Current

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

A polemic from the leader of the UK Libertarian Party

Posted by Devil's Kitchen at 1/05/2010 12:15:00 am

My friends,

We are broke. Our country—whatever it may once have been—is now laden with debt. And this isn't "the government's debt": it is our debt.

The government has no money but what it takes—what it extorts—from us.

We have gone beyond consensus politics: if a man were to come to your door, with a gun, and demand half of everything that you earned—on pain of severe punishment, on pain of the total ruination of your life—would you not protest?

For a moment, lay aside those dutiful thoughts of those starving millions beyond your gate, and think, instead, of those within your own household—within your own family: would you not rather protect them first?

Of course you would: they are your kith and kin and you would expect—would you not?—that everyone, like you, would defend theirs against you were you the one holding the gun.

The government has now utterly removed from you the means of protecting yourself and your family against the man with the gun: indeed, you dare not defend yourself because you fear that it is you, not the mugger, who would end up in the dock.

For the government is the man with the gun, demanding tithes from you: the government is here, at your door. But not randomly.

No.

The government has gone out and bought itself nice things—plasma TVs, second homes, duckhouses, moats. And jobs, and votes. All of those things that you could not afford—because it has been here before: at your door, with a gun.

Five years ago, it was here—threatening you with prison if you did not pay up—for the sake of all of those children who were not yours. You paid, because you had no option.

Four years ago, it was here—threatening you with prison if you did not pay up—for the sake of all of those unhealthy who were not yours. You paid, because you had no option.

Three years ago, it was here—threatening you with prison if you did not pay up—for the sake of all of those uneducated who were not yours. You paid, because you had no option.

Two years ago, it was here—threatening you with prison if you did not pay up—for the sake of all of those feckless bankers who were not yours. You paid, because you had no option.

One year ago, it was here—threatening you with prison if you did not pay up—for the sake of all of those MPs who had no duck-houses or second homes or moats. You paid, because you had no option.

And now the government has spent everything that you had to give, and more, on its pet projects—on buying its second homes, on buying its duckhouses, on buying its votes—and none of it benefited you and yours. Not even by one iota.

The government didn't care that you couldn't afford to give any more: it didn't care that you had no money.

The government didn't care that you had lost your job: the government didn't care that all of those thousands of pounds it took in National Insurance payments translated into a few hundred when you were in need.

And now, when you are getting back on your feet—back in a job that is not as good as the one the government destroyed, back struggling to look after your family on the pittance you are paid, back paying off your debts—the government, too, is back: it's back with the gun.

The government is back—demanding half of what you broke your back to earn—because it has more grand schemes, more votes to buy, more trinkets to deliver to its favoured ones.

Will you so willingly hand over the sweat of your brow? Will you so willingly condemn you and yours to penury? Will you capitulate again?

Or will you fight?

Join us—and help us to stop the extortion.

Join us—and understand that providing for you and yours is not a sin.

Join us—and realise that a society that pulls together is a society that stays together.

Join us—and help us fight for a future in which people help each other voluntarily, because it is right and fitting to do so.

Join us—and help to build a future in which men, women and children take back their work, their birthrights, their dignity and their compassion from a government that cares nothing for you.

Join us.

Because—whether the government is Tory, Labour or LibDem—soon you will have nothing left to lose.

Labels: , ,


Posted by Devil's Kitchen at 1/05/2010 12:15:00 am


28 Blogger Comments:

Anonymous Gareth said...

I feel like painting my face blue and running around in a skirt.

1/05/2010 02:07:00 am  
Anonymous Laurence said...

I feel like running around without a skirt. The colour of what is revealed I'll leave to the cold weather

1/05/2010 09:49:00 am  
Blogger Richard said...

Great post, and one which reflects very much how I feel. Hope you don't mind, but I have copied it to my blog with a link back, as I don't feel I could say it any better than you have.

1/05/2010 01:04:00 pm  
Anonymous Sperm Lewis said...

