Labour's fixed that for you

According to the Daily Wail, George Osborne (amongst others) lobbied hard against the Tories' EU referendum pledge.

George Osborne pleaded with David Cameron not to hold an in/out referendum on the European Union, it emerged last night.
Senior Tory sources revealed the Chancellor had repeatedly warned against the move in the run-up to the Prime Minister’s referendum pledge in 2013.

He is said to have warned Mr Cameron that a referendum would not resolve the tensions within the Tory party over the issue, and risked an accidental British exit from the EU.

If we exit the EU, Georgie-boy, it won't be "accidental": it will be the quite deliberate will of the British people—a people who would rather make their own laws and articulate their own priorities (for better or for worse).

But why, George? Why would you do this thing: why campaign against an EU referendum...?

[Osborne] also warned that holding an in/out vote risked putting the Conservatives on the wrong side of mainstream business opinion…

Well, if by "mainstream business" you mean big corporates, yes: if, on the other hand, you mean "the vast majority of British businesses that have to implement a bunch of regulations even though they don't actually trade abroad"—the ones that make up 80% of our trade and commerce—then not so much.

But Georgie is a sneaky little tyke: surely he can just be cuddling up to businesses? Is there, perhaps, some kind of political side to this?

... handing a political gift to Labour.

Ah. I did wonder.

Still, that shouldn't be a problem after September 12.

The Tories will have to worry far less about the opinion of businesses (or, indeed, voters) when the main opposition party is about to elect a terrorist-appeasing Communist, pushing a generally fascist manifesto—the financials of which are cobbled together by an economic illiterate.

George & Co. must be delighted.

A day in Stony Stratford

As many people have no doubt already read, Paul Bartlett—a Puritanical Town Councillor in some place called Stony Stratford, Buckinghamshire—has proposed a bylaw, banning smoking in public within the town.

Naturally, it's all for the chiiiiiiiiiiiiiildren.

Various bloggers, organised by Dick Puddlecote, are organising a protest to be held from 11am, on Saturday 16th July, in The Vaults pub in Stony Stratford.

With regard to Stony Stratford on the 16th, four excellent speakers have so far been confirmed, and the event has received support from The Freedom Association, Big Brother Watch, Forest, UKIP, Freedom2Choose, and—of course—our esteemed mascot.

Local press will be in attendance and today I spoke to BBC Look East who will be bringing their cameras along on the day.

Numerous non-smokers—such as Misanthrope Girl—are going along too because, as has been pointed out numerous times, whatever your own pleasure is, you're next, sunshine. Especially if that pleasure is alcohol.

Your humble Devil and Bella will also make strenuous efforts to be there to protest against this creeping fascism and to have a few pints (before that gets banned too)...

UPDATE: unfortunately, the wife has pointed out that we actually have stuff booked for Saturday. However, we'll be supporting from the sidelines...

So you'd like to emigrate to America?

British libertarians must be wary of advocating any action which presents itself as an escape clause to the present body-political cancer currently infecting in the U.K.

Emigration to an apparently slightly more free polity is one such escape clause. Some Britons go to France, some to Australia, some to New Zealand. Fine; chacun a son gout.

But many British libertarians look to the United States as a low-tax, smaller-government paradise, at least when compared to the United Kingdom. Do not succumb to this error, for erroneous it is.

British people, as anyone who's anyone knows, are far better educated about the US than Americans are about Britain. But do not be fooled by this into thinking that Americans are poorly educated. No, we can't locate Montenegro on a map, but that's because few Americans will ever even contemplate going there. Most Americans never leave the US, and content themselves with domestic holidays that provide by far more geological and cultural diversity than domestic holidays in Britain. From Florida to Oregon is a greater distance than Britain to Montenegro.

And one thing Americans understand as if born with the knowledge is the federalist nature of their home country. They know that there is greater political variation from state to state than there is between Wales and Scotland, for example; and they comprehend that not only is that variation acceptable, it's practically mandatory.

When Britons think of the United States as a kind of Mecca for the free and the brave, they are rarely taking into account that this view depends entirely on the specific destination envisioned. Consider, as an example, Delaware and Maryland. Two small states (at least by comparison with other American states) that share a border and a coastline. Delaware levies no state income tax or state corporation tax; as a result, a tremendously large number of American businesses have their headquarters incorporated there, and the average Delawarean taxpayer has to file (almost uniquely within the union) only one tax return every April. Delaware, by virtue of levying little tax, has a small state bureaucracy, which can be observed in the simplicity of procedures such as getting a driver's licence or purchasing a house.

Maryland, by comparison, is heavily bureaucratised. It levies taxes and fees for everything; it regulates practically all aspects of commercial and social interaction, at high cost to its residents in both personal income tax, simony, and corporation tax. (Not many businesses are incorporated in Maryland, though this is unsurprising, considering that 90% of Maryland acts as a residential suburb for federal government employees.) Maryland residents, to give one example, are required to bear number plates on both the front and rear bumpers of their automobiles. Car insurance companies will not insure a Maryland driver unless this condition is met; a car will not pass the Maryland equivalent of the MOT unless this condition is met; failure to meet these conditions will also result in heavy fines from the traffic police.

Therefore whether or not America is a paradise of freedom and prosperity depends entirely upon where you live within it.

Fortunately, if you have the clout, wherewithal, and minority status to get into the US (which is harder to enter than a Vestal virgin, unless you come via Mexico, in which case America is a bigger slut than your first high-school girlfriend), moving from place to place is easy. So is trade: the much-praised US constitution does not permit of interstate protectionism. You might fetch up in Maryland, but to move to Delaware would be easier than moving between England and Scotland.

There are currently-newsworthy exceptions to this rule, however. The most significant is health insurance. One of the things the Great Healthcare Bill does nothing about is the fact that health insurance consumers may only purchase health insurance within state lines; and health insurance companies, as a corollary to this unconstitutional privilege, are also granted exemption from anti-trust legislation specifically set up to prohibit the kind of monopoly the federal government permits in this one area of domestic commerce. As with all industries given state protection from competition, health insurance has soared in cost since the New Deal. The Obama administration's solution to same is to prevent such companies from not selling policies to sick people but without, naturally, controlling the cost of such policies, the Great Healthcare Bill promising to pick up the tab for those who can't afford to purchase policies on their own. And so the insurance companies cry like Brer Rabbit in the briar patch, 'Please, please don't give us more customers!'

It is a cry that goes unanswered; the federal government will give the health insurance companies more customers, goddammit, whether they like it or not.

British libertarians, do not deceive yourselves: the United States is the largest and best-run fascist nation the world has ever seen. It is not as overt about it as Mussolini, perhaps, but it makes him look like a rank amateur. Do you think that the health-insurance lobby would for one second permit their pocket Congressmen to pass the Great Healthcare Bill if it were truly detrimental to their interests? Of course not. The Great Healthcare Bill does nothing to help the consumer of healthcare. If it did, it would revoke the monopoly exemptions of health insurance companies and encourage a great flourishing of insurance competition, which as we all know would serve to decrease the price of same. It would allow consumers to purchase plans covering only healthcare they expected to need, rather than mandating that every plan include e.g. gender reassignment surgery, chemical birth control, and cognitive behavioural therapy. Instead, what it actually does is *gasp* force health insurance companies by law to take on new customers. Way to stick it to big business, there, Obama.

The fact of the matter is that all politicians, British or American, are subject to the same pressures from corporate interests. The corporate interests might differ—witness the cash-recirculation scheme operated between the Labour party and the unions—but the pressures never change. Large businesses, be they unions or health insurance companies, have money and influence individual voters can only dream of. As the left wing are so fond of emphasising, collective action is powerful. Whether the collective in question is businesses seeking legislative protection from competition or unions seeking public funding for their oh-so-necessary efforts not to be sacked makes no difference. The individual voter serves one real purpose, and that is to provide democratic legitimacy for whatever the legislature does to service its well-organised and well-funded corporate paymasters.

