Just wondering...

Over at EUReferendum, on the eve of The Budget, Richard's frustration is particularly evident and his dire predictions of bloody revolution becoming ever more bloody... [Emphasis mine.]

The average British household has seen its real-terms income fall by £365 in the worst three-year squeeze since the early 1980s, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, dragging it down 1.6 percent since 2008. During the previous half-century, the average income had risen by 1.6 percent each year.

Against that, inflation is up to 4.4 percent, taxes are up, and are set to increase further with today's budget, as Government finances continue to spiral out of control.

This is balanced by reduced entitlements, poorer services, increased charges and public sector fees – all the while the ruling classes continue to pay themselves more and better salaries and pensions, while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

This, it seems, it just the time to embark on a foreign adventure, to keep the minds of the plebs focused on the bread and circuses – except that most people aren't buying it. They are deeply suspicious of the cost and alarmed at the evidence that the Boy doesn't actually know what he is doing.

This is getting close to the stuff of revolution. We are not there yet, but each of these developments brings us a step further down this perilous road, from which there is no turning back once the destination is reached.

Maybe so and I have often, in the past, yelled loudly for British citizens to man the barricades!

But I am troubled by just one question should this unhappy situation ever arise...

Tell me—who will rush to enforce a no-fly zone in Britain when the government turns its guns on us...?

Yet more libertarian debate

Despite his being a card-carrying Labour man, I actually agree with Unity far more than I disagree with him: we are both libertarians, though he ascribes himself to be of the Left whilst I am generally cleaved to the Right^*. I thoroughly respect his ability to delve deep into data-heavy documents and produce excellent digests, and we have worked together on some projects in the past.

Anyway, Unity has written a rather good post over at Liberal Conspiracy—following on from this piece of ill-informed, bigoted idiocy (which I commented on here)—in which he tries to define the difference between libertarians and "libertarian" Tories. You really do need to read the whole thing, but his conclusion runs thusly...

So, it you’re at all unsure as to how to spot a Tory masquerading as a libertarian, just ask them whether they believe that victims of crime, or just plain old law-abiding citizens have different rights to criminals.

If the answer’s ‘yes’, then you’ve got yourself a Tory (or a cabinet minister).

If the answer’s ‘no’ and they go to explain that both have the same fundamental rights but that the criminal’s freedom to exercise those rights may be legitimately, and temporarily, constrained in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others, then you’ve got yourself a liberal or libertarian.

Simples.

Which is fair enough and certainly a reasonable test.

Meanwhile, inspired by Unity's article and in a must-read post, the lovely Bella Gerens addresses the all-too-often-levelled charge that libertarians are selfish.

So let’s lay to rest, once and for all, this ‘libertarians want the world to revolve around them and fuck everyone else’ crap.*

Yes – libertarians are self-centred. I’ve said it, it’s true, amen brother. Of course we are concerned with the self. The self is the only entity over which we do have and should have control. A libertarian is not concerned with others, because it is not for us to say what is good for others, or what others should and shouldn’t do. Our comprehension of others is determined by how those others affect the self. A libertarian refrains from affecting others in ways he would not himself want to be affected. A libertarian respects others who hold this same principle, because he knows they too have selves with which they are concerned.

Is that selfish? Yes. Is it wrong? No, because the self is always the first point of reference. First, not only. I’m afraid there is no getting around that, however much others might wish there were. It is impossible to act without reference to the self.

Libertarians, in the main, have no objection to helping others, or directing their concern toward others, as long as it is done voluntarily, in the absence of third-party coercion.

The wife then goes on to illustrate, pretty bloody clearly, who the real enemy is here—designated as Person B or "the state, the welfare system, socialism, whatever". Person B is the enemy because Person B deliberately sets out to try to ensure that Persons A and C—one with resources and one without, respectively—hate each other.

We all know Person B—and it isn't just "the state". As I said earlier, it is those who believe that they "should be sovereign over the individual".

We broadly call them socialists and they are the ones who believe that there is a one-size fits all way to satisfy people's needs rather than recognising that there are at least six billion needs and wants.

And remember, anyone who advocates this kind of attitude does not expect to the one being pushed around—they expect to be giving the orders.

As such, one could coherently argue that it is socialists that are the truly selfish people here, for they believe that their way of running things is inherently better than anyone else's. Worse, they believe that their wants and needs to trump everyone else's.

They are the enemy and, at the risk of repeating myself, they are winning the war.

UPDATE: Marius Ostrowski sums up the libertarian position in one long sentence.

