Sunday, August 02, 2009

No, it isn't greener

Cory Doctorow has written an article that sums up what is wrong with this country, and his piece chimes with what I have been writing.

Although he is a Candian native, Cory's family came from the Soviet Union: he asked his grandmother why she didn't stay there.
I asked her why she didn't stay, and she shook her head like I'd asked the stupidest possible question. "It was the Soviet Union", she said. She waved her hand, groped for the answer. "Papers," she said, finally. "We had to carry papers. The police could stop you at any time and make you turn over your papers." The floodgates opened. They spied on you. They made you spy on each other. Your grandfather wouldn't have been allowed to stay – he was Polish, they wouldn't let him stay with the family in Russia, he'd have to go back to Poland.

Cory then moved to Britain, where he found—as Bella has—that his status here is at the whim of the disgusting, petty, spiteful little cunts in government, responding to the BNP dog-whistle morons who populate this green and increasingly unpleasant land.
A few years later, I was living with my partner, and had fathered a British daughter (when I mentioned this to a UK immigration official at Heathrow, he sneeringly called her "half a British citizen"). We were planning a giant family wedding in Toronto when the news came down: the Home Secretary had unilaterally, on 24 hours' notice, changed the rules for highly skilled migrants to require a university degree. My immigration lawyers confirmed it: people who'd established residence in the UK for years and years, who'd built businesses and employed Britons here, who owned homes and given birth to British children, were being thrown out of the country, taking their tax-payments, jobs and families with them.

My partner and I scrambled. We got married. We applied for a spousal visa. A few weeks later, I presented myself in Croydon at the Home Office immigration centre to turn over my biometrics and have a visa glued into my Canadian passport. I got two years' breathing room. My family could stay in Britain.

Then came last week's announcement: effective immediately, spousal visa holders (and foreign students) would be issued mandatory, biometric radio-frequency ID papers that we will have to carry at all times. And I started to look over my shoulder.

Yes, that's right. And why should immigrants have to do this? They are easy targets, of course. I am now caught up in a similar situation: I am in a relationship—and have been for some time—and the continuance of that relationship is at the whim of bureaucrats and filthy, disgusting, morally bankrupt politicians and the filthy, disgusting, morally bankrupt morons who elect them.

I have seen, at first hand, the second-rate status accorded to those who want to live and work here, and the callousness with which their situation is dealt with. I have seen the way in which this country deals with immigrants, and I dislike it intensely.
Every one of these measures was beta-tested on less-advantaged groups before it was rolled out to the general public.

It is, quite simply, a divide et impera tactic and it is one that I, as a positive libertarian who believes that we are all human, find morally repugnant.

I have constantly pointed out that all of these measures tested on minority "undesirables" will be applied to us sooner or later—and probably sooner.
CCTVs used the be the exclusive territory of bank vaults and prisons. Network wiretapping and censorship began in schools, "to protect children".

Now, we immigrants are to be the beta testers for Britain's sleepwalk into the surveillance society. We will have to carry internal passports and the press will say, "If you don't like it, you don't have to live here – it's unseemly for a guest to complain about the terms of the hospitality." But this beta test is not intended to stop with immigrants. Government freely admits that immigrants are only the first stage of a universal rollout of mandatory biometric RFID identity cards. What happens to us now will happen to you, next.

No, we aren't seeing people wandering around with yellow stars on their clothing—but we are seeing them forced to get ID cards that we would never wish to carry ourselves. And what do we do?

Nothing.

The conclusion is simple: had the Nazis risen here, we would have not put up any more protest—as our neighbours were taken to the ghettos and then to the death camps—than the Germans did. In fact, we would probably complain less.

As the repulsive general population continue to make shitty jokes about "not mentioning the war", they are blind to the fact that—had it happened here—they would have been happy to hassle those Jews onto the cattle trucks.

