|
|||||
|
The Ministry of Defence is leaving no stone unturned in its investigations of the allegations against Colonel Tim Collins:
Say it isn’t so!! A ‘military culture’ in the British Army? Has the world gone stark raving mad? ‘Military culture’ has no place in our armed forces and it must be rooted out forthwith. May 24th, 2003 | 25 comments - (Comments are closed)
 Britain has no future outside of the European Union. That’s what the federasts keep telling us. That is the specious lie they’ve been peddling for years now. I can only assume that these people manage to sleep at night by consuming a quantity of sedatives fit to bring down a horse. We have touched upon this issue before, but it is so significant that it bears practically no end of reiteration. Put simply, the EU is dying:
Tell me, what future is there in marrying a corpse? [My thanks to Emmanuel Goldstein for the link.] May 23rd, 2003 | 59 comments - (Comments are closed)
It isn’t often that one finds a damning indictment of state regulation in the pages of the Guardian, so I cannot possibly let this opportunity slip by unblogged. The background to this comes courtesy of one of these ‘food safety scandals’ that periodically burst into the media spotlight and engender all manner of ‘shock, horror’ headlines before slipping quietly down the memory hole into oblivion. This time, the scandal involves chicken. Or, more accurately, a simulacrum of chicken because it appears that the British market is being flooded with cheap chicken products that have been pumped with water to artificially inflate them and stuffed full of hydrogenated beef proteins. And the distributors are getting away with it, despite the existance of a plethora of complex food safety and labelling regulations and whole slew of portentious-sounding Euro-agencies to enforce them. The Guardian’s Felicity Lawrence is beside herself:
So it turns out that all these bureaucrats are good for is issuing sanctimonious press releases and little else. I believe that Ms.Lawrence has (quite accidentally of course) stumbled upon the principle of moral hazard. She, like many others, has hitherto placed her faith in regulations and state enforcers to ensure the quality and safety she requires, only to find that she is left dangling when the crunch comes. But her tale of woe does have a happy ending. Almost certainly through frustration rather than dazzling insight, Ms.Lawrence comes to exactly the right conclusion:
Bingo! Hopefully Ms.Lawrence has now come to appreciate the perils of assigning over personal responsibility to agents of the state and then hoping and praying that they do the right thing by you. They rarely have and they rarely will. Regulatory regimes are not just a waste of time and effort, they are actually damaging. They suck a huge amount of otherwise-productive wealth out of society that ends up translated into nothing except sinecure jobs and state pensions. In any event, the only traders who bother to comply with all these regulations are the ones who are worried about their reputation and, ironically, it is those traders who can be relied upon to provide us with good quality products without the monkey of the state on their backs. They want to make money and stay in business and they don’t achieve those aims by poisoning their customers or brushing them off with inferior, shoddy goods. So let’s take all these regulations and put them on a bonfire. Yes, there will still be rogues and con-men but, as this story has clearly illustrated, enacting more laws doesn’t stop them anyway. The combination of profit-motive on the supply side and a bit of personal responsibility on the part of the consumer is a better recipe for safety and quality than any number of faceless pen-pushers wielding absurd and counter-productive diktats. May 23rd, 2003 | 4 comments - (Comments are closed)
Has Al-Qaeda hired the Monty Python team as political advisers? I only ask because of this surreal outburst:
Let’s get this straight; they’re invoking Muslims to attack America (natch), England (obviously), Australia (not unexpected) and… Norway?!?!?!?!?!? May 23rd, 2003 | 17 comments - (Comments are closed)
I’ll bet that the EUnuchs are beside themselves with glee now that they have managed to co-opt the Pope:
Sure to be seen as a benediction by many in Poland. Does the Pontiff not realise that the EU is the work of the Devil? May 22nd, 2003 | 52 comments - (Comments are closed)
Once in a blue moon I stumble across a story that appears so contrary and so bizarre that I honestly do not know what to make of it. In fact, I had to stand up, breath deeply and take a walk around my apartment just to make sure I wasn’t dreaming when I read that the Israelis have expressed an interest in joining the European Union:
Alright, no binding promises on the table but just the idea that this is even being floated at quite high-level raises a whole bevy of questions without, as far as I can tell, a single satisfactory answer. First of all, is either party serious? For the EUnuchs it may be. They have made no secret of their ambitions to expand their sphere of influence over the Middle East and North Africa. But do they really think that they are going to be able to cope with the…er local difficulties? And what about the Israelis? I can see the appeal of access to European markets for their industrial and agricultural output but have they stopped to contemplate the cost of the greatly increased regulatory burden that would be imposed on them? And what about defence and foreign policy, both of which would eventually have to be decided in Brussels? Not even for a fleeting second can I imagine the Israelis being willing to hand over their security to anyone, let alone the EU. Do they honestly imagine that the Belgians are going to come riding to their rescue should the need arise? On the other hand, maybe it is not serious at all, in which case, what are the Israelis up to? No, I’m afraid it’s all a big mystery to me but then the opaque and shadowy labyrinth of international relations often are. Searching for solid intelligence amidst the power-plays, hidden agendas, ulterior motives and nuanced positions is enough to drive anyone to the edge of madness and I am not prepared to go that far. I am just intrigued. And, by the by, who the flaming hell are the ‘Transnational Radical Party’? I have never heard of them and I can’t be bothered to go googling for an answer but let’s take it as read that I don’t like the sound of them one little bit. May 22nd, 2003 | 31 comments - (Comments are closed)
Far be from me to try to tell HMG how to run their nationalised industries, but if I was ever to be charged with such a thankless task, I would not go about it like this:
This may actually be a blessing. As we watch the apparatus of a police state growing around us we can take some comfort that the police may get set on us for all the wrong reasons but at least we will be able to run away from them. May 22nd, 2003 | One comment - (Comments are closed)
As a rebuttal to all those bloggers who think that the BBC has a left-wing bias, I refer you to this hysterical nonsense:
How can they possibly expect any halfway sensible person to believe rubbish like this? Don’t they realise that our government has enacted the most draconian and prohibitive anti-gun laws in the developed world? No, scrub that, the entire cosmos. So this cannot possibly be happening. It is nothing but a tissue of bald-faced lies. In fact, it’s probably a fabrication by some bunch of swivel-eyed, right-wing, warmongering lunatics intent on trying to give the completely false impression that our noble and progressive anti-self-defence laws are not working. Do not click on the link. Do not read the article. I do not want our readers minds to be poisoned by this filthy propoganda. Go away. Move onto the next posting. Find another blog. Now! May 21st, 2003 | 39 comments - (Comments are closed)
Anyone who regularly peruses the left-wing press in this country (and I congratulate them on their intestinal fortitude) would be left with the impression that Britain is rapidly turning into Galt’s Gulch, a rugged, darwinian, freewheeling gold-rush society where tax collectors have been beaten into plough-shares and the shrivelled remnants of the government have been consigned to a mildew-ridden basement room beneath Whitehall with a second-hand computer and a solitary, naked lightbulb. You can hardly flick through the pages of any centre-left journal without being assailed by some chest-beating, polemical op-ed excoriating New Labour for abandoning socialist principles in favour of ‘market forces’ and ‘Thatcherism’. They bewail the alleged unstoppable growth of ‘free market mania’ and demand that the government return to the old agenda of wealth redistribution and public ownership immediately if not sooner. Those of us living on Planet Earth don’t quite see it that way. Like the insensitive dolts we doubtless are, we have noticed the extra chunks of GDP that have been grabbed by the government every year since 1997. Nor has it escaped our attention that the ‘Careers Section’ of the Guardian has grown as thick as a telephone directory, replete with advertisements for government sinecures. Well, boorish we may be but it appears that us Earthlings are right:
I cannot think of a more appropriate term than ‘Misery Index’ and, believe me, I have tried. But back to the nitty-gritty. Why this disconnect between perception and reality? Well, it is because Blair and New Labour have pulled off a pretty audacious trick (and it’s a good trick, I’ll grant you) by constructing a convincing and polished patina of ‘Thatherite’ rhetoric full of phrases like ‘modernisation’ and ‘reform’ and ‘consumer choice’ which they have used to mask a stealthy but relentless old socialist agenda. The inescapable truth (for Earthlings that is) is that, over the last six years, the wealth-creating private sector has been subjected to a ferocious blood-letting in order to feed the voracious appetites of the public sector triffids who, in turn, (and by complete coincidence, of course) vote en bloc for New Labour. Combine this with the gradual ‘Europeanisation’ of our regulatory and legal regime and the result is that a once thriving economy has been plunged into misery of near-Gallic proportions.