If this is true in Britain, it is doubly true in the United States, which has bigger corporations and more money. There is no better proof of this than the Great Healthcare Bill, which will enrich the monopolistic insurance companies at the expense of both the individual consumer and the taxpayer. Perhaps, being a non-federalist Briton, you think this bill will help the poor who cannot afford insurance. If so, I urge you to rethink your view.

One of the most prevalent criticisms of American health insurance is that insurance companies are reluctant to take on customers with the much-publicised 'pre-existing conditions' and to pay out for procedures not even tangentially related to same. What do you think will happen to insurance premiums when insurance companies are no longer permitted to refuse customers who will cost the company more than they will pay in? What do you think will happen to the Medicaid budget when it is forced to purchase the healthcare of those who can no longer afford private insurance premiums? If you think the answer is anything other than 'There will be a gigantic increase,' you are living in cloud-cuckoo land.

An interesting unintended consequence of the Great Healthcare Bill has been the resolution passed by various Southern and Mid-western states to ignore federal action they deem to be outwith the 10th Amendment of the US constitution. We will not implement these programs, they say, or penalise federal offices that do not implement these programs. And in fairness to them, nothing in the constitution makes provision for vast incursions by the federal government into the American economy, regardless of the perceived importance of a particular commercial sector. By and large the states that have passed this resolution are ethnically homogeneous and economically self-sufficient, with a few notable (and notably contrarian) exceptions such as Alabama and South Carolina.

Such resolutions are in one sense laughable; state legislatures have absolutely no power to impede federal directives, or to impede the activities of the multiplicity of federal offices that abound within every American state. They might as well try to dam a river with a pebble. On the other hand, these resolutions are a powerful signal. American states, after all, have a history of secession, a will to the kind of self-government the United States supports everywhere else in the world. It requires virtually no stretch of imagination to view these 10th-Amendment resolutions as a waving flag to the other states of the union declaiming, 'We are ready to secede, if the rest of you are.' Eleven states have done this; they represent much greater than 20% of American land area, though not 20% of the American population. Alaska is one such; known for its bloody-mindedness and eccentric independence, it would not find it at all difficult to secede. Not only are there few people in Alaska, they are badass too. Even federal employees are more Alaskan than they are federal. Five minutes after secession would see drills all over the ANWR reserve and the start of a pipeline to Russia (who still unfashionably persist in this oil-drilling business). Dead caribou would represent what is commonly known as a bumper harvest. Mind you, the Alaskans wouldn't allow them to become extinct; they would farm them for their succulent meat and durable furs.

Ask yourself, after all: how many of our current domesticated mammal species would have been extinct hundreds of years ago if we didn't husband them for other purposes? Do you think the average sheep would have survived in wolf-filled Europe if we hadn't killed all the wolves in the name of protecting the wool-bearing, tasty-lamb-producing sheep?

Louisiana and Alabama are more puzzling in these terms; both those states are the recipients of considerable federal largesse as well as having an uncomfortable history of fighting for the continued enslavement of the black man. On the other hand, they possess access to Gulf oil. The Mid-western states produce a giant proportion of the world's grain. At the moment, they are subsidised by the federal government which places restrictions on where and how they can trade. Imagine how prosperous they might be if they could junk the restrictions and sell vast loads of wheat at rock-bottom prices to places like India, China, and Japan!

So there are some places in the United States that reject, if only implicitly, the fascist union of the federal government to federal business. But their resistance will be a long time in coming, if ever; do not count on emigrating to Wyoming to provide you with the libertarian paradise about which you have always fantasised. Better to go to Montana, where state troopers can scarcely enforce speed limits. You'll be branded as a Militiaman, of course (something which the New Hampshire Free Staters have not yet experienced, if only because New Hampshire is a miniscule state filled with agricultural white smallholders—or perhaps in spite of this, now that I consider it), but Montana is filled with vast open ranges wherein nobody lives and thus no federal officials intrude. It also happens to host numerous Native American reservations, where federal taxes and regulations are something that happens to somebody else.

Allow me to be reactionary, therefore, and say the following: America is great, if you can go there, and if you go where there are basically no poor people or immigrants. (Native Americans, ghettoised as they are, don't count.) Where the country is Anglo-white, suburban/rural, and largely comprises the descendants of doughty homesteaders, it is a vaguely low-tax, smaller-government paradise. But this cannot last. For one thing, places like California are getting a bit bolshie. Why? It turns out that, for decades, they've been fulfilling their moral mandate by subsidising states less rich than themselves though their federal taxes. Now suddenly they find themselves in a budgetary hole, and they can't convince those less-rich states to pull them out. You owe us a debt, they claim, despite the fact that the inhabitants of those less-rich states are still, per capita, less rich than Californians. Redistribution, it seems, is not a moral good, but a store of credit, much like a medieval indulgence. The Californians never helped the Louisianans (some of the poorest Americans) out of the goodness of their hearts; they helped in the implicit expectation of getting a return when they fucked themselves. And with their bizarre government-by-plebiscite-and-an-Austrian-movie-star, they did indeed fuck themselves, and now they expect the dispossessed poor of Louisiana (and Mississippi, and Alabama) to help them out of the hole.

Is this what a nation is all about? Monopolistic concessions to health insurance companies, preludes to secession, poor states bailing out rich ones, a government that ignores its own Prime Directive? Where big governments override smaller governments and vice versa, and the only thing holding the place together is the fact that breaking it apart has been tried and failed, and besides, it's still the best place in the world for making money, if making money is what you happen to want?

British libertarians, do not look to America for succour, for it is a sink of redundancy, corruption and fascism. Even if you manage to get in, which would be hard enough even for my husband who is married to an American citizen, expect not an end to ills. Recognise that it is a nation more moribund, more steeped in procedure, tax, and waste than even the United Kingdom. If you think Scotland is a millstone around your neck, imagine the weight of the shackles of California. You will have no relief, no extra freedom unless by accident, no respite from the predations of the moneyed and powerful. Take my word for it. I am an American in Britain. I see no difference, except that as a percentage of my income, I actually pay less tax here. There are many things wrong with the British body politic, but moving to the United States will cure none of them.

Briton: heal thyself.

Throwing some light on the situation

The latest EU-mandated insanity comes into force today—I speak, of course, of the ban on 100W incandescent light-bulbs.

It is light, bright and has been around for 120 years. But from Tuesday the 100 watt bulb bows out from Britain.

Under new EU rules the manufacture and import of 100 watt bulbs and all frosted bulbs will be banned in favour of the energy-saving variety.

According to the Energy Saving Trust, compact fluorescent lamps (energy-saving bulbs) use 80% less electricity than standard bulbs.

They could also save the average household £590 in energy over their lifetime of between eight and 10 years, and if all traditional bulbs were replaced, the carbon saving would be the equivalent of taking 70,000 cars off the road.

Good reasons.

Well, thank you for those spurious figures, Auntie. Now, tell me, are those your figures or are your English Literature-educated science editors just regurgitating other people's figures unquestioningly again?

And who are the Energy Saving Trust, eh? To find out, let us turn to Charlotte Gore's excellent fisking of this colossal load of crap.

Well they’re a ‘non-profit’ organisation 90% funded by the Government and includes as members The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Secretary of State for Transport, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and The First Minister for Scotland. It gets 2% of its funding from the private sector, and boasts the membership of most of the utilities and energy producing interests, all of whom seem terrified of being perceived as un-Green by consumers.

So when the BBC reports the views of the Energy Saving Trust like this, they’re not really quoting an independent, reliable source—it’s the Government advising the Government—again.

In short, it's a classic contender for fakecharities.org—I shall go and add it as soon as I can.

Anyway, do read Charlotte's piece in full, as she addresses a number of different points including the quality of the light. However, I shall quote her conclusion here, because there's a little thing that I want to add...

And once again I’m brought back to wondering why. Why do this? Presumably the answer is “because the market has failed! People are still buying cheap bulbs that give off better lighting instead of expensive bulbs that aren’t as good. We must do something!”

Yet the market hasn’t failed. The market’s working perfectly well. People aren’t switching because the new bulbs aren’t better and cheaper than the ones that came before. I mean, even if you decide that 100w bulbs are wasteful and it’s not enough that people simply waste their own money paying to run them, why make it illegal to sell a bulb with diffusion or tinting?