The realisation that the only sphere over which anyone has, or should have, influence is the self; the belief that everyone has the same basic rights unless they forfeit them by attempting to transgress beyond their legitimate sphere of influence; and the acceptance that needs, desires and wants (broadly speaking, conceptions of the good) are unique to each individual and should be left to individuals to realise through own effort and negotiation, with the implication that there is no such thing as objective societal good, merely a whole lot of individual views that may or may not agree with each other.

Nice.

^* I am not really going to go into why Right and Left are inappropriate when describing libertarians—suffice to say that a belief in universal liberty does not really belong in either camp.

As I've said before, I prefer the torus view of politics—in which case, libertarianism is on the diametrically opposed side to authoritarianism. Left and Right, however, travel their respective ways around the torus away from libertarianism and towards authoritarianism.

An agenda

Your humble Devil rarely comments on the Iraq War—partly because I covered it quite extensively when this blog first started, and partly because I have always been ambivalent about the whole adventure.

However, ChickenYoghurt's sarcastic acknowledgement of "the beginning of our glorious formal withdrawal from Iraq" has reminded me of a conversation that I was having in the pub, a few weeks back, with a friend who works in one the murkier parts of the MoD.

Actually, he said, the situation in Iraq really isn't that bad; it isn't even that bad in Basra. Companies looking to invest come to Iraq and expect it to be a barren, bombed-out wasteland—and are immensely surprised (and enthusiastic) when they realise that it isn't. Few British companies, being rather risk-averse, tend to go there but the French and Americans are enthusiastically investing all over the place.

No, it's not perfect—a lot of infrastructure has been destroyed for instance. (A bit like in the former Yugoslavia, but Robin Cook didn't resign over that illegal war, so people didn't get so het up about it.)

However, the situation is not nearly as bad as our media paints it—when our glorious MSM gets the releases from the MoD, they nearly always pick on the one bad bit in the whole two-page briefing. (The above must be lies—our wonderful media would never distort the facts to suit their agenda, would they?)

Now, you can believe that I have been taken in by some devious MoD spook, but I tend to trust this guy when he says that things in Iraq, whilst far from perfect, are very much on the mend. Which is why, as my friend pointed out, we are leaving.

However, I do think that those who expected us to go in, remove Saddam, and have everything sorted out within six months were naive idiots; on the other hand, I think those who think that everything will still be utter shit in ten years are rather pessimistic.

Whether you think this justifies our intervention is a personal judgement, and I am making no such call.

P.S. Afghanistan's still a bit of a mess though...

Remembrance

I will post something else on the eleventh, but since today is Remembrance Sunday, I think it fitting to mark it with a poem that, for me, encapsulates much of the bombastic optimism and sheer horror of the many wars that have been fought; but I like it for the piece ends with hope.

It is appropriate too, for Cecil Spring-Rice rewrote the first verse as "a reference to England and the sacrifice of those who died during the First World War".

Shortly before his departure from the US in January 1918, he re-wrote and renamed Urbs Dei, significantly altering the first verse to concentrate on the huge losses suffered by British soldiers during the intervening years.

I am sure that many commenters will level derision at your humble Devil, given his declarations on atheism (for the poem is about how Christians are bound to serve both country and god), and some will no doubt find its patriotism overblown and, possibly, offensive.

Ultimately, however, since one is commemorating, at least in part, those who died generations ago, I do not think that it is inappropriate to do so through a poem expressing values that they themselves would have shared (at the beginning of the wars, if not by the end).

I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above,
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love;
The love that asks no question, the love that stands the test,
That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;
The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,
The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.

I heard my country calling, away across the sea,
Across the waste of waters she calls and calls to me.
Her sword is girded at her side, her helmet on her head,
And round her feet are lying the dying and the dead.
I hear the noise of battle, the thunder of her guns,
I haste to thee my mother, a son among thy sons.

And there's another country, I've heard of long ago,
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;
And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,
And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace.

Of course, as the Royal British Legion would no doubt wish to stress, the Poppy Appeal also aims to commemorate those who have fallen in more recent wars—men whom we should honour whatever your feelings about the reasons given by politico scum who lead our country into said conflicts.

The Poppy Appeal also helps and supports the soldiers who have been injured and traumatised in said wars and who have been, mostly, abandoned by our shabby, disgusting, corrupt and amoral politicos: once again, these brave men deserve our help.

Perhaps we should get our valiant politicos to swap their pensions with those of our soldiers? I am sure, as the architects of these wars and the supporters of the shabby treatment meted out to our soldiers, that MPs would be thrilled at the idea and only too pleased to acquiesce...

Quote of the Day

Apparently, Alastair Darling is going to waive VAT on some single produced by numpties from piss-poor programme, The X Factor.

