Tony Blair to be knighted? Some people are expressing their loathing via a petition.
It will not stop the establishment giving honours to one of their own, but it never hurts to remind everyone just how many people hate them.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Tony Blair still has the ability to engender loathing and detestation after all these yearsJanuary 2nd, 2022 |
 31 comments to Tony Blair still has the ability to engender loathing and detestation after all these years |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
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. |
|||||
Eric Zemmour needed a black backdrop and sinister lighting to look as much like an evil elf as Tony Blair manages in that picture despite it apparently being taken in someone’s IKEA-furnished kitchen.
Most honours (with some exceptions – such as the Order of Merit) de facto go with getting to a certain rank.
People who get to these ranks tend to do great HARM (they are that sort of person – what Noel Coward would have called “vile creatures”, and he would have been correct) – so people who get these honours tend to be…..
If someone was not a “vile creature” (as Noel Coward would have put it) – how could they have got to such a high rank in the bureaucracy or in politics? Sometimes someone with personal honour and sound principles may get to the top of the “greasy pole”, but it is not normal for them to do so.
This is not new – General Haig was made an Earl (if anyone thinks he made a useful contribution to army tactics – I have a nice bridge to sell them), and Sir Charles Trevelyan (or mass death in Ireland and creator of the British Civil Service) was greatly honoured.
Naturally.
I suppose I should be honest to state that back in 2002-3 and for a while thereafter I defended the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and to this day, it is not my view that removing him was a bad move, given not only any SIS “dossiers”, dodgy or otherwise, but his own track record and the fact that the sanctions against Saddam post-1991 were proving increasingly unworkable. It is very tempting to let all these arguments (and we had a lot of them on this blog) go down the memory hole in an eagerness to damn Tony Blair.
Blair did some bad things – such as bend the UK constitution out of shape – but dethroning Hussein’s crime family, as the late Christopher Hitchens described it, was not among them, in my view. What has appalled me in many respects is how he has lined his pockets since from regimes in the ME.
My esteem for the queen has taken a severe knock. As for Blair, the best to say of it is that at least it isn’t more self-promotion.
Agreed. My problem is he greatly weakened civil liberties in UK by fundamentally undermining the entire system of checks and balances. Blair is the man who turned us into a technocratic permission based society rather than a common law civil rights based one.
One of Blairs own admitted they deliberately opened the floodgates of immigration for party political reasons. Further, he was a Euro fanatic. A loathsome man IMHO.
Who could possibly disagree with that sentiment?
The MHRA was set (@2003) up under Blair’s ‘stewardship’ and that has enabled it to be completely infiltrated and repurposed by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and GAVI an offshoot of the same.
God knows how many other government agencies have been likewise sold to the enemy.
Blair is the man who turned us into a technocratic permission based society rather than a common law civil rights based one.
and
a Euro fanatic. A loathsome man
Both precisely true.
Arrogant, dishonest, contemptuous of our traditions, entirely without principle or sincerity (apart from his obvious love for money): loathsome in every possible way.
I don’t have words sufficiently insulting for him, or for the great legion of others in our governing class who seem to model themselves on him.
Yes Perry – I have often disagreed with Dr Sean Gabb (for example over corporations – where it turned out he was right and I was wrong) and disagree with him on many things, but I agree with him that Prime Minister Blair undermined the principles of the Common Law – sadly Dr Gabb is also correct in claiming that this undermining of the principles of the liberty of the subject can be traced back much further than Prime Minister Blair, and that even Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher sometimes showed a lack of understanding of legal principles (both Prime Minister Thatcher and Prime Minister Blair were trained lawyers – but JURISPRUDENCE is not well taught and has not been well taught for a very long time indeed).
One of the places I disagree with Dr Gabb is that I believe he fails to grasp the philosophical roots of the attack upon limited government Common Law principles (the undermining of Civil Liberties).
Sir Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, David Hume and Jeremy Bentham all mocked the very idea that there were fundamental legal principles limiting the power of the state, principles of individual rights AGAINST the state (see, for example, “A Dialogue Between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Laws of England” by Thomas Hobbes – with Hobbes clearly being the “philosopher” and the defender of the idea that the Common Law limits the power of the state being set up to lose the “dialogue”).
Even Sir William Blackstone (who the Founders of the United States rightly OPPOSED – something that is hidden in modern books) was really against Common Law principles “but that is nonsense Paul – no one is more cited on the Common Law than Sir William Blackstone”.
Yes, my dear pussy cats, no one is more cited on the Common Law than Sir William Blackstone – at that is precisely the problem, as Blackstone (under his fair mist of words) holds that Parliament can do anything it thinks is for the general welfare – which means that, in reality, there are no Common Law principles limiting the state if we follow Blackstone.
