The National Alcohol Service - Rehabilitating Capitalism

Afternoon - good to see you all again.

A few years ago I got into one of those 'casual chats with a stranger' over a beer in a pub fairly close to where I live. I'm pretty sure it was around the time that Fred Goodwin lost his knighthood and so we got onto the subject of the bank bailout, the run on Northern Rock etc. Anyway, my new best pal suddenly stunned me by launching a grenade into our conversation "y'know what? I fucking hate capitalism, I mean, capitalism is just terrible isn't it?". I paused for thought and then replied to him that it was because of capitalism that he had a choice of four ales on the bar rather than some generic beverage delivered by a State monolith called the National Alcohol Service.

The concept of a National Alcohol Service is quite an amusing one, conjuring up images of Statists screaming about "based on need and not the ability to pay". Politicians could go into elections saying "we have 24 hours to save the National Alcohol Service", while offering up slogans like "tough on sobriety, tough on the causes of sobriety" and "intoxication, intoxication, intoxication". The English would resent the Scots' use of the Barnett formula to abolish imbibement charges, while the Leave Campaign Bus of course promised £350 million a week for the NAS, just before the driver got pulled over and busted for drink driving.

So...if you want to do that sketch I've given you plenty to go crack on with.

Back to the more serious matter at hand, I remembered Chris, the guy who sells fruit and veg on the market, the ladies off the cake and cheese stalls, the many owners of small independent shops or businesses I've had dealings with. When I think of the word 'capitalism', this is the image that immediately comes into my head, that of the individual working hard and selling things at a price that suits both themselves and the customer. The long and short of this is that if nobody is buying what they are selling then sooner or later they won't be able to provide for themselves and their families. I wanted to know why my new 'best friend forever' hated these people so much.

It turned out that when his word association game came to 'capitalism' he was thinking of something completely different. By 'capitalism' he meant banks and big, faceless corporations who can afford to lobby (and therefore have the ear of) government, then having the taxpayer bail them out or provide 'corporate welfare', the whole 'too big to fail' thing. Look, I've no time for any of this either and agree that there's something profoundly rotten about it. But let's also be clear that this is not capitalism at all, but corporatism, gangster/crony capitalism, or my personal favourite, crapitalism. How the hell have these concepts been conflated with each other?

It's one of the great triumphs of those who wish to impose a Socialist command economy upon us that Capitalism (associated with small government) has been so badly tarnished, its name and reputation ruined not because of capitalism itself, but the antics of a few 'gangster capitalists', enabled by their 'friends' in government. Here's a clue, we don't currently have 'small government capitalism' in this country at all, a 40+ per cent state can best be described as a Socially Democratic one, business is up to its eyeballs in regulation (originating from the EU and gold plated by Westminster who then say "not our fault, Europe made us do it").

Say hello to our good friend counter-intuition again. Big government regulation actually helps big business. Every new requirement that's loaded onto enterprise (assuming it's not on a one-in, one-out basis) serves as a barrier to entry, a further obstacle for the new competitor in the marketplace to overcome before they can even think about making a profit (which I appreciate some consider to be an act of heresy in itself). With their purpose-built HR departments, corporate lawyers and creative accountants, the big fish can absorb the blow of additional regulation relatively seamlessly, while the little guy working for him or herself is paralysed.

In short, corporatism, gangster.crony capitalism and crapitalism are products of excessively large and not excessively small government, too much regulation as opposed to too little. The role of the government in the economy is essentially that of an umpire or referee, to adjudicate on the occasional dispute or issue that comes up as it does in all walks of life, as opposed to being an active participant in the game. When the State itself becomes 'a player' in the economy, not only does it invariably do more harm than good, it leaves itself open to manipulation, lobbying and even being flat out bought and sold by corporate interests. This has nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism.

It's because of capitalism and 'the profit motive' that most of us are in gainful employment. The shareholders of private companies are not registered charities and any business hemorrhaging money on a consistent basis will not remain in business for long. Moreover, when command economies fail and collapse, a la the Communist bloc in Eastern Europe in the early 1990s, it's a voluntary means of exchange called capitalism that emerges organically, without government intervention or human invention, to provide people with what they need to get by as well as a means of making a living. Green politics 'anti-capitalist' types should try embracing nature for once.

The rehabilitation of capitalism is necessary if we are to unravel ourselves from the madness that a misplaced faith in messiahs, magic formulas and easy answers has led us into. I'm not absolutely sure that it is possible without some sort of economic collapse creating the rubble from which capitalism tends to re-emerge, but I sincerely hope I'm wrong. Disowning the nasty, uberstate forms of cronyism and corporatism that have become associated with capitalism is also essential, as big government and mafia-style rigging of the game against the rest of us are two sides of the same coin on this issue. Get government out of the way and this simply can't happen anymore.

My new best pal? I never saw him again - assuming he was a man of principle he probably went off to work for free somewhere.

Anyway, as the T-shirt says, enjoy capitalism plus the highly appropriate piece of music I'll leave you with. Thanks for reading and I'll catch you next time. Ciao.

Your Place of Death - Somebody Else's Utopia

Evening - hope you're all doing above average.

It hardly counts as genius material, but I know decisively that Jeremy Corbyn is a Utopian. This was demonstrated beyond any doubt to me on the day he won the Labour leadership contest. In his victory speech, Jezza announced that his intention was to 'construct a society' in which injustice would be eradicated, working people would have more money in their pockets there would be peace in the Middle East (although what that has to do with us I remain as perplexed about as ever), it would never rain etc. I'm going to leave aside the content of the man's politics for a minute - we can and will do 1500 words about that some other night. It's the three words in inverted commas a few lines above that I really want to focus on for now.