Because, as our own pogrom happens, I hear not a fucking spark from the "great British public". They are too busy devouring Coronation Street to care.
We are encouraged to spy on our neighbours and report their suspicious activity. We can be stopped and searched with no particularised suspicion, and during these searches, police officers can and do examine such things as the books we're reading and the personal notes we've made.

This country is dead as a free nation—when an article about a fundamentally unimportant subject such as computer OSes can get more comments than anything about civil liberties, it is an indication of the intellectual paucity of our citizens—yes, even the bien pensant of the blogosphere.

Cory has said that—if nothing changes—he will leave this shithole we call Britain. I don't know if I can do the same—where is there to go?—but for the very first time, I am seriously considering it.

I am ashamed and afraid: I thought that I lived in one of the world's great and tolerant civilisations: over the last few years, I have come to realise that is it simply a gilded cage.

It is why this end to V For Vendetta, desirable though it may be, will never happen.


Nor will the people of Britain walk the streets in masks. Our "respresentative democracy" is just a sympton of the greater malaise—the shits in Parliament simply reflect the shits who elected them.

For every one person who thinks, and evaluates and tries to be just, there are ten thousand ignorant bigots—repulsive in their stupidity and prejudice—whose voice carries far more weight (ten thousand times the weight, in fact) than that of those who can think. It is why this country is such a fucking shithole—because the filth who live in it vastly outnumber those who are decent.

Look out for the yellow stars: the concentration camps will not be far behind. And as their friends and neighbours are carted off to the gulags, then the British people take to the streets.

But it will not be in protest, it will not be to condemn—no, it will be to cheer.

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

Drunken posts are fun.

SaltedSlug said...

I've been pondering the bolt-hole problem; where to run to?

At least places like the US and OZ, despite having their own issues, are big enough that you can run to your shed in the hills with your shotgun if you need to.

There's no where to run in the UK.

Anonymous said...

Trouble is Salty the US and Australia have raised the drawbridge. Getting an immigrant visa for the US is substantially more difficult than the UK. New Zealand, Canada and Australia have all tightened up their immigration policy.
Meanwhile the UK Border Agency has been trying its hand at a bit of people smuggling!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1203691/Migrant-hid-Border-Agency-bus-reach-UK-20-immigration-staff-failed-spot-hes-run-Britain.html

Having witnessed first hand the UK "immigration policy" I do sympathise. UK Immigration officers in many cases actively target non Europeans because they are the only people who are subject to border controls. Meanwhile tens of thousands of undesirables from Europe turn up every year keen to get a taste of our generous welfare benefits. It is going to end in tears one way or another.

Angry Exile said...

At least places like the US and OZ, despite having their own issues, are big enough that you can run to your shed in the hills with your shotgun if you need to.

True, though as a pom in Oz I'd say that Australia is level pegging on some issues - certain nanny state things mainly - and is maybe five to fifteen years behind on the others. Anyone who comes here looking for significantly less government interference is likely to be disappointed. Anyone who comes here expecting less worrying government intrusion will probably find it a breath of fresh air compared to the Sovietized UK.

Surreptitious Evil said...

But why are the political class doing this? Because the knee-jerk reaction of the public, led by the media, every time anything unfortunate happens is to demand that "something must be done".

As the only thing that politicians can do is pass laws (okay, in theory they can repeal them too but ...) we end up with lots of poorly drafted illiberal laws.

And the Civil Service attitude seems to have gone from an amused smugness fuelled for life by that Oxbridge Classics degree, to a hysterical paranoia driven entirely by avoiding embarrassing the minister(s).

Anonymous said...

I agree totally DK. Although @ 53 I,m getting a bit old , if I don't move I'll have to start fighting

LH said...

I parking got a ticket the other day when a bunch of runts all under 12 on bmx bikes went to find a warden while I parked in a bus stop.

If it carries on like this there's going to be bloodshed soon. People have really had enough.

The Great Simpleton said...

I've been meaning to comment for a while on my own blog that the move from an Immigration Service to a Border Agency has sinister overtones.