I feel like spray-painting David Cameron blue and then turning him loose to run around naked on the M4 motorway until he is deservedly flattened by a TIR juggernaut.

1/05/2010 01:09:00 pm  
Blogger Polaris said...

Brilliant post sir! As others have commented, a feeling I share - I've just reflected in a similar mood at my place.

DK I hope the LPUK can break through, but is that a realistic prospect?

1/05/2010 03:22:00 pm  
Blogger Captain Ranty said...

I don't want ANY government, but if we must have one, I would rather you were running it.

I gushed a little here:

http://captainranty.blogspot.com/2010/01/chance-to-do-good-thing.html

Strength and honour.

Let's get both restored.

CR.

1/05/2010 03:22:00 pm  
Blogger williamsjk said...

Wonderful job there.

I too hope you don't mind me borrowing the post for my blog with a link back here.

1/05/2010 03:38:00 pm  
Anonymous Rob F said...

I feel like printing that out and sticking it up at the place where I work. There are enough Socialist Worker and Respect posters up there, after all.

Actually I think I will, if you don't mind!

1/05/2010 04:11:00 pm  
Anonymous Renegade Parent said...

I joined LPUK last night and read this rather affirming post this morning - thank you. I've also copied it onto my blog and linked back.

1/05/2010 07:26:00 pm  
Anonymous CountingCats said...

One criticism:

Pulling together is the aim of despots and tyrants, free men pull in all sorts of directions - Paraphrased from Lord Vetinari

1/05/2010 09:44:00 pm  
Blogger Devil's Kitchen said...

Thank you all.

Polaris,

"DK I hope the LPUK can break through, but is that a realistic prospect?"

If you are hoping for it in the next year, then I fear you shall be disappointed. If you hope for a breakthrough in the next ten years... well... if you and I and all of the others do a good job, then why not?

And there may be some good news on the horizon: just working on it now...

Counting Cats,

The beauty of libertarianism is that all of us pulling in the same direction, i.e. in LPUK, means free men pulling in all directions...

DK

1/06/2010 12:43:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Today's quiz: What's the difference between someone who says they believe in the free movement of people while pushing for more restrictions on immigration, and someone who doesn't believe in it at all? Answers on a postcard please (clue: it's an anagram of "fuck all from where I'm sitting")! Winners receive a Blue Peter badge and free BNP membership for a year!

Sorry, but I'd rather shove my cock into a blender than vote for anyone pandering to the anti-immigration-fuckhead demographic as the LP are doing.

I recall someone writing about how disgusting it is when politicians "pander to the bigotry and ignorance of a certain section of the British people" while dressing it up as "sensible ways of limiting immigration".

Oh, right. But "we should all note that the [Libertarian Party's] fear of immigration is absolutely not in any way the same as the BNP's fear of immigration", okay? Okay.

1/06/2010 09:26:00 am  
Anonymous CountingCats said...

DK,

it is Cats or CC to my friends.....

1/06/2010 10:13:00 am  
Blogger Devil's Kitchen said...

Anonymous,

As I have said before, immigration is under review.

As I have also said before, there is a good Hayekian argument for limiting immigration whilst a Welfare State still exists.

As you may (or may not) know, I favour options other than limitation but, believe it or not, I do not set all of LPUK policy.

In the meantime, do feel free to go stick your cock in a blender—I'll switch the machine on for you.

DK

1/06/2010 11:41:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> As I have said before, immigration is under review.

I'd call it a cop-out.

> As I have also said before, there is a good Hayekian argument for limiting immigration whilst a Welfare State still exists.

I don't even need to take on the premise that immigrants find themselves on welfare more than natives do; instead, you can google "impact on public services" for why that's a very dangerous line of reasoning. This "Hayekian argument" takes us right up to the point that every aspect of our lives could be regulated; with the size and scope of our government (or even, if you think about it hard enough, a smaller welfare-plus-infrastructure one as less-radical libertarians would prefer) one can't even take a shit without it having some "impact on public services".