Free societies and economies aren't 'constructed', they emerge as a result of people making rational decisions about their own self-interest (enlightened or otherwise) within conditions that, yes, can be influenced by such instruments as taxation, regulation etc but even within that framework, people are (or at least should be) free to make choices the government wouldn't necessarily want them to make and/or could see as the wrong ones. For instance, a married couples' allowance might be offered to people as an incentive to marry their significant other, but in any free society the right to stay unmarried shouldn't even have to be spelt out.

Once you utter the words 'construct a society' then by definition no such respect for free will exists. If the harmless desires of an individual happen to stand in the way of the building and maintenance of Utopia then they become a disruptive dissident, the proverbial egg without whom no omlette could ever be made. Their wish to live their own existence out quietly, pursue their own interests in both the economic and personal sphere, can and must be trampled on in the name of a clearly defined greater good. Some attempt will then be made by the State to bring that individual into line and where that goes, well, we'll go further down that unfortunate road later.

I'm sick of hearing Marxists in particular being excused as people who mean or meant well, but their wonderful ideas were either corrupted or maybe didn't work in reality. As if the multiple lessons of history do not serve as conclusive evidence to give up on this line of extremism forever, raw collectivism of all types can not be described as 'lovely' or 'nice' in any way. Collectivism means force, it means coercion and when it comes down to it, collectivism will mean brutality if free will backs it into a corner. Of course some watered down 'balance' between individual and collective is a different proposition but that means rejecting Utopia as a concept in the first instance.

This is the counter-intuitive crux of the matter - when push comes to shove it's the individualist who will consistently defend the oppressed and victimised from a position of principle. Utopian collectivists, on the other hand, could politely be described as complete shits who will happily stick people in mass graves in the name of their revolution or promised land. Individualists have nothing like the Holocaust, Stalin's purges, the Khmer Rouge and its Killing Fields or Mao's Great Leap Forwards on their (our) record - collectivist Utopians did all of that. Yet conventional wisdom depicts collectivists as 'well meaning' and individualists as greedy and selfish.

The mind boggles.

Look, there is no such thing as an objective Utopia and anyone who believes otherwise in the face of  overwhelming historical evidence gets the square root of zero in the way of charity from over here. There is 'your Utopia', the construction of which will almost certainly involve the use of force and/or eroding the liberty of others to pursue their own goals and express themselves. For the sake of argument (although it doesn't happen) let's just say that this Utopia is achieved relatively peacefully, at least without political violence. Even then there will be dissidents, people who regard your heaven as their hell. How does the Utopian State interact with these troublemakers?

Of course you could allow them to express themselves freely, form some sort of opposition in the true sense of pluralism and accept that Utopia might be demolished one day. But having worked so hard to get to the promised land, why on earth would you throw it all away so casually? Besides which, the biggest single defining feature of a Utopian collectivist is their particular brand of moral superiority, an unshakeable belief that their Utopia is good for you too, even if you haven't worked it out yet through ignorance, stupidity, or whatever. Only a selfish, treacherous individual could fail to recognise the wonders of the society they had worked so hard to build, right?

Perhaps dissidents will be sent for 're-education' in the mould of Mao's Great Leap Forwards or the seizure of education systems for brainwashing purposes by the Communists and Nazis? Well we're already in 'bad enough' territory but what happens when somebody refuses, or rejects the 're-education' in favour of what they believed in all conscience beforehand? This is the point of no return with Utopia construction, sooner or later you're going to have to a) accept the rights of others to hate and seek to undo it, or b) eliminate them from society by force. Again look at history and, inevitably, Utopians select option b - "without breaking a few eggs" and all that.

This cultish modus operandi indicates a clear use of belief and politics by Utopian collectivists as a faith substitute. The quasi-religious nature of Communism, Maoism, Nazism etc upon close inspection should nail it completely.

Make no mistake, Utopian collectivists are mad, bad and dangerous.

Once we accept that there is no Utopia, no messiah and no magic formula with regards to the 'construction' of the perfect society then we stop trying to prevent every last unfortunate thing in the world from happening. Again our good friend counter-intuition makes an appearance as the pursuit of 'the greater good' invariably causes serious net harm across all those impacted by it. There will always be inequality, social injustice, unfair outcomes and people holding unfortunate or offensive opinions, perhaps expressing them rather loudly. This is far from perfect, but it's a damn sight better than the alternative of poverty, labour camps, misery and mass murder.

Perfection isn't (and never has been) an option, so get it off the table.

At the risk of telling you what to think, we should all be worried by anyone who promises to build Utopia, or 'construct the perfect society', regardless of the supposed idealism behind the architecture. A 'constructed society' cannot be a free one and deep down its designers know that.

These are not 'nice but misplaced' ideas at all, but inherently dangerous ones.

I may get another in tomorrow if I get time, so feel free to suggest titles for future pieces.

In the meantime I'll leave you somewhat appropriately with the Cult - thanks for reading and I'll catch you soon.

Rabbit Island - the Mission for 2018.

Evening - hope you're all doing well.

I appreciate the irony of what I am about to tell you, but the truth is the truth. We are constantly being told by either side of the tribal joust of a menace, a threat to our very existence that needs to be removed by whatever means necessary. Everybody is scared, apparently we're all under attack, we're all gonna die at the hands of 'devils' on the other side of the proverbial road who wish us personal harm. Nobody merely disagrees with us, these are 'bastards', our 'enemies' who need to be stopped from whatever it is we've got into our heads that they intend to do to us. We're in a state of war and so...by any means necessary, understood?

This is the psychology of extremism - my good mate John Priest prompted some activity round my grey matter last time we spoke when we discussed this powerful requirement most of us have to construct a narrative in which we are the good guy. Everything good in the world is down to people like us and everything less good is the work of our enemies who are not just mistaken but loaded with ill-intent. Now if only those enemies could be removed from the picture (by censorship, demonisation, incareration or, if needs be, murder) then the damage they have done can be repaired and all will be right with the world.