An immigratation service implies a benign sewrvice just checking on who is coming in and who is returning. A border agency can implies controlling those inside those borders and deciding who can leave as well. And how easy will it to change their name to border guards?

The next step of internal borders is much easier to set up and manage, especially if we all have ID cards.

FrankFisher said...

Pretty shitty film that, but I did find myself wanting to cheer when Westminster blew up. Almost an instinctive response, rather like laughing when someone takes a pearler on a banana skin. I find within myself now a deep and potent hatred for the british government at every level - not parties - all of the cunts; the people who destroyed this country.

Oh, and more than a little hate for myself, and the rest of us, who are still letting it happen.

Trixy said...

I'm interested to know what event happened between the last two posts...

Anonymous said...

Google on "UnFascist Britain" on soc.history.what-if for an excellent discussion on how fascism would have worked in the UK.

A key point was your Log Book - a document that would hold your personal history. Available for inspection on demand....

Marius Ostrowski said...

Brilliantly put. Don't think I've ever agreed with a post of yours more.

Anonymous said...

Well said DK, I however disagree with you on one point. I believe all it would take is someone to take the initiative, someone to drag the public into awareness and that would be the spark it would need.

Obsidian said...

There's also this

New Labour are a totalitarian nightmare. I hope the entire bunch of fuckers die horribly.

Hell, I hope Cameron has the testicular fortitude to load the entire Labour cabal into a helicopter, tied up in a big bow and drop them into a Taliban encampment.

Anonymous said...

This is probably one of the ten best posts you've ever had on this blog and it mirrors my (American) wife's experience with the scum who issue visas. I shan't waste my time describing the borderline abusive treatment and officious tone taken to her by a sucession of subliterate cretins (a surprising number of whom, to judge from their heavy accents, were immigrants themselves and very few of whom spoke anything like tolerable English).

I will, though, observe this: I very, very much doubt that any of these regulations have been or ever will be applied to the client voters in the North of England and West of Scotland, voters whom Labour imports from Pakistan and Bangladesh and dumps in areas like Bradford and Glasgow to help shore up the Labour vote. I particularly doubt that the stringent rules on marriage visas will be applied to arranged marriages.

Ian B said...

DK-

This country is dead as a free nation—when an article about a fundamentally unimportant subject such as computer OSes can get more comments than anything about civil liberties, it is an indication of the intellectual paucity of our citizens—yes, even the bien pensant of the blogosphere.

Maybe there's another explanation. You're a libertarian, talking to a predominantly libertarian audience. We all in general agree with you about civil liberties. It goes without saying, almost.

I'm quite a familiar face on the commentboxosphere. I've typed tens or hundreds of thousanads of words in comment boxes about civil liberties and politics and so on. So have most of the rest of your commentariat. There's only so much to be said. We agree with you. What is there to say? Give us something a bit off the beaten track- the trivia of Mac vs. PC, heh- and it's something new to have a row about.

Add to that that there is less incentive to talk when everyone agrees with one another. Debate is about differences of opinion. Again, everyone here pretty mcuh agrees with you about civil liberties. There really isn't that much that is new to type in the comment box.

In one sense, the libertarian blogosphere just goes round in circles. We all say pretty much the same thing, over and over and over again. We know that liberty is collapsing. We see the latest little part of it collapse, and we say, ooh how terrible. But it seems there is less and less that is new to say. As such a certain degree of fatigue sets in. A discussion or argument on the blogosphere doesn't really change anything. How much more will we type before Britain is entirely a fascist country? It is already a police state. We are past the point of saying "if we're not careful we'll be a police state". We already are one.

So I don't know what you want us to say. But don't deride us as uncaring for not always having the fortitude to once more type the same thing we've typed a thousand times before.

A little fun argument about operating systems and web technologies is just a bit of light relief.

Anonymous said...

"I thought that I lived in one of the world's great and tolerant civilisations: over the last few years, I have come to realise that is it simply a gilded cage."

I'm often amazed when I hear people on news programmes talking about our tolerance.

