Monday, 26 October 2009

The Conservative Challenge- Sean Gabb Libertarian Alliance

On Friday the 16th October 2009, I spoke to a Conservative Association in the South East of England. Though I did not video the event, and though – on account of the heated and not always good natured debate the followed my speech – I was asked not to identify the particular Association to which I spoke, I think what I said is worth recording. Therefore, I will write down my words as best I can recall them. I have suppressed all the questions, but carried some of the answers into the main text. Otherwise, I will try to keep the flavour of the original.

The Speech

Because of transport difficulties that prevented many people in this room from arriving on time, I am beginning my speech an hour later than expected. I am honoured by the Chairman’s apology for the delay. However, the series of conversations and arguments with which those of us who were here entertained ourselves while waiting have given me the idea for a speech that is still on my stated theme, but that I think will be more interesting than the one I had in mind. Now, this theme – “The Conservative Challenge” – has been routinely given to speakers at Conservative gatherings since at least the 1880s. The question that must always be answered is how we can remain the free citizens of an independent country in ages that have been progressively hostile both to individual freedom and to national independence. I did have a plan loosely worked out in my head. What I will do instead, though, is take some of our bar room discussions and summarise or expand on them as seems appropriate. I will do this by giving short statements of what was said to me, and then by giving my responses.

1. This has been a bad Government

I disagree. Oh, if you want a government that defends the country and provides common services while keeping so far as possible out of your way, the Labour Government elected in 1997 has been a disappointment. This does not mean, however, that the Blair and Brown Governments have been a failure in their own terms. They have, on the contrary, been very successful.

The purpose of the Government that took power in 1997 was to bring about a revolutionary transformation of this country – a transformation from which there could be no return to what had been before. The English Constitution has never been set down in a written document, and there has never been any statement of fundamental rights and liberties that was protected from change by ordinary legislation. Instead, these rights and liberties were protected by a set of customs and institutions that, being legitimised by antiquity, served the same purpose as formal entrenchment. It can be hard, in every specific case, to justify trial by jury, or the rule against double jeopardy, or the idea that imprisonment should be for a specified time and no longer, or the right to speak freely on matters in the public domain. There are principled arguments that satisfy in the absence of strong passions. But, strong passions being granted, the best argument has always so far been that these things have always been in England, and that to change them would be to break the threads that tie us to the past.

It would be childish to argue that the Ancient Constitution was in good health until 1997, when it was suddenly overturned. Unless there is an catastrophic foreign invasion, constitutions are not destroyed in this way. Ours had been sapped long before 1997. To say when the tipping point was reached, and by what means, would take me far beyond my stated theme. However, what remained of the Constitution has, since 1997, been dismissed as a set of “outmoded” relics, and large parts of it have been swept away. Those that remain have been transformed beyond recognition.

Let me give myself as an example. My first degree was in History. Much of this was taken up with a study of late antiquity and the early middle ages. But some of it was given to English history between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. Of course, the Constitution changed within these periods, and had changed much since then. But I could take up the debates of the Cavalier Parliament, or a pamphlet written during the American War, or a case published in the State Trials, and find myself within a conversation of the English people. I was not in the same position as a French undergraduate, who, for anything published before 1791, would find himself in a world of institutions, and territorial names, and weights and measures, and monetary units, and general assumptions, as alien as those of a foreign country.

This has now changed. Anyone who, this month, has started a degree in History or Law or Politics will find himself in the same position as that French undergraduate. We have new legislative bodies all over the country, and new principles of administration, and new courts with new procedures and languages, and new lines of authority terminating in bodies outside the country. The work is not yet complete. But already, the conversation of the English people has been made largely incomprehensible to those born since I was an undergraduate.

Whether the changes can be justified as improvements – or whether they could have been made with more regard for economy and consistency – is beside the point. The main purpose of change has been to seal off the past. That past has been delegitimized in order to strip rights and liberties of the associations that used to protect them. Not surprisingly, we find ourselves in a country with a Potemkin democracy, where speech and publication are censored, where the police are feared, where we are continuously spied on as we go about our business, where we can be imprisoned without trial or charge for a month, and generally where we find ourselves having to deal every day with administrative bodies given powers that others who have not yet had felt them still cannot believe possible.

On any normal assumptions, the country has been governed very badly since 1997. On the assumptions of the Government, things have gone very well indeed.

2. This country is ruled by people who have been corrupted by bad ideas.

Again, I disagree. For centuries now, England has been governed by people rather like ourselves. Sometimes, they have governed well, sometimes badly. But we have never had to doubt their fundamental good faith. This has changed. The people who now rule this country have not been led astray by bad ideas. Rather, they are bad people who choose ideologies to justify their behaviour.

