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.

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.