Look at our history since the war. They took Donald McGill to court in the 1950s for some innuendo-loaded cards, Pengiun to court over Lady's Chatterly's Lover. We only legalised homosexuality in the late 60s. We only legalised buggery between consenting heterosexuals in the late 1980s.

Most of Europe is far more tolerant about what can be shown on cinema or TV screens. I remember having to get a friend in the US to send me Reservoir Dogs on video because the BBFC wouldn't release it.

The Thatcher government extended the power of the BBFC with the Video Recordings Act. Tony Benn tried to close down the pirate radio ships with some outrageously draconian laws. Thatcher raised the scale of the war on drugs. Blair introduced the laws against smoking in private property.

When people talk about what New Labour have done in terms of rights, they forget that governments of all colours have introduced such legislation against the individual.

The smoking law was about the worst example of the lazy bastards in this country. Even the people most affected, the publicans and regulars, didn't mount any sort of campaign against it. They just rolled over and took it.

Ian B said...

Anonymous- (why not use a recognisable 'nym?)-

I entirely agree. I get a bit sick to be honest of this myth that Britain was once this phenomenal beacon of freedom that shamed the rest of the world and everything has gone wrong since 1997. It just isn't true. As your examples indicate, we have a consistent record of the most draconian censorship in the "free" world. This is the country that back in The Good Old Days of freedom required every theatre production to be passed by the Lord Chamberlain's office.

Liberty is, in Britain, a radical new idea we seek to implement for the first time, not an attempt to recapture something we never had.

Mr Ecks said...

Nobody will do anything until the level of pain is high enough. The real issue that fucks tyranny up is not wide-spread resistance but economic failure. The Soviets had things locked down but couldn't feed, shoe etc their mug population. The Wests support kept them going. Hitler's "economic miracle" would have been in serious economic trouble by 1942 but the War focused minds on other things. Now it looks like ZaNu and BluLab/EU too are on the tyrannical ascendant. Now is also the time to remember that we are living in a phony war. As long as the scum of the state can keep borrowing they can keep up their already collapsed front. The borrowing will stop soon (because there aren't enough mugs left to lend) and then the screaming will begin. It is hard to run an empire of bullshit with no money. They can use hardship to promote tyranny in the short term but long-term it will all fall apart.

Keith Chegwin said...

excellent post - more like this please

Simon Jester said...

Ian,

There's a big difference between "bad" and "worse". There's always been some sort of official interference with individual freedom - but there was less of it in the past. Things got worse during the world wars, when people would put up with it for the sake of the war effort. They've got worse in the past 12 years, when there's no obvious reason to put up with it.

Radicalism is something that's rarely welcomed by the British. I think that they're more likely to agree to return to the "less bad" situation if they're told that they're rejecting ZanuLabour's authoritarian extremism, than if they think they're electing a bunch of swivel-eyed loonies.

Wearysider said...

Half decent post and I agree with most points, however, one thing that gets me a little about libertarians is this whole fuckin V for Vendetta bullshit obsession.

1st it's a piss poor film based on a piss poor left wing hairy tits anti Thatcherite ramblings.

2nd, Guy Fawkes wasn't merely trying to blow up parliament and all the corrupt authoritarian tossers therein he was trying to re-establish Roman Catholic authoritarian dominance of England, how is this good in any shape or form? answers on a post card.

3rd, Blowing up the Palace of Westminster image I've always found a bit distasteful, it's akin to burning books in my eyes, though I'll forgive this due to a lack of footage of politicians swinging by razor wire from lamp posts.

Just an observation.

Anonymous said...

A dark post, DK. But justified.

Willy said...

If the UK's immigration policy had followed the example of Oz and NZ, cherrypicking the skills that they required and rejecting the rest, there would be no problem today. The UK was a great country, a country with little corruption and high standards.
The Communist enemy within was allowed to overfill the lifeboat and everyone in the UK will sink together. It's inevitable.

Anonymous said...