A charity X Factor song raising money for injured service personnel received a financial boost from the government today.

Alistair Darling in effect axed VAT on the single, Hero, sung by the 12 X Factor finalists.

The chancellor said the Treasury would make a donation to the Help for Heroes campaign equivalent to the tax revenue collected on the song.

Note the words "in effect" because they are very important: VAT is an EU controlled tax and Darling has no more power to exempt the single from VAT than he does to fly to the moon and write "Gordon Brown is a lying cunt" in the dust.

Instead, he is collecting the VAT and passing the payment to the EU as usual. Then he is going to give the equivalent of the money raised to the charity. That money, of course, has been stolen from taxpayers: it's very easy to give away other people's money, isn't it?

Anyway, Trixy sums all of this up in two pithy sentences...

So really, what the Chancellor is doing here is trying to raise his own popularity by appearing to support troops injured by the war he voted for using money which isn't his and lying about where it's coming from.

Classy, Darling.

Quite. Why doesn't that badger-faced moron piss of back to his Scottish hideaway and drown himself in an uncaring ocean? After all, its icy embrace has killed men with rather more courage than Darling.

And what a way to honour the war dead: a bunch of no-talent cunts off a pathetic money-making TV show singing a cover of a song by a notoriously selfish American diva. Personally, I thought that the James song, Hey Ma, used in this very effective Help For Heroes video would be a rather better choice...


The lyrics of Hey Ma...

Now the towers have fallen
So much dust in the air
It affected your vision
Couldn't see yourself clear
From the fall came such choices
Even worse than the fall
There's this chain of consequences
Within
Without

Action cause and reaction
Never follows to plan
Black swans on your picnic table
Knocking over the jam
Please don't preach me forgiveness
You're hardwired for revenge
War is just about business
Within
Without

Hey ma, the boy's in body bags
Coming home in pieces
Hey ma, the boy's in body bags
Coming home in pieces
Hey ma, the boy's in body bags
Coming home in pieces
Coming home in pieces

War

The dead live on within us
(In the atoms we trust)
Keep your fingers crossed
We were choking on the smoke and the dust
And the lives that were lost
Scratch the surface of liberals
There's a beast underneath
Others hiding their Jekylls
Within
Without

Hey ma, the boy's in body bags
Coming home in pieces
Hey ma, the boy's in body bags
Coming home in pieces

War

I can feel the daylight
I can feel the daylight
Raining on me
Raining on me

Great video: great song. Better than the X Factor crap anyway...

Midnight death train to Georgia

Marius Ostrowski explains the South Ossetia Disturbance by drawing analogy with the UK, the Channel Islands and Europe, and does so rather well. However, he also makes some concrete predictions and I though that I would flag them up so that we can play Russian Imperialist Bingo and see how many of them come to pass.

So where is all this going (assuming we can all get the thought of the Channel Islands’ becoming French out of our heads)? The Russians will almost certainly set up client states in Abkhazia and South Ossetia (and possibly Adjara—that’s in southern Georgia, watch out for that name in the news, it was the ‘Dover’ in my example) and use the ’sensitive situation’ there as an excuse to shift all their military service exercises ever closer to the Georgian border. They will condescend to leave Georgia alone and ‘independent’, probably in return for massive diplomatic concessions that they can never tell us because they’ll get blown skyhigh if they do, but which will probably be along the lines of ’steer clear of NATO, stick two fingers up at the USA, stay out of the EU, come join the neo-Soviet paradise, oh and GIVE US THE OIL PIPELINE’. Doubtless by the time of the next election, a pro-Russian hardliner will have emerged, who will win, the outgoing president will be assassinated and given the most cynical state funeral in history,and Georgia will suddenly not want to be friends with the West any more.

Get your scorecards out, people, and your well-chewed biros and let's start marking those boxes...!

The first person to tick all of the boxes gets a free job in the Civil Service. The Russian Civil Service that is—working out of Siberia...

UPDATE: At the Sharpener, John B is not impressed and explains why. Instead, he also recommends this Blood and Treasure post on the bizarre actions of the Georgians...

Batshit: battered to shit

As regular readers of The Kitchen (if there are any left after my recent longeurs) will be aware your humble Devil is most emphatically not a fan of David "Batshit" Miliband; I think that he is an odious little turd with all of the intelligence and charisma of a lump of dog-shit.

Few have so succinctly summed up Batshit as pithily as the poor little Greek boy in this barn-storming encomium to the chinless wonder that is our Foreign Secretary.

