WTF on steroids

As Jackart puts it, here is 'today's "fuck off" moment: the discovery of a monstrous cabal in the heart of government. No, not the Bilderberg Club, meeting this weekend in Chantilly, VA, I'm talking about something perhaps even worse:

The All Party Parliamentary Group on Body Image

Jackart writes:

It's one of those moments when you realise the political class is so far from understanding the concerns of the people that you feel we're doomed. The politicians neither understand the limits of their power, nor understand appropriate causes on which to deploy it.

How else to rationalise this insanity?

Schools should hold lessons in body image and self-esteem, MPs said in a report on Wednesday which said that children as young as five worry about their appearance and weight.

The crushing irony is that it is the state - as ever - which has done more than anything else to foster and nurture this attitude in young children.

Hat tip to Dick Puddlecote for reminding me.

Something stinks about the Houla massacre

From my armchair research station, using a battery of resources, such as skepticism, suspicion, gut instinct and having seen it all before a number of times, I conclude; at the very least we are being spun a line on this Houla massacre.

War is a very dirty business, and the coalition ranged against the Syrian government, including the suicide bombers of Al Qaeda, is just as capable of committing atrocities as the Ba'athists, and in this particular case, has a stronger motive.

MP in expenses scandal; in other news bear shits in woods

I can't be arsed to even raise an eyebrow to the latest candidate for the stocks on Westminster Green, Baroness Warsi.

I don't really care.

What does anyone expect?

Can we, peradventure, quit imagining politicians to be any better than us, recognise that they are not, and stop putting so much power into their hands?

The advantage with this would be that we could return to what we are biologically supposed to be: ADULTS!

The All-Time Winner of course ...

... could only be Father Ted's 'My Lovely Horse'.

Lottery Fund plundered by puritan lobby groups

We may not stand a chance in Eurovision, but this news should help us jostle past Nigeria and Bangladesh in another contest. Dick Puddlecote notes the interesting fact that one of the oligarchs in charge of the cash happens to be a key acolyte of the temperance fanatics' Scottish operation.

You know, I'd actually prefer it if they just awarded it to themselves to buy jewels and fast cars.

The greatest advert for preserving the Union ...

... is that bunch of jumped-up control freaks in the Scottish government. I'm guessing they draw their inspiration from the tradition of Presbyterian miserablism the English have long associated with their northerly cousins. Their strategy is to create differentials between us and Scotland, and in most cases this is achieved by being even more creepily authoritarian, or perhaps, and this is much the same thing, by being more 'European'.

Fishface and his pals do doubt brood over the old Alliance with France, and dream of the day when they can plunge the dagger of treachery into the back of their constant and long-forgiving neighbour on behalf of some foreign potentate or prince. Hey Alec, here's a suggestion: why don't you recognise Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands?

Ukraine was robbed

Obviously the bad karma incurred by imprisoning their own Evita is coming back on Ukraine, who deserved a higher ranking in the Eurovision Song Contest last night. Either that or they didn't manage to stitch up their regional alliances, which bring an amusing predictability to the voting pattern. Britain's only chance would be to split into England, NI, Scotland and Wales, and then vote for each other with blatant bias. Either that, or come up with a decent tune.

Australia: leading the world in insane carbon-phobic tyranny

Holy shit. What the fuck is wrong with Australia these days?

"SHOPS and restaurants could face fines up to $1.1 million if waiters or sales staff wrongly blame the carbon tax for price rises or exaggerate the impact."

Yes, I see the word 'wrongly' in that sentence, so no doubt the scum will claim it's only a requirement to tell the truth, but the obvious effect of such a ludicrously over-the-top measure is to prohibit anyone in business mentioning the very unpopular carbon tax (which, prior to the election, the PM promised she would not implement), and, of course, there will be the 'necessity' to create parasitical hoard of jumped-up 'carbon cops' to snoop and shake down businesses.

Hat tip: Infowars

Meanwhile, what the fuck is this?