There are ideologies of the left – mutualism, for example, or Georgism, or syndicalism – that may often be silly or impracticable, but that are perfectly consistent with the dignity and independence of ordinary people. These are not ideologies, however, of which those who rule us have ever taken the smallest notice. These people began as state socialists. When this became electorally embarrassing, they switched to politically correct multiculturalism. Now this too is becoming an embarrassment, they are moving towards totalitarian environmentalism. Whether in local or in national government, their proclaimed ideologies have never prevented them from working smoothly with multinational big business, or with unaccountable multinational governing bodies.

It is reasonable to assume that, with these people, ideas are nothing more than a series of justifications for building a social and economic and political order within which they and theirs can have great wealth and unchallengeable power.

They tell us they want to end “child poverty” and “build a more equal society”. In fact, they have employed an army of social workers to terrorise every working class family in the country – an army of social workers backed by closed and secretive courts, and that may even be selecting children for legal kidnap and sale to barren middle class couples. They have pauperised millions with policies that keep them from achieving any reasonable independence and subject them to the bullying of credentialed bureaucracies.

They tell us they want a more “inclusive” and “diverse” society. They have certainly welcomed the mass immigration that they enabled the moment they came into office. It has been useful for impoverishing the working classes – in their attitudes and behaviour once perhaps the most conservative people in the country. It has also provided much evidence for their claim that the old England into which we were born has passed away, and that we need a new constitutional settlement – a settlement much in need of censorship and endless meddling in private choices. Even so, they make sure to live in white enclaves and to send their children to private schools where class photographs look much as they did in 1960.

They tell us they want to save the planet from “climate change”. If they have made Phillips and Siemens rich from their light bulb ban, they still fly everywhere and drive everywhere, and light up their own houses and offices like Christmas trees.

These are bad people. They must be regarded as such in everything they do. And we must hope that they will one day be punished as such.

3. The country is misgoverned.

Let me go back to my first point. There is no doubt that everything done by these people has involved huge cost for little of the promised benefit. We have computer systems that do not work. We have new bureaucracies that do not achieve their stated purpose. The National Health Service, for example, has had its budget doubled or trebled in the past twelve years. Yet the waiting lists are as long as ever, and the hospitals are dirtier than ever. Medical incompetence and even corruption and oppression are now everyday stories in the newspapers.

Again, however, these are failures only on the assumption that money has been laid out for the purpose of improving services. It has not. The real purpose of washing a tidal wave of our money over the public services has been partly to raise up an army of clients more likely to vote Labour than anything else, and partly to give these clients powers that tell everyone else who are the masters now. On this assumption, the money has not been wasted at all. It has indeed been an “investment in the future”.

What is to be done?

I often speak about an electoral coup in which a genuinely conservative government came to power and set about undoing the revolution. This involves shutting down most of the public sector. I am not saying that poor people would no longer receive their benefits or medical attention free at the point of use. These are not in themselves expensive. They may have undesirable consequences in terms of smothering personal responsibility and voluntary initiative. But these are problems to be addressed over a long period during which no settled expectation need be denied. What I do say is that the bureaucratic machine that bleeds us white in taxes and grinds us into obedient uniformity should be smashed to pieces that cannot easily be put back together. It should be smashed because we cannot afford it. It should be smashed because it oppresses us. It should be smashed because it is an agent of national destruction.

I once wrote a book about why this should be done and how to do it. Sadly, it will not be done in the foreseeable future. We shall probably have a Conservative Government within the next nine months. But this will not be a government of conservatives. If we want a preview of the Cameron Government, we need only look at what Boris Johnson has achieved during the past year as Mayor of London. He has not closed down one of the bureaucracies set up by Ken Livingstone and his Trotskyite friends. The race equality enforcers are still collecting their salaries. The war on the private motorist continues. Rather than cut the number of New and Old Labour apparatchiks, he is currently putting up taxes. David Cameron will be no better. He may be forced to make some changes and to slow the speed of the transformation. The transformation will continue nevertheless.

We need to speculate on the purpose and nature of counter-revolution. It is useful to know what ought to be our long term purpose. It inspires us to action in an otherwise bleak present. But we need also to know what present actions are to be inspired. My advice is that we need, in all our thoughts and in whatever of our behaviour is prudent, to withhold our sanction.

Any system of oppression that does not rely on immediate and overwhelming – and usually foreign – violence requires the sanction of its victims. We cannot all have guns put to our heads all day and every day. We therefore need to believe, in some degree, that what is done to us is legitimate. We must believe this if we are to obey. We must believe it if those who oppress us are to keep their good opinion of themselves. I suggest that we should withhold that sanction. I do not say that, without our sanction, the illegitimate power that now constrains our lives will fall immediately to the ground. I do suggest, however, that it will be insensibly undermined, and that it may therefore collapse suddenly in the event of some unexpected shock. This is how Communism died in Eastern Europe. It may be how the New Labour Revolution will die here.

