Leftism is Criminal

Despite reading Atlas Shrugged three times, I'd managed to miss the money shot, but luckily DK picks up on it for me:

The only power any government has says Dr Ferris is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.


And you know, the willingness of the left to resort to lawfare, to codes of practice that employees can neither amend nor negotiate, to principles of equality and diversity that magically entail restrictions of freedom of speech and thought, to antidemocratically enforcing their worldview through state-funded charities and NGOs and QUANGOs; their desire to have dissent criminalised, or as we see in California, their willingess physically to intimidate opponents when lawfare fails(and to publish their names in newspapers - the left are _very_ keen that others are held accountable to them for their differing opinions), and as we see in the "respectable" intellectual press, their willingness to deny the crimes of leftism (and you don't have to be an extremist to deny the Holodomor or the import of the gulags, or the forty five year slavery of Eastern Europe, or the thirty million victims of Mao - who, disgustingly, appears in the game Civilisation: Revolution for the XBox - or the Soviet Union's pivotal role in starting WWII, not that you'd think it) justifies this very long sentence.

And rightly so.

For there are worse things in life than a long sentence.

Such an evil, power grabbing weltanshaung that attempts to work from an ideology of victimhood. Which restricts your freedoms because of made up complaints from groups in the pay of the authorities. Which just fucking goes on and on passing laws that are designed, in each and every case, to make an individual's life a little bit harder.

Never Let Me Down (again)

From up here I can see the gutters, the filthy gutters, the ones I am supposed to be looking up from at the stars. But no: I can see the fag ends, the leaf-mulch, the filth of the Thames, the blood of the rodents and the accumulated dirt of the valley floor.

The stars are behind me; though I can't see them I see their faint reflections in the dirt. They are diminished in the passage of light, even in the beauty of soil.

From here I travel through empty boughs and over the hardly moving meadow grass: the wild barley stays brittle in the stillness. There it is, dark, monochrome, given a sort of sub-illumination, unnoticed.

No-one cares about the stars, but the boughs hold tall over the valley, full and broad. They stand, despite the fall of time. They simply hold.

Give me the dirt, the essence of life and the rain, over a fascist, body-worshipping, death-cult sun-regime - any time.

Give me the lush, sinking soil on any day of my life. Let me look, fly, fall, sink and then merge in the full body of the ground.

Then I see the stars.

They are nothing. Literally nothing.

Here, life bleeds into soil and back again. Ideas crawl into the air and are picked up, mainly by people who don't want them.

Thoughts on BB & Sport

Clearly posts like the previous one would be unnecessary in a society based on the principles of Ingsoc, since there would be no competing entertainments to Ingsoc itself.(By the way Orwell today reports discovering a snake on the drive.)

But it's kind of interesting to posit this kind of world as a thought experiment to those of us who find it difficult to imagine a world in which the past does change so regularly and so brazenly: if you were at work the day after a Test Match with your cricket following mates, and you had read about BB's startling innings of 252 not out, you and your mates would be compelled to recall the flashing square cuts, the exemplary cover drives, the hook for six off Morkel, etc and you would recall the mustachioed old boy treating the bowling with disdain, while you talked, and poor old KP's century would be ignored.

Put it this way and the bizarre horror of the mutable past becomes clearer (to me at least) - we're probably more used to arguing vigorously over sport than politics, so if you suddenly had a party line to follow...say over what a lovely place China was...

Next You'll Be Telling Me It's 1990

Which is what the Tories are effectively saying at the moment, politically and economically. There are two reasons why this is a bad idea.

1) It ain't.
2) 1990 was under their watch.


I say "under their watch" rather than "their fault", even though we all know that 15% (for two minutes in September 1992) interest rates &c &c were all the responsibility of the Conservative Government and Mrs Thatcher, whereas the current problems are global and nothing to do with Labour.

Lest we forget, life was actually *utterly shit* in 1990, whether or not you blame the Tories. The UK was on the verge of another wave of riots, which in fact dissipated into the endless whinging "radicalism" of the 1990s and 2000s but apart from one instance in March 1990 didn't quite fulfil its "potential". The property bubble had well and truly fucked itself, leaving shedloads of people out of work & home, and Nigel Lawson looking like a post-resignation cunt. Inflation went on its merry way towards 10% (which I think it reached in the autumn - in those days I was fascinated by the 26% it had reached in August 1975). The weather was wholly fucked, with one day of my school life being devoted to watching trees having their backs broken by a hurricane while the howls of a nuclear firestorm whirled overheard (or that's how it sounded). In the summer the bastard sun never seemed to set, the fucker just going on and on. England lost on penalties for the first fucking time. Mrs Thatcher was wholly powerless and quite out of touch, unable to set any kind of agenda as first Lawson (89 I think) and then, devastatingly, Howe, turned the knife; in Howe's case, during a televised Parliamentary debate, with Thatch listening not quite impassively from the front bench. All this was achieved without Neil Kinnock needing to draw breath. Even then he was a self-satisfied bastard and even my 13 year old self knew he had fuck all to be self-satisfied about. Except Militant.

