The General Election: Authoritarian Hag v Fenian Scumbag


NB – This essay is an entirely personal view. It does not constitute an endorsement or condemnation by the Libertarian Alliance of any candidate in the present General Election. SIG

The General Election:
Authoritarian Hag v Fenian Scumbag
by Sean Gabb
26th May 2017

For the avoidance of doubt, I still intend to vote Conservative in this dreadful election. And, if Labour seems to be catching up in the opinion polls, so, I suspect, will enough people to give the Conservatives a decent majority. The general election is a rerun of last year’s Referendum. There is no other consideration that ought to sway anyone who is looking beyond our present circumstances. We vote Conservative. We leave the European Union. We hope and work for a realignment in British politics. Except for this, however, I would be dithering between another vote for UKIP and a spoiled ballot. Except for Europe, the contest is between an authoritarian hag and a Fenian scumbag.

Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn have made their responses to the Manchester Bombings. According to the BBC,

Theresa May has urged world leaders to do more to combat online extremism, saying the fight against so-called Islamic State is “moving from the battlefield to the internet.”

What she has in mind is outlined in the Conservative Manifesto:

[W]e  will  establish  a  regulatory  framework  in  law  to  underpin  our  digital  charter  and to  ensure  that  digital  companies,  social  media  platforms  and  content  providers  abide by  these  principles.  We  will  introduce  a  sanctions  regime  to  ensure  compliance, giving regulators the ability to fine or prosecute those companies that fail in their legal duties, and to order the removal of content where it clearly breaches UK law. We will also create a  power  in  law  for  government  to  introduce  an  industry-wide  levy  from  social  media companies and communication service providers to support awareness and preventative activity to counter internet harms, just as is already the case with the gambling industry.

If this hardly needs translating into Plain English, I will make the effort. The Conservatives are proposing to censor the Internet. Anyone who, in this country, publishes opinions or alleged facts the authorities dislike will be prosecuted. If these are published abroad, access to the relevant websites will be blocked. Internet companies will be taxed to pay for a Ministry of Propaganda to go beyond anything now provided by the BBC.

We are supposed to think the main targets of censorship will be the radical Moslems. I have no doubt some effort will be made to shut them up. The main targets, however, will be on the nationalist right. These are the ones who will be harried and prosecuted and generally threatened into silence. The only person so far to have lost a job on account of the bombings is the LBC presenter Katie Hopkins. She made a sharp comment on air about the Moslems, and was out. Other than that, we have had a continual spray of propaganda about the Religion of Peace, and how its core texts have nothing to do with suicide bombings or mass-rape or disorder.

In Britain, in Europe, in America, there are powerful interests that are itching to censor the Internet. It is the Internet that has made us cynical. It is the Internet that is giving us the probable truth. It is because of the Internet that the authorities are being held to account. Never let a good atrocity go to waste. Get the people ready for censorship while the bodies are still being reassembled.

Jeremy Corbyn, I grant, has been slightly better. He sees Islamic terrorism as a response to our endless wars of aggression in the Islamic World. He says:

[M]any experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services, have pointed out the connections between wars that we have been involved in, or supported, or fought, in other countries and terrorism here at home.

There is some truth in this. I will not quote the relevant news releases from the Islamic State. But their consistent line is that, so long as we drop bombs on their women and children, they will blow themselves up among ours. Bearing in mind the scale of the chaos and bloodshed they have unleashed since 2001 in the Islamic world, our leaders are in a weak position to complain.

Even so, if they have been at least unwise, these wars cannot be regarded as the whole cause of what is being done to us. There have been major terrorist attacks in Spain and Germany and Sweden, countries that have not been to war in the Islamic World. There have been attacks in Thailand and India and the Philippines, and in many other countries that stayed neutral. I believe that we should withdraw all our forces from Iraq and Libya and Afghanistan. We should leave the Syrians to sort out their civil war. We should, so far as possible, vacate those parts of the world. I believe we should do this for our sake and for ours. But I do not believe this would stop the terrorists from blowing our people up or from running them down. Remove one excuse – another would be found.

There is a weak correlation between Islamic terrorism and whether a country targeted has been to war in the Islamic World. There is a very strong correlation between Islamic terrorism and the presence of a large Moslem population. Thailand had no part in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. It has Moslems. It has had terrorism. Slovakia was in the “Coalition of the Willing.” It has almost no Moslems, It has had no terrorism.

