Tag Archives: David Cameron

In Praise of David Cameron (& Co): A Libertarian Fatwa


by Keir Martland

Not long ago, I wrote something nasty about Margaret Thatcher for the Libertarian Alliance. Yet even I will concede that in order to be so cruel about the old cow one must inevitably come across as sympathetic to some less than civilised people. In order to attack the Thatcher government and its record one must to some extent deny the existence of the many problems this country faced in 1979: the rampant inflation; the militant trade unionism; the lack of self-respect as a nation; the high rates of direct taxation; the low levels of home ownership. I will concede that even if one takes a dim view of the Thatcher government, there are many allowances that can, and indeed must, be made.

However, when considering the latest tax credits debacle, I am unable to make similar allowances for Mr Cameron and his government. This particular episode is a perfect example of economic illiteracy, legislative incompetence, and constitutional ignorance.

Read more

Advertisements

The Bribing of the ScotzNatz: the world now notices


David Davis

Even the mainstream media have now noticed. In trying to set permanent socialist Rotten Boroughs up, what a shambles the BritishPoliticalEnemyClass has made. In trying to sort things out, I wouldn’t be starting from here. I refer to my post of yesterday.

The buying of Scotland: Fascist hucksters trying to outbribe each other


And only the English need to pay…..

David Davis

As Thursday comes near, the game becomes nastier. The breaking of the UK must have the planet’s less nice scumbags and GFNs chortling into their latte (whatever that might be) and gleefully rubbing their hands over a potential strategic advance. The Global War, for that is what it is, is against English liberalism and no other thing. Only this stands between Man and the Endarkenment. It has been like this for almost 150 years, but this time they’re on the Garden Wall.

Tony Blair, remarkable in this spat for keeping his head well down (wouldn’t you?) and only making one quick guest appearance, is the proximal cause. Wanting to make Scotland one entire Socialist Pocket Borough so that conservatism would never be near government again, he began the bribery auction in the late 90s. What he achieved in fact was a true nationalist-socialist victory instead – and I don’t need to say what those words mean. This was the inevitable result of “devolution”, coupled with vast money transfers North, to provide the appearance of efficacy.

Almost at the deadline, we have numbers of fellows and others wheeled out to say how negative the consequences would be if Scotland votes to go. Here, here, here and here, for example. Oh, and here too.

If I was a ScotzNatz, all these sad hand-wringing negative pleas and gestures would only serve to harden my resolve to say “Yes”. Perhaps the BritishPoliticalEnemyClass is playing a Read more

Britain’s Idiotic “Opt-in” Porn Ban


via The Daily Beast: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/23/britain-s-idiotic-opt-in-porn-ban.html

By Brendan O’Neill

November 23rd 2013 5:45 am
 
In Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron asks British blokes to fess up about their fantasies—for the good of the children.

In Britain, browsing internet porn is about to get a whole lot more complicated.

As of next year those who like to have an occasional self-fiddle while watching a saucy movie—that is, every male human being aged 13 and upwards—will effectively have to ask for permission from his Internet Service Provider (ISP).

Access to porn will be automatically blocked in the vast majority of British households—nine out of ten, the government estimates—meaning people who want to see this stuff will have to email or phone up their ISP and say: “Please turn off my filters.” Imagine how humiliating that will be. You might as well say to your ISP, “I like to wank while watching people have sex.”

It’s Prime Minister David Cameron’s idea. Convinced that the tsunami of porn on the internet is damaging young people, he has pressured ISPs to impose a pre-set parental control filter on all domestic internet connections.

These mandatory filters, which will come into effect early next year, will block pornographic fare. If you want porn, you’ll have to “opt in.” The government, without our say-so, is opting us out. One day next year Brits will wake up to discover that they no longer have access to certain images and words that they previously had access to.

The aim, says Cameron, is not to “lecture adults” about their web-browsing antics, but rather to empower parents, to allow mums and dads to keep their homes porn-free. “We are giving parents the opportunity to take a more positive role”, he says. “We are helping them with something they have asked us… to do.”

And what about those adults (let’s face it, mainly men) who have families but, every now and then in the privacy of their bathroom or study, also like to watch rollicking lesbians? How do they explain to their wives or girlfriends why they want these pesky “porn filters,” as absolutely everyone is calling them, switched off?

These “embarrassed husbands” will just have to “have a discussion” with their partners, Cameron says nonchalantly, as if he isn’t asking the men of Britain to do something many will find squirm-inducingly shameful. He’s effectively forcing British blokes to fess up about their fantasies, to make semi-public their private onanistic shenanigans.

There are so many things wrong with Cameron’s porn filter plan that it’s hard to know where to start.

First, as the free speech campaign group Open Rights points out, internet filters can be notoriously clumsy, often blocking stuff that isn’t actually pornographic or violent but which is merely “adult”: articles about smoking, advertisements for booze, etc.

Open Rights spoke with some of the ISPs who have agreed to impose a porn block in British households, and they admitted that other material might also get blocked—including “violent material, suicide-related websites, anorexia, and eating disorder websites.” So whole swathes of the internet are going to have a forcefield erected around them, and actual, sentient, fully grown adults will have to ask permission to penetrate this forcefield.

Second, and more importantly, Cameron’s plan represents an alarming intrusion into our homes, into our private lives, into the sovereignty of the family itself.

