Tag Archives: communism

CASTRO DEAD! At last!


David Davis

His head has been photoshopped into here. He’s with the President of a nation, so he must be dead: this sort of thing is a great honour, so he must be dead….at last.

Let’s all offer a Prayer to God (who is all-merciful and all-powerful) that the murdering mountebank Castro should rot inthe outer-void outside Hell, along with his friends Ernesto Guevara, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Vissarionovich Dugashvili, Mao ze Tung, and V I Ulianov – oh and Jean Monnet, I almost forgot.

Hell is too full for these buggers already. they’d take up too many “policing resources”.

Remember: you read it here first.

Sean Gabb on Carol Thatcher, Golliwogs and Jeremy Clarkson


UPDATE:- From the Blogmaster of the Libertarian Alliance:-

To editors/ compilers/bloggers

Please feel free to syndicate this post, unedited please, in its entirety, wherever it pleases you to do so.

To reproduce by permission of © Dr Sean Gabb and the Libertarian Alliance

(Oh, and you can repro this while you are about it.) Nothing to do with the below really, except we invented the thing.)

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 180
8th February 2009
Linking url: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc180.htm

On Golliwogs, One-Eyed Scottish Idiots
and Sending Poo Through the Post.
By Sean Gabb

In England, one of those weeks has just ended that define an entire period. This is no consolation for those who have suffered, and who may yet suffer worse. But I have no doubt that it is worth describing what has happened and trying to explain what it means.

Let me begin with the facts.

First, it was reported on the 3rd February 2009 that Carol Thatcher, daughter of Margaret Thatcher, had been dismissed from her job as a BBC presenter for having called a black tennis player a golliwog. She did not say this on air, but during a private conversation. Even so, the BBC defended its decision on the grounds that any language of a “racist nature” was “wholly unacceptable”.

Second, demands are rising at the moment for Jeremy Clarkson, another presenter at the BBC, to be dismissed for having called the Prime Minister a “one-eyed Scottish idiot who keeps telling us everything’s fine”. Various Scotch politicians and spokesmen for the blind let up an immediate chorus of horror that has resulted in a conditional apology from Mr Clarkson, but may not save his career.

Third, it was reported on the 2nd February 2009 that the comedian and Labour Party supporter Jo Brand was being investigated by the police for allegedly inciting criminal acts against her political opponents. While presenting a BBC television programme on the 16th January 2009, she rejoiced that the membership list of the British National Party had been stolen and published on the Internet. Her exact words were: “Hurrah! Now we know who to send the poo to“. The natural meaning of her words was that it would be a fine idea to look up members of this party and send excrement to them through the post. The British National Party put in an immediate complaint, using the hate speech laws made during the past generation. According to a BBC spokesman, “We do not comment on police matters. However, we believe the audience would have understood the satirical nature of the remarks”. It is relevant to note that Mrs Brand was present when Carol Thatcher made her “golliwog” remarks, and may have had a hand in denouncing her.

Fourth, In The Times on the 6th February, someone called Matthew Syed wrote how personally oppressed he felt by words like “golliwog”, and how good it was that “society” was taking a stand against them. Two pages later, someone called Frank Skinner defended the employers in the north of England who prefer to employ foreigners on the grounds that foreigners are “better looking” and “less trouble”. The possibility that he has broken one of our hate speech laws will probably never be considered.

This is a gathering of facts that occurred or were made public during one week. But if we relax the time limit, similar facts pour in beyond counting. There was, for example, the pillorying last month of one of the Queen’s grandsons for calling someone a “Paki“. Or, to give myself as an example, there was my BBC debate of the 16th February 2004 with Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, an Asian immigrant who seems incapable of seeing any issue except in terms of white racism. During this debate, I asked her: “Yasmin, are you saying that the white majority in this country is so seething with hatred and discontent that it is only restrained by law from rising up and tearing all the ethnic minorities to pieces?” Her answer was “Yes”. It is possible she did not understand my question. It is possible she would have clarified or retracted her answer had the debate been allowed to continue. Sadly for her, the BBC immediately switched off my microphone and threw me into the street. Mrs Brown was allowed to continue uninterrupted to till the end of the programme. The hundreds of complaints received by the BBC and the Commission for Racial Equality were all either ignored or dismissed with the assurance that nothing untoward had taken place in the studio. I accept that Mrs Brown might not have meant what she said. Had I made such a comment about Asians or blacks, however, I might have been facing a long stretch in prison.

