussing -- no one capable of using phrases like "objective considerations of contemporary phenomena" -- would ever tabulate his thoughts in that precise and detailed way. The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness. Now analyze these two sentences a little more closely. The first contains forty-nine words but only sixty syllables, and all its words are those of everyday life. The second contains thirty-eight words of ninety syllables: eighteen of those words are from Latin roots, and one from Greek. The first sentence contains six vivid images, and only one phrase ("time and chance") that could be called vague. The second contains not a single fresh, arresting phrase, and in spite of its ninety syllables it gives only a shortened version of the meaning contained in the first. Yet without a doubt it is the second kind of sentence that is gaining ground in modern English. I do not want to exaggerate. This kind of writing is not yet universal, and outcrops of simplicity will occur here and there in the worst-written page. Still, if you or I were told to write a few lines on the uncertainty of human fortunes, we should probably come much nearer to my imaginary sentence than to the one from Ecclesiastes.
Of course, this is an issue because it is the BBC that is doing it - the state-run broadcaster. It reminds me of the problem inherent in state institutions intended to cater for everyone; it leads to a struggle over whose particular interest will prevail. The same struggle is seen in the school system. Better to abolish such quasi-monopolies and let the unfettered market provide for the diversity of consumers. That said, Terry Sanderson strikes me as a miserable bastard, and I don't care if he finds it 'unfair'.
Saturday, 11 December 2010
Friday, 10 December 2010
My feelings towards the current demonstrations are somewhat mixed. I do not agree with the students grievances, as I see no reason why students should not pay for their own education. It seems as if the issue is being used as a pretext to attack the government itself. I have no love of this government, nor did I of the last one, but the attack on the government is being launched by those who demand more government, not less.
It is a protest born of this interventionist era. Everyone has their own little protectionist enclave to defend, and the internal logic is to fight for that ill-gotten share, even though it is to the detriment of all. As Frederic Bastiat said: "The state is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else".
The violence of these demonstrations is wholly formulaic. There are those who go solely to cause violence. There are a larger number who are opportunistic - in other words 'up for it'. And then there's the police, who have a duty to defend the state, and are prey to the same adrenaline-fueled gang mentality as the crowds. The tactics they employ, notably 'kettling', is enough to guarantee trouble. It is this last thing which causes my mixed feelings, because I know how I react to being treated in this way, i.e. not at all positively.
Which brings me to John Lennon, and his half-heard comments on the Grosvenor Square demo, that "the only result was a lot of smashed heads."
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
'What the naïve mind calls reason is nothing but the absolutization of its own value judgments. The individual simply identifies the products of his own reasoning with the shaky notion of an absolute reason. No socialist author ever gave a thought to the possibility that the abstract entity which he wants to vest with unlimited power—whether it is called humanity, society, nation, state, or government—could act in a way of which he himself disapproves. A socialist advocates socialism because he is fully convinced that the supreme dictator of the socialist commonwealth will be reasonable from his—the individual socialist’s—point of view, that he will aim at those ends of which he—the individual socialist—fully approves, and that he will try to attain these ends by choosing means which he—the individual socialist—would also choose. Every socialist calls only that system a genuinely socialist system in which these conditions are completely fulfilled; all other brands claiming the name of socialism are counterfeit systems entirely different from true socialism. Every socialist is a disguised dictator. Woe to all dissenters! They have forfeited their right to live and must be “liquidated.”
The market economy makes peaceful cooperation among people possible in spite of the fact that they disagree with regard to their value judgments. In the plans of the socialists there is no room left for dissenting views. Their principle is Gleichschaltung, perfect uniformity enforced by the police.
People frequently call socialism a religion. It is indeed the religion of self-deification. The State and Government of which the planners speak, the People of the nationalists, the Society of the Marxians and the Humanity of Comte’s positivism are names for the God of the new religions. But all these idols are merely aliases for the individual reformer’s own will. In ascribing to his idol all those attributes which the theologians ascribe to God, the inflated Ego glorifies itself. It is infinitely good, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, eternal. It is the only perfect being in this imperfect world.
Economics is not called to examine blind faith and bigotry. The faithful are proof against every criticism. In their eyes criticism is scandalous, a blasphemous revolt of wicked men against the imperishable splendor of their idol. Economics deals merely with the socialist plans, not with the psychological factors that impel people to espouse the religion of statolatry.'
Ludwig von Mises - 'Human Action' chapter 25, part 1; the historical origin of the socialist idea
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
Hat tip: Prison Planet
Monday, 6 December 2010
Labour MP Chris Bryant's comments I find dripping self-righteous hypocrisy. He refers twice to 'the Russian invasion of Georgia', as if the Russians started that little shoot-em-up, and lays it on double thick about the evil Rooskies. Yeah, like we're the fucking good guys. Fuck off.