Sir William Blackstone does not lead to the Bill or Rights (British or American) – Blackstone leads to “Tony” Blair – a lot of fair seeming talk about “rights” and “liberty”, but in reality no limit at all on the powers of the state. The “choice” between Blackstone and Bentham (that I was offered at University College of London – so long ago) being, in reality, no choice at all – as they BOTH lead to unlimited government, the unlimited monarchy of Sir Francis Bacon (itself an outrageous innovation – totally at odds with the principles of the Common Law, of Natural Justice) being replaced by an unlimited Parliament that can do anything it feels like doing – with no principles of law (no individual liberties) being allowed to stand against it.
I must stress that Dr Gabb would utterly disagree with my conclusion.
On Iraq.
At the time of the 2nd Iraq war it did strike me that no real account was being taken of the belief system of the population of the country – Islam. It just being assumed that Western principles were “of course” compatible with Islam. With any doubts that, perhaps, it was not just a matter of Saddam and his henchpersons being nasty that was the problem, being angerly dismissed (by both supporters and opponents of the Iraq war) as “Islamophobia” or even “racism” (the claim of “Islamophobia” being an effort to brand dissent as a form of mental illness, and the claim of “racism” being utterly weird – as Islam is NOT a race, it is a system of ideas, and Muhammed was a pale man even by the standards of the 6th century of the Christian era).
All that being said, Iraq has NOT turned as badly as many of us feared. The Shia are the majority in Iraq – so one can hardly complain about them dominating the government (that is a consequence of democratic elections) – and, yet, the Shia political parties presently having the upper hand in Iraq are NOT dominated by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
I feared they would be – and I am happy to admit that I was wrong.
Funny how perceptions differ. To those in the US who were in favor of taking out Saddam – and there were many of us – Blair became a rock star for a year or so. People here would listen to, and discuss, his speeches. Everyone learned what Question Time was, because it was a chance to listen to Blair. The US audience for Question Time YouTube vids soared.
I think we were all a bit stunned when the right in the UK stopped sharing the love. But then we learned why.
I was recently shown an example of a Professor of “Climate and Diversity” successfully demanding the censorship of scientific papers – specifically on the well established fact that men tend more to the extremes of intelligence (both the extreme of high intelligence and the extreme of LOW intelligence) than women do.
The “scientific” Professor (and other “Professors of Diversity and Equity” as well as “Climate” – which, via, “Climate Justice” is part of the same ideology) not producing any evidence or arguments against this, or other, well established scientific theories. No – if a scientific theory is against “Diversity”, “Equity”, “Inclusion” or (yes) “Climate” then it is automatically wicked – and the people who point out scientific (or other) facts are held to be evil beings who must be persecuted (forced out of their jobs – and the rest of “Cancel Culture”, “Environment and Social Governance” Social Credit system).
Even stating that Colorado has not been getting hotter and drier in recent years and the Artic is NOT free of ice (there is a lot of ice) is now taken (by the controllers of “The Science”) as a confession of wickedness – to be PUNISHED.
Ditto pointing out that the cause of the recent fire damage was partly that houses were built much too close together (Agenda 21 – Agenda 2030 high density land use policy) of inflamable materials (to make them more “Green”), and that layers of government not only failed to clear the surrounding land, but FORBAD ANYWAY ELSE clearing the build up of inflamable growth in Colorado, southern Wyoming and-so-on.
To point out any of these facts is to be wicked and to do so is PUNISHED as a crime against “Diversity”, “Inclusion”, “Equity” and “Climate” (it is, most likely, also “Transphobic”).
It is interesting to see how the physical sciences in the West (including MEDICINE under the term “Public Health”, as the editor of the Collectivist “Lancet” approvingly says, it is POLITICS that matters – not curing an individual patient of a disease) has come under the control of Frankfurt School types.
And that is very “Tony” Blair – the pose of moderation, the denial of anything to do with a bearded chap whose dates were 1818 to 1883 (fair enough as it is NOT Classical Marxism – it is Frankfurt School Marxism, Herbert Marcuse and co) – whilst, at the same time, undermining the West.
Can a civilisation dominated by Frankfurt School ideas (now called “Diversity” meaning uniformity, “Inclusion” meaning exclusion, “Equity” meaning injustice, and “Climate” meaning that one has to say there is no ice where there is ice, and meaning that one has to be pretend it is hot and dry when it is cold and wet) also have flourishing physical sciences?
Of course it can NOT. Which is why, for example, the rulers of the People’s Republic of China are laughing at the decline and fall of the West.
And, make no mistake, the physical sciences (including MEDICINE) in the West (just like the social sciences and humanities before them) are increasingly under the control of Frankfurt School types. And this is having an effect on the wider population.
I recently watched interviews of people who had their houses burned down in the Colorado fire.