This is purely to rig the competition and deny us the ability to choose for ourselves.

So the EU, a ‘Free Trade Zone’, is deciding that the manufacturers of energy saving bulbs are to be favoured (they’re produced by Great Britain, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain) and the manufacturers of incandescent bulbs are to be fought against. It is economic planning, without question—done on an EU wide level, using The Environment as the excuse for restricting yet another personal and economic freedom.

It is worth noting, of course, that one would have thought that the best way to get people to buy these bulbs would be to make them as cheap as possible.

"But surely," I hear you cry, "They already are? It's just that the market cannot supply them any cheaper?"

Um... No. The EU has had, since 2001, an import tariff—of a colossal 66%—on cheap CFL lightbulbs from China. As your humble Devil reported, almost two years ago today, the EU renewed those tariffs in the face of opposition from some of the biggest manufacturers.

Obviously, saving power is one very important way that we should do this and one of the easiest ways to save power is to convert to "green", low-energy light bulbs. These are so beneficial, we are told, that they will save gigawatts of power every year. In fact, so wondrous are they that the EU is banning the sale of bog-standard incandescent light bulbs from 2009.

Naturally, the great EU will encourage all of its citizens to replace all of their evil old bulbs with these near-miraculous low-energy ones, and our EU masters recognise that the best way in which to do this is to make them as cheap as possible, eh? Er, no...

THE European Commission is under fire from green campaigners and retailers for plans to extend duties on energy-efficient light bulbs from China.

The Chinese light bulbs have been subject to import duties since 2001, because the commission says the products are sold in EU markets for less than their true value.

Yesterday, EU commissioners met in Brussels and agreed to keep tariffs of 66 per cent in place, despite calls from green campaigners to bring down the price of energy-efficient light bulbs to encourage consumers to make greener choices.

Oh, jolly well done! The EU has decided to ensure that energy-efficient light bulbs remain 66% more expensive than they should be, thus ensuring a slower take-up and making both us and the Chinese poorer in the process.

What a fucking triumph: quick, go shout it from the roof tops!

Both Philips and General Electric, two electronics giants, wanted restrictions lifted. They argue that Europe needs cheap energy-efficient bulbs from China to meet growing demand. However, Osram, a German company, opposes ending the duties.

While a majority of member states were amenable to scrapping anti-dumping measures, Germany has lobbied hard to keep the restrictions in place for longer.

Speaking on behalf of the British Retail Consortium, Alisdair Gray said the proposal to extend anti-dumping measures was unjustified.

"We are really disappointed in it, because it has no basis in law; it's just caving in to one company, Osram," he said.

Wow! Y'know, it's that cross-border spirit of unity that's going to stop us all frying, ain't it just!

Or, if you were overtly cynical, you might think that it illustrated how the EU operates as a protectionist entity and block on global free trade (helping to keep everyone poorer) and that all this horseshit about how only the EU can save us from ourselves is just so much fucking bollocks.

So, thanks to the lobbying of one particular big business and the willingness of the institutionally corrupt and fascist EU, we already pay 66% more than we might for these wonderful "green" lightbulbs. And now they are legislating to ensure that we cannot buy anything other than CLRs.

Not only does this protect Osram—giving them a competitive advantage against Philips and General Electric (both of whom manufacture their bulbs in China and are thus subject to duties)—but it also substantially benefits the European Union institution itself—because the tariffs on imports go straight into EU coffers.

The only people who lose out are the Chinese and us, the citizens of the European Union countries—but neither of these entities are important, of course. The only thing that is important is that the corporatist EU has managed to appease the powerful companies who spend millions of pounds lobbying for protectionist measures.

There is an economic argument called "revealed preferences", which can be summed up by the old adage, "by their actions shall ye know them".

So, European Union Commissioner Margot Wallstrom says...

It is frustrating that so many people still either deny that climate change is happening or that we can do anything about it. (Also frustrating that some people still regard climate change as some kind of conspiracy theory or a quasi religious belief). The scientists are unanimous: It is happening. Can we do something about it? We must at least try. Mankind has more means at its disposal than ever before and needs to apply its collective wisdom to this problem. Otherwise future generations will not enjoy this earth that we enjoy.

But you need to look at the EU Commission's actions to see whether Margot is being sincere or whether she is lying like the corrupt, dishonest little bitch that she is.

So, the EU's action is to make CFLs more expensive through 66% import tariffs, when the best way to get people to adopt these "low-energy lightbulbs" would be to ensure that they are as cheap as possible.

Conclusions?

• Margot Wallstrom is a liar, and


• the EU doesn't believe in climate change or,


• if it does, it is not going to sacrifice its own revenue or put "future generations" before immediate corporate interest, and thus


• anyone who argues that one of the virtues of the EU is that it addresses cross-border environmental problems is sadly deluded.

However, anyone who thinks that the EU is a corporatist entity which has the ultimate aim of a planned economy whilst using the evironment as a smokescreen might just be onto something. As Charlotte says...

Is there any wonder that Green is the new Red?

The only word that I would question in that sentence is "new": the Green movement is and always has been about technological regression through legislatory oppression.

The EU is broadly aligned with this authoritarian, planned economy agenda (although that entity is less interested in Green issues and more focused on power for its own sake).

So, can we fucking well leave yet?

Lordly sanctions: pathetic

It seems that two of the peers involved in the scandal of a few weeks back have been found guilty.

TWO Labour peers at the centre of the lords for hire scandal have been found guilty of misconduct by a sleaze inquiry and face suspension from parliament, according to senior House of Lords sources.

Senior peers have concluded that Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord Truscott have broken the code of conduct of members of the upper house.

The investigation began after undercover Sunday Times reporters posing as lobbyists found that the two peers were prepared to help to amend legislation in return for cash.

They could now be barred from parliament for up to a year and lose tax-free allowances of up to £335 a day.

You fucking what? These people were prepared to amend the law of the fucking land—in favour of corporate clients—in order to personally enrich themselves, and they might be "barred from parliament for up to a year"?

Let me spell this out: Lords Taylor and Truscott conspired to sacrifice the liberty of the British people in order to serve the interests of big business: this conflation of corporate interest with state force is one of the hallmarks of fascism.

These two cunts are traitors to the people and should be fucking swinging from lamp-posts, not possibly maybe perhaps slightly suspended. Is there really no criminal sanction that can be brought against them for this gross act of treachery?

At the very least, they should be made to submit accounts, and any and all monies that they have made from "consultancy" should be confiscated immediately.

Further, every law in which they had a hand must now be repealed, pending review. Whilst the "noble" Lords must not benefit from this gross corruption, neither should the companies concerned.

Our whole Parliament—the House of Lords, the Commons and the Civil Service—is now revealed as being unutterably corrupt; the entire edifice is rotten. It must be destroyed, gutted; the slimed, befouled, infected innards must be torn out, lest the entire body die.

Trust in politicians has been incredibly low for decades, but rarely has trust in the political process itself been so utterly lacking. It was bad enough—though just barely tolerable—that MPs and Lords personally enriched themselves; what is unacceptable is that the very business of government should be so cheaply bought.

NuLabour have accelerated this process. From the Ecclestone scandal onwards, it has been obvious that the government's very policy has been up for sale to the highest bidder; then these odious cunts pulled apart the Lords and filled it with NuLabour placemen, so that the Upper House would be unable to block the desires of NuLabour's clients—indeed, as we have seen, the ignoble Lords thus created have embraced this corporatist corruption very readily.

Britain faces a collapse of its economy, of its political system, of its worth. And waiting in the wings are the Kindly Ones, the Tories, ready to feast upon the corpse of our political system and complete the total evisceration of the mother of Parliaments.

Hang them: hang them all.

UPDATE: the rest of this week's corruption is over at Guido's. It does not make for pretty reading, confirming—as it does—that our entire political system is irredeemably mephitic.

Slight rest

Your humble Devil must apologise for the silence, but I appear to be suffering from a bout of blog fatigue, induced by watching the calamitous collapse of the economy and our civil rights. What is the fucking point?