Extremism isn't a question of right or left, it's a question of right or wrong. It boils down to how you look at 1) power and 2) people you might profoundly disagree with. Sane, liberally-minded people accept that power is temporary and sometimes in life you lose. Extremists refuse to accept the result of votes that go against them and yes, I am of course referring at least in part to the post-referendum Remoaners. Let's be clear that there's a difference between saying "look, I still think Brexit is a mistake" (absolutely fine and I wish some Brexiters would stop saying otherwise) and throwing the proverbial toys out of the pram in an attempt to sabotage the thing (go away).

Their 'protest' was  nearly as hysterical as that which followed the result of the 2015 General Election. It's worth repeating that rather than accept that we lose sometimes, these (mainly young, it should be said) people protested the result of an election for no other reason than because their side hadn't won.

Wow. Just wow.

The non-retarded amongst us also accept that a person who takes an opposing view on something (even a radically opposing view) is just, er, a person who takes an opposing view on something. They don't 'hate' us, they're not our 'enemies' who want to break our legs or anything like that. Unless...we manage to either 1) project our anger at not being validated onto the person refusing to do the validating or 2) genuinely 'convince' ourselves that they ARE a menace to our life and liberty. Now we're in a state of war, so peacetime rules can go out of the window. All in the name of self-defence since, well, they started it didn't they? See how this game works?

Off the top of my head - serious attacks on freedom of expression and association, the use of all range of smears in political discourse from racist/misogynist/homophobe on one side through 'race traitor' and 'fifth column' on the other, imposition of 'safe space' in higher education to protect young adults (it's worth remembering they are supposed to be adults) from opinions which might offend them. Ridiculous and casual uses of significant words like Fascist, Nazi and genocide. The cultish use of 'climate change' to raid people's pockets by and the cries of 'conspiracy' by the other who issue not inquisitive scepticism but equally cultish denial. This is 'state of war' stuff.

And I don't think I'm scaremongering here - if enough of us keep acting as if we are in a state of war then that is exactly where we will end up. Disagreement is morphing into dehumanisation, genuine nastiness and restrictions on the personal liberty of those deemed to be 'against' us on the other side of the road. That they might be against our ideas rather than 'us' seems to have gone over so many heads I'm concerned that this might have now become a permanent state of mind. Winning, and then persistently keeping your foot on the throat of your 'enemies' until the life is squeezed out of them appears to be absolutely everything.

Maybe the most frustrating aspect of this is that I know many people who are genuine, honest and intelligent in every other respect, while happening to possess nasty, dishonest and utterly retarded politics and views of the world. Whether it's on the toddler left or the toddler right, there's an inability or wilful failure to recognise that person A's Utopia is person B's living nightmare, and that person B's freedom (both economic and personal), let alone their ability to breathe, are not 'a price worth paying' for the construction and maintenance of that Utopia. Not only is this selfish and cruel, it's bound to come back on you and be reversed at some point. And you'll deserve it.

Those of us on 'no side' (i.e. the sane, rational and reasonable) in this pantomime might have varying worldviews of our own. Whether you're a small c Conservative, small l Liberal, a mix of both, a moderate Civic Nationalist, a Christian Democrat or a Social Democrat really doesn't matter in the context of what I'm saying. I'm willing to leave those differences at the door, at least for now, while we take on the real battle lines - questions on which if the wrong side wins, we are truly in a world of pain. And no, I'm not scaremongering. Let's have a look at those battle lines now and make sure we're all on the same page:-

1) HONEST vs DISHONEST

When you use sophistry, linguistic dexterity or flat out lie/cheat to win, everyone suffers.

Losing is part of life and a highly necessary one.

In time, more is gained in honourable failure than will ever be in tainted victory.

And once you've had that 'fuck it' moment in your own head then you really can't blame other people when something similar happens in theirs.

2) RESPONSIBILITY vs VICTIMHOOD

Being beaten up, bullied, harassed, abused, people stealing your possessions etc. gives you a legitimate claim on some sort of grievance and I'm sorry to hear about it.

Having 'a sense of persecution' simply because 'the other lot' won the election and you don't like some of the things they're about to do cheapens and demeans those who have had real shit done to them in real life.

Meanwhile, blaming 'the rich' and 'bloody immigrants' are two sides of the same toxic and authoritarian coin.

3) RESPECT vs MUDSLINGING

A person who disagrees with you is attacking your ideas, not you.

Attacking their person (verbally or, god forbid, physically) in response to them attacking your ideas is pathetic.

And calling someone a Nazi or Fascist when you know they're not isn't very clever. In fact it's ever so slightly, er, Fascist. See what I did there?

4) SENSE vs PARANOIA

You are not under attack. We are not in a state of war.

What makes you think 'they' would target you anyway?

5) INDIVIDUALS vs GROUPS

Groups are a construct - there are no 'group rights' and advocates of 'group rights' on all sides of the road need to be told where to get off.

Rights are for the individual - protect the individual and groups take care of themselves.

At the heart of collectivism is the pursuit of the unearned (Ayn Rand).

Just because there are 51 of you and 49 of them doesn't make you, or anything you do, right.

6) REASON vs EMOTION

Every last one of us (well, apart from psychopaths) has feelings and in 'real life' we should strive to be as sensitive to the feelings of others as we reasonably can.

However, feelings are subjective and so you cannot make important decisions which effect others on that basis.

If you reward the angry and hysterical you'll just create more angry and hysterical people. Who wants that?

7) OPPONENT vs ENEMY

Wishing harm on others for the crime of 'being on the other side' is the fuel of totalitarianism.

Power is temporary and if you use it to punish your 'enemies' then you can't complain on the day they turn the tables on you.

If you always agree with me, you should get a mind of your own. If you never agree with me then then you've probably set yourself up in opposition to whatever. Tribalism is for overgrown toddlers.