Obviously this is supposed to be an amusing way of getting the enviro-mentalist message across, and it certainly reveals the twisted thinking of such zealots. Who wants to live in a place where, even in the smallest room, you are being observed? Worse still, accosted and assaulted a bullying worm-weasel?

I guess, what with 'the consensus' and 'the debate' being over, now comes the time to pummel people into compliance.

Austerity Tory Style: £250 million handed over to biotech buddies

The next time a Tory claims they support capitalism and free trade, could you please point them towards this article at the Ministry of Truth, wherein the government hands over £250 million to the biotech industry.

I wouldn't mind so much if they were honest to themselves and came out and told us straight that they hate capitalism and actually prefer a centrally-planned economy. At least then we'd all understand each other. They could accept what they are: collectivist, authoritarian scum, and I could attack them on this basis, without having first to explain what the fuck free trade and capitalism ain't - such as socialising the costs of biotech companies, producing 'food' no one in their right mind would eat, all the while telling us we should work harder and pay more taxes. You greedy, robbing parasites.

Mr Willetts said ministers had a key role to play in working with business, researchers to support innovation and ensure its commercial success...

He said: "It is what they do not just in Germany or South Korea but in the USA too. We should not let myths about free market America inhibit us from doing the same here."

"We are backing the risk takers, and are willing to take a risk ourselves."

Pardon the language, but WHAT A CUNT. What risk is this piece of trash taking? He's giving away our money! As for 'myths about free market America', that's not paper-thin, that's air. I have no doubt that America is descending into a fascist police state, run by criminals, but that hardly justifies following suit.

If Willetts wants to take a risk, may I suggest Russian roulette.

Hat tip: The Waspsnest

EU makes its move on the free internet with attempted mandatory electronic ID

I wonder if anyone still wants to stay within the Empire of Brussels? Maybe check this out:

The European Commission is set to launch a substantial review of rules governing personal documents with the aim of making electronic identities take off across the EU. But the proposal faces likely opposition from civil rights groups and member states where identity cards do not exist...

... Even if chip-embedded passports are becoming the norm across Europe, e-ID cards have been adopted in only in a handful of countries – Belgium, Estonia, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. But there is no common system of mutual recognition among states using electronic IDs.

Perhaps more frustrating for the European Commission is that some member states like the United Kingdom do not even have paper identity cards, and the idea of adopting them causes widespread public opposition.

The UK briefly introduced ID cards during the second world war but abolished them afterwards. The use that the Nazi regime made of identity documents to single out Jewish people and send them into concentration camps has been a powerful argument against introducing ID documents across the Channel.

When Tony Blair's Labour government discussed the idea of ID cards, a citizen movement sprang up overnight to block the plans.

ID cards are also not used in Denmark and Ireland."

These people have no sense of restraint. At a time when you'd think the Commissars had enough on their plate, it seems they plan to forge ahead with an all-encompassing power-grab over the internet.

Hat tip: Infowars

RIchard Overton on Natural Rights

I've been doing a bit of reading from the great libertarians of the English Civil War period, one of which being Richard Overton, who laid out very clearly (at least as clear as 17th century English is to the modern reader) the principle of self-ownership, later developed by John Locke and other notables, e.g. Mr Jefferson, and the limits on state power. This was written during his illegal captivity by order of the House of Lords in 1646.

An arrow against all tyrants

An arrow against all tyrants and tyranny, shot from the prison of Newgate into the prerogative bowels of the arbitrary House of Lords and all other usurpers and tyrants whatsoever.

