Arguing Against Gravity

I was reading a book last night (Dreadnought: Britain, Germany, and the Coming of the Great War, a fascinating book for any history buffs out there.) and I came upon a chapter on the 1906 British election between the Unionist Party (A hodgepodge of Liberal and mostly Conservative MPs united by opposition to Irish home rule advocated by famous Liberal leader William Gladstone) and the remnants of the Liberal party. Not to get into too large of a history lesson, but the Unionist member of the Cabinet who was originally responsible for the split from Gladstone was Joseph Chamberlain. (Father of future idiot Neville Chamberlain.) What I found fascinating was a tidbit about a Liberal MP excitedly showing his wife a newspaper article detailing Chamberlain's new found desire for a tariff which flew in the face of traditional British belief in free trade. The Liberal MP excitedly exclaimed that arguing against the free market was like arguing against gravity and the Laws of Physics. (For any confused American readers, the term "liberal" in late 19th and turn of the century Europe didn't carry the same meaning as it does in our country today. It was more akin to "libertarian" or "classical liberal".)

I must say, it made me a bit nostalgic for an age I've only read about, especially after watching pundits and world leaders proclaim the death of capitalism over the past few weeks. There was once a time, before citizens began voting themselves a share of the national treasury, that elected leaders and the public at large had rational beliefs about economics and complete faith in capitalism. Of course World War I and the ascendancy of Keynesian economics changed that in Britain, and I'm certain that we'll never get to that ideal during my lifetime. (See the Keynesian government bailout approved by both parties and signed by our "conservative" President.) Still, if people and governments were rational once, they can be rational again. After all, arguing against the free market is like arguing against the Laws of Physics.

Can "Soft" Fascism Become "Hard"?

Great Britain is rapidly becoming a case study in what Jonah Goldberg calls "soft" or "nice" fascism. A new study at the University of Surry on the impact of food on climate has recommended the rationing of meat and milk:

"People will have to be rationed to four modest portions of meat and one litre of milk a week if the world is to avoid run-away climate change. . . total food consumption should be reduced, especially 'low nutritional value' treats such as alcohol, sweets and chocolates.

It urges people to return to habits their mothers or grandmothers would have been familiar with: buying locally in-season products, cooking in bulk and in pots with lids or pressure cookers, avoiding waste and walking to the shops. . ."

Now, why is this fascist? If you're familiar with this blog, you know that I routinely accuse the environmental movement of marxist intent, and this certainly fits the bill: Returning to the habits of of our grandparents, throwing off the "wasteful" conveniences capitalism has wrought, actually reducing our standard of living for the benefit of the whole. These are all marxist tenants, but fascist?

Fascism and marxism are interconnected, sister ideologies. They both seek State control of the economy, as well as all other aspects of its citizens lives. They are both leftist. I cannot emphasize this enough. Now this study is particularly fascist because of the moral equivalent to war this study seems to be giving the "fight" against "run-away climate change". This is a favorite fascist tactic used by Mussolini and Hitler. Create a crisis to control the people. We must ration ourselves. We must sacrifice. We must trust the State. Some freedoms are now counterproductive to the greater good:

"Tara Garnett, the report's author, warned that campaigns encouraging people to change their habits voluntarily were doomed to fail"

So the State must intervene. The citizens should no longer be allowed to "voluntarily" choose what they wish to eat, where they wish to travel, what they drive, etc.

"(the report says) 'Study upon study has shown that awareness-raising campaigns alone are unlikely to work, particularly when it comes to more difficult changes.'"

We can no longer trust the people to know what is good for themselves. Big Brother --or in this case, Loving Mother-- must intervene.

Now, all western democracies have a certain degree of "soft" or "nice" fascism. But I believe Britain is much further along. The British are already the most watched society in the world. Add in the naziesque attack on cigarettes and personal responsibility, and you have a disturbing trend in British society. The State is taking more and more control over the citizen's life. I wonder whether or not Britain will make the turn from "soft" to "hard" or what you may call a more "classical" fascism. There is a rapidly growing, unassimalated, islamic population in Great Britain who are at odds with British culture, tradition, and government. Something's going to give. If this continues, I believe there's a chance of a civil war. If the muslims prevail, you could have a militant islamic state. What if the Anglo-Saxons prevail though? The framework is already there for a traditional fascist state. Throw in open, violent conflict with a completely different cultural and racial segment of society, and I fear you may end up with fascism everyone can recognize.