Let us suppose Tony Blair had found the common sense to tell the Americans to invade Iraq on their own. There might have been less Islamic terrorism in this country. But do not suppose there would have been none. The wars we fought in Iraq and elsewhere were wrong in themselves. They failed in their stated ends. But the true cause of the mess we are in is unlimited immigration of people who mostly cannot be assimilated, and who have been allowed to establish a demographic and cultural hegemony in large parts of the country. When our ancestors turned up in North America, they formed exclusive enclaves, and felt no obligation to conform to the ways of the aborigines. They thought they were better, and they would have been scandalised by any advice to paint their faces and join in the tomahawk dance. Once their initial colonies were secure, and once their population had sufficiently grown, they took over. Why should it be very different when we are the colonised? Terrorist violence is connected with what we have done to their countries. Much more, it is part of marking new territory and pre-empting opposition.

I could move to discussing what solutions may be available to this problem. But I will not. Instead, I will return to the May solution. If every terrorist outrage we have known in this country during the present century was committed by Moslems, terrorism is not the worst problem we face. I do not wish in any sense to minimise the horror of what was done earlier this week in Manchester. I am not saying this for form. It was a shocking and a disgusting act. But I will quote the words of Lord Justice Hoffman when he struck down an anti-terrorism law in 2004:

In my opinion, such a power in any form is not compatible with our constitution. The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve.

Terrorist violence, on whatever scale, affects those individuals who suffer it directly. A police state harms the nation as a whole. It may be said that we need a police state to fight terrorism. It is better said that terrorism is presently seen by the authorities as an excuse for the police state they have long wanted. There was no Islamic terrorism in this country before the beginning of the present century. There had been a declining level of Irish terrorism before then. There was no credible reason to suppose that any terrorists were using the Internet to further their ends. All the same, the 1990s saw a steady drumbeat of claims that the Internet needed to be censored, and that the normal rules of justice should be replaced by the rules of a police state. The excuse then was drugs and child pornography. At the end of the 1980s, I recall Margaret Thatcher’s claim that we needed identity cards to deal with violence at football matches. I believe that, if every Moslem were to leave this country tomorrow, the authorities would pause to draw breath, and, the day after that, continue demanding censorship, and detention without trial, and identity cards, and mass-surveillance – this time to save us from global warming, or Russian spies, or an impending asteroid impact.

And now to my final words on Mr Corbyn. If our present rulers are in a weak position to complain about terrorism, Mr Corbyn is in a very weak position to call himself a man of peace. I carry no torch for Israel, but Mr Corbyn has, throughout his time in politics, openly sided with the enemies of Israel – which, whatever can be said against it, is a liberal democracy of sorts. It is reasonable to presume that he opposed our wars in the Islamic world less because they were wars than because they were with his friends. Far worse than this, he has been a consistent supporter of Sinn Fein/IRA. I shall think better of his opposition to our wars in the Islamic World when he finally denounces the campaign of armed terror directed by his late friend Martin McGuiness.

But Mr Corbyn will almost certainly not be asked to form a government the week after next. Mrs May will keep the one she has. I will vote to keep her in office. But I take no pride in this. We live in a country with a more degraded public life than the average dystopian novel of forty years ago was likely to imagine.

Yes, I will pinch my nose again the Thursday after next, and vote Conservative – in the hope, and perhaps in the belief, that I shall have a better choice in 2022.

Advertisements

7 comments

  • [quote]”The Conservatives are proposing to censor the Internet. Anyone who, in this country, publishes opinions or alleged facts the authorities dislike will be prosecuted. If these are published abroad, access to the relevant websites will be blocked. Internet companies will be taxed to pay for a Ministry of Propaganda to go beyond anything now provided by the BBC.”[/quote]

    I just read the Manifesto (or the relevant part of it, anyway) and it doesn’t mention explicitly anything about prosecuting people for expressing opinions or facts the authorities dislike, though you could argue this is the situation already anyway. I read the relevant paragraph on page 82, but took that to be a promise to regulate internet service providers and social media companies, etc., not individual web users.

    However, the Manifesto does also emphasise that people online should be treated in the eyes of the law the same way that they would be treated offline when undertaking comparable activity. I assume this could mean a further tightening of official censorship of opinions and perhaps criminal prosecutions will become more common, but to be honest, we already have that position, due to the Thatcher government’s hate crime legislation, and the Blair government’s amendments.

    I don’t think Theresa May understands the worldwide web. Possibly she should take advice on this from her namesake, the porn star, who runs quite a good website. She would told that you can’t censor what people read, look at, comment on, say or think without either making yourself look ridiculous or, as suggested in the above piece, edging us closer to a police state.

    I found Dr. Gabb’s piece unduly alarmist, though I also fear he may have a point. The fat authoritarian nincompoop, Charles Clarke, was on Newsnight the other day suggesting that far from withdrawing from an interventionist foreign policy, Britain should pursue military interventions here, there and everywhere, so as to deal with the terrorism problem. It’s idiocy, but it’s popular, and people will vote for it. Even the Iraq War was very popular at the time. I think there may be something in human nature that yearns for authority, direction and control.