Still, even with all of that, I do feel the need to point out a few things of interest. First up, via Obnoxio, what the fucking, fucking, cunting fuck is this fucking shit?

Foreign drivers will have to pay on-the-spot fines of up to £900 for flouting traffic laws under new legislation to be introduced next month.

If they do not have enough cash or a working credit card their vehicles will be clamped until they pay — and they will face an additional £80 release fee.

What the fuck? Nine hundred fucking quid? Has anyone normal got £900 kicking around spare in their bank account? Or on their credit card, for that matter?

After all, the only credit card that I have ever possessed had a maximum limit of a gigantic £300—a third of what one of these cunts would fine me. Isn't there some law about fining people beyond their ability to pay? I'm sure there is.

But it's OK, because it's only those filthy foreigners, isn't it?

The law will also apply to British residents who cannot prove at the roadside that they have a valid address in Britain.

Oh. That's just fucking great.

And what kind of document would you have to show to prove your address, I wonder? An official ID Card, perhaps? Yes, that might do it. But we were told that we wouldn't have to carry them on us at all times: after all, we don't have to carry our driving licence. (And tell me, since MPs have just voted to conceal their constituency addresses, will they be exempt from this law? You betcha!)

There is a reason that any policeman will give you a certain amount of time to present your driving licence after an incident—because it is incredibly silly to carry your fucking licence (or your passport or any other secure document) around with you. And yet now you are going to have to because otherwise these shitstains might clamp your car if you cannot produce such a document there and then. What the fuck?

Oh, wait! I know: they cannot do this because the principle that you cannot be fined without court representation—as enshrined in the 1689 Bill of Rights, I believe—was upheld. They can't do this.

Oh, but... That was the case with parking fines and they simply called them "administration charges" instead. So...

The fines will be described officially as “deposits” when introduced on April 1 because the money would be refunded if the driver went to court and was found not guilty.

Well, fuck me ragged: isn't that a surprise?

The AA said that the new law was long overdue because British drivers had been paying on-the-spot fines on the Continent for many years.

The AA should shut its fucking face. Seriously, we used to laugh at the fascist rules that the Continentals had to endure (when we weren't actively fighting the rulers), not sodding well emulate them.

OK, fuck this: I was going to have a rest but I'm absolutely fucking pissed off now...

Food independence and Nationalism

After the succession of rather silly comments on my Monty Don post, your humble Devil is going to return to this idea of food imports, and clarify the situation a little. And expand on it.

The first question to address is that of history: the last time that we tried to be "food independent" was in World War II. Did we manage it? No. Despite vast swathes of land being given over to farming and despite the way in which every available garden was turned over to "allotments", people in this country still didn't have enough to eat.

This is a verifiable fact: why else would we need rationing? And why else would that rationing have carried on into the 50s, years after the end of the war. Indeed, meat rationing did not end until 1954, almost a decade after the war had ended.

And at that time, the population of Britain was probably half what it is now. To try to pretend that we could ever have food independence with a population of 60 million—even given the advances in growing technology—is delusional. To desire it is even stupider.

None of this is to say that if you wish to turn your garden over to growing vegetables, that you should not be allowed to do so: please, go ahead. Personally, I have better things to do with my time.

Which is why I, and everyone else, imports food.

Yes, we all import food and we do so because it makes us richer—both in terms of money and time (when what we rent in order to get money is, partially, our time, these things are, of course, pretty much the same thing).

Why? Let us look at it this way: to get a loaf of bread, the first (and generally accepted) option these days is to go down to the baker or the supermarket and to buy a loaf of bread for about £1.30. On my salary, this represents about 5 minutes of my time.

The second option is to buy a piece of land, and turn it over to growing wheat. You will need to be able to afford the land, buy the wheat seeds, buy the fertiliser, and learn the knowledge of how to grow wheat. You will then need to wait for the wheat to grow, and then learn how to harvest the wheat; you will then need to winnow it (to remove the wheat from the chaff). You will then need to grind the wheat yourself (which involves building a mill), and then take the ground wheat, the flour, and learn how to bake bread. Oh, and you will, of course, need to get hold of some yeast and all the other ingredients that you need to make said bread.

Or, as I say, you can do something more worthwhile (and more profitable) and then use the money earned to wander down to the shop and purchase the bread for 5 minutes of your time.

Do you see?—imports make us rich. And we import food personally. That is to say that we not only import food into our personal lives, but we also pay for that imported food.

To read some of the comments on the Monty Don post, one would think that it was the government that was, in fact, controlling our trade; it does not. All of these tossers wanking on about how the government has bankrupted our country and how our pounds are worth nothing and how we won't be able to import food because NuLabour have bankrupted the country are just utter fucking morons.

Our government may have bankrupted the state, and they may have stacked up colossal debts (that we, the taxpayers, will eventually have to pay for) but they have not actually bankrupted this country. At all.

After all, why should we care that the state is bankrupt: the state doesn't do the trading with other nations: we do. And if the pound did become worthless, then we would find other currencies to use.

But the pound is unlikely to become worthless—at least not to the countries from whom we buy food. Such countries include the poorer areas of the EU (perhaps you would like to wonder why they are poorer—do you think that it might, at least partially, be because a large part of the populations of places like Greece and Spain are engaged in the unprofitable area of farming?) and most of Africa. Is the pound going to be worth less than some African currency? No.

At the risk of being accused of hysteria or of being some kind of conspiracy theorist, your humble Devil would like to advance a somewhat more controversial theory of why this government is so keen that we should "eat local". And they are, you know.

Quite apart from their blatant campaigning against "fast food", this government is, leveraging the meme of climate change, attempting to control our eating habits in a far more subtle way—through the medium of air miles.

How? Well, as an example, let us consider tomatoes. We know that growing tomatoes in a greenhouse (as you have to do in Britain to get any kind of decent yield) is actually far more energy-intensive (and thus releases more carbon) then growing them in a hot country and then shipping them over here; and yet the government—and their BBC lapdog—have always been extremely reticent about this fact. And this example covers, of course, far more food types than tomatoes.

I have recently waxed lyrical over the fascist credentials of NuLabour; but for all of their corporatist nature, but there has been a minimal overt, concerted nationalist drive—I don't really count "British jobs for British workers" because the state is so obviously unable to deliver on such a promise (although it does, indeed, smack of nationalist sentiment).

Besides, such a statement is far too obvious for a government that has preferred to operate through media hysteria and propaganda suggestion. What NuLabour and, you can bet your life on it, the Tories have noticed is that, through a continual and subtle exercising of propaganda, you can actually change the way that a society views certain practices. Take, for example, drink-driving: twenty years ago it was frowned on but, talking to many young people now, it is viewed as being tantamount to murder.

If you would like a concrete example (rather than my anecdotal ones) of the scandal that defending such a practice engenders, just look at the outrage that accompanied Gavin Webb's pointing out that a drink-driver has not harmed another human being and thus should not be criminalised for said action.

And, of course, public attitudes to smoking is going the same way: within a few generations, smoking may not be illegal—it will simply be something that is sinful and which You Just Don't Do.

The justification for criminalising both of these actions (yes, smoking indoors is criminalised) is the possibility that you might harm other people—the possibility, note, not the certainty or even the probability.

The justification for driving actions based on the spectre of climate change is the same as smoking or drink-driving—there is the possibility, however remote, that your actions may harm others (in this case, the entire population of the planet) and thus anything that might bring this about is to be frowned on, if not actively proscribed.

And, like drink-driving or smoking, this possibility is communicated through statistical manipulation, relentless propaganda, enjoinders to guilt (think of the chiiiiildren! Or, in the case of climate change, think of our chiiiiiildren's chiiiiiiildren!) and, when all else fails, outright lies.

"What has any of this to do with nationalism?" is probably what you are asking yourself (if you are still reading). Well, let us ask ourselves what is required for a real nationalist fervour to set in; well, the population should think of anyone else as "outsiders", "foreign" and, if possible, somewhat inferior.

One of the best ways in which to do this, is to stop your population from ever actually interacting with foreign cultures. The British are already pretty adept at this, usually being "British" wherever they go and making little effort to appreciate or blend into said culture.

