Statism: Conspiracy or Incompetence?


Statism: Conspiracy or Incompetence?

 By Duncan Whitmore

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity” 

                  –  Hanlon’s Razor

In some recent essays examining the factors that have brought us to the political, social and economic conditions in which we find ourselves in 2020, we mentioned briefly the role of conspiracies, concluding that it is not necessary to speculate upon their existence in order to explain our current situation. This essay will not examine the phenomenon of conspiracy theories in great detail. Instead, we will look specifically at whether the possible existence of a conspiracy among the global “elite” that aims to reduce the entire human population to enslavement offers a convincing explanation for major societal changes that tend towards a crushing of freedom.

Revisionist History

The common theme of conspiracy theories is that certain key events are planned, directed or orchestrated deliberately by establishment figures in order to achieve a specific, underhand purpose while being passed off either as mere accidents or as the responsibility of other parties. Thus, it is essentially a form of historical revisionism that is antagonistic to those who have an interest in maintaining conventional historical understanding, and so the latter normally deploy the term “conspiracy theory” as a slur so as to dismiss any explanation of an event that differs from that of the official, approved narrative. Indeed, following the enormous increase in state power as a result of government responses to COVID-19, the term has been used to pigeon-hole opponents of “lockdown” measures, particularly after popular protests which were attended by well known conspiracy theorists such as Piers Corbyn and David Icke. Generally, however, such opposition is now being voiced in mainstream terms by those whose credentials make them more difficult to ignore, and so the “conspiracy” element has not received a great deal of attention. No Austro-libertarian can doubt, though, that the power of the state has increased many times over throughout the past century or so, often in response to specific events. It is, therefore, important for us to diagnose correctly the causes of this seemingly unstoppable trend if we are to have any hope of reversing it.

In spite of the fact that it is an unhelpfully pejorative label with a tendency to capture both the serious and the spurious within its ambit, we will continue to use the term “conspiracy theory” to denote revisionist theories which, unlike some proven or persuasive theories, have failed to gain acceptance as accurate historical explanations. Continue reading

Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, the Reform Acts: will we never learn?


Keir Martland

Libertarians, contrary to popular belief, are not Whigs. If we were to take a time-machine trip to the 1640s, we would not be fighting on the side of parliament. In 1688, we would not be cheering on the Bloodless Revolution.

Whiggism is false; it is not true. There is no simpler and more accurate way of putting it.

Continue reading

The Greatest Dictator of All


Keir Martland

I like to keep you all up to date regarding my doings at the college History Society. This lunchtime we had a debate of sorts. A few students would put forward their candidate for the title of ‘The Best (Worst) Dictator’ and then it would be put to a vote.

I had absent mindedly agreed to do this, and so, when the day came upon me, decided to plump for Mr Blair.

The other candidates were Pope Innocent III, Vladimir Putin, and Winston Churchill.

Continue reading

The Pre-History of Freedom – By Matthew John Hayden


The following is an article written by Matthew John Hayden, a libertarian blogger. To see more of his work, click HERE.

 Daniel Harding

Everything is scarce. As any rocket scientist will tell you, every gram counts. Everything is, then, subject to economic choice. I think all sane schools of economics agree on this. For all that David Graeber and others seek to make out as though the market process introduces unnecessary scarcity calculation into our lives, I’m confident a gift economy cannot give rise to the thousands of layers of today’s division of labour, and so today’s prosperity. Markets are just the consequence of and the setting for voluntary exchange between consenting human beings. That’s it. No brutality required. It is an Ur form of human interaction with strangers. Continue reading

Does the Whig Theory of History Hold True?


The below is to be published in the next edition of the Winstanley College History Magazine. John Kersey and HHH in the same article is one thing; having such an article published in the History Magazine of a state college is quite another thing. If it is published, what a terrific coup it shall be!

Does the Whig Theory of History Hold True?

To answer such a vast question, it would help if we knew who the Whigs were. Essentially, the Whigs began as a political faction opposed to James II becoming King. The Whigs were mostly aristocrats who viewed monarchy as a tiresome added extra to their hegemonic rule over England. And in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, when they finally got their way and deposed James, they cemented their hegemony for the coming centuries.

Continue reading

Lord Tebbit should address the Enemy-Class-history-erasers directly (British-State-GCSE History papers to be added sequentially – keep looking…)


David Davis

The British-State “history” “syllabus” is a current and festering disgrace, has been designed on purpose with a civilisation-erasing(ours) -intent, and will have to go.

“The English were responsible for slavery” (discuss the sources given to you. Do not refer to other sources.)

“The Tudors brought war, smoking and piracy” (discuss the given account by a Spanish monk.)

“The capitalists of the Industrial Revolution exploited workers deliberately, especially children” (discuss the sources given including the extract from a novel by a writer called Charles Dickens.)