David Miliband is the sort of guy that we used, in our un-PC schooldays, to describe as a spastic. He was the kid on the chess team that you bullied incessantly (or at least, you did if you were a bully when you were at school; I myself was, er, on the chess team). His is an eminently punchable face; the sort of face you want to grab and hold down in the toilet for flush after gleeful flush, roaring with joy that there are such geeks in the world for you to torment. Cameron, for all that he comes across as a toff, is seen by many neutral observers as a likeable kind of bloke. Miliband, on the other hand, looks like what he is; a policy wonk with no friends.

However, what I hadn't considered is the proposition put forward by ChickenYoghurt: that Batshit might be the personification of the American Dream translated to our own fair isle.

Part of the American Dream, or at least used to be before you needed millions and millions of dollars to do it, is that anybody can become President.

After watching Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s unbelievably poor appearance on Question Time last night, I wonder if we’re not importing the idea into Britain. You read and listen to the political gossips touting Miliband as a future Labour leader and Prime Minister and you realise: Yes! It’s perfectly apparent that literally anybody could become Prime Minister.
...

You watch him and it gives hope for us all. Who couldn’t be that feckless and inarticulate and evasive and mealy-mouthed and weaselly?

It's an interesting thesis and here, via Mike Power, is a taster of just how vulnerable Batshit is; watch with delight as Peter Hitchens rips the bastard a new arsehole.

Rather beautiful, no?

This might be a contender...

... for the most cynical few sentences of the year—maybe even the decade...

There’s nothing particularly new, historically speaking, in the middle/upper classes having an attack of the vapours about the existence of a social underclass and all the social ills that go with it. The only difference this time around is that the UK hasn’t managed to address the problem in traditional fashion by arranging a war of sufficient size to cull the numbers of the great unwashed back to a manageable level, but to be fair to our political leaders, its not been for the lack of trying.

And yes, it did make me laugh. Nice work, Unity!

Hey Ma, the boys in body bags...

... coming home in pieces...

As regular readers will know, your humble Devil has generally been ambivalent about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of poilitical wisdom and necessity; I am, however, entirely supportive and, let's face it, in awe of our soldiers who have fought incredibly bravely in those theatres of war.

This video—in support of Help For Heroes—is just incredibly impressive. The video is beatifully cut to mirror the song, which is the title track off James' new album (and apparently used with the band's blessing).


I've never seen explosions up close before and hope never to do so. But these videos are amazing and affecting: it rams home the fact that there are actual people dying. You can see them, there, on those videos.

As I said, I'm in awe. But also irritated: what a pointless waste of lives, on all sides...

Insane... But very cool

I find this story of a reservist who, having set off a grenade booby-trap in Afghanistan, decided that he had to save his friends.

Lance Corporal Croucher and his troop were on patrol last month near their base in Sangin, Helmand province, when he stepped into a tripwire that pulled the pin from a boobytrap grenade.

He said: “I thought, I’ve set this bloody thing off and I’m going to do whatever it takes to protect the others. I’m very tight with the three other guys. There have been a few times when they have saved my bacon.

“I knew a grenade like this has a killing circumference of about five metres. So I got down with my back to the grenade and used my body as a shield. It was a case of either having four of us as fatalities or badly wounded, or one.”

Amazingly, he survived with little more than a nosebleed, although his backpack was blown to smithereens. As Samizdata commented,

Fortitude and insane luck are a very cool combination.

Too right. Croucher is very brave chap and deserves his Victoria Cross nomination.

The obligatory five years on...

I haven't bothered taking part in the whole Iraq War blogswarm, and Shuggy articulates precisely why.

There are a dozen different reasons why I'm not doing a Johann Hari. I might explain some of them in due course but here's just one: Johann describes himself as having been a 'cheerleader' for the invasion of Iraq and now he feels terribly guilty about it. Fair enough in as far as this goes because I think cheerleading is a fairly accurate description of what he did. But don't invite us all to do likewise because some of us didn't do this in the first place. Some of us were more circumspect. Some of us backed the war even though we knew the outcome wasn't certain. Some of us had misgivings about the whole enterprise from the outset and so felt less need to acquire them after the fact. Some of us were there for the first one and made all the clever anti-war arguments at that time. Then came over a decade of 'containment' over which time we came to the conclusion we'd been wrong. So when it came around a second time, we could do no other but lend our reluctant support. This forms part of the reason why some of us aren't repenting today.

The only difference was that I felt that the First Gulf War was justified: Saddam had invaded a sovereign country and we had a clear mandate to take action. However, the dithering over that war—do we topple Saddam, don't we topple Saddam, how far into the country can we invade, etc.—set an entirely predictable precedent for this one, i.e. a chronic lack of planning and absence of cohesive strategy as to what we'd do once we'd actually "won".