The Police

One of the myths, endlessly repeated through what is called “Middle England”, is that the Police are among the victims of Labour rule – that they have been forced to act in ways that they find abhorrent or absurd. But this is only a myth. The Police are no friends to respectable people in any class or race. When I was a small boy, I was reduced to tears by what seemed a gigantic policeman in a tall helmet. One glare of his bearded face, and I was straight off the municipal flower bed where I had thrown my ball. He spoke to my grandmother before moving to other business, and that was the end of my transgression.

His sort retired decades ago. They have been replaced by undersized, shaven headed thugs – frequently with criminal records – who take delight in harassing the respectable. If you are robbed or beaten in the street, they will be nowhere in sight. If you approach them to complain, they will record the crime and send you on your way. If, on the other hand, you try defending yourself or your loved ones, they will prosecute you. They will do nothing about drugged, aggressive beggars, but they will jump on you if they see you smoking under a bus shelter. These people have been given powers that move them closer to the East German Stasi than to the uniformed civilians many of us can still remember. They can arrest you for dropping a toffee wrapper in the street. Once arrested, you may be charged, but you will more likely be released after being fingerprinted and having DNA samples taken and stored. We do not know what other body or government will be given your DNA. We do not know what future oppressions it may enable. Regardless of any littering charge, you will have been punished already.

We should not regard the Police in any sense as our friends. They are not. This does not mean that we should have no dealings with them. There are times – insurance claims, for example, where things must be reported. There are times when the Police are needed, and when they may give some limited assistance. Even so, we should on no account behave to them as if they were uniformed civilians. They are an armed, increasingly out of control pro-Labour militia.

The Law

We were all of us born in a country where the phrase “The Law is the Law: it must always be obeyed” did not seem absurd. Yes, it may not have been quite as we were told. By and large, however, it was a law made by our representatives and with our loose consent – or it was made by Judges rationalising honestly from assumptions grounded in common sense notions of justice. It is that no longer. For all its blemishes, the old laws of England were there to stop us from knocking into each other too hard as we went about our business. Its function was reactive. The function of law nowadays is transformational. It is there to change the ways in which we think and live. So far as this is the case, the law has been delegitimised.

And this is how we are to regard uses of the law. At the moment, The UK Independence Party is being edged towards bankruptcy over some matter of a political donation. It seems not to have complied with the requirements of a law made in the year 2000 that effectively nationalises all political parties – and that may one day be used to control what policies they advocate and how they oppose measures with which they disagree. Again, there are complaints about how the BBC has invited the Leader of the British National Party to appear on Question Time. It is said that the BNP is currently an illegal organisation because of its internal rules. The alleged illegality is based on a novel interpretation of a 1976 law, as amended in 2000, that is itself illegitimate.

There was a time when it was enough for us to be told that someone had broken the law for us to think ill of that person. But times are altered. When the laws themselves are corrupt, they lose moral force. It is no longer enough for us to be told that someone is a law breaker. Whatever we may think of these parties for what they advocate, they are to be seen not as law breakers but victims of political oppression. To think ill of them purely for their disregard of the law is rather like calling Alexander Solzhenitsyn a jailbird on account of his time in the Gulag.

The Law is no longer the Law. It is a set of politicised commands made for our destruction as a free people. It no longer deserves our automatic respect. Yes, the laws that protect life and property are still to be respected. But it is now rational to inspect every law thrown at us to see which do bind in conscience and which do not. I know that this is a dangerous principle to announce. There are many people for whom the law is a unified thing: say that one part has no binding force, and all parts are weakened. But this is not our fault. We have not made the law disreputable. We are simply facing a state of affairs that has been called into being by others.

The Constitution

I have already mentioned the remodelling of the Constitution. As a people, we have long amused foreigners with our respect for titles and old forms of government. I once chaired a meeting addressed by a Member of the House of Lords. This was before the Internet, and I spent nearly an hour in a library clarifying that he should be introduced as – let me change the name – John, Lord Smith of Wilmington, rather than Lord John Smith or Lord Wilmington. This was all good fun. It also had a serious point. I was helping maintain one of those innumerable and seemingly absurd customs that among were the outer defences of our rights and liberties. Our Ancient Constitution may have struck outsiders as a gigantic fancy dress ball. But it covered a serious and very important fact. This was an imperfect acceptance of Colonel Rainsborough’s claim that “the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he”.

But, again, times are altered. The more gorgeous events of the fancy dress ball have been retained. But the underlying substance – the protection of rights and liberties – has been stripped out. This being so, all obligation of deference has lapsed. I will not defer to the man whose name has been changed by a sheet of parchment sealed with wax to Baron Kinnock of Bedwellty. Nor will I call Peter Mandelson other than “Mr Mandelson. Nor, unless I am in his court, and he is likely to take more against me than he naturally would, will I address the former Communist Stephen Sedley as “My Lord”. Nor will I acknowledge his Knighthood out of court. I am not yet sure if it is appropriate to stop recognising hereditary honours, or those granted before 1997. But I certainly regard all honours granted since 1997 as void. They have the same legitimacy as those conferred by Cromwell during the Interregnum. No – Cromwell was a great man who did honour to this country and who deserves his statue outside Parliament. Recent honours have the same status as those conferred by James II after he ran away to France. They are to be seen as a badge of ridicule and disgrace on those who have accepted them.