You know, chasing that logic a bit further, we could place restrictions on smoking and drugs while the NHS exists, restrictions on alcohol use while the NHS and state-funded policing still exists, restrictions on what we can eat because of the "obsesity timebomb", etc etc, and it would be totally fucking awesome if that were to happen, wouldn't it?

> As you may (or may not) know, I favour options other than limitation

I am aware of that, which is another reason I like reading you (and why I don't feel a burning desire to punch you in the cock repeatedly)...

> but, believe it or not, I do not set all of LPUK policy.

...and yet you're affiliated with people who will chuck libertarian principle out the window and accept the most dangerous of statist reasoning if it means getting a few Daily Mail votes. Eh. To me, that makes their commitment to liberty look a little bit suspect, even though yours certainly isn't.

> In the meantime, do feel free to go stick your cock in a blender—I'll switch the machine on for you.

ok i am strokin it

1/06/2010 02:17:00 pm  
Blogger Ian B said...

Excellent piece, DK, a stirring read that is pitched just right.

Anonymous- regarding immigration.

There is no obligation on Libertarians to be in favour of open borders. It pretty much depends on your views on land ownership and what the nation state is. If there are to be nation states, which are likely to exist for the foreseeable future, as the largest scale geopolitical blocs, short of tranzi world government, then you have to consider those blocs to have some kind of meaningful existence as geographical collectives. You can abolish the nation states if you like, but the UN and EU don't suggest that that's a policy we're all quite ready for yet.

The model that most people have of the nation state is as a kind of "club". That is, the residents of Ukay own Ukay, the residents of Germany own Germany, and so on. THey have property rights to the nation state. Seen as a club, any club has the right to choose whether to admit new members. Other than at the national level, that's pretty fundamental libertarianism.

Consider this thought experiment. Suppose that Britain becomes some kind of libertarian/anarchy thang, with absolute property rights. And everyone has a plot of land which they own outright. Now, we would all agree that these property owners have the right to exclude others from their land, by force if necessary. Right?

Now suppose the first generation of property owners die. They pass on their land to their children. The children now own the land. Again, the children as property owners have the right to exclude others. It's their land. There may be several children now owning what was previously one man's land, and they own it collectively. It may be that some of these collectives decide to pool their land, to form larger more efficient geographical areas (larger farms). They may rent some of it to other people, and so on. They may form central committees to run collective services on their private land, and have votes for who will be on the committees.

They are little nation states. Over time they may become quite large nation states. At what point in their history do they lose the right to exclude trespassers from their private land? At what point does it become immoral for them to do so? At what point do they start being racistandxenophobes?

Bear in mind that after a few generations, all the original landowners are dead. The people now living on the land don't get any choice about which land collective they are a part of. They are born into a particular private "nation state" and if they want to move they're going to have to buy or rent from somebody else. It may be that nobody wants to sell or rent them land, in which case they're stuck where they are.

Nationalists see the country they are part of as their property; that is, that England is owned by the Englanders who are born here, as with the descendants in our thought experiment. Under libertarianism, their property rights are absolute. They are not obligated to admit any new residents to their private nations unless they wish to. Are they?

1/06/2010 02:37:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> Seen as a club, any club has the right to choose whether to admit new members. Other than at the national level, that's pretty fundamental libertarianism.

Yup, and any club also has the right to ban smoking/drugs/drinking, require membership dues (taxes), ban junk food from their premises, impose all sorts of requirements as to what is required of its members, etc etc.

> Now, we would all agree that these property owners have the right to exclude others from their land, by force if necessary. Right?

Right.

> <snipped for brevity, not because I didn't read anything before it>
> They are little nation states. Over time they may become quite large nation states.