War in Iraq was looming and, consequently, fuel prices were rocketing.

Er....

Oh yeah - Ian Gow was murdered by the IRA. Now we're all mates.

So things do change after all.


Post title brought via XTC and "The Big Express" - can't recall the track, I think it is "Everyday Story of Smalltown".

Change p 42

People often want change because they are full of hate: they loathe what exists, so they want to replace it with what has never existed, on the basis of some damnfool theory, or on the basis precisely that it has never existed and they wish it to. People sometimes want change because they loathe the idea that the world does not encompass their worldview, and they want it encoded in all legal apparatus that they think x and that to not think x is downright offensive, indeed, an incitement to hatred. Which brings us back to our starting point. People think that because x is offensive to y, that the law ought to be changed for z too, and that anyone else who happens to exist, or yet to be created, out of a whim or whatever, must conform to it also because to be offensive to y is an offence, whereas to be offensive to t is alright. I love this idea: x does not affirm my worldview hence you, y, or whoever you are, need to bear this in mind whenever you make any kind of statement that may or may not be taken as public. If only we all had access to this: I'd make disapproval of Doctor Who an incitement to hatred on the basis that if someone said it in my earshot I'd deck the fucker. And be immune from prosection, because the twat "q" had incited me. What a cool legal principle. What I also love about thought-crime legislation is that opposition to it is, de facto, hatred, so just not agreeing with the law might end you with chokey. Indeed, stating any kind of opposition to anything a liberal doesn't like is in itself a vile act of provocation and hate. I _so_ wish I was in government, I'd ban everything just for a laugh. Plus I'd just one day say "well a has been the case for thousands of years, so now I'm abolishing it as any kind of principle and replacing it with b for no better reason than that this shows my power plus it makes me look good with people who matter". That would be ace. And even better, if I could then say "well the peer-reviewed science shows that anyone who disagrees with me is a fuckwitted twat".


I also love the idea of "peer review". As things stand, my peers think I am a) as clever as fuck; b)a twat; c)lazy; d) an arse, e) an idiot and f) a lunatic. Which of these peer reviews do we take as "truth"? (c Pontius Pilate) Well, b), c) and e), at a guess. But then again the writer of b) is a cunt; of c) an idiot who I haven't seen for years and of e) a dickhead who once didn't like the fact that I wowed the women more than him. The writer of a) is currently in prison. How cool is that: you self-select a group who agree with your assumptions, then you say that they agree with you hence you are right. What a fantastic example of recursion. Having said that, the writer of b) is an expert in twats, so it is inappropriate to disagree with him, even though I don't think I am a twat. Also the writer of e) is a linguist who knows the detailed etymology of the word "dickhead" and has written several treatises on why I am one. However, I _am not_ and so the sub-thesis fails, however well the peer review process appears to work. So not quite so self-selected, but still bloody incestuous, the bunch of arseholes.

But then, no bastard would vote for me in the first place, so I'd be fucked. Oh wait, I might be able to ban everything under some European law or other so I might not need to worry about those twat voters. Everything must be banned. We are all untrustworthy so we must start from the premise that we need to redouble our efforts to win the trust of our government (c Brecht); and therefore we must prove identities, prove suitabilities, prove the lack of murderous, sexually deviant intentions. We must prove. We must prove. We must improve.

Which brings us, once again to our starting point: I hate the government. I'm sure there's a law against that.