If you're on the right side of the line in these key areas of territory then straight away we have more in common than either the toddler left or the toddler right (which, rather like conventional Fascism and conventional Communism, have rather a lot in common with each other - oh, the irony). Besides calling this stuff out when we see or hear it, and writing/talking about the subject as often as we can, I'm interested in any peaceful, lawful suggestion as to how we can flush this toxicity out of our public discourse. While both 'sides' in this wargame wallow in passive aggressive victimhood and claim that 'the other lot' attacked them, the reality is that both are attacking the rest of us.

Whoever 'wins' here, those on no side will not be treated any more favourably than those who were on the losing one.

We need to find a way of ensuring both 'sides' lose.

Anyway, that concludes the last installment on Rabbit Island in 2017.

Thanks to every last one of you for reading and I hope 2018 becomes a significant year in your lives for all the right reasons.

Please share on Facebook and Twitter if you like our output.

Here's some relevant music and I'll catch up with all of you in the New Year.

Why I Spoiled my Ballot in the EU Referendum

Afternoon - hope you're all doing well and thanks in particular to all of our new readers (of whom there are many, the statistics demonstrate this).

I first became convinced that Britain would be better off out of the European Union in the late 1990s (I was still a teenager at the time if you're being nosy). At the time it was strange because the EU was being presented by the mainstream media as this shiny, modern exciting and progressive organisation while those who opposed further integration into it were depicted as xenophobic Little Englanders who were still suffering from some post-imperial form of PTSD. For the benefit of our younger readers, the debate back then was about whether or not we should adopt the Euro as our currency. Wanting what has become known as Brexit was regarded as full-on extremism.

This blatant bias in favour not just of continued EU membership but further integration, the enlargement of the EU and British entry into what's now the Eurozone probably stiffened my resolve. Like many young people, I deeply resented being told what to think and whenever I came into contact with EU-enthusiasts I found that they insultingly conflated scepticism about the EU as a political organisation with a general hatred of foreigners. The term 'Eurosceptic' (which came into currency around that time) was a sneaky and pernicious extension of that conflation. Knock it off. I'm EU-sceptic, let's have a discussion about that and don't accuse me of xenophobia again.

Of course a few of those who were sceptical about the EU did have 'issues' in this regard but I'll return to that later on.

In reality they never wanted that discussion, not really. The thing that I always noticed was how dated the EU looked and came over, even back then. It may have been perceived as futuristic and exciting by some in the 1970s but by the turn of the millenium it was obvious to me that it was the EU's little fanclub within the media and the political parties who were guilty of time travel (in the case of political parties both had financial reasons to support continued membership, as well as their MEPs' job security being reliant on it). It was a relic cemented in the mindset and mentality of the 1970s, as if the political and economic changes of the 1980s had never happened.

It also occurred to me that although the Conservative Party sometimes presented itself as an organ that was sceptical about the EU, its stated position was disingenuous both in absolute terms and the long-term plausibility of that position. The Tories had taken us into the EEC, that great 'sceptic' Margaret Thatcher happily signed the Single European Act. The Major years saw Maastricht and a cabinet that included the likes of Heseltine and Clarke, who would gladly have taken us deeper into the EU and adopted the Euro in a single morning had the opportunity presented itself. The Tories were and remain pyrite sceptics taking good people for a ride.

Hypothetically, there were other political options out there but most of them (BNP, National Front etc) were pretty revolting and not even worth having a conversation about. The one exception was UKIP, who I did once have a look at joining - note that this was before Farage really went to town on them, kicked anyone with a brain out and turned the personal cult that remained into the political wing of Breitbart magazine. The Alan Sked/Michael Holmes incarnation of UKIP was rather different (and altogether more moderate) than the 'Frankenstein's Monster' that Sked later completely distanced himself from. Perhaps it's for the best I didn't bother.

Over the years the climate and landscape shifted somewhat. Talk of joining the Euro subsided when it turned out to the the 'New Coke' of currency launches and membership plunged several countries into economic crises they then lacked the levers to get out of. The pendulum swung in the opposite direction, particularly after UKIP (initially inspired by Robert Kilroy-Silk and not Farage, how often is that forgotten?) started getting decent results, albeit almost exclusively in European elections. All of a sudden the question of 'in or out' was on the table as almost nobody argued openly for further integration or Eurozone membership.

So you would presume that I was delighted when the offer of a referendum was made ahead of the 2015 election, equally so when we got the promised plebiscite and euphoric when 'we' won? Well, somewhat appropriately given what we're talking about, the answers are no, no and no again. First up, the referendum 'pledge' was made by an arrogant Prime Minister who calculated that he would need the support of the Liberal Democrats (who would helpfully 'block' him) to stay in office. The reason for it was actually Dave's hysterical over-reaction to the maverick Douglas Carswell and a complete tosser called Mark Reckless defecting to UKIP.

Dave cacked his pants and decided this was the way to stop further defections, completely blowing the departure of Carswell (self-styled 'mavericks' tend to pull strokes like this) and Reckless (good riddance, surely?) out of proportion. Though Farage called his bluff by claiming he was in constant discussion with whatever number of Tory MPs he felt like making up that day, the prospect of 15-20 of them jumping ship somewhere near simultaneously was never seriously going to happen. Nor do I necessarily think Nige ever wanted it to - any MP with a bit of clout might be inclined towards leadership ambitions of their own.

Then there's the referendum itself.

I'm going to open up with something that nobody ever seems to talk about. One Sunday morning I was watching the Andrew Marr show when he told us that the Electoral Commission would be "deciding that week who the official Leave and Remain campaigns would be, and that they would get broadcast time along with State funding". Now read that bit in italics back to yourselves again and, here are the questions nobody asks:- who decided that there would be a single 'official' Leave campaign and a similar one on the Remain side? Who decided to give them taxpayers' money and why? And why was everyone else deliberately excluded from the conversation?