Now, this may seem a pedantic and self-indulgent point. But it is not. These people should not be allowed to wrap themselves in any remnant of the associations that once bound us to the past. And they evidently enjoy playing at nobility. I once did a radio debate with a police chief who had been recommended for a Peerage by Tony Blair. He was annoyed by my substantive arguments. He was reduced to spluttering rage when I addressed him as plain “Mister” and sneered that his title was a sham. Bearing in mind that it is not illegal to drop their titles, and how it upsets them, I think it worth doing on every convenient occasion.

And it is part of what I would see as a more general approach. Conservatives often denounce what is being done to us as a “breach of the Constitution”. It is really no such thing, because the Ancient Constitution has been abolished. As said, the fancy dress ball continues in something like full swing. But “the poorest he that is in England” has been stuffed. We do have a constitution in the sense that every organised community has one. Ours says that whoever can frogmarch a majority of placemen through the lobbies of the House of Commons can do whatever he pleases. I did hope, earlier in the present decade, that the Judges would intervene to limit parliamentary sovereignty. The Labour response, however, was to pack the bench with their own people. Therefore, since it has been destroyed, or has been suspended, we are in no position to claim that the Constitution has been breached. The obvious result is that we should not regard ourselves as morally bound to recognise any of the authority that is claimed and exercised over us.

And if our people ever get into power through the electoral coup that I mentioned earlier, I see no reason for recognising any purely “constitutional” limits to the nature and speed of our counter-revolution. For example, regardless of the withdrawal mechanism in the Lisbon Treaty, I would be for just repealing the European Communities Act 1972 as amended. That would be complete and immediate withdrawal. If any Judges tried to block this, I would have them removed. I might also be for passing an Act voiding every previous law made since the first session of the 1997 Parliament. Otherwise, I would prefer to declare a state of Emergency under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, and then repeal hundreds of laws by decree. A slow revolution can take place when those at the top have the numbers and staying power to take it slowly. When there has been a revolutionary or counter-revolutionary seizure of power, change must be swift and determined if it is to be a success.

There must be a return to constitutional norms – and the extraordinary measures that may enable this return must not be allowed to set any precedents of their own. Nor – let me emphasise – do I hope that our reaction will involve violence. But if conservatives are to bring about a reaction, so that we can again be a free people in an independent nation, we have little positive to learn from Burke’s Reflections. There comes a point beyond which a constitution cannot be rescued. I think we have reached that point. There can be no patching up this time, as happened at the Restoration in 1660, or after the Revolution of 1688. By all means, we should not innovate just for the sake of neatness. But we shall need to innovate. We shall need to create new safeguards for our rights and liberties that take into account the country in which we live.

The Monarchy

This means, I increasingly believe, a republican constitution. There is nothing wrong with the principle of hereditary monarchy. I suspect that the division of authority and power that took place between 1660 and 1714 contributed much to the freedom and stability of England during our classical period. The problem is not the institution of monarchy, but the person of the Monarch.

When she came to the throne, Elizabeth had what seems to have been almost the universal regard of the people. She has spent the past 57 years betraying the people. Whatever the constitutional lawyers may claim, there is a contract between Monarch and people. We pretend to treat whoever wears the Crown as the Lord’s Anointed. The wearer of the Crown agrees in turn to act as a defence of last resort against tyrannical politicians. That is the truth behind the phrases of the coronation oath. The Queen could, without bringing on a crisis, have blocked the law in the early 1960s that removed juries from most civil trials. She could have blocked the subsequent changes that abolished the unanimity rule and the right of peremptory challenge. She should have risked a crisis, and refused her assent to the European Communities Bill, or demanded a fair referendum first. She could have harried the politicians of the past two generations, reminding them of the forms and substance of the Ancient Constitution. She had the moral and legal authority to do this. Had she spoken to us like adults, she would have had popular support. She did nothing. I believe she bullied Margaret Thatcher into handing Rhodesia over to a communist mass-murderer, and made repeated noises about South African sanctions. And that was it.

Whatever her failings in the past, she had every legal right to demand a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty. This had been promised by every party at the 2005 general election. When the promise was withdrawn, she would have had public opinion and much of the media behind her in refusing to give assent to the Treaty’s Enabling Act. Again, she did nothing.