Funny, I usually hear this kind of argument being used against free-market libertarianism, by non-libertarians: that we'll end up with, essentially, private states, ones with far more control over their subjects than libertarians would accept from a "public" state. Now I'm seeing it used by libertarians in defense of (what I feel is) quite un-libertarian policy. We live in strange times. :)

> Nationalists see the country they are part of as their property; that is, that England is owned by the Englanders who are born here, as with the descendants in our thought experiment.

Hooray for them; I'm not much of a nationalist so I don't have to accept this. I don't see any need to challenge the reasoning behind any ideology that says "fucking immigrants and asylum seekers is just fine", for the simple reason that I am a libertarian because I hate seeing ordinary people getting fucked and no amount of clever reasoning from property rights will convince me that it is a good thing. But you know what? I'll bite anyway: 1) That can't be used to justify any action by the state as it exists now, because the state came about through systematic theft, not from voluntary association, and 2) "the state as club" could only be used to justify locking out immigrants if and only if 100% of the British population wanted to keep immigrants out of Britain. If I choose to let, say, 5 Kazakh immigrants live in my house, then that's my choice and my property. You know, the property that libertarians hold to be sacred over and above the preferences of other people (tens of millions of which I will never meet), and all that.

Of course I could be misunderstanding the argument and be totally wrong on 1) and 2), and I'd still not lose any sleep ("fucking people is bad", as above, is plenty enough reason to reject nationalism altogether if the former is a logical consequence of the latter), so don't worry too much about proving me wrong.

1/06/2010 05:13:00 pm  
Blogger Ian B said...

Well first up, you're using an emotive argument without support; that is, "immigrants are (in some way) being "fucked"". From a practical position, there's no reason somebody would seek to immigrate to a country that "fucks" them, for the same reason I won't want to enter your house if you intend to fuck me. Well, unless you're a blonde with big hooters and no inhibitions whatsoever. Most westerners (for only immigration to western countries seems to be an issue here) don't feel that immigrants are being "fucked"; indeed a major objection is that the population are being expropriated to benefit newcomers. No nation in history has "fucked" immigrants less than modern western states.

Now a couple of points;

Yup, and any club also has the right to ban smoking/drugs/drinking, require membership dues (taxes), ban junk food from their premises, impose all sorts of requirements as to what is required of its members, etc etc.

Basically yes, with a couple of qualifications. The first is that it then behooves the club members to not appoint a central committee that does such things. This is the central problem for liberty. The USA has demonstrated that no attempt at restraint of government by a higher power- e.g. a Constitution- will be successful in the long term. Ultimately, the only way to stop an abusive central committee is a membership who won't agree to its abuses. Stacking the ranks of the membership with theocratic collectivists isn't a good way to achieve that.

I must hasten to add at this point that our current state is due to too many moralist collectivists in our own ranks; but admitting illiberal newcomers is only going to make that worse. In pragmatic terms the political cartels are already fighting for muslim votes, who are now a major voting bloc. The number of muslims who are libertarians is probably down in the single figures. Immigration is not a good strategy for liberty.

If I choose to let, say, 5 Kazakh immigrants live in my house, then that's my choice and my property

Well, fine, if you keep them on your property.

But the current situation is that we live in a collective; that is, there are vast swathes of the country collectively owned, whether we like it or not. The question is whether newcomers should be admitted to the collective; entitled to use the collective property and vote for the collective's central committee and so on, because that affects every individual. You cannot hide from the collective's actions, however much you may wish to. Indeed, the collective *forces* you to interact with others whether you wish to or not. These newcomers will be forced upon you. You cannot by law choose who to allow onto your private property any more. Try opening an indigenous-only bar, and you'll end up in court. Try refusing a burka babe a job because you don't like burkas, you're in court again.

So it comes down to what is a rational policy for our current situation. Anti-immigrationists don't want other people, and their cultures, forced upon them. They cannot hide from it on their private property. We do not live in a libertarian country, not even a little bit.