And...why was basically nobody asking these questions at the time?

Look, even if you can demonstrate to me that my 'side' actually benefited from all of this then I don't care. I don't cheat to win at Scrabble or Monopoly and I don't cheat to win at politics either. In what is supposed to be a free country you and me might disagree on a particular issue. We should be free to campaign on opposing sides, get like-minded people to help us and argue our cases with energy and drive while keeping it clean and respecting each other. The media should then be free to report on this if they want, rather than being told which campaigners they can and can't report on, and 'corporate welfare' given to those campaigns to eliminate 'the competition'.

This 'management' of the process was a State attack on pluralism which transcends the result and I wish more people were pissed off about. Straight away I was apathetic and didn't really care, nor could I give two shits about which 'side' Boris Johnson was on. After months of 'suspense' which was killing precisely nobody, the Oscar envelope is opened and Boris 'comes out' as a Leaver. He had apparently 'agonised' over this and written alternative pieces for the Telegraph which argued for either side (er...what?). Then this fly-by-night convert by a margin of 51-49 in his own mind gets to be the de facto 'leader' of the Leave campaign. How the hell does that work?

During the campaign I got sick of hearing about celebrities who had come out for either side, along with the prominent people who had 'swapped sides' at some point in the process. You're going to have to explain that one to me as well - as a sceptic towards the EU, I always had two realistic choices on this thing, namely voting Leave and abstension. If you're inclined towards leaving but dislike their campaign then stop working for them, spoil your ballot paper or stay at home and that's the end of it. Just because you disagree with how 'your side' was campaigning (and we'll go there) isn't a reason to fundamentally change your mind about the subject being discussed, surely?

It all felt fake or contrived in some way I couldn't put my finger on.

Another low point was the bizarre debate a couple of nights before the vote where the likes of Ruth Davidson, Boris and Gisela "I'm a mother and grandfather" Stuart battled it out. The crowd whooped and cheered while the 'contestants' waved to that crowd like they were on Wheel of Fortune rather than discussing a very serious constitutional issue (why have we got a compulsion to turn these things into entertainment?). The biggest highlight was Stuart accidentally 'confessing' to being a hermaphrodite on national television, the next biggest was 'quitting' this infantile crap to switch to the Spain vs Croatia match on the other side. It was just surreal.

If 'Project Fear' surprised you then I've no sympathy whatsoever. The Remain crowd were always going to resort to this stuff - especially as they had the bum end of the argument, although they did manage to excel themselves on a few occasions. I laughed when Gideon threatened us all with an austerity budget (he seemed to suggest this as a punishment rather than out of necessity) if we dared to vote Leave and it was a genuine 'face hurts' moment when it was suggested that if Britain left the EU, the rest of Europe would all start fighting each other and World War 3 would break out - tonight we're gonna party like it's 1939, or something like that.

A few intelligent people have got this when I've explained it to them - stop obsessing with the other side, you can't hurt them as you were never going to vote, campaign for or support them in any way - ergo, there is nothing for you to withdraw. Focus on whether or not your own side is fit for purpose. In this regard, Leave was a disaster which genuinely deserved to lose and in reality very nearly did lose something they should always have walked. In the end, Leave got over the line for all the wrong reasons and had already lost millions of ordinary people well before the final bell. They were just fortunate that 'the other side' contrived to be even worse.

Overnight we went from "people call you racist if you talk about immigration" to a campaign that saturation bombed people with constant anti-immigration white noise, blatantly appealed to the pub racist/soccer hooligan crowd and would spend several days at a time going on about precisely nothing else. Then there were the election-style giveaways like the pledge of additional cash for the NHS, which was both irresponsible and rank dishonest. This wasn't an election and whatever savings might have been made by leaving, it was not the Leave campaign's money to throw around like confetti. Whether people believed the £350 million number or not is beside the point. It stank.

The last straw was when it came out that Leave had accepted a significant amount of money (somewhere around £900,000) from a prominent former BNP benefactor. Having spent the previous two months essentially 'being the BNP' this does make a sort of logical sense on the surface but I wasn't prepared to hold my nose anymore. Knowing that they would have to count it and could never lazily label me 'apathetic' for having done so I resolved to write 'NONE OF THE ABOVE' at the bottom of my ballot paper come the day of reckoning. If you want to essentially abstain but avoid the 'apathy' label then this is just about the only way of doing so.

I never wanted a referendum in the first place as it was obvious this would inevitably leave the process of leaving in the hands of people bitterly opposed to what they'd been compelled to do. Although it was more like hard work, surely a smarter option would have been to allow the Conservative Party to die of neglect and replace it with something fit for purpose? That's one for another time, but we had our chance and blew it. What I didn't anticipate was the squalid and foul climate that would emerge from the whole thing, with respectful disagreement, reason, recognition of an objective truth and common decency collapsing on both sides of the proverbial road.

We really shouldn't have bothered.

Look, I've regarded the EU as a crappy, declining outfit for years and wanted us out but it's not an 'evil' organisation led by devils and there were benefits to being a member, it's just that on balance they were clearly outweighed by the disadvantages in my view. If you look at the same evidence and reach a different balance that's entirely your call and maybe Boris Johnson genuinely did 'agonise' over this, but then someone closer to 51-49 than, say, 80-20 had no business being involved in the campaign did they? For a while I thought 'the sting' was going to be Boris 'changing sides' fairly close to the vote and taking a truckload of this strange 'cult of personality' he has with him.

Referenda by definition don't allow for balance, but present two competing, false and rather silly threads of good vs evil in which 'your side' is right about everything and 'their lot' have to be wrong on all questions at all times. Imagine trying to live your life like that - in fact, a lot of people seem to be living at least one aspect of their lives entirely like that if you open your eyes and ears. It's one of the most poisonous aspects of Brexit, the emergence of little one-man or one-woman Leave and Remain campaigns everywhere - flinging mud, telling lies, playing the victim, 'crybullying', depicting those who disagree with them as devils, psychopaths, traitors or baby-eaters.