The rest of the show, including the interview can be found here.
I've always quite envied my cousins who were schooled in an area which has middle schools, as this system seems to allow a more humane progression from being a young kid to being an older kid.
(List of most recent podcasts here)
The Court of Appeal has rejected claims that some individuals prosecuted under Operation Ore for incitement to distribute indecent photographs were themselves the victims of credit card fraud.
Operation Ore was a major, long-running investigation by UK police into individuals who appeared on a US-based database – Landslide – that prosecutors claimed was prima facie evidence of their having subscribed to child abuse material.
At issue was the claim by a Mr Anthony O’Shea that his conviction in October 2005 solely on the grounds that his name appeared on that database was unsafe.
I have no extra information on this case, but the appeal verdict seems to be the classic 'not going to bother to look at that'. In many other cases linked to Operation Ore (the British counterpart to the FBI's Operation Avalanche) there was plenty of corroborating evidence to nail the scum, but if the only evidence is a credit card number, that doesn't seem to be beyond all reasonable doubt. Are they saying there's no such thing as credit card fraud?
It's a shame the police weren't so thorough investigating the members of the Labour cabinet who were also named, according to early reports before the veil of silence descended. I guess that file will be placed in the 100 year vault.
Sunday, 5 December 2010
The other day I stumbled upon an old South Park, taking on the anti-smoking authoritarians in the episode 'Butt out', particularly Rob Reiner, who had been leading the charge in California. Here is some commentary from the makers:
Saturday, 4 December 2010
Government lip-service consultation? Shurely not. From El Reg:
"Digital rights activists have criticised a Home Office consultation on the UK's main interception law that they say is shorter and more secret than it should be.
The consultation (10-page / 37KB PDF) is into proposed changes to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), the law which controls the interception of communications over electronic networks. The changes are designed to satisfy the demands of EU law"
I forget... did we have an election? Was there a change of government? Oh, I remember: CONTINUITY OF AGENDA.
With the EU arrest warrant now in place, I guess I'd better watch what I say, or Franco's boys may be kicking down my door and hauling me off...
Nah, fuck it. Come on Spain! Rebel! Overthrow your corrupt dictators!
As for UK Uncut, who believe that rich people should not only pay the tax they owe, but some additional amount that they pluck out of the air (between Richie's lugholes), they can fuck themselves. There is nothing moral about paying taxes. People pay them because the choice is this or go to jail. I'd like to know how much additional money these deludes have voluntarily sent over to HM Treasury - oh, I do know; FUCK ALL.
You're a bunch of cunts. I hope Philip Green gives his Monaco-based wife even more cash next time. I'd rather she shredded it into confetti than pay it to our government.
To accept the inevitability of this is one thing, but (1) are we to embrace the complete marketisation of all we hold dear? (2) Are we happy to live with the decimation of arts and social sciences? (3) Do we not see this as straightforward ideological attack? (4) Do we think it is acceptable to make one generation pay for the sins of another?To the first question; chance would be a fine thing. To the second; I doubt that this will be the result of the government's changes. If it is, what does that signify? That people are not prepared to pay for such courses? Perhaps the free market she fears so much could provide alternatives which are worth paying for. To the third; I don't think so. The attack is not ideological, but the target is - an ideological sacred cow; 'free education'. To the fourth; what sin is this? The majority of the previous generation didn't go to university, and they certainly didn't get given pocket money by the government (EMA).
"On the one hand, the Conservatives accused Labour of creating a top-heavy state that interfered too much in people's lives. They promised to govern with a lighter hand. On the other hand, only the extreme libertarians say that people should be free to wreck their lives if they choose. Most people think the government should encourage people to look after their own interests sensibly."And notice the strange non sequitur. Whatever one's view of the role of the government, there is no contradiction between people being 'free to wreck their lives if they choose' and the government encouraging them not to do so, unless 'encouraging' is being employed as a euphemism for coercion, or perhaps the writer sees no distinction.
Regular visitors will know which side I'm on in some of the most high-profile cases. I find it difficult to deal with people who believe the Warren Commission's account of JFK's assassination - but if any of you read this, please get in touch. I have some real estate you may be interested in.
As for John Lennon's murder, I don't claim to know the truth, but I'm certainly prepared to entertain the possibility that there is more to this than meets the eye.
"The packed session lasted five times longer than the most recent debate on the conflict in Afghanistan, with MPs abandoning their usual custom of quitting Westminster early on Thursday afternoons to attend to constituency duties."