For what it's worth, though, I still think that my posts on why the war occurred and what the likely course was are still relevant.

The first and obvious thing to ask is why Iraq and Afghanistan were attacked in the first place; and here, I am afraid, I am going to have to extrapolate some of the thinking in the White House. When 9/11 happened, Bush and his advisors not only had to find out who did it for security reasons, but also to appease the people who wanted a scapegoat. Much of what happens in the terrorist world is known by security services around the world, notably by Mossad who are—as it were—on the doorstep. The White House were aware of the training camps in Afghanistan (they had, after all, essentially set them up themselves) and, given the weakness economically and lack of popular support for the Taliban—both within and without the country—it seemed an easy, and effective, target. And so, within reason, it proved.

Why was Iraq chosen? Some people have pointed to a motive of postively psychotic, and thus pretty unlikely, pietas; others pointed to the oil. The fact is that the US itself produces the vast majority of the oil that it uses, and most of the rest comes from Venezuela and other South American countries. Sure, they may want to gain control of oil supplies; but would they really go to war, with all the expense—both in terms of money and in the possible loss of American lives (and votes)—that that could entail? As Saudi Arabia, the country with the most reserves, was still more than happy to deal oil to the them, it would seem to be foolish to pursue a course which could, in fact, turn Saudi—and its oil reserves—against the US. In fact, the oil companies specifically lobbied Bush not to attack Iraq. I think there was another reason.

I think that both Afghanistan and Iraq were chosen because they were not Iran.

You will have to forgive the style; they were both written very early on in my blogging career, in January and July 2005. Still, it is worth bearing in mind the attitude of Islamists in Iraq too (unfortunately, the link to The Herald article is now broken, and I can't find anything on their site earlier than January 2007). Here is the quote, and you'll just have to take my word for it that I am not making it up (this was the tenth post I ever wrote, by the way).

Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the terror chief, warned Iraqis yesterday he would wage a "bitter war" against next Sunday's election... "We have declared a bitter war against the principle of democracy and all those who seek to enact it," a speaker identified as al Zarqawi said on an Islamist website. "Those who vote . . . are infidels. And with God as my witness, I have informed them (of our intentions)."

That was written a couple of days before the democratic elections in Iraq, when al Zarqawi (and others) were threatening to attack and bomb any Iraqis taking part in the elections. This wasn't any noble insurgency against evil invaders: it was an insurgency against "the principle of democracy".

Of course, things have changed considerably in the intervening three years: fuck knows what any of us are fighting for now.

I keep meaning to quote this...

... and now I shall finally get around to it; this time it's Crippen quoting Robert Bolt's A Man For All Seasons.

• ALICE [Exasperated, pointing after RICH] While you talk, he's gone!


• MORE And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!


• ROPER So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!


• MORE Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?


• ROPER I'd cut down every law in England to do that!


• MORE [Roused and excited] Oh? [Advances on ROPER] And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you-where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? [He leaves him] This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast-man's laws, not God's—and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? [Quietly] Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

Never a truer word spoken: the rule of law must apply to everyone, and equality before the law was once one of the central tenets of this country. That no longer applies, of course.

But laws, and especially as applied to property rights as Matthew Sinclair highlights.

Poverty doesn't cause civil wars, a weak defence of property rights does

Facinating paper (PDF) out from the World Bank today. Here's the abstract:

"Abstract The dominant hypothesis in the literature that studies conflict is that poverty is the main cause of civil wars. We instead analyze the effect of institutions on civil war, controlling for income per capita. In our set up, institutions are endogenous and colonial origins affect civil wars through their legacy on institutions. Our results indicate that institutions, proxied by the protection of property rights, rule of law and the efficiency of the legal system, are a fundamental cause of civil war. In particular, an improvement in institutions from the median value in the sample to the 75th percentile is associated with a 38 percentage points’ reduction in the incidence of civil wars. Moreover, once institutions are included as explaining civil wars, income does not have any effect on civil war, either directly or indirectly."

The implications of this are huge and it looks like the researchers have been pretty careful about putting the right controls in place. The case that a robust defence of property rights, and other liberal economic institutions, should be a priority for developing countries has always been strong thanks to the clear connection to economic growth. However, now we have good reason to think that such institutions aren't just the best route to greater prosperity but also independently prevent the tragedy of civil war.

I was talking about the Libertarian Party on the Wolverhampton Politics Show the other night, and one of the councillors in the studio kept badgering me, trying to push me into making a certain admission. Finally he came out with it.