Wherein the original, rise, extent, and end of magisterial power, the natural and national rights, freedoms and properties of mankind are discovered and undeniably maintained;

the late oppressions and encroachments of the Lords over the commons legally (by the fundamental laws and statutes of this realm, as also by a memorable extract out of the records of the Tower of London) condemned;

the late Presbyterian ordinance (invented and contrived by the diviners, and by the motion of Mr Bacon and Mr Tate read in the House of Commons) examined, refuted, and exploded, as most inhumane, tyrannical and barbarous

By Richard Overton

Prerogative archer to the arbitrary House of Lords, their prisoner in Newgate, for the just and legal properties, rights and freedoms of the commons of England. Sent by way of a letter from him, to Mr Henry Marten, a member of the House of Commons

Imprimatur Rectat Justitia

Printed at the backside of the Cyclopian Mountains, by Martin Claw-Clergy, printer to the reverend Assembly of Divines, and are to be sold at the sign of the Subject's Liberty, right opposite to Persecuting Court. 1646

Sir,

To every individual in nature is given an individual property by nature not to be invaded or usurped by any. For every one, as he is himself, so he has a self-propriety, else could he not be himself; and of this no second may presume to deprive any of without manifest violation and affront to the very principles of nature and of the rules of equity and justice between man and man. Mine and thine cannot be, except this be. No man has power over my rights and liberties, and I over no man's. I may be but an individual, enjoy my self and my self-propriety and may right myself no more than my self, or presume any further; if I do, I am an encroacher and an invader upon another man's right — to which I have no right. For by natural birth all men are equally and alike born to like propriety, liberty and freedom; and as we are delivered of God by the hand of nature into this world, every one with a natural, innate freedom and propriety — as it were writ in the table of every man's heart, never to be obliterated — even so are we to live, everyone equally and alike to enjoy his birthright and privilege; even all whereof God by nature has made him free.

And this by nature everyone's desire aims at and requires; for no man naturally would be befooled of his liberty by his neighbour's craft or enslaved by his neighbour's might. For it is nature's instinct to preserve itself from all things hurtful and obnoxious; and this in nature is granted of all to be most reasonable, equal and just: not to be rooted out of the kind, even of equal duration with the creature. And from this fountain or root all just human powers take their original — not immediately from God (as kings usually plead their prerogative) but mediately by the hand of nature, as from the represented to the representers. For originally God has implanted them in the creature, and from the creature those powers immediately proceed and no further. And no more may be communicated than stands for the better being, weal, or safety thereof. And this is man's prerogative and no further; so much and no more may be given or received thereof: even so much as is conducent to a better being, more safety and freedom, and no more. He that gives more, sins against his own flesh; and he that takes more is thief and robber to his kind — every man by nature being a king, priest and prophet in his own natural circuit and compass, whereof no second may partake but by deputation, commission, and free consent from him whose natural right and freedom it is.

And thus sir and no otherwise are you instated into your sovereign capacity for the free people of this nation. For their better being, discipline, government, propriety and safety have each of them communicated so much unto you (their chosen ones) of their natural rights and powers, that you might thereby become their absolute commissioners and lawful deputies. But no more: that by contraction of those their several individual communications conferred upon and united in you, you alone might become their own natural, proper, sovereign power, therewith singly and only empowered for their several weals, safeties and freedoms, and no otherwise. For as by nature no man may abuse, beat, torment, or afflict himself, so by nature no man may give that power to another, seeing he may not do it himself; for no more can be communicated from the general than is included in the particulars whereof the general is compounded.

Read the rest here ...

I'm glad I'm not a Tory ...

... It means I can look myself in the mirror and at least know, obscure and inconsequential my life no doubt is, at least I'm not guilty of supporting shit like this:

The Deputy Prime Minister will announce a sweeping “social mobility strategy” intended to break the grip of middle-class families on the best-paid jobs and the most highly regarded universities.

In his most strident remarks on college access to date, he will tell universities to recruit students “on the basis of an ability to excel, not purely on previous attainment”.

Ministers will aim to ensure that children born into working-class homes can find better jobs than their fathers held, amid evidence that “a large number of professions remain dominated by a small section of society”.

Mr Clegg will announce that the Coalition’s social policies will be rated against 17 new indicators, ranging from babies’ birth weight to adults’ job opportunities.

Opening the best colleges to working-class students is essential to create a country “where what matters most is the person you become, not the person you were born”, he will say.