This is all speculation, and Britannia may well pull herself back before she goes over the edge --there's already a backlash against the environmentalist burden imposed the British-- but the founders in America who committed treason rather then be denied the inherent rights of the "Englishman" would be appalled over what it means to be one today. There must be consequences. I just wonder what they'll be.

Thank Goodness Britain Has So Many "Youths"

Britain is set to surpass France and Germany in population by 2060 according to the European commission. The article mentions that this is due to immigration, but nowhere in this article is it mentioned that these immigrants are mostly muslim. I'm sure that's just a minor detail. I'm sure there are no major consequences of vast muslim populations emerging in secular European States. Mark Steyn was just whistling Dixie.

Et Tu, UK?

According to the Daily Mail, Shakespeare may be dropped from secondary school testing in Great Britain. Remember a vague time period that you may have read about in a history book when the British were proud of their country, culture, and history? Why is it now only those of us in the old colonies that seem to give a rat's ass about the downfall of the mother country? William Shakespeare should be mandatory reading for every child in the English speaking world, if not all of Western society. How the British could abandon one of the greatest gifts her Empire bequeathed upon the world is beyond the reaches of my cognitive thought process.

Well, I guess everyone grab rifle, let's go free the home islands. Someone call the Aussies, they'll probably be up for it.

Mark Steyn Redux

More shenanigans to report in Britain's slow motion suicide. Harry's Place blog is being sued for accurately quoting a muslim. Looks like Canada is exporting her values to the world after all. Support Harry's Place here

SHOCKING NCB STUDY : BABIES ARE PEDOPHILES!

Of course we all know that babies can be horrid, horrid, racists, but surprising and unnecessary new research now shows that they can be pedophiles as well!! The National Children's Bureau has a stunning new study out that shines a chilling and semi rediculous light on baby pedophilia.

According to chronic overreacter Jane Lane (a serious name), babies "can show disturbing signs of pedophilia at a startlingly young age, often even before they are conceived." The NCB is now rushing new guidelines to nurseries across Britain in an effort to forestall baby sex crimes and justify their government grants. "I know its shocking," said Jane Lane, "but in our research we've found that babies often look at other babies and even smile at them, not to mention the fact that they spend a shocking amount of time naked."

Asked to comment, Yorkshire MP Thomas Sullivan was quoted as saying "Are you (censored) serious? Game over man, just take it all down. Burn it all, (censored) it. I'm not even going to pretend to care any more. Bloody (censored) rediculous."

Despite seeming government apathy, the NCB is pushing for far reaching powers to resolve this growing crisis. "We need a National Baby Sex Offender Registry," said plain dame Jane Lane, "we can't have these monsters crawling the streets."

Horrified mothers across Britain are already ratting out their infants. "He's been sucking on my nipple for months," said a hysterical London mother who wished to remain anonymous. "At first I thought it was just a phase, but now I fear its a symptom of something far more ominous. I'm not sure, but I think when I gave birth to him, he touched my vagina!"

Reached late last night, noted child psychologist Nigel Chamberlain remarked "is this a (censored) serious question?"

Guy Fawkes, Where Art Thou?

Britain's death spiral seems to become more pronounced with each passing day. Now a British government sponsored organization has declared that kids who don't like foreign foods are displaying early signs of racism. . . . Seriously. . . . WTF?

I wonder if anyone could have imagined in 1908 when Britain sat astride the world with the greatest Empire the Earth had ever seen, that in a mere century they'd be calling their toddlers racists if they didn't like Thai? This is why I'm generally in favor of less rather than more government. Its usually run by idiot bureaucrats who not only have the gall to tell you how to raise your kids, they call them little racists who need to have that "white guilt" instilled in them extra early.