The next thing is to ensure that your population remains ignorant of said foreign cultures at all; in this way, they can be caricatured as "bloody foreigners" or "not like us" (for which read "inferior") and not, actually, human beings (like yourself) at all.

The final stage is to convince your population that they are under a state of siege: that all of those foreigners are only out to destroy your population's native (and, of course, innately superior) culture.

Sounding familiar yet?

OK, let us move onto some examples, shall we? For keeping people in ignorance, few things are better than to ensure that they have no knowledge of foreign tongues. This government has made a step towards that—as Jon Worth points out—by removing the requirement for schoolchildren to learn a foreign language (not that language teaching, in our state schools at least, was anything other than fucking abysmal in the first place).

And as for convincing the population that they are under a state of siege... Well, where should I begin? After all, if the government isn't enacting draconian legislation to convince us all that we are about to be blown up by disgusting foreign Muslims, then they are planting scare stories about how all of these Poles are coming over here and taking our jobs and women.

Of course, there are a number of countries that speak our language, and might not seem that foreign. Well, that's easy: make sure that very few of them can stay in the country through yet more draconian foreign labour laws, and ensure that they are marked out as foreign by having to carry an ID Card that (at present) the natives do not have to have.

Climate change, of course, offers yet another prime opportunity. After all, they are already trying to imply that flying anywhere is going to kill Gaia: if you cannot fly anywhere, then your chances of interacting with any foreign culture is pretty small. It is even smaller when travelling anywhere, by any means, is socially unacceptable.

And if importing anything is frowned upon for the same reasons—that it racks up "food miles" or "toy miles", etc.—then the number of people doing business with any filthy foreigners is also reduced.

And, of course, if importing things is bad then we really are going to have to rely more and more on our own resources. And, if that includes food, as I pointed out at the top of this increasingly long essay, then inducing the population to believe that they are under a state of siege is going to be a piece of piss: after all, when no one has enough to eat (although just enough not to descend to anarchy), who are they going to blame it on? Why, the filthy foreigners, of course.

So, we end up with a country in which the natives know little of foreigners and their culture beyond the fact that they are inferior, and which believes themselves to be under a state of siege. And there, my friends, you have the perfect conditions for some real, good, honest-to-goodness, paranoid, dangerous Nationalism.

Combine this Nationalism with the already existing Corporatism, and a Socialist government attempting to spend its way out of recession by mortgaging the future of its taxpayers (and yes, I include the Tories in that description) and what you have is a textbook Fascist state. And, given that, will the last one into the ovens please turn out the light?

It is, needless to say, something that I am utterly opposed to: not only because I object to totalitarian legislation affecting my life but because, as a Libertarian, I fundamentally see humans as being one race—I see everyone as a human and worth the same (although, I'll admit, deliberate ignorance annoys me).

Unfortunately, our country seems to be determined to sleepwalk into fascism and the only thing that we libertarians can do is to try to give those who object a voice in our increasingly debased democracy. It will be a slow process to get LPUK to a point in which we can enact any change and, alas, I fear that time is running out.

UPDATE: by the way, can I also say that it is mildly depressing that almost all the commenters on this post have simply discussed their pet peeves, rather than engaging with the thesis as a whole?

Who the hell cares whether the smoking ban was right or not in this context? It doesn't matter—it's only an example.

Similarly, who the hell cares whether criminalising drink-driving is right or wrong in this context? It is, again, merely an example.

What does matter is the methods used to achieve these bans, and those used to change the public's attitudes to said topics. What is important is how the state has managed to manipulate society to make certain things "unacceptable" without people ever having to think about them.

There are arguments to be had over drink-driving, for instance, but you actually cannot have such an argument with many (especially younger) people today (I know: I've tried) because they have been conditioned to believe that drink-driving is an absolute evil in and of itself when, in fact, it is not. What we are supposed to be condemning is what might arise out of the act, i.e. injury or death to others.

Successive governments have used propaganda in a concerted attempt to make things "socially unacceptable", to the point that one can no longer even have a discussion about certain topics.

If the generally well-informed and intelligent readers of this blog cannot see the danger inherent in this, then I fear that we are all lost. Will the last lover of freedom into the gulags please turn out the lights...?

"Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches..."

Lord Taylor of Blackburn: one of the four corrupt Lords named in the article. This man is a despicable shit and should go and hang himself immediately.

Those of us who have observed British politics have long been aware that the House of Commons is utterly corrupt, with MPs funnelling our money into their back pockets, or laundering it through special interest groups. And NuLabour upped the stakes on the sordid cash-for-questions antics of the Tories; from the very beginning—starting with the Ecclestone scandal and carrying on—NuLabour made it plain that it was not just MPs that were for sale, but government policy.

It is then, hardly surprising, that their cronies in the Lords have also been shown to be up for sale.

BARON TRUSCOTT of St James’s took a bite of his teacake before explaining to the two lobbyists in front of him just how much it would cost to hire a peer of the realm.

“Rates vary between £1,000 and £5,000 a day,” he said quietly, his voice almost drowned by the chatter in the House of the Lords dining room. It was a question, he agreed, of getting the right person rather than haggling over the money.

Truscott — a former Labour MEP who was a government minister until 18 months ago — made it clear he had exactly the right credentials.

In the course of their short tea-time conversation he agreed to help them amend a government bill that was harmful to their client, in return for cash. He said he had done similar work before. He said he had intervened on the Energy Bill — a piece of legislation he had been responsible for as a minister only months earlier. His fee was seemingly modest by peers’ standards, but probably not for most people outside the house. He charged £2,000 a day, which would have added up to £72,000 for the three-day-a-month one-year contract he later proposed.

However, he confided to the lobbyists, he had to be a “bit careful” and could not table the amendment himself. “There are ways to do these things, but there is a degree of subtlety . . . work behind the scenes,” he said.

What he didn’t know was that the two lobbyists were both undercover Sunday Times reporters.

As it turns out, four Labour peers—Baron Truscott of St James’s, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, Lord Moonie and (hilariously) Lord Snape—were able to be inveigled into giving away their dirty, little secret. Although, perhaps not so secret...?

Within earshot of Lord Ashdown, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, and Lord Lawson, a chancellor of the exchequer under Thatcher, Taylor bellowed: “There’s more business done in here than what’s done in most government offices, or most offices.”

These four Lords are incredibly fucking low: they are just another branch of the legislature who are willing to sell our liberty down the river in order to line their own pockets. They are evil fucking cunts and they should be ejected from the House forthwith. Hopefully, the shame will lead them to do the honourable thing, although I doubt it...

... because it is becoming more and more fucking obvious that not one single individual in our Parliament has the least shred of honour or decency. As Cromwell so eloquently put it...

"It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

"Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

"Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?

These people are cunts and they must be removed. All of them. Our Parliament is corrupt to the core and rotting from the ground up. Our legislators serve no purpose but to enrich themselves and, if it requires them to put the sell us into slavery, then they will happily do so.

This has gone beyond a little light-fingered thieving: this is the selling of policy to corporate interests for money; this is collusion with big business to enslave the nation: this is fascism.

Raze the entire place to the fucking ground and hang every single inhabitant: let there be a bonfire of their vanities. These people are colluding against the people of Britain for their own selfish gain and there is now surely no reason to tolerate this disgusting state of affairs.

It's time to clear out the rot and start again.

UPDATE: of course, it is entirely possible that we should add Lord Barnett to the list of confirmed corrupt bastards.

Drunk on power

Via The Englishman, this just gets more and more depressing.

Happy hours and drinking games to be banned under new laws

Happy hours, drinking games and all-you-can-drink deals in pubs and bars will be banned, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Oh for fuck's sake, why won't you cunts just fuck off?

Ministers also want to force drinks companies to carry health warnings on television adverts for beer, wine and spirits.

And cans and bottles of alcoholic drinks may have to bear cigarette-style medical advice about the dangers of drinking.

The announcement of the plans in 10 days' time will coincide with the start of the Christmas party season when police forces and hospitals see a major rise in alcohol-related offences and admissions to accident and emergency departments.