Guy Fawkes wasn't merely trying to blow up parliament and all the corrupt authoritarian tossers therein he was trying to re-establish Roman Catholic authoritarian dominance of England, how is this good in any shape or form? answers on a post card.

Well, I dunno about postcards I'll give you an answer in a blogger comments threat.

Partly, the issue derives from simple ignorance. Thanks to a worthless education system, Guy Fawkes is too obscure a topic for most people.

Partly, however, the issue derives from the increasing dominance of Catholics in this country. Despite being a minority - at less one-tenth of the total population - Catholics have been working very hard, particularly but not exclusively within the Labour Party, to rewrite the country's laws in accordance with their whim and to impose their vision of history (a whitewashed version in which there is no Inquisition, in which Catholic countries were not bastions of ignorance, totalitarianism and stagnation, in which Jesuits were peaceful educators and missionaries instead of the Church's militant secret police and indoctrination squad and in which Catholics haven't spent the greater part of the last forty years trying murdering with aplomb in an effort to break up the United Kingdom and rape our democracy in the name of creating a religiously pure Ireland).

Rumbold said...

Top notch post.

Gandhi said...

This is the stuff, and the linked post from yesterday.

Don't get down, get angry. Somebody has to.

??M people are being shepherded from soul-destroying office-wage-slave-cubicle to alco-pop palliative/lobotomy to TV-indoctrination/re-education... We're FUCKED.

Martin said...

An 3:47,

I'm not sure that burning Papishes would still be the guaranteed crowd pleaser it used to be.

Antisocilaist said...

"..responding to the BNP dog-whistle morons.."

As if. The vast majority in this country have persistently showed their opposition to the massive levels of immigration this country has witnessed over recent years and been completely ignored. Instead we've witnessed the far left flood the country with immigrants, to no overall economic benefit, in a cynical and calculated attempt to destroy the national identity of Britain.

It's a pity this is cheered on by the Libertarians. Apart from anything else this is a relatively small country and the wisdom of cramming ever more people in it is highly questionable to say the least. As you rightly point out, it's not only the national identity of Britain that is under assault but it's liberties and freedoms as well. It all helps to contribute to the policy of divide and rule (diversity and multiculturism) as nationalists argue with libertarians. All part of the grand plan (the Great Work).

You are surely aware that all these politicians you rail about are merely puppets of those who wish to create a world government (code name the New World Order). The late Carroll Quigley (Bill Clinton's mentor), Professor of History at Georgetown University and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his book, "Tragedy & Hope": "The CFR is the American Branch of a society which originated in England, and which believes that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a one-world rule established." That society is the Royal Institute for International Affairs. Better known as your real government.

It doesn't take much research to see the real agenda. It's just a pity that so many libertarians (I shall refrain from calling you morons; you're not and neither are those supporting the BNP who are merely those with a sense of nationality who don't wish to see it smashed by relentless waves of immigration) are helping them achieve their aim so easily.

Frank Davis said...

This reminds me of a conversation I had, some 13 years ago, with a Russian woman, then living in the UK. She was deeply worried that Britain looked set to elect a Labour government. She spoke with fear and bitterness about socialism.

I thought she was rather mad. She seemed to think that our jolly old Labour party would bring in something like an East German socialist state. Why would that happen, when they'd been elected to government several times in the previous 50 years.

I should have paid more attention to her. It wasn't her that was rather mad. It was me.

Fausty said...

The whole world is succumbing to the socialist/fascist cancer - including Australia. Can NZ be far behind it?

I've been eyeing Cuba as a retreat on the grounds that if I have to live in a totalitarian state, I'd rather live in one cheaply, where there is plenty of sunshine and good company.

The shits in parliament will carry on shitting on our freedoms so long as we continue to elect them. The MPs' expenses scandal has given us (libertarians) a window of opportunity to lure the gulled into our world and see things with our eyes - and avoid voting for Lib/Lab/Con.

Let's catch them before they turn their attention back to Corrie.

Ian B said...