Secundo Proverbs 26:11 "As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly", only in this case, the dog returneth to some other mangy cur's spewings, that being of the last government, the red party, who are expected to come out with this kind of lunacy of overbearing, interfering social engineering with the thinly-veiled hatred directed at the middle class. The ironies, of course, start with DP Nick Clegg, a silver-spooner if ever there was one. What the fuck he knows about the working class, could probably once be written on a fag packet, if it wasn't now all taken up with photos of cancerous lungs and smack needles.

Seriously, Tories, what the fuck are you worth? Because of your stinking loyalty to that bunch of snooty traitors, whose policies might as well be dictated by the ghosts of Sidney and Beatrice Webb, we're all well and truly lumbered.

If you can't save the country, at least save your own souls and GET OUT OF THAT PARTY!

I thought rugger would be more your thing, David

Cameron truly is the heir to Blair, as he hams up his common touch, in this G8 summit photo-op.

"Hurrah for Chelsea! Qui audet adipiscitur!"

Boris Johnson and the BBC

Via EU Referendum and Christopher Booker's Telegraph column I learn that Mayor Boris is calling for the next BBC supremo to be a Tory:

The Mayor of London insists the corporation, which is funded by the taxpayer, must be run by someone who is “free-market” and “pro-business”.

Boris, chum, I'm sure you mean well, but try to think things through. You need to be consistent. If you believe in free markets, follow the logic, apply that logic to the BBC. It cannot be changed from what it is by sticking some smart Alec free-trade Tory in the big chair (supposing you could find a free-trade Tory), any more than you can change a pack of wolves by appointing Larry the Lamb as the alpha male.

A BBC spokeswoman said: "BBC News is committed to impartiality and we reject Boris Johnson's assertions of bias.

I'd laugh but I'm snarling too much. Cutting to the chase; the BBC must be smashed. It is a propaganda machine, funded by coercion, cranking out disinformation for the benefit of the establishment (e.g. in its 'coverage' of the war on Libya). It cannot be expected to be impartial, when it is part of the Leviathan state. It has influence which Murdoch at his height could only dream of. It is not needed and it never was needed, any more than a government-run newspaper, funded through a tax on reading.

The fact that it has produced some good programmes over the years does not change its essential illegitimacy. If people love it so much, and I don't doubt many do, then they will continue to support it, once it is prevented from using the violence of the state to enforce its monopoly power.

As for the new Director General, I nominate Sean Gabb.

Calling the Remnant

Inspiration from Brother Tom, speaking in Oklahoma City, May 11, 2012.

Sunny Hundal: racist lunatic?

Here's my strategy: I'll start with the above headline. Now, presuming Sunny doesn't pass this way and remonstrate, I can then follow up with a post entitled: "Sunny Hundal: no comment on racism allegations", or such like. Whereas in the unlikely event that he does respond, no problem, I'll use: "Sunny Hundal denies allegations of racism". Either way, on some kind of primitive level, my work will have been done - bwa ha ha!

You may wonder, dear readers, where I could have picked up such fiendish Machiavellianism ...

Here's your first clue.

Assad to attend Queen's Jubilee

Oh no, sorry, I got confused. I meant the King of Bahrain. Now I remember; Assad's that evil dictator from the Middle East, accused of human rights abuses and killing his own citizens. Hopefully our allies in Al Quaeda will soon be spilling out of the Albanian training camps to set up a democracy ... or do I mean bloody theocracy?

Raising speed limit will save nation £10 billion

Yeah, that's right. I just worked it out following the scientific procedure known as 'lobby mathematics': I picked a high-sounding number and just went with it. Anyone can play that game.

Elsewhere I read: 80 mph limit 'will cost £1bn a year', according to the usual suspects. (so maybe only £9 billion clear profit after all)

The Government is due to consult soon on raising the speed limit from 70mph to 80mph on English and Welsh motorways.

The groups, which include road safety charity Brake, the Campaign for Better Transport (CBT) and Greenpeace, launched a campaign - called No to 80 - protesting at the Government's plans.