But let me return to the most recent facts. The most obvious reason why these broadly similar incidents are being treated so differently is that Jo Brand and Frank Skinner are members of the new ruling class that formally took power in 1997. They can vilify their opponents as freely as Dr Goebbels did his. Any of the hate speech laws that might – objectively read – moderate their language will be regarded as nullities. The police had no choice but to investigate Mrs Brand for her alleged offence committed live on television before several million people. But they made it clear that no charges would result. According to a police spokesman, “The chances of this going further are very remote. The idea that the BNP are claiming they are the victim of a race offence is mildly amusing, to say the least”. It may be amusing. The statement itself is interesting, though, as a formal admission that law in this country now means whatever the executive finds convenient.

Carol Thatcher and Jeremy Clarkson are not members of the the ruling class. They have no such immunity. Mr Clarkson may get away with his act of hate speech because he is popular and clever, and because the main object of his contempt is only the Prime Minister. Miss Thatcher may not be allowed to get away with her act. She used a word that borders on the illegal. And she is the daughter of Margaret Thatcher. She is the daughter, that is, of the woman elected and re-elected three times on the promise that she would make the British State smaller and stop it from being made the vehicle for a totalitarian revolution by stealth. Of course, she broke her promises. She did nothing to stop the takeover of the state administration by politically correct totalitarians. But there was a while when the people who actually won the cultural revolution in this country thought they would lose. They looked at her rhetoric. They noted the millions of votes she piled up in her second and third general elections. And they trembled. As said, they won. Mrs Thatcher herself is too old to suffer more than endless blackening at the hands of the victors who now comprise the ruling class. But they still tremble at the thought of how her shadow darkened their 1980s. And if they can do nothing to her now, her daughter can be ruined, and that will now be tried with every chance of success.

It might be argued that what Miss Thatcher and Mr Clarkson said was offensive, and that they are in trouble because we have a much greater regard for politeness than used to be the case. Perhaps it is offensive to say that a black man looks like a golliwog. Perhaps it is offensive to imply that Scotchmen are idiots or that people with defective sight also have defective judgement. It might be. But it might also be offensive to millions of people that the BBC – which is funded by a compulsory levy on everyone who can receive television signals – broadcasts a continual stream of nudity and obscene language; and that it pays the biggest salary in its history to Jonathan Ross, whose only public talent is for foul-mouthed buffoonery. The British ruling class – especially through the BBC, its main propaganda outreach – has a highly selective view of what is offensive.

And it is worth replying that the alleged offensiveness of the statements is minimal. Let us forget about golliwogs and implied sneers at the blind. Let us take the word “nigger”. Now, this has not been a word admitted in polite company in England since about the end of the eighteenth century. Anyone who does use the word shows himself a person of low breeding. Whatever its origins, its use for centuries has been as an insult to black people. Any reasonable black man, therefore, called a nigger, has cause to take offence.

This being said, only moderate offence can be reasonable. Anyone who runs about, wailing that he has been hurt by a word as if it were a stick taken to his back, and calling for laws and social ostracism to punish the speaker, is a fool or a villain. And I can think of few other epithets that a reasonable person would greet with more than a raised eyebrow – “poof”, “paki”, “papist”, “mohammedan”, “chinkie” and the like. Anyone who finds these words at the very worst annoying should grow up. We can be quite sure that most of the Asian languages now spoken in this country contain some very unflattering words to describe the English – for example, goreh, gweilo, and so forth. There is no pressure, internal or external, for these to be dropped. And we know that there are any number of organisations set up by and for non-whites in this country from which the English are barred – for example, the National Black Police Association.

However, the highly selective use of speech codes and hate speech laws has nothing really to do with politeness. It is about power. The British ruling class may talk the language of love and diversity and inclusiveness. What it obviously wants is the unlimited power to plunder and enslave us, while scaring us into the appearance of gratitude for our dispossession. Because the tyrannised are always the majority in a tyranny, they must be somehow prevented from combining. The soviet socialists and the national socialists kept control by the arbitrary arrest and torture or murder of suspected opponents. That is not presently acceptable in England or in the English world. Control here is kept by defining all opposition as “hatred” – and by defining all acts or attitudes that might enable opposition as “hatred”.