The imposition of filters on domestic internet connections won’t actually stop wily, web-savvy young people from seeing porn. Armed with smart phones and tablets, and aware that there are Wi-Fi connections pretty much everywhere these days, even the offspring of men and women who agree to allow ISPs to determine what bits of the internet their household can access will find a way to watch mucky movies. If those of us who were children in the pre-web 80s could find a way to source, store, and surreptitiously look at porno mags and crappy VHS videos of Italian women giving blowjobs, then today’s permanently connected youth will surely work out how to circumvent blocks and get their fix of filth.

But what these filters do is set a dangerous precedent: they will say it is okay for the government to behave as parent to their nation, as the stern, finger-wagging father to its citizens.

Cameron is in essence assuming the role of in loco parentis in relation to almost every household in Britain. But households are not only made up of children; they consist of—in fact they are run by—adults. And by forcing mandatory web filters on households Cameron is arrogantly overruling these adults, in the process denting both their rights to access online whatever the hell they want and their authority over their offspring.

It is one thing for the adults in an individual household to take measures to prevent their children from seeing porn; many do that, and good luck to them. But it is another thing entirely for ISPs, cajoled by officialdom, unilaterally to enforce child-protection measures on almost every home in Britain.

That interferes with private life, with parental authority, with the sovereign rights of individual families to determine, relatively free from everyday social mores and expectations, what their values and ideals should be. Using children as a moral shield, Cameron is sticking his foot in the door of family life, assuming the authority to switch off porn on everyone’s internet just as surely as our mums would switch off our TV sets when it got ridiculously late.

We need to challenge this top-down decree that all web connections should, by default, be child-friendly. What if Cameron decides next that erotic literature or fiery political tracts are also harmful to children and thus web access to them should be automatically switched off? No good can come of allowing politicians, in cahoots with ISPs, to tell the public what a “normal” internet should look like.

“Bad news coming” thought Winston…


Christopher Houseman

No, not the impending cuts of so many public payroll salaries (some of which have jobs associated with them), but rather a certain commonality in the Coalition about the motives for their present course of action.

Nick Clegg has assured the LibDems that he doesn’t want to cut the state for the sake of cutting it. No, he wants to cut it so he can rebuild the state differently. Likewise, Liam Fox has informed the Tories that he doesn’t want to cut defence and nor does David Cameron (cue Tory applause) – but at the moment, he has no choice.

Thus is the libertarian ideal of a smaller state smeared in the eyes of political activists and the wider public as a necessary evil, a stopping-off point to be endured on the road to the sunny uplands of a reshaped and re-expanded State tomorrow.

Unless libertarians can convincingly and appealingly present to the public the truly joyous reality of being able to work (or not) as we please, with whom we please, to offer goods and services we’re proud of to whomever we please, libertarians will remain marginalised and misunderstood. They’ll be seen as an articulate but callous bunch, perversely rejoicing over the wider dislocation and misery caused by the State’s champions ditching the minions they think they can most easily do without.

When faced with people determined to do exactly the wrong thing, Lenin’s “The worse the better” dictum may be an accurate response to their failures. But it’s no way to market anything to anyone.

PS. I note the Tories’ pledge to let headteachers discipline children for misbehaviour on the way to and from school. I leave the last word on this news to John Taylor Gatto:

As schooling encroaches further and further into family and personal life, monopolizing the development of mind and character, children become human resources at the disposal of whatever form of governance is dominant at the moment.

Under the skin of Christianised anglo-socialism, a skull


David Davis

The Devil, always prescient and let Peace Be Upon Him, uncovers (sorry) the real face of GramscoFabiaNazism.

At last, I get it now. I get it.

“Slavery” was as we know, always practised by European non-capitalist-but-gold-consuming-tyrannies such as Spain and Portugal, with the connivance and active participation of precapitalist-barbarian-survival-guides-acting-in-concert-with-precapitalist-tribalist-racist-chiefs-in-Africa (so they could “get the staff”.) But, with a subtle change in the content of education, it was what the liberal Anglosphere was to be made to “apologise for”. It had to be made to look like WE did “slavery” (even though WE abolished it.) This would be needed so that when the British State re-introduced slavery for its own children, as it proposes to do now, the epistemological link between the two sorts would be erased.

Let’s call for “an army ov volunteers” to “help the UK out of recession”. Personally, I’d gunpoint the members of the Fabian Society into unpaid labour, if need be, for eve(own privilieged) children, and their children’s children and so on, can work until Labour’s PSBR is repaid.That’ll concentrate their minds, for even lefties think (sorry, pretend) children are innocent.

We can then all watch.

Cameron imitating Blair: huge mistake (all will come undone fully, in 2015)


David Davis

It is perhaps too much to hope that UKIP or even the LPUK will be returned to Parliament with a landslide majority in 2010. Other factors apart, ZanuLieBorg will certainly rig the results: it is the job of Jihadist-GramscoFabiaNazis to do just this thing: it is called participative democracy. If not in anti-Labour seats and other enemy-marginals, then certainly in their Rotten and Pocket Boroughs of which they have about  300, which is quite enough for a majority if well-stuffed, and with a bit of luck in others.

But Dave “the Prole” Cameron is storing up potentially-terminal trouble for himself and his party, to some extent right now, but definitely for 4/5 years’ time if he does what Simon Heffer is accusing him of.

« Older Entries