"So do you or do you not believe in the rule of law?"

I assume that the man had got "libertarian" confused with "libertine", an easy mistake to make if you're an ignorant fuckwit.

Libertarianism is, of course, based firmly on the rule of law, and especially property rights; in fact, property rights are absolutely central to libertarianism. One could argue that they are one of the most important bases of the philosophy; you own your body, and your life and your (justly acquired) property. In other words, your body and your life are seen as your property and libertarianism is based on this fact.

Remember

Anthem For Doomed Youth

What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?
Only the monstrous anger of the guns.
Only the stuttering rifles' rapid rattle
Can patter out their hasty orisons.
No mockeries now for them; no prayers nor bells;
Nor any voice of mourning save the choirs,
The shrill, demented choirs of wailing shells;
And bugles calling for them from sad shires.

What candles may be held to speed them all?
Not in the hands of boys, but in their eyes
Shall shine the holy glimmers of good-byes.
The pallor of girls' brows shall be their pall;
Their flowers the tenderness of patient minds,
And each slow dusk a drawing-down of blinds.

Wilfred Owen (1893–1918)

Ron Paul and war

The poor little Greek boy has just emailed me a link to Ron Paul's speech on patriotism. Although Paul himself is not a tremendously inspiring speaker, the text is admirable. I would just like to highlight one section. [Emphasis mine.]

I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power.

The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.

Peaceful, nonviolent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., achieved great political successes by practicing nonviolence, and yet they suffered physically at the hands of the state. But whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.

True patriotism today has gotten a bad name, at least from the government and the press. Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us, or force us to use a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the expense of the poor are routinely condemned. These American patriots are sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of liberty as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have been.

Liberals, who withhold their taxes as a protest against war, are vilified as well, especially by conservatives. Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war, once it is started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic, and all dissent must stop. Yet, it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.

It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of dangerous undeclared no-win wars that are politically inspired. Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security and, for that matter, may even damage our security, is hardly a way to patriotically support the troops.

Who are the true patriots, those who conform or those who protest against wars without purpose? How can it be said that blind support for a war, no matter how misdirected the policy, is the duty of a patriot?

Randolph Bourne said that, "War is the health of the state.'' With war, he argued, the state thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity. Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no trouble promoting a "war psychology'' to justify the expansive role of the state. This includes the role the Federal Government plays in our lives, as well as in our economic transactions.

NuLabour, of course, has excelled itself in getting embroiled in wars: the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq. Even those on the Left have suggested that the "War on Terror" is, really, little more than convenient rhetoric—designed to keep the population in a state of fear and induce psychological dependency on the state.

If that were not enough, we now have another "war" to contend with.

The battle to deal with climate change needs to be fought like "World War Three", the head of the Environment Agency has warned.
...

"This is World War Three - this is the biggest challenge to face the globe for many, many years. We need the sorts of concerted, fast, integrated and above all huge efforts that went into many actions in times of war.

"We're dealing with this as if it is peacetime, but the time for peace on climate change is gone—we need to be seeing this as a crisis and emergency," she said.

Needless to say, she is talking absolute bollocks, but she has learned the NuLabour rhetoric well; after all, if this is a war, and an effectively near-infinite one at that, then many will feel that it is more than enough to "to justify the expansive role of the state".

One may disagree, of course; one might write off Ron Paul as a lone nut. Except, of course, it is tricky to do so when he has managed to raise so much money from ordinary people.

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, aided by an extraordinary outpouring of Internet support Monday, hauled in more than $4.2 million in nearly 24 hours.

Paul, the Texas congressman with a libertarian tilt and an out-of-Iraq pitch, entered heady fundraising territory with a surge of Web-based giving tied to the commemoration of Guy Fawkes Day.
...

The $4.2 million represented online contributions from more than 37,000 donors...

Let us hope that those libertarians in Britain would be as keen...

Spreading the Good News for a change

If you read nothing but the MSM or the Left-o-sphere, you would think that nothing good had come out of the invasion of Iraq; one might think that Iraq was, in fact, hell on earth—a hitherto unforeseen seat of anarchy and evil, a deadly cesspit where humans die like flies.

Of course, it's no paradise, especially in some areas, but actually some good things are happening out there, and Cramner has a detailed report on some aspects. It's definitely worth reading.

Whilst your humble Devil's atheism means that he does not regard the support for Christianity as a good thing per se, the spread of any kind of liberalism is a good thing; especially if it is in a movement that separates church from state and, let's face it, helps people to see certain facets of the Religion of Peace for the barbaric and evil practices that they are.