Politic Drumming

I thought I would update my reader on the essenses of my political views, since I have been hanging out and reading (though not really commenting) on the Libertarian Party's forums. I agree with a lot of their policies, as I mentioned before, though not with all of their philosophies: I do think government should let people live their lives and, wherever possible, not attempt to dictate what they should think or say (and I would include hate crime legislation in that - I wouldn't want to say to an old lady who's been mugged "you see it's not that bad, it was just an attack on you, personally, and not an attack on all old ladies, so it's not as serious as hate crimes..."), and while I don't myself have any possessions except for an old Fiesta and a few books, and very little money, I applaud cash and its pursual. I particularly respect people who create work and trade, and do not respect those who claim that this is based on "exploitation", while demanding higher taxes at the point of a prison cell. I do think that quangos, commissions and committees, foundations, trusts and political charities, have too much influence over government (especially this one) and I think we've moved away from democracy and towards a sort of technocracy. The people are further removed from the makers of laws than since about 1800 and have only limited ability to change the people who make them. I'd like Britain to exist, or, if not, then England, and I don't think that those who've recently invented the concept of Europe as a single political and cultural entity have any superior claim on right, whatever they say, however much they accuse their opponents of bigotry. I don't see any better government than one elected by a people with some kind of coherence - history, language, society - a demos, if you like - just as we have at Westminster. It needs change (ho ho) obviously, but bypassing it for 27 old men in a secret smoke filled chamber isn't the way. Claiming that "Europe" is exactly the same sort of society as Britain isn't it. Giving the people no right to repeal or amend or reject laws not made or initiated by anyone representing them is not the way either.

I do have more authoritarian views but I'm happy to not have them enforced on everyone else, if that makes any kind of sense at all: unlike many I don't see the need for everyone to agree with me on x issue or for my moral panics to inform legislation on, say, smoking, computer games, alcohol, sex, or anything else. I do see how everyone's behaviour affects us all, blah blah but that is an appeal for responsibility, not a justification to legislate or regulate everything that could affect other people. In a complex, somewhat dislocated world, we need to find other people as individuals, not be told how to approach them by law (outside of a few laws on assault, etc). I think it is corrosive to assume that half the country (more or less) is seething with hate and will destroy, hurt, discriminate and terrorise others unless controlled by ever more repressive laws. I am not saying that all equalities legislation is bad, but that some of it works on the basis of mistrust and, even, a kind of hatred itself.

I don't really care whether the police want me to make their lives easier: I do not exist for their comfort and I am not a suspect in a crime unless there is reason to treat me as such - hence: no DNA database, no ID cards providing pretexts for agents of the state to demand you to account for yourself; many fewer CCTV and speed cameras; some of the 300 odd reasons for state agents to enter your home must be abolished; habeas corpus and the right to silence should exist: the police must be made accountable to the people, especially if they are going to use the media to promote their views, as they seem to do more and more. I am not a "male", nor a "suspect", nor an "offender". I am a citizen and I would thank the state to treat me as such.

The above isn't a manifesto or a thesis, just a ramble, intended to provoke thought - thought in myself, of course. I am well aware of the gaps and inconsistencies in my views, and the above, as well as feeding my narcissism is supposed to help me think some of it through.

Thogging

I've just discovered that Notsaussure has nominated me as a thinking blogger, or thogger. I am deeply honoured and flattered. If I do make anyone think it is a miracle as I rarely do any thinking myself; something I tried to point out at Ian's place but just sounded angry (which I wasn't). I am, as I've said before, impressionistic and instinctive. I know some bloggers think this is the worst side of the blogosphere, but for me it makes a terrific mix of daily reading to be able to digest policy or analysis posts, and then to switch to more emotive or feeling-based posts. As most important issues are decided for most people (I think - hoho) on a sort of mixture of logic and a kind of unreason based on tradition, instinct, a "feel" for what is right, or custom (or lack of), that seems to me fair enough in terms of trying to learn from the blogosphere itself.

So....trying to avoid people I know have already been nominated, 5 thoggers for me:

Matt Murrell. He doesn't write too much, or using too hard words. But he very often has real nuggets of insight and good ideas.

Deogolwolf. I get tied in knots with the philosophy, especially if "cirdan" is commenting, but it's great nonetheless.

Welshcakes Limoncello. Bear with me on this. This is a really good example of a different kind of thought-provoking...lifestyle, culture, creativity...and it's written in a very approachable style.

Trixy. She's developing into a really fine policy poster, who mixes a very high level of detail with outrage and a bit of swearing.

Notsaussure. This is not nepotism. You cannot fault his legal knowledge and his willingness to go into detail whereas I'd rather be at the pub but really need to know some of this stuff (even if the bits where he praises Lord Falconer grate with me!)

apologies to anyone who's already been nominated, and to those who find this kind of crap the blogosphere at its disappearing up its own jacksie worst. I kind of agree, but on the other hand some blogs deserve promotion and deserve, erm, thought.