I am the Director of the Libertarian Alliance. Not surprisingly, my own opposition to the rising tide of despotism is grounded on a belief in individual rights. I may occasionally talk about my ancestral rights as an Englishman, or about how my ancestors fought and died so I could enjoy some now threatened right. I may sometimes half-believe my rhetoric. Ultimately, though, I believe that people have – or should be regarded as having – rights to life, liberty and property by virtue of their human status. Anything else I say really is just a rhetorical device. This is not the case with most other people. For them, opposing the encroachments of a ruling class is grounded on collective identity – “they can’t do that to us“. Now, this sense of collective identity may derive from common religion, common loyalty, common culture, but most often and most powerfully – though these other sources may also be important – from perceived commonality of blood.

Now, this collective identity is not something that is seen at times of emergency, but otherwise is in abeyance. It is important in times of emergency so far as it is always present. People work together when they must because, at all other times, they have a mass of shared rituals and understandings that hold them together. These shared things often define a people in terms of their distinctness from others. Jokes beginning “There was an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotchman” or “What do you call a Frenchman who…?” are part of what reinforces an English identity. So too are comments and gestures and assumptions that assert the superiority of the English over other peoples. To change my focus for a moment, take the phrase “Goyishe Kopf” – Gentile brains! This is what some Jews say when they do something stupid. It can be taken as expressing hatred and contempt of non-Jews. More reasonably, it is one of those comments that reinforce the Jewish identity.

What Carol Thatcher said was part of this reminding of identity. Her exact words, so far as I can tell, were: “You also have to consider the frogs. You know, that froggy golliwog guy”. The meaning she was trying to convey was: “let us consider how quaint and absurd outsiders are. Is it not nice that we are members of the same group, and that we are so clever and so beautiful?” I am not saying that I approve of what she actually said. Indeed, she would have done better for herself and the English in general had she kept her mouth shut.  Calling someone “froggy” is neither here nor there. Calling him a “golliwog” is moderately hurtful. Saying this on BBC premises, and in front of people like Jo Brand, shows that Miss Thatcher is stupid or that she was drunk. Her words, as reported, do less to reinforce English identity than make the whole thing an embarrassment.

However – her name always aside – she is being punished not because her words were crass, but because they fell into the category of actions that must at all times be discouraged. Powerful or crass to the point of embarrassment, nothing must be tolerated that might tend to promote an English identity. I say an English identity. The rule does not apply to Scotch or Welsh or Irish nationalism. These are not regarded as a danger to the ruling class project of total enslavement. They are controllable by subsidy. More usefully, they are anti-English. The various ethnic nationalisms and Islamic identities are likewise allowed or encouraged. They are not perceived as a danger to the ruling class project of total domination, and may be used against the English. It is English identity that must at all costs be repressed. The English are still the largest national group in these islands, and will remain so at least until 2040, when there may be a non-white majority all through the United Kingdom. English national ways are the raw material from which every liberal doctrine has been refined. The English are an unpleasantly violent nation when pushed too far.

This explains why words and expressions are defined almost at random as “hatred”, and why names of groups and places keep changing almost at random. The purpose is not to protect various minority groups from being hurt – though clever members of these groups may take advantage of the protections. The real purpose is to hobble all expression of English identity. It is to make the words and phrases that come most readily to mind unusable, or usable only with clarifications and pre-emptive cringes that rob them of all power to express protest. Or it is to force people to consult their opponents on what words are currently acceptable – and whoever is allowed to control the terms of debate is likely to win the debate.

And look how easily it can be done. Also during the past week, we have seen working class demonstrations in the north of England against the employment of foreign workers. “British jobs for British workers” they have been chanting. A few raised eyebrows and warnings from Peter Mandelson about the “politics of xenophobia“, and the trade unions have straightaway sold out their members and are preparing to bully them back to work. Better that trade union members scrabble to work for a pound an hour, or whatever, than that they should be suffered to use words like “Eyeties” or “Dagoes”.