Air Vice Marshal Sada ended his interview with a request that Christians pray for Iraq and for him personally: 'My family name means a martyr, because early on, many of our family were killed for their faith'.

Cranmer is most grateful to Latimer for this encouragement, which has received no mention at all in the MSM.

Well, isn't that a surprise! Go read the whole thing.

The Iranian Problem

In one of my very first substantial posts, back in January 2005, I contended that as long as the Iranian regime was in power, our mission in Iraq would be a failure.

Now we find that the Iranian-back [sic] al Zarqawi is fighting against "the principle of democracy", not the Americans. In other words, even were the UN to have been involved from the very beginning in the Iraq invasion, this campaign of terror would still be happening.
...

So, here we have my controversial opinion: in order for democracy to succeed in Iraq, Iran - as it currently stands - must be destroyed. There are already reports that the Americans are scouting out targets in Iran, and everyone is saying, "Haven't they learnt from their lesson in Iraq?". My contention is, though, that the Iraq experiment cannot succeed whilst Iran remains a power in the region, and whilst it continues to fund the bombings in Iraq.

I later expanded this theory, and developed my ideas as to why we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, in July 2005 (by which time, further evidence of Iranian interference in the region had been exposed).

Firstly, Iran was militarily far superior to Iraq, whose army had been decimated, discredited and demoralised by the first Gulf War and ten years of sanctions. If this were the only stumbling block, I don't believe that the US would have held back.

The second reason was far more problematic: Iran was, and is, a fundamentalist Islamist state run, in all but name, by a collective of radical Mullahs who farm out parts of its economy to themselves; much as the alien family runs the town in Diana Wynne Jones' Archer's Goon. Although there have been elections, of both government and president, in Iran recently, this is no more than window-dressing. The power has never, actually, shifted away from the clerics who have controlled the country since the revolution.

By contrast, Saddam Hussein was embattled and shackled, forced to resort to corrupting UN officials to get money through the Oil For Food scam. Furthermore, ideologically he was isolated. As a Sunni , an essentially secular form of Islam, Saddam was isolated ideologically as well as economically. This was, and is, not the case with Iran.

If the US had decided to invade Iran, the other radical Islamic nations would have been compelled to support her. Allah must not be mocked, and it would be unthinkable that the Muslim government of Iran be toppled. It might even give ideas to the increasingly restless populations of the other Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia (where unemployment is running at roughly 18%). Immediately after the Afghan War, when the US was casting about for its next target, Saudi investors suddenly started withdrawing huge numbers of investments (especially university endowments; one of the reasons that the academic world in the US, in any case socialist in tendency, is so hostile to Bush); it was a warning. Even if the other Arab nations did not actively join in militarily, they would at least have to support Iran financially and politically. They could not have done otherwise. The Taliban could be allowed because they were too radical and may even have become a threat to the other Muslim nations (which is why they were never supported financially); Saddam was too moderate, and not considered a proper Muslim anyway.

Thus, the US came up with the "War On Terror" rhetoric: it was a bluff. They desperately hoped that Iran, having seen the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, would believe that the US would invade her if she didn't stop funding terrorism. It was always a feeble gamble, and Iran has wrong-footed the US again.

You'll have to forgive me: I was younger and more ignorant then, especially about the differences between various strains of Islamic belief; however, I do not believe that these two posts were entirely off the mark.

But why bring it up again now? Well, because Matt Sinclair has written a very good entry, detailing the more up to date problems that we have with that particularly nasty theocracy and what we might do to counter the problem.

Losing what control we have over Iran's future behaviour should be of concern to all, even if you are unwilling to reflect that concern to the degree of considering military action. It's worth thinking about the hard choices we should be facing.

It is a thoughtful and considered post, and I highly recommend that you read the whole thing.

The Iraq Farce

From The Telegraph:

Brig Gen John Bednarek, who commands forces in Diyala province, told CNN that "democratic institutions are not necessarily the way ahead in the long-term future".

So, just to recap, there were no WMDs and now senior members of the US military are talking about a future for Iraq without democracy.

No WMDs and no Democracy. And bitter sectarian violence. Sounds a lot like life under Saddam.

Just remind me: why, precisely, are we fighting this war?

Quote of the day, taken from Perry de Havilland's critique of our government's obvious decision to cut and run from Iraq.

I thought the one thing the damn state was capable of was waging wars, particularly ones of its own choosing. If it cannot even do that, what the hell use is it? Even less than I thought, and that is saying something.

I am sure that the Gobblin' King will find some way to spin this as a victory. Or, at least, it will be hilarious watching him try...