Ministers have drawn up a new draft code of conduct for the drinks industry amid growing concern about excessive drinking.

Alcohol misuse is said to cost society up to £25billion annually, with the cost to the NHS running at £2.7billion a year.

The new rules will be compulsory, and are likely to trigger protests from the drink industry.

And in the meantime, these stinking lousy fucking hypocrites will continue to fund their drinking habits with our fucking cash: not only do we pay their wages and expenses (with which they buy their booze), but we directly subsidise their bars to the tune of £5.5 million per year.

Fuck you, you hideous fucking hypocrites: fuck you right in the fucking face.

Internet and newspaper adverts will also have to carry warnings, while ministers are likely to give the industry until next March to agree to print health warnings on drink labels, or face being forced to by law.

What the fuck? This is so fucking typical of NuLabour, isn't it? All of their voluntary initiatives—labels on booze, carrying an ID Card—end up in precisely the same way:

"Don't worry, this is a voluntary measure."

"So, I can choose not to do this?"

"Ah, well, yes... But if you don't do it voluntarily, then we will legislate to force you."

"That's not very fucking voluntary."

"Ah... well... it's not actually meant to be. But we'd like you to do it voluntarily so that we don't look quite so obviously fascist."

And believe me, we will see even more of this shit under the Tories. In the name of all that's un-fucking-holy, where was any of this shit in the manifesto, eh?

What is it with these people, that they should choose to interfere in the very minutiae of our lives—that they should desire to ensure that our short spans upon this planet should be spent with as miserable way as humanly possible?

I think that we should put some of our masters' subsidised booze to good use: let's douse the fuckers in cheap spirits and set them alight, the cunts.

Fascism: a persuasive argument

Via the LPUK Blog—which titles it Labour's Next Election Broadcast—why not listen to the seductive arguments of this Australian gentleman...



After all, as LPUK Blog points out again, the fascist state is already here and you had all of that tiring voting to do.

Propaganda TV

Supermarkets could be asked to take people's fingerprints as part of the government's identity card scheme.

The Home Office is talking to retailers and the Post Office about setting up booths to gather biometric data.

They aren't even trying to hide it any more. Openly big government is combining with big business, to control the people. That is almost a textbook definition of fascism.

And I, for one, welcome our new fascist overlords...

Fucking hellski.

Telescreens will soon be a reality...

As your humble Devil has mentioned before, I was taught that the political spectrum can be imagined as a torus—described simplistically, on one point of the ring you have anarcho-libertarianism and, diametrically opposite, you have totalitarianism: it doesn't matter which way you travel around the ring—left or right—from the anarcho-libertarian position, you will end up at the totalitarian position.

This is not to say that all societies start off anarchic and then reach totalitarianism (necessarily) but that end point, a totalitarian state, is the same result irrespective of whether you reached it by travelling Left around the torus or Right.

Now, one of the usual arguments in the blogosphere is whether or not the Nazis were of the Right or of the Left; yes, they were called the National Socialist Workers Party but many of their tactics are adjudged to be of the Right (and a turd by any other name...). The point about the torus theory is that it doesn't particularly matter what creed got you there (although the torus, being a three dimensional object two-dimensional object in three dimensional space, does, of course, allow for such shades of interpretation).

The only point is that a totalitarian society was created; in the same way that it doesn't tremendously matter whether Hitler (in Germany), Stalin (in Russia), Mao (in China) or The Party (in 1984) were of the Left or the Right: the end result for the people was much the same—oppression, slavery, constant monitoring by the state, imprisonment without trial, war, disease, famine and death on a truly grand scale.

The favourite tool of 1984's Big Brother was, of course, the telescreen: although it was primarily a mechanism for saturating the population with state propaganda, the telescreen also served as a high-tech and ubiquitous panopticon—although the state could not watch every individual constantly, no individual could be sure that he was not being watched at any one time. Combined with swift and dreadful repercussions for non-compliance, the telescreen was the ultimate tool of state control.

Thus it was with some weariness and resignation that I saw this article in July and predicted where it would go...

It is promised that besides showing news the screens will be used to promote culture; that they will be “digital canvases for local artists, film-makers and students”. But there is an ulterior motive, given away by Bob Belam, of Waltham Forest council. The screens, he said, would be used to “provide important information and will be able to get out messages about antisocial behaviour”.

They are less about entertaining us than about control – another part of the Orwellian machinery of the modern British city. It isn’t hard to imagine how they will be used: “We are interrupting coverage to remind you that bathing in the fountains is prohibited.”

Here's another Times article, from the same day, expanding on the this hideous proposal.

Civic experts, who recently heard a presentation by London 2012 after raising concerns about long-term planning issues, told The Times that the real ambition was for between 45 and 60 permanent screens. They claimed that Olympics organisers were being deliberately secretive about the true scale of the project.

I have no doubt that that is the case; after all, given that we already have CCTV cameras on every corner (some of which will bark orders at wrong-doers), wouldn't it be so very easy to imagine that these screens might be two-way?

Mind you, as the Libertarian Party blog points out, neither NuLabour nor Orwell were the first to imagine such a system.

Adolf Hitler Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were working on a Big Brother-style cable television propaganda industry to be broadcast across Germany.

Plans for the system were first found when Soviet soldiers entered Berlin but have recently been reexamined by researchers for a new Russian documentary.

The Orwellian screens would have been set up in public places and would show "people's television", depicting how the Aryan race should live, with the Nazis focusing on news, sport and education.

Ideas included building rooms beside laundries so women could gather round the TV to watch the broadcasts.

Prototype programmes included Family Chronicles: An Evening with Hans and Gelli, which was an early reality TV show depicting a wholesome Aryan life of a young German couple.

Engineer Walter Burch was asked to make the idea a reality, and tabled a document to Hitler called "Plan to supply people's transmitter to German homes" which would result in the laying of a broadband cable between Berlin and Nuremberg.

Other plans included showing footage of executions of Nazi traitors.

Perhaps it is time to bow down and worship our lords and masters? For soon there will be no option.

But perhaps I am being paranoid and hysterical? Yes, maybe I am. Yes, yes, I must be.

Never mind, I shall still be going on that little stroll on November the 5th: why don't you watch us all on the Parliament Square webcam...?

UPDATE: it seems that even Banksy objects, although this Times article coyly misses out a part of the slogan.

The striking mural, painted under cover of darkness, was intended as a stinging criticism of Big Brother society. So it will come as little surprise to its creator, Banksy, that bureaucracy has ordered the removal of one of his largest works.

The Times has learnt that Westminster Council has demanded that a mural by the pseudonymous graffiti artist, a 7m (23 ft) criticism of Britain’s CCTV culture, must be painted over. While other authorities have turned a blind eye to Banksy, the council said yesterday that it would remove any graffiti, regardless of the reputation of its creator. Westminster said that Banksy had no more right to paint graffiti than a child – which, ironically, is the subject of the piece in question.

The picture used here, showing the artwork in its full glory, comes courtesy of The Englishman...

More jumped up Council cunts

The really awful thing about humanity is that the kind of people who should never, ever have any power over anyone, at all, always seem to be the ones who get it. Those who seek power should, in fact, never be given it.

But, I must admit that I have a little more respect for those with grand designs—at least they are thinking big. People like this, however, are just fucking little shits who should be ceremonially hanged in this self-same park for the sport of crows.

A few weeks ago, a well-known local protester was evicted from the park for dressing up as a penguin and handing out climate change propaganda. Now, this is someone I’ve locked horns with on more than one occasion and of course I don’t agree with her views on climate change (she believes in anthropogenic climate change, I have common sense) but on this we agreed—she has every right to stand in a public place and hand out leaflets as long as she doesn’t harass anyone. The council officers who evicted her from that public place had no right to do so and several people told them so. They even told her that you are only allowed to hand out leaflets in the park if you have had a Police CRB check and signed a declaration agreeing to all sorts of restrictions. This is, of course, a load of bollocks - they cannot impose these conditions on anyone wanting to use a public place.