“Haig was the Butcher of the Somme” (discuss the sources given.)

“The salt tax in India was the cause of Ghandi’s rebellion and was unfair to poor Indian people” (discuss the role of modern Quangos in forced dietary-choice-editing by New Labour…(I wish))

http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-3042-3-W-QP-JUN08.PDF (a paper)

http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-3042-3047-3-W-MS-JUN08.PDF (its “mark scheme”)

http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-3042-3047-1-W-QP-JUN08.PDF (another paper)

http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-3042-3047-1-W-MS-JUN08.PDF (this paper’s “mark scheme”)

Here’s some serious papers for British 16-year-olds, concerning what “educationists” think that these people ought to think about “The American West 1840-1895”:-

http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-3041-3046-2A-W-QP-JUN08.PDF (the paper)

http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-3041-3046-2A-W-MS-JUN08.PDF (its mark scheme)

“British social and economic history” … the assumption that Trades Unions are innately a good thing, and that opposing them as infringements of property rights is bad, is taken as read:-

http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-3043-1-W-QP-JUN08.PDF (a paper)

http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-3043-1-W-MS-JUN08.PDF (its mark scheme)

More to come…..

Wikipedia, the modern British Nazi-State, and children’s learning


David Davis

The internet helps to create the largest library in the history of the world, and then along comes “OFQUAL”.

We’re the government: let’s find out what people want to know and how, and tell them it’s wrong….tell them to use the Met Office and Hansard instead!”

I am already fed to the back teeth with stories of teachers trumpeting “you musn’t use Wikipedia, because anybody can edit it”. This smells to me of British GramscoFabiaNazis being pissed off at the fact that their neoMarxist bedfellows can’t any longer control the content or flow of knowledge and information.

It’s no use giving essay-writing projects to average British State-(dis)Educated schoolchildren, not to say even University students, in this centuryas things stand. they have not been given, and I say this is on purpose, the thinking and thought-planning skills needed for constructing arguments and explanations in the first place.

For example, the entirety of the British-State-Primary school years are wasted. This is functionally from age 4 or 5 to about 11, when these particular skills, based on rigorous grammar and the meaning of words, should be put in. Designing and colouring posters about “healthy foods” and “slavery”, using keywords and zazzy pictures, is no good at all. they are reading about “Floppy” who is a dog that lives in a multicultural rural village community, and the child-owners of which dog are of indeterminate gender by name and by appearance. The dad wears a polo-neck a lot of the time, (like Carl Sagan in the 70s when this was respectable.)

Here is an illustration of what I think I could achieve…By age 11, and faced with the question /Was Haig the Butcher of the Somme? Use sources C to F to explain your view, in four paragraphs of six lines each/, they should be able to not type in to Google /was haig the butcher of the somme/ but these sample phrases I have crafted instead, in order, and have in fact tried on an intelligent 11-year-old after about two hours in total of instruction in how to think:-

(1) /Somme military “grand strategy” – [ = as in ‘minus’ or excluding the word] butcher/

(2) /Verdun relieve pressure French 1916 – [ as in minus] “General John French”/

(3) /Haig attrition “trench warfare” “modern industrial nation” + artillery/

(4) /New army kitchener “civilian soldiers” Accrington/ (or + “pals” as an additional search)

I ask readers who are old enough to come up with either confirmation or refutation of the idea that averagely bright State-educated children in Britain in the 1950s could have understood what the above engine-strings meant (on being told how Google works for about 5 minutes) and would have been able to effectively craft their own.

The enmity on the part of the State (dis)educationists is IMHO based on their full knowledge of what they themselves have been doing. They have on purpose hollowed out and degraded (and corrupted what was left of) the the body of knowledge which ought to be part of everybody’s folk-inheritance – as Brian Micklethwait often says – “IN A GOOD WAY”. They have replaced it with a set of beliefs which the structure of learning of which they approve compels one to conform to, as there are no other answers allowed. To me, this is Nazism applied to education, as described by William Shirer in “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”, in his fairly-early-on chapter about the subversion of the schools and universities there.

Obviously, it would be clumsy and gauche of a student to simply copy and paste a tract from somewhere, without even bothering to format it correctly to his/her document style. Even I am not this bad here on the blog, as that! The poor bastards only do that because, as they explain sorrowfully to me often, they “DON’T KNOW WHERE TO START”…That to me and you says they have not been shown how to think about how to ask for, then to sift, data. Perhpas they even have no data… (and who’s fault is that then?)

Instead of one-dimensionally-punishing untrained pupils (for that is what they are – untrained – and whose fault is that then?) for this, simply explain that it is _/OK/_ to get stuff from other sources, _/IF/_ you (a) say where from, and (b) you understand the content of what you have put up. (Oh, and we will test you on it next week to make sure you do understand it!)