Reasons not to vote for... Barack Obama*

Barack Obama, the media’s current heir to President Kennedy**, is proving he has the balls to fight terrorism in the manner of a rabid cowboy. According to the Telegraph he said

“…said he would dispatch forces to Pakistan's tribal areas even without the permission of Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf.”

Sorry, do what now, flower? Put troops in Pakistan without asking the permission of the government? Invade Pakistan? Are you fucking kidding me or what? And this from the man who calls Hillary Clinton “Bush-Cheney lite”.

The government of Pakistan is, understandably, not impressed. From The Times:

“These are serious matters and should not be used for point-scoring,” Tasnim Aslam, a spokeswoman for the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, said. “Political candidates and commentators should show responsibility.”

No kidding. But I think Aslam doesn’t stress her point strongly enough. Because I don’t think Senator Obama has realised this yet, but Pakistan is becoming an increasingly unstable state. And what do we think would happen if America sends troops into Pakistan with the permission of the President? That the militant fundamentalists will embrace the US troops? That they will welcome them with open arms? And that they will think that Musharraf, who has not fought the infidel American pig dogs, is sound as a pound? No. Musharraf will be gone in an instant. Unless, of course, he fights the USA.

And whilst Musharraf’s regime is by no means perfect, it is a lot better than some of the alternatives. Like a fundamentalist Islamic regime in charge of Pakistan Or a regime that is even more keen on war with India. Or a civil war in Pakistan.

Obama shows all the geo-political savvy of a drunk on absinthe playing Risk. Which makes him about as credible as US President as, well, the incumbent.

Terrifying.

*This concept has been shamelessly stolen from Mr Eugenides. For pithier examples of the same idea see here and here.
**Following in the *ahem* illustrious footsteps as Robert Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

There's a rumble in Gaza tonight!

I have to confess that prettier distractions have drawn me away from the news in general and the wee spat in Gaza in particular. As far as I can make out, one bunch of former terrorists, Fatah, are having a killing contest with another bunch of terrorists, Hamas, and the both of them are taking out their frustrations by killing civilians. Well, I say innocent but, via Mr Eugenides, it seems that even those about to die show an almost admirable level of hate...

In the past 48 hours 19 Palestinians have been killed, tossed from rooftops, executed at point-blank range, and shot in hospital wards. That number seems certain to rise. More than 80 Palestinians have now been killed since mid May.

Among yesterday's dead was a 14-year-old boy and three women, all killed in a Hamas attack on a Fatah security officer's home.

I'm waiting for the international condemnation, of course. You know, like when Israel killed civilians in Lebanon.

I'm still waiting. Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

"They're firing at us, firing RPGs, firing mortars. We're not Jews," the brother of Jamal Abu Jediyan, a Fatah commander, pleaded during a live telephone conversation with a Palestinian radio station.

Minutes later both men were dragged into the streets and riddled with bullets.

Ah, yes; the Palestinians should unite against the common enemy, the eeeeeevil Jooos. As Mr E points out...

There's something irresistible about this final plea: the Fatah soldier stamping his feet and pouting, "But it's not fa-ir!". (Note, by the way, that he did not say, "We're not Israelis".) Meanwhile Gaza burns, the Palestinians once again find that they have been let down by those who purport to govern them, and people queue up on Comment is Free to blame the Jews Israelis.

Oh who, oh who will stand up and blame the real enemy? This is not about Fatah and Hamas: this is about the evil Jews, those hook-nosed fucking kikes who control the world by buying up all the oil and seeling it to more Jews who then use it for burning the first-born of all Arab families in, like, a totally, like, sickening display of Big Jewish Power. And they, like, run all of the media too, yeah?

Luckily, the evil Jews do not control the heroic and courageous reporters of Comment Is Free, who lay the blame firmly at the door of Israel. Nor do those evil Jews control the courageous fuckwits at Pickled Politics, where Sunny bravely writes articles of interminable stupidity and lackwit bigotry. Aren't we lucky to have these left-liberal bastions of utter twats to show us all where the real blame lies?

Thank goodness that the EU have come to their senses and decided to direct yet more of my tax money to help the Pallies wipe each other out. This is actually a really good idea: the more that we can fund their weaponry, the faster the Palestinians will wipe out the entire population of the area and then there might be a chance for peace in the Middle East.

If only it wasn't for those evil Jews and their damnable desire to protect their democracy. Damn them! Damn them all!

UPDATE: why not go and play with the people at Pickled Politics? They are, almost exclusively, a bunch of no-nothing fuckwits motivated by half-remembered rumours and rampant bigotry: go and poke them with a stick. It's funny.