They reckon an 80mph limit would result in extra annual costs of £62.4 million from road casualties, including costs to health and emergency services and human costs; £180.4 million in carbon costs and £766.6 million in fuel costs. The groups are writing to Transport Secretary Justine Greening to request a meeting on the issue.

Brake deputy chief executive Julie Townsend said: "The No to 80 campaign calls on the Government to listen to the overwhelming evidence that raising motorway limits is dangerous, costly and damaging. Experts predict it would lead to more lives being brutally cut short and more people suffering debilitating injuries."

I note it says the government plan to consult soon. So the do-gooder mafia aim to get in first. Hey, fuckers, why not wait until the (phony) consultation starts? Also I note 'experts predict'. Oh the unerring experts with their predictions! The anti-car people ought to take a drive on the motorway some time. They'll realise that it won't make much difference. Indeed, I see the limit change as a Trojan Horse to bring in more speed cameras and the concomitant lovely money, as they extort and shake-down the ordinary people.

I wonder how much tax-payer money is handed over by the crooked government to these 'concerned citizens', enabling them to lobby the government?

Wait for it ...

... at least until about 1:10 when Abdullah stops tinkering and gets moving.

Abdullah Ibrahim - African Sun

Lew Rockwell nails American conservatism

"The problem with American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America."

Lew Rockwell, quoted in this article by Laurence M. Vance

Hat tip: Infowars

Flying South

In honour of Donald 'Duck' Dunn, bassist of many a great tune, here playing with Booker T & the MGs.

Rest in Peace.

(P.S. Maybe this is more appropriate - Sunday Sermon)

(P.P.S. Man, they just keep coming - Bootleg)

Ezra Levant from the archives

Via Counting Cats, I was reminded of Ezra Levant's interview by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and went looking for more of the same, and came to this, in which Ian Fine, the head of the CHHC gets slammed. For some reason, Ezra's expression reminds me of cat, playing with a mouse.

Very enjoyable to see the boot on the other foot and squarely up the arse of the freedom-haters, which Ian Fine represents.

Solidarity, and all that

I'm guessing that readers will have seen elsewhere the bizarre and sinister move by the Advertising Standards Authority to put the heat on Archbishop Cranmer for running an ad for the Campaign for Marriage, which is seeking petition signatures to leave the law as it stands with regard to marriage.

There is nothing 'homophobic' or 'offensive' in the above picture or the ad, as any rational person can see. The use of such pernicious legislation to attack free speech as pollutes the statute must be resisted. Not only that, the legislation itself must be rejected. It is long overdue that we begin rolling back the state and cutting off its tentacles.

As far as I'm concerned, the equality which changing the law is ostensibly aimed at, already exists through civil partnerships. If any changes are needed, it should be to the legislation regarding these latter. I see no reason why any two people should not be able to enter into a contract, so they are legally regarded as next of kin, whether they be gay or straight.

Anyway, all that - and more - is by the by. What is at issue is whether or not we have freedom to give our views on the subject, or whether we should all acquiesce in the abuse of power, as exercised by the ASA and those freedom-hating individuals who complained in the first place, who should be reminded of the story of the boy who cried wolf.

Peter Schiff on Julia and Obama's 65 year presidency

Peter Schiff presents an alternative narrative to Obama's big government chunder-fest.

My favourite quote: "Government aid or government benefits; it's like you get a blood transfusion from your right arm to your left arm, and you spill half the blood on the floor."

Penn & Teller on Second Hand Smoke Bullshit

Thanks for the tip, Barry C.

LPUK - still struggling with the veritas

I can't help keeping an eye on what's left of LPUK, in case they one day say something correct or truthful. Here's a little gem, which will be funny for those who were present at Nic Coombe's visit to the meeting in Southwark last year:

"The previous party chairman attended a meeting in London last year with the protagonists in order to come to a similar understanding."

The 'protagonists' were the active (ex-) members of the London party, and other people who came to the meeting - it was a regular monthly meet-up, and I for one had no prior knowledge of his visit. The 'similar understanding' refers to them holding the break-away Scottish party to ransom over what name the latter can register. Nothing of the kind was under discussion during Nic's visit.