But they don’t let the little matter of acting without authority get in the way. No, rather than apologise for harassing someone going about their lawful business they have announced that anyone seen in the park without a child will be challenged by their agents who will want to know who they are and why they are in the park without a child.

Well, bugger me: I hadn't realised that parks were only for the entertainment of children—had you? I had this weird idea that parks might actually be for the benefit of everyone, that green spaces were considered a "public good".

How stupid I've been: you see, I thought "public" meant everyone, not just children and their parents. What a dimbo I am.

I’m a father of four and I want my children to be safe. What I don’t want is the type of society where everyone is assumed to be guilty.

The council’s pronouncement has gone down like a lead balloon locally and a protest has been organised for Saturday morning by Telford Council Watch. I’ll be there sans enfants to show the facists at Telford & Wrekin Council what I think of their new rules and to exercise my right, as per the legally binding contract that transferred ownership of the park to the Telford Development Corporation (now susbumed into the council), to free and open access to the park.

So fuck you, Telford Council, and your fucking insulting suspicions and your totalitarian behaviour. I hope that the good people of Telford line up and fuck every orifice in your skulls until you are starting to suffocate, your eye jelly dribbling down your neck whilst all that you can hear is the sound of cum whooshing in your ears.

Or they could just vote you out, I suppose...

More UKIP infighting. Apparently.

Via Timmy, it seems that the Independent has picked up on some of the infighting in UKIP.

At the same time, another plot to remove Mr Farage is being co-ordinated by the former Ukip member Andrew Edwards who was removed from the party after it emerged he had links to the BNP.

In January, he sent an email to friends saying, "Happy new year and damnation to the enemies of Britain and the British".

He confirmed yesterday that he wants Mr Farage removed, and named several other figures who believe Mr Farage is not taking a hard enough line on issues including immigration and who are moving against his leadership.

As Timmy points out, Andrew Edwards has little influence in the party and the sooner he fucks off to the BNP, the better frankly.

Then there is David Abbott, a member of Ukip's national executive committee (NEC), and former candidate in the European elections. He once donated money to the American Friends of the BNP (AFBNP).

Dr Abbott, whom Mr Farage has tried to remove from the NEC, said he was working for Mr Farage's removal from the leadership, saying "UKIP needs effective leadership".

The kind of "effective leadership" that would actually ensure that Farage could remove you from the NEC, you mean? Seriously, arseholes like David Abbott sit about and complain that Farage rules the party as a dictator but is, apparently, still in office. Not a very effective dictatorship then, eh, David? You fucking tosser.

A quick reminder that David Abbott gave money to the BNP and then, when this was revealed (in yet another damaging press story), claimed that he had no idea what the BNP actually stood for. It seems that we must apply the Polly Conundrum to Dr Abbott, i.e. is he pig-ignorant or a lying piece of shit?

Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, confirmed both Dr Abbott's donation – which he said was a one-off and on "free speech" grounds – and Mr Edwards' ever-closer involvement with the BNP. He said Mr Edwards regularly wrote for the BNP website, confirmed he was involved with the BNP while in Ukip and said that he "was with them and is now much more sympathetic to us".

He said Mr Edwards was "one of a number of people who joined Ukip in good faith and then found that it wasn't – and Nigel Farage in particular wasn't – what they had thought".

Indeed so, and therein lies the problem with UKIP—it's this schizophrenia that was the prime reason for my leaving the party.

You see, there are two parts to UKIP: there are those who want to leave the EU because they believe in free trade and minimal government—these libertarians include Nigel Farage and, of course, our classical liberal blogging friends, e.g. Timmy, Vindico, Mark Wadsworth.

Then, of course, there are those who want to leave from a nationalist point of view—because they view the EU as a construct of evil foreigners who wish to do Britain down. They are on a fairly broad spectrum, from the ultra-Conservative to the more extreme end; this latter group are very definitely potential BNP material. One can only assume that they joined UKIP to avoid the opprobrium that membership of the BNP would bring.

However, all of the conservative group despise the libertarians, who they perceive as being, at best, wishy-washy liberals and, at worst, actively dangerous lunatics. I mean, everyone knows that the legalisation of drugs is quite simply an evil policy, don't they?—one that will lead to our streets being awash with addicts intent on mugging decent, hard-working folk to feed their crack and crystal meth addiction. And we all know that free trade will lead to every person in Britain being slung out of a job and being replaced with darkies, do we not?

The problem for UKIP is that these two groups are unreconcilable. You will all know which side I favour and which side I think are stupid, pusillanimous cunts. Unfortunately, the latter group are extremely noisy and just will not shut the fuck up. And there are a lot of them.

The libertarian group—and those who are not actively opposed to the libertarians (mild conservatives, if you will)—continue, in the main, to hold the positions of power at present. But if they should ever be ousted, then UKIP could become a very ugly party indeed.

Let us hope that this does not happen, for I do retain a certain affection (and admiration) for those who lead this rag-tag bunch of people. Whatever the state of the party, I would also urge you to vote for UKIP at the Euro-elections: although The Huntsman disagrees, urging a Tory vote, he is absolutely wrong. If we wish the next Conservative government even to start negotiating a withdrawal, we need to show them that there is the wish and the will in this country to start such negotiations.

And, realistically, the only way to do that is to vote for withdrawal; and, because General Elections are decided on a great many issues other than the EU, the only real chance that we have to vote solely on this issue is at the Euro-elections. We need to send a message to our Lords and Masters in Westminster that there is popular support for withdrawal, and that they must stop swithering, take their balls in their hands and start the process of withdrawal: the only way to do that is to vote for the only credible party advocating such a move—UKIP.

There shall be no dissent

Trixy is suitably outraged at the continuing contempt for democracy in the European Union continues, with that odious little cunt, Richard Corbett MEP, leading the charge.

The European Union assembly’s political establishment is pushing through changes that will silence dissidents by changing the rules allowing Euro-MPs to form political groupings.

Richard Corbett, a British Labour MEP, is leading the charge to cut the number of party political tendencies in the Parliament next year, a move that would dissolve UKIP’s pan-European Eurosceptic “Independence and Democracy” grouping.

Under the rule change, the largest and msot pro-EU groups would tighten their grip on the Parliament’s political agenda and keep control of lavish funding.
...

Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, claimed that the move goes hand in hand with the denial of popular votes on the new EU Treaty.

”Welcome to your future. This shows an EU mindset that is arrogant, anti-democratic and frankly scary,” he said.

This is utterly unsurprising to those of us who have studied the EU grand projet for any amount of time, of course.

Even Iain Dale seems to have realised that this is a fairly fucking shitty move.

At the moment you need 20 MEPs from one fifth of member countries to form a group and thereby gain the grants. Labour MEP Richard Corbett is proposing a change to increase the threshold to 30 MEPs from a quarter of Member States.

Needless to say the EPP think this is a thoroughly good idea and will no doubt be whipping Tory MEPs to vote for it when it comes before the Parliament on 9 July.
...

To their credit, the LibDems and Greens are opposing the move. Wouldn't it be nice to think that British Conservative MEPs might also do the same?

Fat fucking chance, Iain; barring a couple of decent people—Helmer, Hannan and Heaton-Harris—the Tory MEPs are absolutely behind the EU project: they would probably still vote this through even if they were whipped to oppose. But then, David Cameron has expressed enduring enthusiasm for the EU—albeit usually couched in economically illiterate terms—so these MEPs are, after all, merely following their master.

Let me emphasise this: a vote for Labour or Tory at the Euro-elections is a vote for the EU; and a vote for the EU is a vote for losing the point of having a vote.

The EU wish to silence those parties which you elected to oppose the EU project; really, don't think that they will think twice about silencing you.

Get used to totalitarianism, people, but make sure that you take advantage of the eventual EU dominance: invest in gulags!

Competition in the EU

Commenters often point out that, surely, as a free-marketeer, I must be absolutely in favour of the EU's destruction of national monopolies. I have usually been pretty equivocable, frankly, and EU Referendum sums up, very neatly, why this is so.

The trouble with Randall and his ilk is that, although they are basically "on side", they have never really got to grips with the nature of the EU and its true (and only) agenda—political integration.