I should end by suggesting what can be done to counter this strategy. I suppose the answer is not to behave like Carol Thatcher. We must accept that certain words and phrases have been demonised beyond defence. Some of them are indefensible. These must be dropped. Others that are just about permissible – Scotchman, for example – should be used and defended on all occasions. We should also at all times bear in mind that political correctness is not about protecting the weak but disarming the potentially strong, and it must be made clear to the ruling class that its management of language has been noticed and understood and rejected. A strategy of apparently casual offence, followed by partial and unconvincing apology – of the sort that we may have seen from Jeremy Clarkson – may also be appropriate.

Another strategy worth considering is the one adopted by the British National Party. In a free country, Jo Brand would be at perfect liberty to incite criminal acts against unnamed and reasonably unidentifiable people. But we do not live in a free country. There is a mass of laws that criminalise speech that was legal even a few years ago. The response to this is to invoke the laws against those who called for them. As said, people like Jo Brand and Yasmin Alibhai Brown are unlikely ever to be prosecuted for crimes of hate speech. But the authorities will occasionally be forced to go through the motions of investigating, and this can be made a form of harassment amounting to revenge. Otherwise, it is useful to establish beyond doubt that the laws are not intended to be enforced according to their apparently universal working.

There is much else to be said. But I suppose the most important thing is not to behave like Carol Thatcher. It will be unfair if she is broken by her words. But if you stick your head into a lion’s mouth, you cannot really complain when you feel the teeth closing round your neck.

All told, this has been an interesting week. Understood rightly, it may turn out to have been a most productive week.

NB—Sean Gabb’s book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3

ShootinPutin187 plays with gas-tap and naked (de)lights, makes wargaming threats….


David Davis

Apparently he’s turned off the gas to the Ukraine…..again….because he can’t shag its PM I expect. I should have known. He’s done it before, here.

Of course, one could argue that it’s “his” gas: well, not in terms of strict property-title perhaps, since it belongs to GazProm until it’s been paid for by someone. There is a grain – but only a grain – of truth in the supposition that he can set light to the entire stock of Siberia’s gas if he wishes: it’s none of Ukraine’s, or “Europe’s” business if he does, so long as they’ve not yet paid for the burnt stuff.

But I can’t help thinking that we should take less seriously on the “world stage” such a man, and that we should move towards showing him up in front of “his” people…why?  For the self-publicising little gun-toting clown that he is. The people of the USSR Russia deserve better than ShootinPutin187, on the way to not having to host any of the f*****g buggers at all, when the poor wretched downtrodden sods are finally libertarianised.  He has similar forebears, here, and the political-development-parallels between the two buggers are uncomfortably congruent.

And to annoy ShootinPutin187 even more, you can send money to PizzaIDF.org, on the link. Hat tip Guido Fawkes.

Georgia can fall, and then the rest. A moral case for going to war against Russia


David Davis

What appears below is the substance of a riposte that I have just placed on an anti-EU newsgroups called “eurorealist”. This was in response to a slightly shallowly-thought-out question about what quarrel we have with somethng called the “Russian People”. The point I try, inexpertly, to make, is that there is no such quarrel: the problem lies within the institutionalised Russian State – and there is no solution except revolution…what I think we in the Anglosphere call euphemistically, “Regime Change”. Here goes…

First. we should make the DISTINCTION between the People of (poor, oppressed) Russia, and its GOVERNMENT. Russia, wretched, ground-down country, has no tradition of secular liberal political democracy. None. None whatever – not even folk-memory of it.

The Russian Administration (and I said this in the Torygraph comments on the article (front page) yesterday) behaves no differently from its medieval, Czarist and Communist forebears. Why ought it to? What advantage is there for it? The Russian people are there for it as a “human resource”, often turned by it into “human remains”, but as Stalin said, “one death does not matter very much”. As the unspeakable pig Yezhov said in 1938, “if we shoot 1,000 people too many in any monthly plan, it’s no big deal”. (I’m not making this up, by the way.)

WE are fighting Russia, because we want a world in which such tyrannical, pre-capitalist/barbarian/sub-human attitudes to other people and their wishes, have no place. Russia’s present governmental structures are savage and pre-capitalist/barbarian, and they have NO place in the world that we and Ahmet want.