"The meeting was generally hostile ... "

The only one who was hostile was Nic, who swore throughout, and at one point shouted and swore at one of the people in the room (one of the most mild-mannered people you could know), who he thought was recording the meeting (he wasn't). Other than that little outburst, he focused his hostility on me (for some strange reason), and was polite to the rest of the group. It was water off a duck's back as far as I was concerned, and we shook hands at the end.

"and an examination of the names who attended that particular meeting showed that they were not members of the party."

You what? There was no list of names taken! No doubt Nic knew some of the people in the room, and I identified myself to him, when he asked, by my actual name and my blogging name. As for the majority of the people in the room, there's no way he would know their names. Whether I was a member of the party at that point, I can't say. That would depend on whether it took place before my membership ran out, which I believe would have been some time in November. In any case, it makes no difference to me, as I had already given up on LPUK prior to that meeting, and I didn't want to prevent other people who may have had more reason to listen to Nic from doing so, so I didn't intervene that much, especially as it caused Nic to lose his rag when I did.

"Following that encounter it was felt that there was nothing further to be gained from engagement and it was correctly assumed that they would form splinter groups."

Ho ho. That's no skin off my nose, as I've indicated, but it does reveal Nic's duplicity, because he made a number of pledges to other people as to providing information on the outstanding controversies over Withers and the accounts - which he didn't honour. As for splinter groups, no such groups have been formed, and maybe if Nic had honoured his commitments to provide information on the party finances, there would have been no reason to form any splinter group.

I'm not sure what Nic expected to achieve. Were we all to fall at his feet and declare; 'we're sorry we ever doubted the great Withers. Please tell him we'll never mention the accounts again, or the fact that he resigned and tried to de-register the party name'? Perhaps so.

Oi, Grayling - shut up and like it

Is it true, or is it The Daily Mail? I don't know, I'll have to wait for EU Referendum, nevertheless ...

Britain is launching a battle against EU plans to force the government to allow non-Europeans a benefit allowance.

They have been angered by an EU proposal to sign a deal with Turkey without Britain’s agreement, which could mean Turkish citizens’ would gain access to the UK welfare system.

Chris Grayling, the employment minister, has told British officials in Brussels to argue against the plans later this month, which encroach further on British sovereignty.

How pathetic. "Britain" is most certainly not launching a battle against EU plans. The crooked Tory government can mouth off as much as it likes. The only power Brussels has is the power that the British government willingly gave them, and if Chris Grayling thinks that the 'British' officials in Brussels are going to do his bidding, he's naive to say the least. Seeing as the British government considers anyone who opposes EU membership as a 'fruitcake' or 'closet racist', why don't they openly embrace their willing servitude and shut the fuck up with the faux-whining.

Going down the rat-hole of the carbon-phobic nutters

Four Guardian articles:

"Diageo to end funding of Heartland Institute after climate change outburst"
"Scientist who lied to obtain Heartland documents faces fight to save job"
"Heartland associate taught 'biased' climate course at Ottawa University"
"Cancel Lord Monckton's university lecture, say academics"

As is the way with the internet, one link leads to another. In the first article, it's not surprising that a corporation stops funding a group if doing so will be perceived as controversial, as is the case with the Heartland Institute's latest ad campaign. What I find disturbing is this quote from its spokesman:

"Diageo vigorously opposes climate scepticism and our actions are proof of this."

Huh? Why would a drinks company 'vigorously oppose' one side in a scientific argument? I could understand a company saying: 'we take climate change seriously and are doing what we can to love the planet for our children ... and our children's children', but 'vigorously opposing' a widely held view in an on-going scientific debate? What else, I wonder? What is the corporate position on String Theory? Sadly, Diageo owns Guinness, a favourite tipple of mine. Perhaps I should take my custom elsewhere.

