|
|||||
 Snapped by me a fortnight ago, at the LA/LI Annual Conference at which Anthony Evans was the final speaker. I’ve straightened and sharpened it as best I could. A copyable, pastable and more readable version of the text from which this is taken may be read here. More photos of the speaker taken that same day can be viewed here. November 8th, 2009 | 2 comments - (Comments are closed)
 Mark Wallace of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, writes, at Devil’s Kitchen, thus:
I think this is spot on, not necessarily in the sense that Britain would be better off out of the EU, but in the sense that this is the bit of the argument that has been neglected. After all, the same lying politicians, stubborn bureaucrats, town hall little Hitlers and idiot voters that got us into this mess would still be around to screw up the alternative. So how would being out of the EU necessarily make their position weaker? Might the alternative actually be worse? I believe – partly because I want to believe (see paragraph one of the quote above) – that it would an improvement, but I would like to hear this argument made. Also, would we, Norway style, still have to endure EUrocrats making our rules for us, for the privilege of trading with the EU? Seems unlikely, but again, I’d like to hear the argument. So, as Instapundit would say, it’s in the post. The ordering seemed to work very smoothly. Nothing like free of charge to simplify things. November 8th, 2009 | 18 comments - (Comments are closed)
Inexplicably many seem to have been surprised by Dave Cameron’s predictable backtrack on confronting the EU’s constant slow motion power grab… however even those credulous enough to have not sussed Cameron’s weathervane nature ages ago are now getting the message loud and clear.
The solutions are actually quite obvious and straightforward: 1. simply do not vote for a Cameron-lead Tory party as a vote for them is a vote for more of the same. Vote UKIP instead. This could mean Cameron will win anyway (which means we get more of the ways things are now but at least does not reward the Tories for being BlueLabour) or Labour wins again (which means we get more of the way things are now). Either way it makes sense to vote UKIP. 2. get rid of the disastrous Cameron, who is in effect the UK version of the disastrous George Bush (i.e. a nominal ‘conservative’ who will continue to expand the state) and get a Tory leader who has some balls and at least a modicum of principle. This is not rocket science, it is just stating th bloody obvious. Hague’s Cameron mouthpiece statement is already setting up the Tory party for a lengthy period of doing nothing meaningful on the issue of the EU. Anyone who thinks “constitutional reform would not be on the EU agenda for some years” does not mean “constitutional reform will not be on the EU agenda ever” is a jackass and I have no interest in even debating with them. Either… clean house within the Tory Party and get rid of Cameron… or vote UKIP. Voting for a party under a jackanapes like Cameron makes no sense at all, unless the current state of affairs is actually what you want. November 8th, 2009 | 7 comments - (Comments are closed)
I am grinding my teeth trying to restrain myself from commenting on some of the drivel being written about the recent murder of US soldiers by a muslim US army officer… but this is just a measure of the ignorance that permeates the profession and which is directly responsible for the growth of so called ‘new media’, i.e. things like blogs. Nick Allen writes in the Telegraph in an article titled “gunman used ‘cop killer’ weapon in massacre at US Army base” (a catchy ‘yellow journalism’ title if ever there was one):
Oh for fuck sake. Any weapon can fire ‘armour-piercing bullets’. I know little about Nick Allen, but I assume he is a Brit and therefore knows bugger all about firearms and thus parrots the equally dismal urban US journalist propensity to describe any handgun firing a round capable of penetrating (some) body armour as a “cop killer”. Also I strongly suspect 9mm and 10mm handguns are far more popular with SWAT teams, as SWAT teams have rifles for use against armoured targets. The weapon is designed for high(-ish) penetration for use against low end body armoured targets (the victims at Fort Hood were almost certainly unarmoured), but it has rather poor stopping power (that said, when it comes to handguns, bullet placement rather than calibre is the largest single determinant of stopping power), making the FN actually a poor choice… presumably the high magazine capacity may have been why the murderer chose it, knowing he was going to commit his crimes at very close range in a ‘target rich’ environment. If journalists want to be credible, they need to try to avoid loaded (no pun intended) and rather ignorant terms like “cop killer” and not make meaningless remarks about weapons being capable of using “armour piercing” rounds (which is just another way of saying “they can shoot the rounds they are loaded with”). This ghastly incident contains more than enough news fodder that such sloppiness is inexcusable from ‘professionals’. November 7th, 2009 | 32 comments - (Comments are closed)
November 6th, 2009 | 10 comments - (Comments are closed)
Researchers are claiming that there is a link between individualism and depression. Some may take offence to this notion but it does not surprise me at all. That said, I am far too cynical to automatically assume that the ‘researchers’ are not grinding some ideological axe, but nevertheless I find the basic idea quite believable. Frankly collectivism is a form of mass delusion, an ‘opiate for the masses’ method of replacing profane objective truth with sacred, subjective ‘acceptable’ truth… i.e. ‘truth’ is what the collective wants it to be. Indeed I would say much of the allure of collectivism is relief from the weight of individual responsibility, the sense of moral externalisation that comes from outsourcing choice to a ‘higher power’. Individualism on the other hand is a more lonely path without a nebulous ‘them’ to absolve you from consequences and that can be stressful. And so it comes as no surprise to me that some collectivist societies may be less anxious (at least for those who actually buy into the collectivist meta-contextual assumptions) because collectivism depends on a view of the world that filters reality through the comforting, blame deflecting, wilfully ignorant lens of what is politically tolerable… and ignorance is bliss. 
Collectivists… happier apparently November 6th, 2009 | 41 comments - (Comments are closed)
It is Friday, and I cannot be bothered to ponder the latest outrages of our political oligarchy. For our mental health, let us ponder the lines of this new little beauty from Porsche. Burn that carbon, baby! November 6th, 2009 | 6 comments - (Comments are closed)
Blogger and debunker of various economic fallacies, Tim Worstall, points out something that tends to be forgotten in some of the angrier, gloomier commentary about the European Union and the recently ratified Lisbon Treaty. We – the UK that is – can leave if we wish to do so, and it will be a lot less complex than such a process can be made to appear. That surely is the 800 llb gorilla in the drawing room – we can get out pretty fast if the whole edifice becomes intolerable. And there is nothing that any EU bureaucrat or their political allies can do about it. How likely are they to ever use a military option? Hmmm. November 5th, 2009 | 29 comments - (Comments are closed)
“David Cameron ditches referendum and backs away from EU bust-up” chuckles the Guardian… followed by “Eurosceptics welcome ‘never again’ rhetoric”. So in effect Cameron is saying “yes I know I said we get a vote before… “iron clad” was the words I used… but if those mean old Euros want to grab even more power than all that stuff you are not going to get a vote on after all, we will have a referendum next time. Really, you can trust me”. Of course the Eurosceptics are happy, because after all, if David Cameron promises something, you can be sure he will keep his “iron-clad” word, right? Amazing. Never forget that the party of Winston Churchill was also the party of Neville Chamberlain. November 4th, 2009 | 28 comments - (Comments are closed)
A British court has ruled that environmentalism is ‘protected’ as it is functionally indistinguishable from a religion and thus cannot be discriminated against by a company. We are now only one logical step away from disestablishing the Church of England and making environmentalism the official state religion, a mandated one in fact, complete with inquisitors and witch finders. November 4th, 2009 | 31 comments - (Comments are closed)
Although much will be made of the GOP victories in Virginia and New Jersey, I do not think they really matter that much. The one that did matter, the third party insurgency in New York, was won by Obama’s man… that was the important one. All the wrong conclusions will now be drawn. The doom-loop has not been broken. November 4th, 2009 | 26 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||