Russia’s regime will HAVE TO GO. Just that, very simple. The Russian Foreign Monster said in today’s torygraph that “Regime Change is a Western concept that we do not use…..” I bet you mean that, mate, but not in the way you thought.

If we do not do, in the West, at least some warlike things, over Georgia, the following things will happen:- (i don’t care about the oil or gas anyway – we should not buy oil from tyrants, nor give them money for theyr services. we invented nuclear power, let’s just Do The Right Thing and USE IT.)

(1) Georgia will disappear, rent apart piece by piece, just like Czechoslovakia in 1938. This incident is a virtual re-run of the Hitler-Henlein-Sudetenland script.

(2) Putin will then go after the other Caucasian republics which are “faraway counteis of which we know little”. these have less firepower than georgia could even muster.

(3) Putin will then dismember Ukraine by hoovering up the Trans-Dniester.

Of course we will do nothing – what do you think we now are? We are the modern West, trained by home-grown, wicked and ingrate internal Gramsco-Marxians to take weak relativist positions on everything that reflects well on our past absolute moral greatness and rightness: these days, we now must glorify and salute the betrayal of our friends, by our masters who arrived while we slept, and betrayal of those who see right and would emulate us, but for now need our strong arms against evil ones who would expunge them.

It always has been, is now, and will be, the job and duty of Anglosphere nations to go to war not for their own interests, but for simple principles of right and wrong. For example, Britain had no possible or conceivable foreign policy interest in defendingeither of the following:-

(1) Belgium’s neutrality (we only undertook to because we signed a 19th century treaty that said we would – the Imperial General Staff excuse that we could not allow the French Coast to fall into German hands is more plausible, I admit)

(2) Poland’s territorial integrity in 1939. Again, we had merely given our word (is not that something?) that we would do so. I am publicly on record, seven times in 19 years, as saying that we could no more defend Poland by force that land soldiers on mars, but that’s not the point. The point is to Do The Right Thing, as described by example in the Gospels (specific and empirical) and positively enjoined (as generalities for modelling) in the Mosaic decalogue.

Of course we will blink first if it comes to a standoff with Russia. Don’t worry, You can sleep easy in your beds for a few….months?….years? What difference does it make? So yes it WILL get worse, because we did not react correctly (for the defence of Good against the machinations of the Wicked) before it was too late. It was too late before this South ossetian nonsense.

Why do you all think Bismarck sprayed Imperial German passports all over Schleswig-Holstein, before marching in and chopping it off Denmark? Look at what the Russian State (not the Russian people!) did all over South Ossetia.

It’s too late to do anything but “declare solidarity with Georgia”. That’s honourable, but insufficent to save it. By not preparing for war, you will all now get it. not now, but when it’s almost too late and you’ll have to hope to survive by the skin of your teeth.

Much, much more should have been done, by the West, INSIDE RUSSIA, in 1991. That was the time, and we could do no wrong in the eyes of the world. The moment was lost, and we let all the vile fascist left spiders and their friends crawl surreptitiously out of the woodwork, and slime back into almost their original positions.

Yep, the moment was lost. We were so drunk with rejoicing over the Berlin Wall and Gorbachev and Yeltsin, that we forgot to look under the flagstones in the cellar, and shoot anything that moved, before moving in with the bulldozers.

Look, WE KNOW how to build libral pluralist civilisations with Free Institutions. Having taken 15 centuries to learn it the hard way, we ought now to be able to do it the easy way. What we propound accords with Human Nature: socialism does not – it is the specific and major difference, which is why its experiments always and invariably fail bloodily, with colateral damage. WE SHOULD have “done” Russia while we could do it for no cost in either blood or treasure…..but we didn’t, and so you will all pay now.

Well, there you are. Who’s next after Abkhazia, Armenia, Ukraine….The Baltinc States? Or…Poland again, anyone?

DD

 

 

In a message dated 11/08/2008 13:26:42 GMT Daylight Time, ukfizwit@yahoo.co.uk writes:

 

[eurorealist] Re: [Fwd: WAR ALERT!!!]

Date:11/08/2008 13:26:42 GMT Daylight Time

From:ukfizwit@yahoo.co.uk

Reply-to:eurorealist@yahoogroups.com

To:eurorealist@yahoogroups.com

Sent from the Internet

 

 

 

Given that they aren’t commies any more, why are we still fighting Russia?