The second article is more interesting if you imagine the reverse situation to the one discussed: i.e. a journalist working for the Heartland Institute using dishonest means to get information out of one of the propaganda production units of the global warming industry. I'm imagining; shock! outrage! demands for the long arm of the law and exemplary punishment.

With the third and fourth articles (the latter from last year) we descend further into a hellish pit of scientologistical jacobinism, where 'academics' attempt to stifle debate and ban contrary voices, so hysterically fearful are they that the edifice of half-truths and assertions they call 'the consensus' will come crashing down as soon as someone pokes it with a pencil. Thus:

The letter, which is addressed "from the Australian academic community" to Notre Dame, a Catholic university in Western Australia, was originally drafted by Natalie Latter, a political science postgraduate student at the University of Western Australia. The letter says Monckton's lecture is particularly unwelcome in light of recent death threats made against Australian climate scientists.

D-D-D-D-Death threats? What, these death threats? The ones you made up and got caught lying about by the Aussie Info Commissioner?

WWF: a journey into the Heart of Darkness of the enviro-lunatic eugenicists

Here are a couple of things worth reading:

Autonomous Mind's piece on the Met Office, and Euro Referendum's piece on the WWF, which leads on from Christopher Booker's column in the Telegraph.

I guess the only point I'd add is when you consider who set up WWF - Julian Huxley (head of the Eugenics movement in Britain, who proclaimed the task of Unesco, of which he was also head, with the rehabilitation of eugenics after Hitler had somewhat sullied its reputation), Prince Philip (of the 'I would like to be reincarnated as a particularly nasty virus and help deal with the population problem' quote) and Prince Bernhard (the ex-nazi who formed the Bilderberg Club), I'm not too surprised to see what they get up to.

'Saving the planet' for these people means saving it from us, the commoners, so they can have it all for themselves - just one big safari park for our so-called betters to roam free. Ah, the good life!

On the on-going attempts to shut down internet freedom

I think I may have posted this before, and I know the war has moved on from SOPA and PIPA, but it hasn't moved very far, as the vested interests and their boot-licking political operatives are carrying on under new acronyms, and anyway this guy cheers me up!

"Swarming Frenchies"? Et alors?

I don't know if Ian Duncan Smith is being spun by the Mail, but the prospect of a 'swarm' of French people moving across the Channel, escaping the red peril of Francois Hollande, does not disturb my sang froid.

Whether it's likely, I don't know. There are no doubt thousands going back and forth all the time. But let us stop for a moment and consider the 'problem', ergo; a socialist government in France will whack up taxes, leading to some people moving their businesses or affairs over here, or, indirectly relocating in the search of jobs, which will be fewer and further in between under the burden of a socialist government. If such a thing is really a problem, the solution would be to whack up our taxes and scare them off. But ... wait a sec, something's wrong with that logic.

As I said above, I don't know if Duncan Smith is being spun, but surely we should be trying to make our tax regime competitive in comparison to other countries, by competitive I mean less monstrously greedy than it currently is. We should be, if we were true to the principles which made this nation great, quite content to see businesses relocating here from the continent. Indeed, if we could ever escape the chains of Brussels wound round our necks by our treacherous mandarin class and their political lackeys, this is exactly what we would expect to happen.

I say Laissez faire. Cut taxes, turn the regulations into fuel pellets, and we can run the power stations for a decade, and make this island a place to do business again, and if that encourages some enterprising Frenchies over, then bienvenue.

Bring it on

Via Fausty, I discover an article in the Telegraph, attacking the idea of Britain leaving the EU, using a strawman of dubious comparisons to Switzerland:

"Perhaps when the British talk about independence along Swiss lines, all they really mean is that the UK should quit the EU to become a reborn island fortress, trading mainly with the US and the old Commonwealth.

But is even this feasible? How could the EU, with its 430 million population, possibly be ignored? And would Europe tolerate the emergence on its doorstep of a large, aggressively capitalist maverick state without immediately seeking to rein it in? Or do those urging British withdrawal secretly believe that a UK departure would bring down the entire house of cards, leaving only free trade behind to mark its passing?