The issue, for most current anti-immigrationists, is one of culture, and libertarians who bang on about economic advantage or disadvantage aren't addressing the question. You may not be interested in "nationalism", but you probably have some vested interest in your (our) culture, even if you don't realise it. Your lifestyle is rooted in living a western lifestyle, among other westerners. If the culture around you changes drastically, you will be forced to adapt to it.


(for some reason I can't post this in one comment, what's that all about DK? so I continue below)

1/06/2010 06:21:00 pm  
Blogger Ian B said...

Many people do not want to be forced to adapt in this way. Politicians get to live in leafy, white suburbs. Ordinary people watch their area changing drastically around them and resent that, and try to resist it, and that is entirely understandable. People are being *forced* to change, and they are being forced to change into something they do not want to be.

The general attitude is; let other cultures live as they wish in their parts of the world. We would like to live as we wish, in our part of the world. The political elites, driven by Junior Common Room politics they never grew out of, are subjecting western populations to an unprecedented, and irreversible, social experiment. In a libertarian world, migration would be no problem. We all know that. There would be no great economic differences between countries, no welfare states, no governments wielding monarchic power who could impose their madness on their subjects, and no floods of migration from one part of the world to another. Indeed, under liberty the nation states would gradually, naturally, wither away until some centuries hence, people would remark that this bit of the world used to be called England, and there were borders around it, and how annoying that must have been.

But we do not live in that world. We live in a world where most people are collectivists, and many are fucking mad collectivists. There is our own madness, the madness of our elites (slop buckets!). But there are madnesses from other parts of the world, being forcibly brought to our part of the world, and that is scary for those people without the wealth or connections to avoid them.

It would be nice to create a libertarian world, wouldn't it? I have no idea how to even start doing that right now. The best that libertarians can hope for is to take control of their little parts of the world, and start making them liberal again. That will, in practical terms, mean being something of a fortress, I'm afraid. The best real hope is to aim for liberty within the fortress walls, and hope that the happy resultant state will act as a model that others will follow and, thus, gradually spread liberty across the globe as peoples choose to adopt it. In other words, "within these borders, we are as free as can be achieved".

But at this stage in history, flinging open the gates and crying "come one, come all!" is madness. Liberty is a western idea, and even here it only gained partial traction. We can be certain that once the western populations are dispossessed, as may happen this century, then the hope within any reasonable timescale of reviving it is gone.

1/06/2010 06:22:00 pm  
Blogger Fophillips said...

Reading this whilst listening to the last half of Fistful of Love by Antony and the Johnsons was magnificent.

1/06/2010 08:43:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said Ian B. I consider myself a libertarian, but see nothing but a totalitarian monster being created here by the political elite's obsession with so called multiculturalism. Do these dangerous fools from the 70s NUS think they are filling the land with gay and women's rights loving liberals from the third world?

1/06/2010 10:45:00 pm  
Blogger TheMurf said...

What a wacky, loopy, nasty, selfish little screed.

Thank heavens such thinking is laughed out of British politics.

1/07/2010 04:34:00 pm  
Anonymous ian (different) b said...

Ian B said:

"In a libertarian world, migration would be no problem. We all know that. There would be no great economic differences between countries, no welfare states, no governments wielding monarchic power who could impose their madness on their subjects, and no floods of migration from one part of the world to another. Indeed, under liberty the nation states would gradually, naturally, wither away until some centuries hence, people would remark that this bit of the world used to be called England, and there were borders around it, and how annoying that must have been."

Sounds very nice, but I used to hear the same utopian stuff from the Marxists and Trots of my (much) younger days.

1/07/2010 08:32:00 pm  
Blogger Nurse Anne said...

Great Post. Now if only the majority of the people didn't believe that big inefficient wasteful government was the answer to all their problems. We might actually get somewhere.

1/08/2010 10:26:00 am  
Blogger Nurse Anne said...