We are continually told about the Queen’s sense of duty. All I see is much scurrying about the country to open leisure centres – and otherwise a total disregard of her essential duties. If the Constitution was in decay before she was even born, she has spent her reign watching all that was left of it slip between her fingers.

It may be argued that she is now very old and will not remain much longer on the throne. The problem is that her son will be worse. She has been lazier than she has been stupid. He is simply stupid. So far as he insists on using his powers, it will be to drive forward the destruction of England. His own eldest son might easily be an improvement – but he could be decades away from the Crown. We are in no position to wait on what is in any event uncertain. The Queen has broken the contract between her and us. Her son will do nothing to repair the breach. We live in an age where hereditary monarchy must be strictly hereditary or nothing at all, and so we cannot waste our time with new Exclusion Bills or Acts of Settlement. If, therefore, we are ever in a position to bring about a counter-revolution, we shall need to find a head of state who can be trusted to do the job of looking after our new constitution.

Closing thoughts

I could go further on this theme. I know that many conservatives – and a few Conservatives – have lost faith in democracy. Undoubtedly, representative democracy has thrown up a political class that is separate from the people, and that is increasingly hostile to the rights and liberties of the people. But I cannot think of a lasting new settlement based on Caesaristic dictatorship or a limitation of the franchise. My own suggestion would be to select most positions in the executive by sortition – to choose rulers, that is, by a lottery – as in ancient Athens, and to settle all legislative matters by local or national referendum. Most judicial business that had any bearing on the Constitution could be put before juries of several hundred people, chosen by the same random process as criminal juries now are.

But, you will agree that this takes me far, far beyond my stated theme. It would make what has been a long speech longer still. I will close by observing that if you want to be a conservative in an England broken by revolution, you need to look beyond a rearguard defence of forms from which all substance was long since drained.. The conservative tradition may have been dominated since the 1970s by Edmund Burke. But it does also contain the radicals of the seventeenth century. And – yes – it also has a place even for Tom Paine. If you want to preserve this nation, you must be prepared for a radical jettisoning of what is no longer merely old, but also dead. The conservative challenge is to look beneath the plumage and save the dying bird.

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


caesars wife said...

theres a few too many i suspect in it, and his constitution history is a bit wonk but apart from that a good attempt .

Anonymous said...


Captain Ranty said...

This should be read by every single one of those 646. Repeatedly.

Then, and only then will they at last understand why we are so fucking pissed off.

Sean Gabbs speech drips logic, truth, and common sense.

I have read it, and re-read it several times now.

It just expresses exactly how I feel.


Wyrdtimes said...

The only chance of revolution we have is for England to rise.

English law for England
English taxes for England
Home rule for England

Anonymous said...

Sean Gabb tells it like it is.

Sue said...

I have this on my blog too, thanks to Captain Ranty.. it's MUST READ!

Anonymous said...

The only political thinker worth reading in England today. What can you say about the district council in Westminster, the 650 worthless imposters who sit filling in expenses claims while our country is ruined. We cannot expect Sean Gabb to also be a man of action, but we so desperately need a leader in England. Surely the army has a new Cromwell in it somewhere, and the men to follow him.

Fausty said...

Captain Ranty, most of the 646 know already. They're privy to far more information about where we're headed and how we're going to get there.

They don't care, because they have so much to gain from it. They have been bought and corrupted.

The only way to get out of this mess is to vote UKIP, LPUK, Jury Team, EngDem or independent.

A vote for Lib/Lab/Con will mean more of the same.

We're now in the position where the banks we bailed out are loaning us our own money, at interest. Clever, isn't it?

And we'll be paying for it, while the troughers collect their gongs, directorships in corporations which have bought them (our MPs) - totally immune from the destruction they will have wreaked.

objet petit a said...

I would just like to add that I'd love nothing more than to batter Jacqui Smith to death with a golf club.....thanks

defender said...

Yea right, lots of longwinded bla bla bla.

this up coming EDL V Muslim on the 31st will adress matters more effectively,

EDL: London counter protest Oct 31st

Anonymous said...

If a new constitution does ever come about in this country, it might be possible to keep the Monarchy as Head of State. The royal family can be affected by society and it`s norms as much as they affect it, but Gabb is right when he has said before that it would be a case of saving it from itself. Then again, if the betrayals keep piling up, (and the Lisbon Treaty is a watershed moment) who knows.

Anonymous said...

Too many words.

wv 'diniz'

Mine's almost ready.

Old Holborn said...


You fail

It is not the EDL V Muslims

I have just received an email from the EDL asking their supporters to ally themselves with protesting Moderate Muslims

Allow me to quote:


Not long now till the 31st.

We have had a lot of messages regarding London on the 31st from people from the London area who feel that they cannot sit by while Islam4UK march through London demanding Sharia.

For this reason we ask that anyone from the London area who has not made plans to go to Leeds to meet at Piccadilly Circus by 12:00 on Sat 31st.