Did they complain that the surrounding land had not been cleared of the build up of fire materials? No they did not.
Did they complain that their houses were built too close together? No they did not.
Did they complain that their houses were built from inflamable materials? No they did not.
They just talked, endlessly, of “Climate Change” – how the area had got drier over the years (it has not), how the winds were harsher than they used to be (they are not), how the Artic now has no ice (just not true), and so on.
They were all highly “educated” people – that is the problem.
If asked these people would also say there is no Early Treatment for Covid 19 (there is – and always has been), they would say that mask mandates and lockdowns were good policies (they are terrible policies), and that there are no problems at all with the injections and they should be given to the entire population (there are very severe problems with the injections – and to give them to healthy children, or to people who have already had Covid 19, is madness).
This is “The Science” that they have been taught.
And this is all very “Tony” Blair – as he is typical of the sort of people who now control the “rules based international order.
I am afraid that the rulers of the People’s Republic of China (and others) are quite correct to laugh at the declining West – where even the physical sciences are now being taken over by Cultish politics.
Yes bobby b – what the media say about British politicians is often as false as what they say about American politicians.
I recently had an example of an American “conservative” waxing poetically about the wonderful, serious minded and principle, Prime Minister Johnson – unlike the evil Donald Trump who even (shock-horror) suggested there might be Early Treatment for Covid 19. Whereas the noble Prime Minister Johnson followed the wise guidance of the rules-based-international-order. But it was not just Covid – the ECONOMIC policies of Mr Johnson were also principled conservatism.
After I finished choking and gasping for breath (not just because of what I read – I have a disease that makes it a bit unwise for me to go into a rage), I blocked the chap on Facebook.
I have grown old and intolerant – I will not waste any more time on such people. Even though I know it is not totally “their own fault” – they are horribly mislead by the education system and the “mainstream” media.
I think Tony Blair should get a knighthood, for preventing Gordon Brown from becoming Prime Minister for 10 years, for causing untold numbers of ulcers to socialists, for privatising the Royal Mail, for helping bring about the hanging of Saddam Hussein.
Can’t think of anything positive to say about Blair. Probably the worst PM for a century, perhaps much longer. The other Labour PMs, even Brown, despite probably being more ‘socialist’ had at least some virtues Blair completely lacked.
And regarding Iraq, for a supposed Christian, Blair ought to reflect that pre-2003 there were over a million Christians in that country. Today there’s less than 100,000.
… renationalising the railways without compensation, taking a hatchet to the constitution, abolishing the House of Lords, handing those who would destroy our Union a power-base on a plate, putting murderers into power in Northern Ireland, and Gordon Brown into No. 11 to ruin the country’s finances.
No, I’m sorry: taking out Saddam doesn’t outweigh all of that.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/16/afghanistan.usa
The Gulf War was a very strange time.
An action man-style doll of Tony Blair is being dramatically outsold by the Osama bin Laden figure, it emerged today.
The plastic prime minister, complete with fixed grin, ruffled hair and dressed in an army uniform, has not sold a single model in its first six weeks on offer.
Iraq was, and is, nothing to do with Britain.
Kuwait was certainly a British interest and the “First” Iraq war was fully justified and succeeded in its, properly defined and limited, objectives.
The second Iraq War has produced a catastrophic result and was utterly unnecessary. However the results will be as nothing compared to the results of intervention in the Ukraine. Russia most certainly does have WMD and should not be pushed into a position where it may consider using them. It should be recalled that the military policy of the USSR once posited that a nuclear war was both fightable…and winnable.
There is no current Western leader who has the wisdom, and caution, not to push their luck. Johnson and Biden are both chancers, or literally demented.
You are still welcome to have him today, bobbyb.
And don’t forget that disgusting drunk, Alasdair Campbell, I’d throw him in for free.
Interesting how Campbell turned the ‘death’ of David Kelly into a story about Alasdair Campbell. Hints of narcissistic personality disorder.
Those who tell us they hate Blair are usually the same people from the mid 90s who told us how absolutely wonderful he was – with zero evidence for their belief except a few idealistic and cliched political speeches.
Lefty ‘liberals’ love the cycle of adoration and betrayal.
They are like adolescent pop fans in this respect.
Piss off Pete and take your commie bullshit with you.
Mr Ecks, knock it off. Pete was civil. You can be the same.
What “pete” says in his comment is not true. For example, I never said how “absolutely wonderful” A.L. Blair was – I was against him, from the start.
That is a civil, and accurate, reply.
Indeed, I can not think of any comment by “pete”, on any subject, that has been true.
By the way – the international “liberal” left who admired A.C.L. Blair in the 1990s STILL DO. This person is in many of institutions of would-be world “governance”.