Of course this sums up the whole problem.

When Russia abandoned the Warsaw Pact, it was on the understanding that

NATO would not move in. Why should it? It had always claimed that

Communism was the threat; not the Russian people.

What happened next? The German Wall came down as requested by the US.

Then NATO moved into East Germany. “Well why not”? “It’s all one

country now” they said. After that it was Poland et al.

No bloody wonder Russia’s worried.

Ted

— In eurorealist@yahoogroups.com, “vtam370” <vtam370@…> wrote:

>

> Even if Georgia WERE a Nato member, I am sure their

> European allies would find many excuses for not going

> to its rescue. Remember what happened in the Falklands

> war?

>

> The Russians appear to think that the Georgians were

> egged by America and Turkey because those two countries

> had been training Georgia’s army and supplying weapons.

> They issued some paranoic-sounding warnings in the past

> few days. They don’t want either Georgia or Ukraine to

> be considered for Nato membership. Frankly, I have

> greater respect for Russia than our former allies in

> Europe. Given that they aren’t commies any more, why

are we still fighting Russia?

 Ahmet

Sean Gabb on the Radio tonight Saturday 26th April, BBC Radio 5 Live, after 23.45 BST


David Davis

From Sean Gabb,
Director, the Libertarian Alliance,
to: Yahoo Group: Eurorealists

Dear Fellow Eurorealists,

I’ve been invited on the radio tonight to debate with one of the senior
advisers to the Archbishop of Canterbury on whether high salaries should
be “capped” in order ot help the poor.

I shall probably be allowed about three discontinuous minutes, while the
majority of time goes to some clerical communist droning on about
“compassion”. However, what I will try to argue is as follows:

The salaries of those who work for the State come from a forcible
transfer of wealth, often form the poor. Such slaries should be capped at
£20,000. The salaries and rewards of those who run big business and the
City are often based on a grant of state privilege. Such people should be
exposed to real market competition.

But most people who do well in this country do so by offering goods and
services on terms that others find attractive. Their wealth is justly
acquired, and it is immoral to call for it to be taken away. Certainly,
what I earn is for me and my wife and daughter. It is not for some
feckless prole in a council flat. The modern Church of England would
never dream of calling for the regulation of what consenting adults do
with each other in bed. Why therefore call for controls on what they do
with their cash?

Beside this, the whole idea of capping the rich is based on evil
premises. The assumption behind these calls is that England is like some
gigantic ant heap in which the few own and control the many. This
assumption destoys all scope for exercising the free will on which
salvation is supposed to depend.

Now, I shan’t be able to say much of this. But YOU CAN HELP!

Please tune in, either with your wireless or via the Internet. Try to
call, e-mail or text your points across. You will probably be filtered
out to make room for more whining communists. But it’s worth the effort.
Do this if you live in england. But why not give it a try from abroad? If
you think the Christian Faith is worth saving from the Left, here is an
opportunity.

Here are the details:

From 10pm onwards – though me probably around midnight: 22:00 Stephen
Nolan Show

Wireless frequency: 909 or 693 khz AM
Internet: http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/nolan.shtml

Call 0500 909 693 [free from BT landlines; charges for mobiles and other
networks will vary].

Text 85058 [network rates].

E-mail: nolan@bbc.co.uk

Good luck.

 

Sean Gabb – Lecture on the Greens


Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 166
21st November 2007

postCount(‘flc166’);Comments| postCountTB(‘flc166’); Trackback

My Contractually-Obliged
Lecture on the Environment
by Sean Gabb

At one of the places where I teach, senior members of staff are required to work an environmental theme into every lecture course they give. Here is the lecture I shall give next Monday morning to three hundred undergraduates. I will not read this to the students. That is not my practice. It should instead be seen as a summary given in advance of what I shall say, and as a source of quotations to use against me in the subsequent group discussions.
 

Our Duty to Save the Planet
Sean Gabb

According to all the newspapers and television stations and all the politicians, we are facing a serious environmental crisis. We are told that global temperatures are rising, and that they are rising because of economic development, and that, unless we make radical changes to the ways in which we live, sea levels will rise and the world in general will become less pleasant.