This demo is organised by another Counter Jihad group, but we have agreed that due to the concerns from EDL London Divisions, we will be present on the day.

If you have made plans to go to Leeds, please continue with this, as our main demo will be in Leeds, but if you can't make Leeds please try to make it to London instead.

When arriving in Leeds, you will be directed to the meeting point. The counter demo will be outside the art gallery, so please stay away from that part of the City. Our demo will take place in Leeds City Square at midday.

Thanks again.

I notice with amusement that the BNP has Whilst the EDL will stand shoulder to shoulder with er...Moderate Muslims... against the Jihadists

defender said...

OH, semantics lad, there is a demo and the londan devision of EDL have given there support because they have a previous engament in Leeds where the london based lads would have difficulty getting to.
What has the BNP organised, have you not seen how much the BNP have been in the news over the past couple of weeks, how much the talking heads and holier than thou have taken every oppertunity to tell you that they are great and the BNP bad.
Look at the recent polls, OH, you will say, pools go up as well as down.
Cameraman has lost his tounge over the immigration blinder.
And you suggest, what have the BNP done, we are taking thousands of calls and E mails for membership.
So what have you lot done?
Going for a walk with an empty barrel with BOMB written on it with a mask on, How the fuck does that compare.
Some times I get the sense that you have got it and then you write some thing that is just such absolute shit that I am back to square one with you.
Remember over a year ago when someone threatened to out you and you locked yourself in the cupboard crapping it. I really thought you had grown a pair but I was wrong.
Get your mask on and go for a walk, thats you, dreamer.

Old Holborn said...

Raw nerve?

defender said...

Yea , raw nerve, never mind eh.

Old Holborn said...

You do your work, let the EDL do theirs, and I'll do mine.

If we're lucky, Labour will be gone fo a generation.

defender said...

I agree

Custard said...

Each person in this country has a right to protest in the way THEY see fit.

I know where I will be.

defender said...

The Daily Mail seem to be a little light on the validation of the things they print today. In this article they can't resist hving a dig at Peter Molloy,arrested with 12 other BNP Activists in November 2008 in Liverpool City Centre.

The Dail Mail Article says Molloy and the others were arrested for distributing racist material. The truth is they were handing out copies of the "Racism Cuts Both Ways" pamphlet. The article fails to mention that charges were not brought and all bail was dropped. It also fails th mention the fact that The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police has admitted Liability over this incident and Merseyside Police have began to pay each person arrested the sum of about £2200 EACH!

But of course to admit the truth would get in the way of a "good anti BNP story" and the NUJ would NEVER stand for that.

Maybe people should write to the Daily Mail and complain?

Anonymous said...

happy st crispins day

JD said...

Sean Gabb's article is so well worth reading. I have, of late, got into the habit of reading short, snappy articles and comments, there being such a wealth of information to scan. My first reaction was to leave this article as it seemed a bit long. However I did make the effort, reaped the reward and am now somewhat ashamed of my initial lazy approach. I need to remain vigilant. Great article. I will even read it again. JD.

Dazed And Confused said...

Good on the E.D.L. for supporting those Muslims who oppose Choudary. No wonder the B.N.P. want nothing to do with them. - Not nearly racist enough for chairman Nicks liking.
Now I'm off to mock the U.A.F., via you tube, with this happy revelation....

They'll deny it too of course...

But Hey ho...

Anonymous said...

Good on the E.D.L. for supporting those Muslims who oppose Choudary. No wonder the B.N.P. want nothing to do with them. - Not nearly racist enough for chairman Nicks liking.
Now I'm off to mock the U.A.F., via you tube, with this happy revelation....

Demographics will decided Britain’s fate, not protests and staged managed counter protests.

libertarians and communists = same thing! said...

Poor piece which totally overlooks the cause, the driving force of the NWO and it's international reach.

This piece is written inside a goldfish bowl of left and right and rightist dogma, rather than on liberty itself and when it speaks of liberty it assumes this means no state intervention other than for certain situations that would benefit the middleclasses, all institutions that benefit the working classes as safty nets must be destroyed it seems.

There is a compromise and a compromise taht shoul;d be written as a constitution granted through referendum.

even from a rightist middleclass libertarian view this is unlikely if they came to power as the masses would choose some protections and cover for themselfs which would mean more sharing of wealth by those taht largely exploit them - the middleclasses, starting with their two tier education system of priviledge and poverty.

Libertaairains are an extremist cult, no differnet to the communist cult.

We need to separate the notion of extreme right wing financial policy with liberty.

Some constantly try and claim they are one, but this is crap.

the reason why it is crap is because we live in a form of democracy and the wealthy will always seek to exploit and consolidate their wealth which manifests itself with the few.

So it can NEVER work in a democratic system, you would have to ban the working class majority - the countries real captive wealth creators, the vote!

just as they did in the past, along with the misery and squalor thaey had to endure.