In that context, the postal services directives have exactly the same agenda as all the other so-called "liberalising" instruments, whether they are dealing with energy (see here), rail services, telecommunications, or whatever. The intent is to break up national monopolies, not for the sake of it, but in order to recreate then on a European level, under the direct control of the EU commission.

Thus, the attack on national monopolies is not an attack on the monopolies, per se but an attack on nationalism—it is an attack on the nation state, an attempt to reduce the power and influence of the member states. As such, the EU has no rooted objection to monopolies – it is, after all, itself a monopoly. Its apparent enthusiasm for "competition" is simply a smokescreen to gull free-market liberals into supporting its deeper agenda.

However, the great genius of the commission—as I have been wont to observe—is its realisation that it is no longer necessary to nationalise something in order to own it. Basically, it has developed a system of nationalisation by regulation. It you have complete control over an industry, you get all the benefits of ownership without needing the title deeds.
...

Before it can build its European dream the EU must first destroy what exists. We are in the destruction phase. For sure, we must not allow it to happen, but "we" are no longer in control.

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen: the reason why I am not in favour of the EU's forced "liberalisation".

It is also interesting to note that the "destroy in order to create" mantra was always a big favourite of Communists and other hard-left factions. But, actually, it is fascism that the EU's approach more closely resembles: a totalitarian government using large corporations—state-sponsored corporatism, in other words—in order to carry out its missions is very much a mark of fascist regimes.

Doctors: still not getting it

Dr J Mengele, yesterday, said, "listen to doctors. We have your best interests at heart."

Politicians are pretty fucking awful; journos aren't much better. But what the fucking hell is it about doctors that makes them so bastard totalitarian?

People should be fined £100 for being drunk in public, even if they do not cause a nuisance, a leading medic says.

Plastic surgeon Peter Mahaffey told the British Medical Journal police should carry breathalysers and fine those three times over the drink-drive limit.
...

He said by imposing fines the message would soon get across that binge-drinking was not acceptable.

To whom is it unacceptable? To you? You want to rule people's lives according to your personal morals? That, sunshine, is what we call a dictatorship. And, as I have said before, we all know where that ends up.

Yes, people get hurt and do stupid things whilst they are drunk. But, as long as I harm nobody but myself, it is absolutely no fucking business of yours what state I'm in, OK?

I shall quote Bill Hicks, once again:

"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body—as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?"

Now listen up, shitface: you are no better than me and you have absolutely no right—no right at all—to tell me how much I should drink, in what timeframe I should drink it and what state I should be in, as long as I am harming or disturbing no one else. You think about that, Peter Mahaffey, and you shut your fucking face—you and all your illiberal doctor buddies.

Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

It's not how you protest...

... it's what you protest about. The picture below shows MEPs holding up placards, protesting about the treatment of a human rights activist.


Let me tell you what happened.

• The placards were not confiscated by the ushers.


• The participants were not accused of bringing the European Parliament into disrepute, nor were accused of being childish or mentally ill.


• The MEPs involved were not fined.

Now, you may remember that a few weeks ago, a bunch of MEPs made the same kind of protest, but their placards (and t-shirts) simply said, "referendum". Here is a picture.


Let me tell you what happened.

• The placards were confiscated by the ushers.


• The participants were accused of bringing the European Parliament into disrepute, and were accused of being childish and mentally ill.


• As Dan Hannan reports, the MEPs involved have been fined.

Well, sort of. Some of the MEPs involved have been fined. Some of the EUsceptic MEPs who weren't even in the chamber have also been fined.

A number of Euro-sceptic MEPs are to be fined for having demonstrated in the chamber in favour of a referendum on the European Constitution. Polish, Italian, French and Austrian MEPs are among those being punished, as well as a couple of UKIP members and my Tory colleague Roger Helmer. The fines range from £400 to £1000, and have been allocated more or less arbitrarily.

This blog keeps warning that the European Parliament is making its rulings despotically. If you think my language is alarmist, consider what has just happened.

No demonstration before or since has met with any such sanction. Yesterday, for example, dozens of Liberal and Green MEPs held up placards to protest about the treatment of a human rights activist. No problem there. But the sight of the word REFERENDUM was so offensive to my federalist colleagues that they sent the parliamentary ushers to tear the placards away (the poor ushers couldn’t have been politer or more apologetic) and then moved to fine the people holding them.

These fines have been dished out almost randomly. One of the Austrian members being penalised was in Frankfurt on the day of the demo. Several other MEPs who joined the protest — including a number of Conservatives, such as David Sumberg, Syed Kamall and me — have got off scot-free. Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader, was so annoyed not to have been punished that he rose on a point of order in the manner of Kirk Douglas, shouting: “I’m Spartacus!”

Everyone understands what is really going on. Members are being penalised, not for having demonstrated, but for being Euro-sceptics. Such discrimination is a daily fact of life here.

Expect prosecutions for criticism of the EU to become a daily fact of life throughout the EU countries. You think I am being alarmist? We'll see.

In the meantime, these fines are an outrage. And—as Dan so perspicaciously points out—this, ladies and gentlemen, is meant to be the democratic part of the European Union.

So, can we leave yet?

It can never be said too many times...

Entering The Labour Camp: one of the many drawings from the notebooks of Eufrosinia Kersnovskaya, who spent 12 years in gulags.
[Click for a bigger version.]

Croydonian finds good sense in unexpected places.

As the Black Book of Communism (a best seller in France, if not here) notes,

"Communist regimes are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement, including Nazism. The statistics of victims includes executions, intentional destruction of population by starvation, and deaths resulting from deportations, physical confinement, or through forced labor. It does not include "excess deaths" due to higher mortality or lower birth rates than expected of the population".

So I have never thought it was big, clever, ironic or mordantly witty to sport t-shirts with Che Guevara or a hammer & sickle on it, any more than I would wear an Adolf Hitler European tour t-shirt. I have read a lot of Solzhenitsyn, Robert Conquest and others, and the death ships of the Okhotsk Sea, the digging of the Belomor Canal and Pol Pot's Tuol Sleng should be as well known as Auschwitz.

Indeed. And yet one does not hear laws proposing to make Russian pogrom-denying illegal, does one? Will one be sent to prison in Austria for Holodomor-denial? No. And nor is there an EU framework banning the glorification of The Cultural Revolution.

That nice Mr Cameron and that socially responsible Mr Brown have promised to fund trips to Auschwitz but not to Kolyma, Norilsk or Vorkuta. Why not, I wonder? Why is such a morbid preoccupation with the, admittedly horrific, murder by the Nazis (or National Socialists) of some six million Jews juxtaposed with such a casual disregard for the tens of millions of dead Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Chinese, Jews and all of the many other millions upon millions upon millions murdered by Communism?

The regimes shared one important charateristic, of course; they were totalitarian oligarchies; I am sure that their leaders did not think of themselves as being evil, either. But this is the kind of thing that happens when a bunch of powerful people demand that you live your life according to those leaders' personal beliefs.

Which is why, of course, I am a libertarian: because I recognise that my beliefs are not necessarily yours and it is morally wrong that I should demand that you live your life according to my personal priorities. Not only is it morally wrong, but the many tens of millions of dead people scattered bloodily across the twentieth century shows precisely where such aspirations end up: they end up with millions of people dying in labour camps and starving to death to feed the vanity of their leaders.

And yes, our democracies move more slowly but they are, nevertheless, moving in that direction. For as the state moves to interfere in yet more aspects of our lives—financial, moral, and personal—we become mere possessions of the state, tools to be used for the greater glory of our leaders.

Only those kept utterly ignorant of history—as all too many now are (deliberately so?)—could fail to see the inevitable shift towards statism as extremely worrying.

Only the smug and the stupid could imagine that totalitarianism could never happen in our great Western democracies. And all too many fools are distracted by the red herring of Islamism—a phantasmagoria of totalitarianism built up by our governments to deflect attention from their own ambitions.

Only those who anticipate being part of the ruling oligarchy could embrace all this willingly—which is why so many socialists are middle-class.

Those who welcome state intervention are either idiots or evil. Or, quite possibly, evil fucking idiots.