I am not a scientist, and I am not competent to examine the detailed claims about the nature and extent and causes of global warming. But I believe these claims are all lies. I believe they are the latest attempt by some very nasty people to stop the progress of the human race to unlimited self-improvement.

History and Class Oppression

Until about 250 year ago, the normal situation of humanity was stagnation. There might be ages of improvement, but these hardly ever improved the lives of the poorest, and they were always followed by a decline of economic activity.

This was a world in which society was shaped like a broad pyramid—a very small ruling class enjoying fabulous wealth and status, and a great mass or ordinary people at the bottom living in poverty. It was a world in which more than half of all children born died before they reached the age of five, and in which the great majority of ordinary people died in their thirties.

The libertarian revolutions of the 17th century in England led to a sudden increase in general wealth during the 18th century. By around 1800, it was plain that this was an improvement unlike any other before. For the first time, larger and larger numbers of ordinary people were enjoying cheaper and better food and clothing.

Other European governments looked on this with envy, as greater national wealth meant greater military power. But many, both abroad and in England, were concerned about he social and political impact of these developments. They meant that more and more ordinary people were moving about and improving their lives, and they were thinking for themselves, and beginning to question political arrangements that delivered immense differences of wealth and status.

The Reaction

The first reaction against market liberalism was purely conservative. Churches and landowning interests put much effort into defending the old order of things. Look, for example, at this verse from a Church of England hymn:

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
He made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate

The meaning of this is that God had given everyone a certain position in the world, and this position had to be accepted without complaint or attempts at change.

Without massive government force behind it, this sort of reaction was a failure in every place it was tried. Even there, it tended to fail. No dungeons in this world, or threats of hellfire in the next, could stifle the news of freedom and enrichment.

And so the next step in reaction was to disguise conservatism as progress. Ideologies were developed that looked progressive, but the effect of which would be to stop all further progress.

That is the significance of many kinds of socialism and particularly Marxism. These doctrines spoke about equality and freedom and growing wealth, but were obviously about the exact opposite. Even before the first socialist experiments, liberals were analysing the socialist claims and announcing that a socialist society would be a dictatorship in which the great majority of ordinary people would be made poor again.

This was the result of actually existing socialism in the 20th century. Countries like Russia, East Germany and Czechoslovakia had fast economic development among their stated goals. In fact, the only really growth was in the amount of pollution their factories produced.

The only liberty and equality and economic development that have ever been seen have taken place in countries like England and America and Germany and Japan— where people have mostly been left alone to look after themselves and their families.

With the collapse of socialism at the end of the 1980s, it looked for a moment as if all the barriers had been lifted to unlimited improvement for the whole human race. It seemed that we could look forward to a world in which everyone had a motor car and a refrigerator and a telephone.Environmentalism: The Last Communist Refuge

Then the environmental movement grew big. This had been around since the early 1960s. At first, it concentrated on things like chemical pollution and rapid population growth and how the world would soon run out of oil and other minerals. The problem was that its claims were always proved to be wrong.

For example, we were told in the 1960s that population growth would soon lead to mass starvation. In the event, living standards continued to rise faster and faster all over the world.

Again, we were told that the oil would run out before the middle of the 1980s. In the event, more and more oil was found, and we now know that we have enough o last for centuries to come.

Again we were told in the 1970s that industrialisation was leading to global cooling and that there would soon be another ice age. This also did not happen.

But, since the collapse of socialism, the environmental movement has grown bigger and bigger, and is now arguing for regulations and taxes that would soon stop all further economic growth—particularly in Asia, India, Africa and South America. That is the goal of all this endless propaganda in the media, and all the talk about carbon footprints.

Now, it may be that there really is a problem with the environment. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. But I find it historically significant that environmentalism has grown big at the very moment when every other argument against human progress has been disproved.

I therefore believe that the claims of the environmentalists are lies. They are an excuse for returning humanity to a dark age of inequality and stagnation.

An Invitation to Debate

I am circulating this lecture a week in advance, to give you time to read it and to consider the issues raised. I hope this will make the long discussion after lunch even more lively than it would otherwise be.
 

NB—Sean Gabb’s new book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded free from http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3. You can help by contributing to publishing and distribution costs

Recent Entries »