Their is compromise, fair and just, pragmatic but the dogmatic morons of the libertarians cannot comprehend compromise should it cost them a singe cent.

So the libertarians would have to dump their notion of liberties in order to keep ALL their pennies and eventually they would be overthrown by the working class masses who want a more equal share from the minority who have the large percentage of the cash and hence power.

and that is the key conflict.

minority power of money verses power of the masses.

which is why compromise must be sought, rather than extremist left and right dogma which only works long term in your tiny libertarian minds.

compromise with a bill of rights and the utmost safeguards against political corruption.

social democracy works, what does not work in political corruption,

that is what is driving the EU and Labour/toeities - political destruction.

follow the money said...

"that is what is driving the EU and Labour/toeities - political destruction."

`corruption` not destruction.

Corporate corruption that has been fostered and nurtured without restraint by the political class. making them the slaves of the NWO international bankers and corporates and the method they used so effectively to destroy national soverignty and democracy, which has lead in thier lust for total power and the removal of many liberties and rights.

follow the money!

Rogerborg said...

Mr Gabb is both correct, and a complete prat.

He was doing fine up until the bit about the police. True enough, but conservatives tend to support the police in principle, at least until they have any dealings with them.

But that pales next to the weapons-grade idiocy of bad mouthing Her Divine Majesty, Good Queen Betsy II. He might as well have whipped his lad out and whizzed all over the front row.

There's a time to speak the truth, but it's not when you're trying to win the Rotary Club over to your cause.

Fausty said...

If Dr Gabb's speech is too long, why not view one of his videos? You can listen while doing other things.

Who will bring the fascists to their knees - the Libertarians? said...

I think the country just woke up and then libertarians contributed zero to it! in fact they made things worse.

bofl said...

i could have saved him thousands of and p;politicians regard the people as a commodity..
a resource to be mined,used up then shat out!

we do not count-they want everything..

our 646 hoons will do anything to line their own pockets-how much more proof do we need?

lib/lab/con_all the same.....all have sold their souls long ago.they do not care about us or the uk-just ego driven twats believing that they are better than us......

well in a country of 60million people i rather doubt that.time to get rid of them all......

Revolution Harry said...

Join the dots, do some research and you'll find clear evidence of an agenda for World Government aka a New World Order. It will also be plainly clear that the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's are key players in the agenda. Follow the money indeed.

There are two key things that are being assaulted. The nation and national identity and our liberty. Those behind this agenda have always used the weapon of divide and rule. Those of a libertarian bent and those who have a strong sense of nationalism need to find common ground. They both have the same enemy.

self defeating post alert! said...

Anonymous said...
Good on the E.D.L. for supporting those Muslims who oppose Choudary. No wonder the B.N.P. want nothing to do with them. - Not nearly racist enough for chairman Nicks liking.
Now I'm off to mock the U.A.F., via you tube, with this happy revelation....

Demographics will decided Britain’s fate, not protests and staged managed counter protests.

26 October 2009 22:22

`Demographics` indeed which shows why your comment was worthless and pathetic like the rest of the PC lite crew, as their is only one party that deals with the demographic issue - One single party, yes the one you just mocked.

You're a brainwashed loser and you don't even know it!

Follow the money said...

Indeed Harry, just a quick browes through the Trilateral commissions members lists leaked online will support your every word.

It is so sad to see good people being brainwashed and duped in such a way, people who will only see the truth went it is too late and will mock and scorn you in the meantime to live in denial.

Ignorance is bliss they say, perhaps, that is until it enslaves you or worse!

Anonymous said...

libertarians and communists = same thing! said...

You are a fucktard. In a libertarian society YOU would be free to organise likeminded individuals to create the society that you dream of. If it works you will flourish and everyone will want to live in your community. The rest of us will get on with our lives and laugh at what a mess you make of things. Socialism is designed to be a corrupt system. Lefties always fail to see that in order to make their system work there needs to be a Gun pointed at someones head.

Now fuck off and read The road to serfdom its the simple illustrated version for people who have difficulty with reading and spelling.

Newgates Knocker said...

Dr Gabbs words have a lot of truth in them, but I strongly disagree that social workers are stealing babies to sell to childless middle class couples. No, that would never do! Middle class values are not desired for the rearing of children in this enlightened age. Only those with proven, indoctrinated, multi-cultural, gaypride, traveller awareness, smokeless, five-a-day, partnerships will be considered.

defender said...

Hitler learns Nick Griffin got onto Question Time

Anonymous said...

I've learnt to join nothing. I was once a member of a political organisation back in the 1970s. Found out that every political org, so-called "left, right or centre" was infiltrated and "steered" by the govt.
Only thing that made sense to me was the princiapl of Leaderless Resistance (Louis Beam). The rest is a thing called "Carpenters Disease" whereby some people like to join anything that moves!
I have not been a member of anything since. Not even my local library, as no doubt the books I read will be subject to a govt list somewhere.