It's absolutely pathetic and I sincerely hope we never have another referendum in the Uk.

I'll be back on New Year's Eve and returning to one a week from January, it's just the additional free time over the festive period has given me opportunity to get a bit done.

Thanks again for reading and spread the word if you feel the inclination. Take care.

Victims Opposing Institutional and Cultural Egalitarianism (VOICE) - join today!!

There now follows a public service announcement...

During the previously mentioned afternoon out my good friend Kirk and I figured that that there was something in the old saying "if you can't beat em, join 'em". We may be men of honour and principle, but in this day and age that will only take you so far - the reality in 21st century Britain is that if you want to get on in life there are precisely two ways in which you can do so. One, to put it bluntly, involves not being frightened of a bit of hard work. Alternatively, you can portray yourself as a victim of some sort of historical 'oppression' and form an advocacy group to lobby the government for handouts and special treatment.

After much deliberation, we chose the second option.

Having decided that we were victims, Kirk and I now needed a reason to explain our inate sense of being persecuted. After about ten minutes, we realised that some of our teachers in formal education were clearly believers in culturally Marxist ideas and had taught us in a way that made very little serious attempt to conceal it. This, we decided, was brainwashing, an assault on our consciences that had left us traumatised and unable to cope in the modern world. The only way to seek restitution was to form Victims Opposing Institutional and Cultural Egalitarianism (VOICE) and ensure that the cause of our fellow Voicers was fully represented.

VOICE has three basic demands, which form our reason for existing (until they are met, at which point we will simply make new demands). Firstly, there will be compulsory political studies classes at high schools up and down the country, with the content regularly reviewed for bias by the Political Information Subject Specialists (PISS). Their own institutional integrity will be overseen by the Working Arbiter for Neutrality of Knowledge (WANK). This body will hold regular meetings with VOICE, with whom their reports and findings will be shared. However, they will not be disclosed to the wider public.

The second requirement is for the State to tackle Voxphobia, which has no place in 21st century Britain. Governments of all persuasions as well as the Church of England have persecuted the Vox community over several decades, and we will not rest until a symbolic and utterly meaningless apology is made by a sanctimonious and self-seeking Prime Minister and Archbishop of Canterbury. Voxphobia needs to be recognised as a form of prejudice, prosecutable under 'Hate Speech' legislation and regarded as an aggrevating factor when sentencing for attacks in court. Judges need to make an example of all who commit Voxphobic violence.

Our third and final demand (at least for now) is reparations. Yep, hard cash. Lots of it. All that hypnosis to 'de-program' ourselves won't pay for itself.

Without doubt the highlight of the Vox calendar is our annual NOISE festival, which takes place in towns and cities throughout the Uk. Funded by ratepayers in exchange for the closure of their local Leisure Centre, NOISE involves us stuffing a milkfloat full of the works of Karl Marx and setting the offending literature on fire. This mobile inferno then moves down the high street (whose businesses are forced to close that day on Health and Safety grounds) behind a bunch of blokes in military uniform while the onlooking crowd whoop and cheer. Those who 'don't get it' or fail to participate will be branded 'Voxphobes' and arrested for 'Hate Crimes' accordingly.

So...are YOU a victim of Institutional and/or Cultural Egalitarianism?

Were YOU suspended from school for refusing to wear a dress on 'Trans' Day?

Alternatively, do YOU want to appropriate the suffering of others at the hands of Institutional and/or Cultural Egalitarianism despite never having suffered it yourself?

Would YOU like completely unmerited levels of attention and money from arms of the State for no apparent reason?

Would YOU like to become a 'celebrity' campaigner against 'injustice', appearing in all forms of media, usually with people asking "who's that stupid cow?" afterwards?

Well, what the hell are YOU waiting for? Join VOICE today and hashtag #V2 on Twitter to register that you're a victim too.

If you've just done the #V2 thing on Twitter, or googled VOICE with a view to joining then as much as I appreciate that (actually I really don't) the joke is of course on you. Much as starting the advocacy group equivalent of Spinal Tap sounds like a laugh, I have neither the time or the inclination to deal with the utter wankstains who would think such an organisation were serious and join it. That said, a few of our tutors were decidedly 'red' in their outlook on life, of that there is absolutely no doubt. Nor was any serious attempt made at presenting both sides of arguments with equal weight and for equal lengths of time. Still, we'll file it under 'shit happens' and crack on.

The serious point is that advocacy groups (such as trade unions and any 'rights' campaign) will tell you that their principle aim is 'equality' or 'fairness' when in reality that tends to be the complete opposite of what they end up campaigning for. Where was the 'equality' or 'fairness' of Trade Unions in the 1970s and first half of the 1980s, whose leaders behaved like thugs, often using actual violence against 'scabs' and dissenting members who urged caution? How can years of inflation-busting pay rises for union members (including news print workers being in the top 2% of earners in the country) be fair on the consumer (or the taxpayer in the case of nationalised industries)?

Advocacy groups are there to look out for their own and could not give two shits about 1) what's right or wrong or 2) non-members of their own group. Unions care about their members' interests and the consumer/taxpayer can go hang. Group 'rights' campaigns will lobby for 'free stuff' or extra 'rights' for themselves and their own with zero regard for the difficulty, expense, or genuine sense of inequality this might impose on other people. If you are free to withdraw respect towards me for whatever reason or none, but I am 'forced' to respect you solely on the basis of some 'group membership' then is that not a rather Orwellian take on this whole 'equality' thing?

We're all equal, only it would seem that some are more equal than others...