I don't understand how the entire population isn't up in arms at the daily outrages that come out of those islands. All of Western Civilization seems complacent to go silently into the trash heap of history.

Nag, Britannia!

Britain is now telling its citizens not to buy food in bulk and to be sure and clean their plates. Given all the talk you generally hear about "keeping the government out of the bedroom", I'm puzzled that I don't hear those same types going on about "keeping the government out of our kitchens". Its sad to see what was such a wonderful country that civilized a fourth of the world reduced not just to a nanny state, but to a nag as well.

My New Home

With the two idiots we have running for President, Forvik sounds kind of nice.

Whining to the Nanny State

The West seems to be tripping all over itself in an effort to surrender to whomever we can find. Its an odd civilizational suicide that may be unprecedented in human history. Islam is ascendant, let's just concede now and hope for favorable terms. Thus we come to a story in today's Globe and Mail about Britain's effort to be first among slaves. Sarah Desrosiers, a seemingly progressive owner of an "alternative" hair salon in London has been ordered to pay an aggrieved muslim "£4,000 compensation by way of 'injury to feelings'." How did she injure this poor woman's feelings? She didn't hire her because she said she wouldn't remove her hair covering during work.

"Sarah felt that a job requirement of any hairdresser was that the stylist's hair would provide clients with a showcase of different looks. Especially one working in a salon such as hers, which specialises in alternative cuts and colours."

Sarah has made the mistake of believing that the purpose of a business is to provide a product or service in return for compensation. This is no longer necessarily true in a socialistic welfare state. The purpose of a business is now more properly seen as providing employment. While we have rightly lamented the traditional rights being discarded in Canada right now, we all too often fail to see to potential tyranny in new rights being invented by progressives. The "right to work" has been a mantra of progressives, socialists, and communists alike, and is gaining more and more acceptance in the west. People have a right to employment and a "living wage". The case of Sarah's salon is the natural progression of this invented "right". British, Canadian, and even American muslims are twisting this well meaning concept to force western societies to bend to their demands, and the western judiciaries seem only too eager to acquiesce.

And really, can you blame mulsims for exploiting the system as every other supposedly aggrieved minority group has? If it was ok for Jews, homosexuals, blacks, or spanish speaking immigrants to cry foul when they came up against societal norms, customs, traditions or prejudices, why is it wrong for muslims? Progressives didn't see (and still don't) how these laws against discrimination and protecting "feelings" could be used against the welfare state and liberal democracy in general. Banning blacks from a shop is wrong but outlawing it strips a business owner of sovereignty over his business and sets the stage for future tyrannies. Hanging a swastika in your doorway or denying the Holocaust is repulsive, but banning them is merely the first step in complete government regulation of speech.

Western society needs to come back to its senses and reembrace the principles that made it free and prosperous. Just look at a statement by Bushra Noah, the recipient of the £4,000 payout:

"I felt so down and got so depressed. I thought: 'If I am not going to defend myself, who is?' Hairdressing has been what I've wanted to do ever since I was at high school. This has ruined my ambitions. Wearing a headscarf is essential to my beliefs."

Tough cookies lady! Do you know what the relationship between employer and employee actually is? You give the employer something of value with your services in return for agreed upon compensation. If the employer believes someone else's services are of greater value, they are (supposedly) free to hire them, regardless of your "feelings". Maybe if you stopped whining long enough you could realize that you are free to start your own salon and do whatever you want with it. It seems that there is an opportunity in this neighborhood to open a salon that caters to muslim women who would be more comfortable with a hairdresser in a hair covering or burka. There were obviously none for you to apply to. This is what successful people in the west do, they create their own opportunities instead of bitching about what's been denied them.

Red and Green Isn't Just For Christmas Anymore

If you want to see what America could possibly look like in the future, you only have to look across the Atlantic to socialist Europe. There, leftists have succeeded in creating the welfare states that liberals seek to create here. Europe has plunged into social statism much more enthusiastically than America has, so we have the benefit of seeing the endgame of liberal ideas and policy proposals before we implement them. Today, the Daily Mail has a chilling piece on Tory MP Tim Yeo's plan for "carbon ration cards". The scheme would roughly work like this:

"Every adult in the UK would be given an annual carbon dioxide allowance in kgs and a special carbon card.