The Credit Bubble bankers, and the rest of the lefty “liberal” elite, love A.C.L Blair.
Remember the vision of the international establishment is NOT Classical Marxism (that is not what the Economist magazine types want) – it is far closer to the sort of Collectivism pushed by Saint-Simon two centuries ago, or Dr Klaus Schwab now.
One of the first things people associate with Blair is Iraq. People forget that he was behind the disastrous devolved assemblies. And people forget that it was his lack of oversight that led to the 2007/8 crash. Both far more serious and important IMHO than Iraq.
Do not forget, firstly that ‘honours’ do not exist. They are voluntaristic concepts, there is no scientific basis for any assertion that someone getting an honour either changes them or accurately measures them, the whole thing, titles, honours, all made up; bits of metal, enamel, jewels, ribbons, sashes and capes, are all inanimate objects. It is a ludicrous fantasy to think that someone can be honoured. It is all make-believe.
But also, remember that Lefties in particular actually like honours, they believe in their hearts in the Magic of the State, and love hierarchies, and love to see themselves advance in the ‘pecking order’ and to lord it over the peasants. And from honours they divine the favour of the State (called the Crown, but it is the State) falling on them.
And lastly, the Garter is the Queen’s personal gift, like the Order of Merit and the Royal Victorian Order, all the other honours are decided by civil servants nominally under political supervision. The Queen could have declined Sir Tony the honour he got, but she chose not to. And this year, she has made openly political comments in support of what I suspect she does not realise is the climate scam, but she did enter the arena.
No one who led the successful ‘Independence’ campaigns in 2016 was honoured, but a Labour ‘Prince’ (Will Straw, son of ‘Jack’) got a CBE for losing the referendum (despite a track record of attempting to push a bit of wacky baccy to a journalist in his youth). Frankly, he should have got a Dukedom for losing the referendum if we are to have this nonsense.
Blair was personally responsible for the never to be assimilated immigration to “rub our noses in diversity” which has changed the country forever. Yet somehow he is considered worthy of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.
Et tu, Liz?
Mr Ecks, may I suggest you try Twitter?
They love telling each other to piss off, and worse.
Sounds like just the place for you.
Happy New Year.
The point of the petition seems to be to shame the government into doing something which seems unlikely, since any intervention might affect them when their turn comes to receive their gong…and attempting to shame Tony Bliar into turning down the honour ain’t gonna work since he’s the most self-absorbed and narcissistic man I can think of (in the UK at least).
Perhaps the best outcome is that it keeps him in the headlights, spouting his errant nonsense, because if you want the general public to reject something then finding out that Tony Bliar is supportive of it is a good first step. The man is political anti-matter and his lack of self-awareness keeps him vocal when the best way of getting his agenda pushed through would be to remain silent on it.
Silence isn’t something that a vile creature like Tony Bliar can manage. So yes, let him have his gong and let him keep spouting forth his bilge in TV interviews, because he only harms our enemies by doing so.
The only title Tony Bliar needs is the one he was granted years ago. “War Criminal” and that title will go with him to his grave.
Mr Ed – sometimes office or honours do change people, TRUE it is “in their head”, but it at least used to have an effect on how they behaved.
The Chinese philosopher Confucius examined this – how rituals and ceremonies (even ways of dressing) could influence behaviour, make people feel they had to live up to this role. Make virtue a habit. This does not always work – but it was certainly better than the Chinese “Legalist” philosophers, whose system was to enforce correct conduct by the fear of savage punishment (correct conduct being whatever the state wanted).
To give a Western example – Thomas Beckett was a totally different man after he became Archbishop of Canterbury, the ritual and ceremony (the honours) of the OLD church were intense – and he was carried up by it, believing that he must play this new role even if it led to his own murder.
Libertarians sometimes have problems with a lot of this – I think we are (deep down) Taoists (of a sort) – rather than Legalists or followers of Confucius.
We prefer things simple (and on the in open) and a matter of individual moral choice – leave alone/let act (as long as the action does not violate someone else).
But it can not be denied that sometimes ritual, ceremonies, honours (and so on) do improve conduct – give people the idea that they should try and live up all this.
By the way – ACL Blair HATED all that, the rituals and honours and ceremonies. So it can not have been all bad.
Personally I am sad when honours and rituals decline into meaninglessness.
For example, the “Sacred Blue” started off as a group of knights pledged that the King (or anyone, no matter how humble, who was under their protection) would not be harmed – till the blue sashes that the knights wore were saturated in their own red blood. The highest ideals of chivalry and honour.
By 1789 they were just a dining club – famous for good food and wine.
Some people regard that gradual change as charming, I do not.
I think Mr Ed would say “they still wore the blue sashes – but they did not really mean anything any more – because it was always the men, not the sashes, that mattered”.
And he would have a point.