What we have an objective reality about is equality before the law and a degree to which equality of opportunity exists. It goes without saying that any instance of people being deprived of basic and civil rights given to others simply on the basis of their colour, gender, sexual orientation or whatever is just plain wrong and it's actually in all of our interests to equalise the law on this level as far as is humanly possible. If we don't defend the rights of others (especially those we aren't that keen on) then we can't moan when one day it's our turn to suffer (copyright Martin Niemoller). Inequality before the law is never, ever a good thing, only an authoritarian tyrant would think otherwise.

Of course there are situations where people might have legal rights on paper that in one way or another they are actually being deprived of in reality. A good example is blacks in the Southern states of the U.S. who for many years had the legal right to vote but were being prevented from doing so by contrived (and often unlawful) practices from those who wanted to sabotage them. In this case the rights abuse owed as much to de facto lawlessness as it did to racism, aided and abetted by members of law enforcement who were Klan members themselves. When discussing rights, the rule of law, consistently and dispassionately upheld, is absolutely vital.

Once you have protected that then at least some degree of equality of opportunity takes care of itself. However, equality of outcome is harder to measure and can be explained by a whole number of factors, many of which are benign. Men and women often have different work-life balances and many women take 'career breaks' to start families, which explains the 'gender pay gap' to a significant extent. Immigrants (who make up a significant profile of any ethnic minorities measure) often take low paid jobs that our indigenous workshy can't be bothered doing. Citing sexism or racism as the sole reasons for these salary gaps is, to put it politely, an over-simplification.

Besides which, it's individuals and not groups who live lives and have unique existences. I can certainly think of a few lines of work where some of these designated 'minority groups' are distinctly over-represented. Maybe we should start an advocacy group to get a minimum number of white players into Premier League football teams? Or more heterosexuals in the arts? Of course, either suggestion would be absurd just as all group advocacy is. Ayn Rand once correctly identified a thread at the heart of all forms of collectivist thinking namely the pursuit of the unearned, a stubborn refusal to succeed or fail on one's own merits and accept the outcome.

Faced with the pressure of getting elected, politicians have to listen to these advocates, take them seriously and promise them either 'free stuff' some new 'rights' involving state legislated 'forced respect', a State apology for some historical wrong, or a change in the law. In a constitutional republic this would not happen. In a system where our representatives were chosen by random selection (sortition) rather than election, reps would be free to tell group advocates that we would be giving them exactly the level of respect they merited (i.e. none). What a dictator would do is obvious. Only representative democracy actually gives these idiots a voice (pun intended).

Advocacy groups will continue to exist as long as 'oppressed group status' is worthwhile in some way and as long as we have representatives who have little choice but to allow themselves to be lobbied by those advocates and take them seriously. Like most reasonable people I'm a passionate believer in equality before the law, no fear no favour and extending equality of opportunity as far as is possible without using coercion or force that limits the personal liberty of others. Conflating unequal outcomes with some sort of 'institutional bias' is reckless as is 'forced respect' by threat of punishment. We're all free to dislike whoever we want, for whatever reason or none.

Whether it's radical feminism, LGBT bullshit, the quite ridiculous Fathers 4 Justice or the English Defence League (a rather warped advocacy group all of its own) I refuse to demean myself by listening to this crap.

Hopefully those of you who care about liberty and the rights of the individual will be reaching for the mute button as well.

I'll be back on New Year's Eve to discuss something uncontentious like immigration, the Northern Ireland situation or Islam (wink).

Until then keep calm and here's the late Adrian Borland. RIP.

This was Never Supposed to be Fun

On Sunday I was discussing philosophy and the meaning of life with a fellow author and good friend of mine. We agree on much and disagree on enough to keep things interesting - most importantly, despite having a slightly different worldview to me, he's grown up and left any notions of tribalism or 'team sport' at the door. I genuinely consider our interactions to be part of my ongoing education, something far more beneficial than anything I experienced between the ages of four and eighteen. A formidable intellect, sense of honour and a ruthlessly consistent commitment to the truth rather than some sort of 'victory' makes him a challenging and engaging fella to deal with.

He's still alive, you can relax I was just giving my friend his due. Something we disagree quite profoundly on is the concept and importance of Nation States, the need for some sort of national identity and character to act as a unifying force and hold societies together. In short, he's basically 'for' all of this while I fail to see how the construction of any such 'identity' or 'character' could be achieved without big government authoritarianism, conscripted 'pride' in one's place of birth, a hell of a lot of coercion on the part of the State and the subsequent erosion of personal freedom on a significant scale. Someone has to 'play God' to make all this 'national character' stuff stick.

My alternative? Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with most of it - a smallish (but not Minarchist) State limited by a written Constitution as well as lower levels of taxation than we currently have. Matt Kibbe is correct, there is no such thing as good government, only limited government. Entire State departments would be closed and others (like the NHS) part-privatised. Rights and entitlements would be dealt with at the level of the individual, any notion of 'group rights' would be rejected. A controlled and limited level of immigration would continue but 'multiculturalism' is dead. All are equal under the rigorous application of one law.

No national 'identity' or 'character' would be imposed on anybody, patriotism (or lack) of is a personal choice in which the State has no business, just as it has no place attempting to stop you from drinking or smoking (whether that's 'herbal' cigarettes, which should be legalised or the other kind). If you want to walk round your house in the nude while waving a Union Jack and singing the national anthem then that's entirely your business. Equally, if the notion of' nation leaves you thinking "oh my gawd, that is so, like, 1914" well nobody has the right to force your participation in any 'patriotic' activities against your will.

Nationalism (political patriotism) is an authoritarian concept by definition.