If America had listened to their best Libertarian http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foXQbmZxWYY
instead of shutting him out of the presidential debates they wouldn't be stuck with obamacare-a terrible plan that is going to finish america off for good.

1/08/2010 10:42:00 am  
Anonymous Sam said...

Well said DK!

1/10/2010 11:39:00 am  
Blogger Endivio Roquefort I said...

"But at this stage in history, flinging open the gates and crying "come one, come all!" is madness."

If you're worried about the effect of including such a proposal in the UKLP's platform, relax, because they won't get elected. Ever.

Why not? Because the way for s tiny nothing party to become a big electable party is for it to show it has principles it sticks up for regardless of temporary expediency. And if the slimy, spineless buck-passing xenophobes here are anything to go by, that ain't gonna happen with the UKLP any time soon.

Stillborn about sums it up. What a lost opportunity.

1/13/2010 02:43:00 am  
Blogger Ian B said...

Do you know the story of the Moriori, Endivio? They were the indigenous people of the Chatham Islands and they had an absolute moral principle of pacifism. Their neighbours in New Zealand, the Maori, had a different ideology; they believed that a man who will not fight is worthy only of being killed and eaten.

The Maori chartered a ship, and invaded the Chatham Islands. The Moriori elders decided that their principle must be preserved regardless of the consequences. The Maori killed them, and ate them. All of them.

The moral of this tale is that principle must always be checked against reality.

1/13/2010 03:05:00 am  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Testimonials