Please take time to read.. said...

Anonymous said...

Completely O/T but well worth reading - the bastards will get you one way or another;

court of public opinion said...

many of the german people sat back in the 1930s and just shrugged........

whay happened there is what is going on here too......

lunatics with missionary zeal and delusions of grandeur........

60m at the mercy of a handful of freaks ?

in the real world of inner london,manchester,leeds or glasgow brown,mandy,straw, etc wouldnt last 5 minutes....

why are they treated with reverence by some?

Adrian P said...

I don't think you understand the situation at All Old Holbourn, may I recommend you watch the Obama Deception and Fall of the Republic.

The last of which can be found below, it's US based be it applies to the UK, in fact the Entire world just as much.

Fall of the Republic

TinTin said...

The issue of the bloated authoritarian public sector is a prescient one. Obviously it needs to be dismantled. However, have you thought about the social consequences of doing so? Ethnic minorities are over represented in the public sector. If all but essential services were scrapped then hundreds of thousands of ethnic minority citizens would be out of a job. How would we avoid social strife, such as rioting and lawlessness, in such a situation? How would we get them back to work (in productive fields) and how much would the welfare bill amount to?

SO17 said...

I fear that things will have to get a lot worse before the people of this country would be motivated en mass to do anything.
The British can absorb an awful lot of shit,ask Hitler and the IRA.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
libertarians and communists = same thing! said...

You are a fucktard. In a libertarian society YOU would be free to organise likeminded individuals to create the society that you dream of. If it works you will flourish and everyone will want to live in your community. The rest of us will get on with our lives and laugh at what a mess you make of things. Socialism is designed to be a corrupt system. Lefties always fail to see that in order to make their system work there needs to be a Gun pointed at someones head.
Now fuck off and read The road to serfdom its the simple illustrated version for people who have difficulty with reading and spelling.
27 October 2009 08:48"

Please ONLY reply when you have read and UNDERSTOOD my posts, only then will you realise that only your abusive crass drivel and a lack of simple understanding seem to be your sorely lacking strong points.

Socialism is designed for a corrupt system, Oh please, we are talking limited socialism by consent, not full on communism dear boy!

Yes it can be abused as can capitalism, it is not the system but the regulation and safegaurds that are the issue of BOTH systems.

Yes glibs, you will soon find that for your system to work even to the smallest degree you would soon find yourself regulating left right and center.

Though you make it sound as if people will break from the social grouping of a larger society and form their own little clans independent of all others.

Utter tripe!

distrubute all the money and land evenly at the start and your system might work for 6 months otherwise your back to your dream land, because money is power and power is corruption and again we are back to needed restraints, oh dear this Glib thing simply just don't fly! - evading reality appears to be what Glibs do best, just like the communists.

Libertarianism is but a missguided and purely selfish self defeating dream in a democracy.

It would soon face ever more demands for controls, laws and regulstion from the masses for protection, for one against cartels, ruthless explotation and such like.

which is why we arrive by public demand at a social democratic state.

The system can be a valid and workable compromise in the best way possible - to benefit the majority! but is abused as the safe gauds are always undermined - regardless of system, so when a system collapses new constraints - must be enlisted to protect Liberties(how ironic eh dogma boy!). All of which I have already said but you seem hard at grasping the reality of politics, rather than the pipe dream of Communisn and libertains.

social collectivism is quite a natural affair in a limited manner, why? because humans are naturally social collectivists as we empathise with the weak, sick, oppressed and exploited, as well we can be selfish.

A balance must be met.

Certain parts of socialism were demanded by the wider public who were being shafted by the upper classes, who controlled all the wealth and power.

Politics itself is inherently prone to corruption, not certain non profit systems which can in a way be in fact less prone to corruption.

Now get back to your books on fantasy politics and dogma, there's a good boy!

Anonymous said...

"I have not been a member of anything since. Not even my local library, as no doubt the books I read will be subject to a govt list somewhere."

How is your paranoid face doing without your nose?

Yes be carefull in these fascist times but unless you are a significant public person of note you paranoia is doing you no favours.

Leaderleads headless chickens....mmmm!

Remember IBM -DE said...

"Leaderleads headless chickens....mmmm!"

Many of us have been "outed" by so-called friends. The recent BNP membership list for example. Be safe, join nowt!

Anonymous said...

Personal Im sick to death of eveyone slagging off the BNP. The country has other real-scum to attack but do little. Even Guido finds his links to the Slap-nick.G hilarious. I dont.

Ian said...

Thanks for the article. I downloaded the book to read and its very interesting.

I have particularly been interested in the fall of conservatism and why in this country and while the book is somewhat limited in scope, it does provide much to think about.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain


Related Posts with Thumbnails