Perhaps. We live in interesting times."

Firstly we encounter the usual conflation of trade and political unity, or to put it another way, the ludicrous suggestion that the nation would cease to trade with countries within the EU if we left, and that those advocating national sovereignty would seek such a foolish goal. So, the question of its feasibility is irrelevant and misleading. But, note what comes next: the question of whether the EU (falsely called 'Europe') would 'tolerate' this. Here we can see one of the latent, although rarely stressed, beliefs in favour of our continued EU imprisonment: FEAR. We should remain inside the EU, because of what the remaining EU will do to us if we leave. Well, at least it helps dispense with all the fluffy 'brotherhood of man' bullshit we are usually told. However, it;s not much of a selling point, is it?

Climate Quacks fake death threats to demonise opponents

I think it may be time to designate a new level of baseness. Nestling underneath the proverbial belly of a snake we find the kind of fake scientist who would lie about receiving death threats.

I dare myself Mayor for the interim!

Dear fellow citizens, it seems the administrative system for determining our government has catastrophically broken down in London and, in order to see off the dread spectre of a descent into anarchy, I feel it my duty to declare myself Mayor for the interim, in the absence of someone - anyone - more qualified than my humble self.

Finally News from the Count

Is it la Rivengeta or ... Monte Crist!

What an absolute disgrace masquerading as a count in the London mayoral election. There is no excuse for not starting the count at the latest at 11 pm. Instead what were they doing? Snoozing in bed when somebody should have been counting the ballots in plain view.

How dare they call this an election, when they have not the wit to call the result 24 hours later.

Moving on

I'm sorry to hear MCA of the Beastie Boys has died. Here's a track from 'Ill Communication' which I remember liking a lot when it came out.

Lazy mother fuckers

I ask you: what is the point of voting in an election, if the bastards can't even be bothered to count the votes?

Wait until tomorrow indeed. A fucking disgrace. Elections, if they mean anything, involve staying up waiting for the results to come in. If the bastards can't be bothered to count the London mayoral election until tomorrow, it can't be that important.

Good versus Bad

To non-regulars, round these parts Dr Paul is GOOD, Krugman is BAD.

Notice how Krugman dredges up Friedman to use as a weapon against the sound Austrian free market position. Check out Rothbard's demolition job on the dean of the Chicago School.

Hat tip: the Circle Bastiat

A propos à Pirate Bay and the Today Programme

Listening to John Humphreys beating up on a spokesman for the internet service providers this morning, with one of the puritan nanny MPs waiting to wade in with her half-baked version of the truth, I figure the ISPs better get their act together.

Maybe it’s Humphreys’ style, or maybe it’s whenever he senses a weakness, but he seems to allow the thin veneer of objectivity to disintegrate on certain subjects, and internet censorship is one of them.

The argument which the ISP person couldn’t seem to make was that about prior restraint; that, just because some people may use certain technology to share files for which they did not have the copyright to do so, that everyone should thus be prevented from being able to share files, which is tantamount to prohibiting the purchase of hammers, because someone may use one to hit somebody else over the head, or banning cars, because someone may use one to get away after a bank robbery etc, etc.

For my part, the sound of Humphreys in high moral dudgeon at 7.45 am was way too much. With this issue and the on-going brouhaha over Murdoch, the position of the BBC as state-run quasi-monopoly, which no one breathes a word about, seems ever more incongruous. How the hell these broadcast journalists can keep a straight face day after day, cranking out hyperbole over Murdoch’s influence I do not know. I suppose it’s more than feasible that they don’t notice the large grey mammal, being so adept at ‘doublethink’.

As for the witless nanny MP, she based her argument on two completely contradictory factoids; the first, that the percentage of homes opting to have their ISP block dirty pictures is very low; the second; that a poll of the public indicated that the percentage of those who want the ISPs to block dirty pictures is very high.

Of course, from the libertarian point of view, a majority in favour of curtailing liberty changes nothing.