I take no comfort from that fact that we are not alone. If everybody is on the same path of slow-suicide this only serves to convince the looters in Whitehall that they are doing the right thing after all.
No. Nor is that era close at hand. But we’re working on it, Mr.Forbes, we’re working on it. May 21st, 2003 | 10 comments - (Comments are closed)
I cannot speak for other of course but, as far as I am concerned, if you’re not making enemies then you are not trying hard enough. Conciliation is for wimps. With this is mind I must commend the blogosphere (well, certain sections of it anyway) for their admirable efforts as enemies are, indeed, beginning to nail their colours to the mast. Case in point here is a certain Bill Thompson who wants the world to know that, while he loves blogging, he is very worried by actual bloggers:
Mr.Thompson names a few names in his diatribe (but rudely fails to mention the Samizdata) and ruminates darkly about ‘economic libertarians’ and their ‘voo-doo’. Looks like the large preponderance of libertarians in the blogosphere has not gone unnoticed in places where we sincerely hoped we would be noticed. Given that Mr.Thompson appears to be a acolyte of the BBC/Guardian Axis, his animus is hardly surprising. Indeed, it is welcome. We cannot honestly argue that we have even reached base camp until we are well and truly getting up the noses of people like him. And getting up his nose we most certainly are. Mr.Thompson makes not even a faint attempt at concealing his haughty indignation that this gathering moss-ball of independent voices does not include any (trumpet fanfare, please) ‘PROPER JOURNALISTS’. Yet, lacking in some such official stamp of professional approval, we spout off like men and women possessed, filling cyberspace with our dangerously ‘un-approved’ ideas. I am going to hazard a guess that Mr.Thompson doesn’t quite get it. Perhaps it is simply beyond his ken that it is exactly his brand of arthritic leftist orthodoxy that we are aiming to disassemble. Or perhaps he does get it. Maybe he can see that the writing on the blogs is, as far as he an his ilk are concerned, the writing on the wall. Hence his complaint of us being ‘unaccountable’. To whom or what does he expect us to account to? The government? The BBC? A committee of appointed poo-bahs? Or ‘the people’, that abstract, meaningless totem on behalf of which guardianistas like Mr.Thompson love to crusade but which is, in fact, a euphamism for a committee of appointed poo-bahs? It matters not. What matters is that Mr.Thompson is seething with resentment. He doesn’t like us and thinks we are far too wrong and far too influential. Good. All that says to me is that we are doing something right and that we must keep on doing it. [My thanks to Steve Chapman for the link.] May 19th, 2003 | 36 comments - (Comments are closed)
Just before our server shut down (which was actually a ‘false flag’ attack by Mossad and the CIA acting under direct orders from the Bush Nazi regime in collaboration with a secret cabal of oil bankers working in cahoots with their Zionist paymasters) one of our readers, Simon Austin sent me this reminiscence of childhood in ages now gone by:
May 17th, 2003 | 38 comments - (Comments are closed)
While I am on the subject of Mugabe, it is worth illustrating what he and his warped, psychotic ideology have actually done to the former Rhodesia. We bandy around words like ‘tyrant’ and ‘dictator’ and ‘undemocratic’ but there comes a point when these words, in isolation, no longer have the power to move in the way they should. Altogether more moving, nay profoundly upsetting, is this graphic description from the UK Times of what African marxism is actually doing to this particular corner of Africa:
It may be too late to reverse or even halt this process now. The damage has been done and, once again, the world is going to be assailed with a stark object lesson in the consequences of state kleptocracy and forced collectivisation. And, once again, those lessons will be rudely ignored, I’ll wager. In fact, I’ll go further. I’m willing to bet that, even with the pictures of starving Zimbabweans rooting around in the dirt for a few berries are beamed into our homes, our own political leaders will continue to devote their energies to ever-more creative and unscrupulous ways of traducing our property rights and confiscating our earnings. Under the mendacious rubric of ‘social democracy’ Western ‘intellectuals’ will kid themselves that there is a world of difference between their economic philosophies and those of Mugabe. But the difference lies only in degree and the end result differs only in terms of timescale. But we must neither forget nor forgive. Even while Mugabe is being glad-handed and back-slapped in Paris, we can exact vengeance on behalf of the society he has destroyed. We can do that by committing ourselves single-mindedly to a ferocious and relentless war against the people who would do to us by increment what Mugabe has done to Zimbabweans in swathes. May 17th, 2003 | 6 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||