  • Society of Experimental Field Archaeology

    What a excellent piece of writing. Corbyn is a dangerous man and his message will appear attractive, even common-sense to those people that fail to think deeply, if at all attracted by what they see as his considered approach, especially the young “millennials”. May is a fool and there is nothing worse than leaders that think they are capable and astute, when her decision to have another Election and risk “Brexit”, may allow Corbyn to enter Number 10 and another terrible five years under a traitorous oppressive Labour regime. It will be the death knell for what is left of Britain and possibly send us into a sharia state as Corbyn will facilitate through his beliefs in mass immigration and the final close of what was once the United Kingdom.

    The Military may even act to prevent his taking power, as there are brighter minds within that know where this could lead. Hints have been made to such effect for a few years now, The Army stays out of politics. However, Corbyn’s anti-war stance attracts those that are sick of wars and Neo-Con hubris “spreading Democracy” through bombs. Pacifism is its own worst enemy in an unbalanced world brought about by foolish unworldly politicians with little grasp of history and the culture of others and how they work- especially when considering the Moslem world- one very different from ours. especially in kinship and other socio-religious structures and ideology.

    If Britain were to become an Islamic republic thanks to demography and mass immigration but especially given the supine reaction of our “Government”, that sees patriotism as a threat rather than Wahabism allied to the growth of a “feely-touchy” population, that has also lost its sense of nationhood under the pall of Marxist education, then we face a dark future. (And) yes it could easily happen. Be under no illusion. Blair was far worse than Corbyn in matters of radicalism. Peter Hitchens was correct.

    The sacking of Kate Hopkins and others for simply stating what would have been natural concern in the past, in the face of the murder of children by the bomber in Manchester, should have people on the streets but has instead led to a “Piranha hate speech” frenzy in support of the removal of Mrs Hopkins. This is the true state of the hive mentality of Orwellian Britain.

    Mrs Hopkins was deemed a “Nazi” and “Monster” and people “celebrated” as they immaturely gloated like a mob of tricolour hatted Guillotine hags cheering the beheading of French aristocrats after 1789. We do indeed resemble France in the days of that period and its Committee For Public Safety. Mrs May as yet is no Citizen Robbespiere but not far off. Such matters evolve. I don’t think Corbyn is the blood-thirsty type but his baggage and social connections and views could lead to somebody that may not hold back.

    Khan the Mayor of London waits in the wings of the Labour Party and given the large Moslem bloc vote that shadows that Party now and led to the “taking” of our capital city by Islam, it is not a big step to a Moslem PM. Boris Johnston was expected to takeover the role from Cameron,

    I laid a complaint to the Met Police for their treatment of Mrs Hopkins but also reported her abusers as well for the misuse of the term “Nazi”. I phrased it in a way that made it seem that the generic abuse of such a term belittled the Holocaust and diminished all of us with memories of those days or shortly after the War. To one’s surprise the Police responded and her accusers on the infernal “Twitter” are now under investigation.

    Normally one would pass-over the very idea of reporting “Hate-Speech”- a shocking Orwellian concept but Mrs Hopkins has suffered loss of income and livelihood and I think it high time these “Virtue-signalling” hypocrites felt what it was like to misuse with abandon terms like “Nazi”. We shall see what transpires.

    • Thank you, “Society of Experimental Field Archaeology”; I appreciate the nuance in your moniker.

  • I have no empirical evidence, merely an uneasy premonition. I fear the possibility of the ascent of a sharia Labour apparatchik and a long dark night for Britain. Let us hope that it is just because I have a bad cold.

    • Society of Experimental Field Archaeology

      Yes I have the same fear. May has thrown away a victory and Brexit. Stupid woman.

  • Two delusional socialist politicians. Nothing much to choose between them policy-wise; you will get higher taxes and a busybody state whichever of them wins.

    As usual I will not be voting, but if I +had+ to choose one of them I would prefer Corbyn, as he seems less likely to start ww3. He also vaguely resembles a human being.

    As for Brexit, what we are currently on course for looks highly likely to be worse than what we have now – ie a high-tax, PC nanny-state but without the free movement or (fairly) free trade.

    Not quite what people voted for last June.

  • Richard Gledhill

    Sean, constant talk of voting conservative. Why? Is UKIP not more suitable?
    Their manifesto holds much sensible talk, less government interference. Some tree shaking and about time too.
    As for tactical voting this is not why we vote ……… is it?
    These are questions not rhetoric.
    Richard

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s