Now my mate's taken this in and noted that the difficulties presented by Multiculturalism could be dealt with by consistent and indiscriminate application of the law rather than doing anything radical, making us all adopt a set of contrived and cartoonish 'British Values' or whatever. If there are really Sharia Law courts operating in the Uk then shut them down by the end of the week. Anybody on the wrong end of a decision in one of these 'courts' can ignore it and will be backed up by the law of the land if necessary. FGM (and Jewish circumcision for that matter) lies somewhere between GBH and assault with a weapon. It stops. Immediately.

His reaction to that has been on my mind for the few days since "yeah fair enough, but what's there to get excited about in all that? It's all well and good saying that the rule of law will dispense justice based on individual rights but where's the passion or the reason for anyone else to have any?".

I've written about this before. Part of the problem with our public discourse is this concept of 'politics as a team sport' where the aim is to be on the winning side, hurt and punish your 'enemies', make them suffer and get some 'free stuff' for yourselves and whatever 'group' you associate with, be it hard currency or favourable treatment in the eyes of the law. This is highly Statist stuff, something that only someone seeing the world through an authoritarian/group lens could deliver. What I've just described to you above (soft libertarian, individualist, flat out rejection of 'group rights') is the polar opposite of that. No class war, no race war, no battle of the sexes. Nothing.

You're right - the square root of zilch to get excited or passionate about. 

What we currently have is two highly Statist and authoritarian tribes, the toddler left and the toddler right, the 'Feminista' team and the 'embittered MRA' team, the 'cry racism at every turn' team and the 'actually racist' team, the 'support LGBT or we'll arrest you' team and the 'We hate gays' team. Both have an unequivocal and complete commitment to 'group rights' their associated tyranny and at least neither insults the intelligent amongst us by pretending to care about individual liberty in either the personal or the economic sphere. Both want bribes (either cash or validation) that only an authoritarian working in a representative democracy can give them. I certainly can't.

In a narrow sense I don't necessarily blame anyone for taking part in this 'endarkened' nonsense. Better to be on the winning side, and being on 'no side' will be no better than being on the losing one come the day of reckoning. That's the trouble with us sane, rational, reasonable sorts - we tend to see government and decision making as something that should be as dull, boring and passionless as possible. After all, the main function of government is to collect a sensible level of tax from law-abiding people, use those taxes to pay for their defence and then leave them well alone. We don't go on marches or smash windows, we register our disgust by writing books instead.

I've come to the realisation that whoever 'wins' this battle currently being played out, I along with people like us are in a world of pain. Anyone proposing peaceful, lawful action that opposes both of these mad tribes is more than welcome to post a comment to that effect.

In the meantime, take care and ciao for now.

A quick note re:- the curious case of Damian Green

Evening - I'll keep this as quick as I can. I couldn't care less if Damian Green likes looking at pornography when he's supposed to be at work. Were I a constituent of his then maybe I'd be annoyed at having an MP who spent as much time checking out porn as he did helping his constituents but then he's not my MP so I'll leave those constituents to make up their own minds. Whoever advised Green along the lines of 'deny everything' needs to be taken out back and given a bloody good kicking on the basis of sheer stupidity - this was the politcal defence equivalent to that old excuse for why a kid had not done his homework - i.e. "the dog ate it" or something.

FFS Damian, the game was up and we all knew it was you who'd been looking at porn when you should probably have been focusing on more serious matters. While it may indicate a bit of a 'self-control issue' that the bloke couldn't even wait until clocking off time before cracking open the scantily clad, most of us are mature adults and would hope that the sheer embarrassment of the whole thing would snap Mr Green into some sort of behavioural modification. Sometimes that is how all of us (myself included) have corrected our own mistakes. Going down the Ted Baker "Satan hacked me" route was just a crazy 'defence' doomed to end in worse than failure.

But here's the thing with the Damian Green 'scandal' that everyone seems to be tittering like schoolgirls about. I keep hearing the words 'legal pornography' coming up in relation to this story, that Green had what some rozzer deemed to be too much 'legal pornography' on his computer. Well, firstly the pornography was depicting consenting adults doing things that consenting adults do, so there is no question of the law being broken. Had there been anything depicting the abuse of, say, animals or kids then that becomes a completely different and, well, altogether more criminal matter. But absolutely nobody is suggesting that is the case.

Secondly, the question of how much pornography constitutes 'too much' on a hard drive is by definition a subjective one and quite possibly a trick one. Moreover, it is not something for 'the police' to be involving themselves in, let alone making value judgements about, especially as the (unfounded) allegations against Green that prompted the raid on his house were nothing to do with porn of any kind. What next, raids on people's houses where they find 'excessive' amounts of legal alcohol or legal cigarettes, then report it to the media as if it was some sort of stunning Escobar-style yield?

This strange case poses way more questions than answers, namely:- given the security alerts around MPs is their browsing not monitored and has nobody had a word with Damian Green about this in the past? Why did he subsequently become de facto Deputy Prime Minister given his bosses almost certainly knew about this problem? If he's amended his behaviour accordingly and no longer spends half his working day looking at porn then does the campaign against him not seem wholly unnecessary? The data involved in this is very, very old and it's quite possible his habits have changed, perhaps after a friendly but firm word in his ear from the boss.

Look, I'm not a fan of Damian Green or his politics and think he's a mediocre, somewhat over-promoted minister who happened to be in the right place at the right time under the right leader. By all means criticise him on that basis and for being stupid enough to tell the lies he told, but the hysteria over a bit of 'legal pornography' on a computer is just silly, especially as most of those engaging in it have probably checked out a fair bit of 'adult material' themselves in their own lifetimes. I know I have and might tell you that 'Millenium Eve' story on some other occasion. What I do know is that very, very few of us have the right to judge someone else on that basis alone.

I'm off to listen to my mate's significantly above average radio programme then maybe indulge in some 'legal pornography' afterwards - please promise me you won't call the filth and have them raid my house.

Take care and I'll try and squeeze another in tomorrow morning. Failing that. have a great Christmas, take in some highly appropriate music and I'll catch you soon.