It's just a pity that so many libertarians (I shall refrain from calling you morons; you're not and neither are those supporting the BNP who are merely those with a sense of nationality who don't wish to see it smashed by relentless waves of immigration) are helping them achieve their aim so easily.

Not all libertarians.

The main problem is that the basic philosophical thinking that defines modern libertarianism happened many decades ago in a western world in which immigration, at the time, was not a problem. It was then quite natural to adopt the then growing egalitarian consensus on the issue. This is also because libertarianism philosophically has a strong economic derivation- the leading lights are primarily economists or economics focussed e.g. Von Mises, Rothbard, Hayek [Ayn Rand on the fringe] and so tend to treat everything as an economic problem and people as economic units. When you add in that libertarian thought naturally tends to repudiate collectivist cultural norms etc, it is understandable why Libertarianism has this blind spot about culture. It is striking (to me) when reading e.g. Rothbard talking about abolishing the government and having an anarcho-capitalist society the unspoken assumption throughout his writing of a western civilisation context; in one's minds eye there are men in suits and trilby hats pottering to their non-inflationary banks. The idea of genuinely foreign cultures doesn't really impinge on the anarcho-capitalist landscape.

It is an error. A political system- any political system- can only apply to some society (that is, a collective) who have chosen to adopt it (or been forced to by a tyrant of course). Trying to apply the principles of a system externally doesn't work; it breaks. To say that a society has no right to restrict who may join that society is akin to saying that a man has no right to deny access to others to his home. We may hope that one day the entire world is libertarian, and then we can all indeed move entirely freely and so on, but that situation does not currently pertain to any degree. If libertarianism is to ever arrive, it will have to occur within countries with borders, which must maintain themselves against those societies who haven't yet climbed aboard the Liberty Bus. That is simple pragmatism that gets lost in the ideology. There are many libertarian policies that simply cannot be introduced individually- they require a libertarian polity in which to function. Open borders is quite clearly one of them.

Some Libertarians have a more considered stance. Here's Hans Herman Hoppe

Cynical Libertarian said...

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me."


"The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history."

Antisocialist said...

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--because I was not a communist."

How about:

First they came for the nationalists, and I did not speak out--because I was not a nationalist. It's not as if the communists are under any sort of pressure.

I'm no fan of Islam either, quite the reverse, but the last paragraph would be slightly more accurate if Jews was exchanged for Muslims.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 01:02pm

We only legalised homosexuality in the late 60s. We only legalised buggery between consenting heterosexuals in the late 1980s.

Even that is too generous to the puritannical British state. Homosexual behaviour remained largely criminal ("in private", means two people only in a place not open to the public) until the reign of Blair, who however at the same time as creating full equality let the Home Office regulate almost every aspect of 'disorderly' sexuality that the law had so far ignored in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Heterosexual anal intercourse was only legally permitted in England by an Act of 1994, in Northern Ireland that too waited till 2003.

Gandhi said...

"Heterosexual anal intercourse was only legally permitted in England by an Act of 1994"

Yikes, so just a few years earlier and I'd have been carted-off to the slammer!?

Roger Thornhill said...

This is not about immigrants, this actual move is a back door way to get us all to carry cards.

Think about it.

Immigrants need to carry them, but "we don't". How do "we" prove we are not "them"? How do the Police prove that an Immigrant is not a British Citizen who asserts their right not to carry ID? By demanding ID from everyone.

It will become easy then to place onerous demands upon us to "prove" who we are by existing means but introduce the "voluntary" ID card, so making it "painless" if we "sign up".


It is a bootstrap for us all to be subject to "Papiere!".


WV: matingst IKYN.

Cynical Libertarian said...

@Antisocialist

You seem to be unaware of the historical nature of the passage quoted. It's Martin Niemöller's famous poem about the apathy of German intellectuals and their reluctance to oppose Hitler. It doesn’t matter which groups are used for the purposes of the poem, the message remains the same; “the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

Antisocialist said...

Yes I was aware CL, I was merely trying to update it to suit present circumstances.