The scheme would cover road fuel, flights and energy bills.

Every time someone paid for road fuel, flights or energy, their carbon account would be docked.

A litre of petrol would use up 2.3kg in carbon, while every 1.3 miles of airline flight would use another 1kg.

When paying for petrol, the card would need to swiped at the till. It would be a legal offence to buy petrol without using a card.

When paying online, or by direct debit, the carbon account would be debited directly.

Anyone who doesn't use up their credits in a year can sell them to someone who wants more credits. Trading would be done through specialist companies."

This is a veritable statist goody bag that should make any freedom loving American cringe. Essentially, the British government would put limits on its citizens' life styles, their travel, their vacations, their diets, and the temperature of their homes just for starters. Go beyond that limit and an individual must "buy top-up credits from individuals who haven't used up their allowance". The article doesn't go into the consequences if an individual doesn't buy more credits.

What's worse, the scheme would criminalize the purchase of gasoline without a government issued card. "Ah, Mr. Smith, you wish to purchase petrol? Papers please comrade." In other words, the government would control the sale of a commodity essential to the lives and livelihoods of most of the citizenry. The restrictions it places on travel alone reminds one of a more totalitarian Europe that many thought dead and gone. "York is a long way from here Mr. Smith, what business have you there to justify the use of so much of the State's fuel?"

I'm certainly not an expert on the carbon footprint of the food I buy, but the mere idea of the government being involved is startlingly Orwellian. How much carbon is produced to make a 2 liter bottle of soda? What's going to be the yearly Big Mac allowance? Will vegetables be allowed? Will farmers be able to harvest wheat and corn fields considering they convert carbon into oxygen?

This may seem ridiculous, but do you trust the British Parliament or any government to police itself? To keep itself from from venturing into the absurd once it has license? Essentially this scheme would allow the government to regulate demand. As a consequence, they control supply. If only a certain amount of wooden bookcases can be bought with the available pool of carbon credits, the bookcase maker is going to have to cut production to stay solvent (and perhaps raise the price). The same with oil, coal, steel, etc. The government will have de facto control of the means of production. How long until they make it de jure? Still seem ridiculous? Perhaps, but this is at least a step in that direction.

This needs to be exposed for what it is. Anti-capitalist, anti-consumerist, socialism at best. At worst something much darker. For the first time in western history, societies are on the verge of intentionally lowering their standards of living. Since the first city states emerged in the Mediterranean World, Western Civilization has made steady progress toward freedom and abundance. Its wasn't without its setbacks, but eventually the ideas of personal and economic freedom lead to unimaginable prosperity. Our children are not unhealthy for lack of food, but because they are too fat! We are want for nothing, and are told its a problem. We have to tighten our belts and make do with less instead of trying to make more. A little more misery is the price for sustaining human life. The Communists made us miserable, but at least they promised a glorious future.

The "regressive" environmental movement aims to stifle capitalism, not for the Proletariat, but with the same result. The "sustainability" dogma is a branch off the Marxist tree. "Capitalism has failed, the earth is dying, the State must intervene and put limits on individual prosperity or else the robber barons and industrialists will destroy us all." At least they're finally being truthful though. Now they say to our faces that they're going to ration the hell out of us. That we must make do with less. That the future is grim and we may not survive it. That prosperity is the problem. It is a sad commentary on the crisis of confidence our Civilization is experiencing that we'd contemplate throwing the game and ceding the future to the Chinas of the world. Let's hope they're a benign hegemon.

All three Presidential candidates here in America buy into this manufactured crisis, though I don't think low enough of McCain to believe he sees it for what it is. Make no mistake Senator, a cap and trade scheme is not a capitalist solution to this imagined problem. It cedes a point that must be staunchly opposed. Once you accept the premise and establish the precedent, much of the fight is already lost and we're resigned to try and keep our footing on the slippery slope.