  • "The best British political/libertarian blog on the web. Consistently excellent but not for the squeamish."—Christopher Snowdon
  • "[He] runs the infamous and fantastically sweary Devil’s Kitchen blog, and because he’s one of the naughtiest geeks (second only to the incredibly, incredibly naughty Guido Fawkes) he’s right at the top of the evil dork hierarchy."—Charlotte Gore
  • "I met the Devil's Kitchen the other night. What a charming young man he is, and considerably modest too..."—Peter Briffa
  • "The Devil's Kitchen exposes hypocrisy everywhere, no holds barred."—Wrinkled Weasel
  • "People can still be controversial and influential whilst retaining integrity—Devil's Kitchen springs to mind—and attract frequent but intelligent comment."—Steve Shark, at B&D
  • "Sometimes too much, sometimes wrong, sometimes just too much but always worth a read. Not so much a blog as a force of nature."—The Nameless Libertarian
  • "The Devil's Kitchen—a terrifying blog that covers an astonishing range of subjects with an informed passion and a rage against the machine that leaves me in awe..."—Polaris
  • "He rants like no one else in the blogosphere. But it's ranting in an eloquent, if sweary, kind of way. Eton taught him a lot."—Iain Dale
  • "But for all that, he is a brilliant writer—incisive, fisker- extraordinaire and with an over developed sense of humour... And he can back up his sometimes extraordinary views with some good old fashioned intellectual rigour... I'm promoting him on my blogroll to a daily read."—Iain Dale
  • "... an intelligent guy and a brilliant writer..."—A Very British Dude
  • "... the glorious Devil's Kitchen blog—it's not for the squeamish or easily offended..."—Samizdata
  • "... a very, smart article... takes a pretty firm libertarian line on the matter."—Samizdata
  • "By the way, DK seems to be on fucking good form at the moment."—Brian Mickelthwait
  • "Perhaps the best paragraph ever written in the history of human creation. It's our Devil on fine form."—Vindico
  • "Devil's Kitchen is the big name on the free-market libertarian strand of the British blogosphere... Profane rants are the immediate stand-out feature of DK's blog, but the ranting is backed up by some formidable argument on a wide range of issues particularly relating to British and European parliamentary politics, economics, and civil liberties."—Question That
  • "... an excellent, intelligent UK political blog which includes a great deal of swearing."—Dr Aubrey Blumsohn
  • "I like the Devil's Kitchen. I think it's one of the best written and funniest blogs in the business."—Conservative Party Reptile
  • "The. Top. UK. Blogger."—My Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
  • "For sheer intelligence, erudition and fun, Iain Dale's Diary, Cranmer and Devil's Kitchen are so far ahead of the rest I don't see how they can figure in a top ten. They are the Beatles, Stones and Who of the blog world; the Astair, Bogart and Marlon Brando of the blog world; the Gerswin, Porter and Novello of the blog world; the Dot Cotton, Pat Butcher, Bette Lynch of the blog world..."—Wrinkled Weasel
  • "It's the blogging equivalent of someone eating Ostrich Vindaloo, washed down by ten bottles of Jamaican hot pepper sauce and then proceeding to breathe very close to your face while talking about how lovely our politicians are... But there's much more to his writing than four letter words."—Tom Tyler
  • "God bless the Devil's Kitchen... Colourful as his invective is, I cannot fault his accuracy."—Tom Paine
  • "The Devil's Kitchen is a life-affirming, life-enhancing blog ... This particular post will also lead you to some of the best soldiers in the army of swearbloggers of which he is Field Marshal."—The Last Ditch
  • "... underneath all the ranting and swearing [DK]'s a very intelligent and thoughtful writer whom many people ... take seriously, despite disagreeing with much of what he says."—Not Saussure
  • "... the most foul-mouthed of bloggers, Devils Kitchen, was always likely to provoke (sometimes disgust, but more often admiration)."—The Times Online
  • "The always entertaining Mr Devil's Kitchen..."—The Times's Comment Central
  • "Frankly, this is ranting of the very highest calibre."—The Nameless Libertarian
  • "I don't mean it literally, or even metaphorically. I just find that his atheism aside, I agree with everything the Devil (of Kitchen fame...) says. I particularly enjoy his well crafted and sharp swearing, especially when addressed at self righteous lefties..."—The Tin Drummer
  • "Spot on accurate and delightful in its simplicity, Devil's Kitchen is one of the reasons that we're not ready to write off EUroweenie-land just yet. At least not until we get done evacuating the ones with brains."—Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
  • "This hugely entertaining, articulate, witty Scottish commentator is also one of the most foul-mouthed bloggers around. Gird up your loins and have a look. Essential reading."—Doctor Crippen
  • "The Devil's Kitchen is one of the foremost blogs in the UK. The DK is bawdy, foul-mouthed, tasteless, vulgar, offensive and frequently goes beyond all boundaries of taste and decency. So why on earth does Dr Crippen read the DK? Because he reduces me to a state of quivering, helpless laughter."—Doctor Crippen's Grand Rounds
  • "DK is a take-no-prisoners sort of libertarian. His blog is renowned for its propensity for foul-mouthed invective, which can be both amusing and tiresome by turns. Nevertheless, he is usually lucid, often scintillating and sometimes illuminating."—Dr Syn
  • "If you enjoy a superior anti-Left rant, albeit one with a heavy dash of cursing, you could do worse than visit the Devil's Kitchen. The Devil is an astute observer of the evils of NuLabour, that's for sure. I for one stand converted to the Devil and all his works."—Istanbul Tory
  • "... a sick individual."—Peter Briffa
  • "This fellow is sharp as a tack, funny as hell, and—when something pisses him off—meaner than a badger with a case of the bullhead clap."—Green Hell
  • "Foul-mouthed eloquence of the highest standard. In bad taste, offensive, immoderate and slanderous. F***ing brilliant!—Guest, No2ID Forum
  • "a powerfully written right-of-center blog..."—Mangan's Miscellany
  • "I tend to enjoy Devil's Kitchen not only because I disagree with him quite a lot of the time but because I actually have to use my brain to articulate why."—Rhetorically Speaking
  • "This blog is currently slamming. Politics certainly ain't all my own. But style and prose is tight, fierce, provocative. And funny. OK, I am a child—swear words still crack a laugh."—Qwan
  • "hedonistic, abrasive but usually good-natured..."—The G-Gnome
  • "10,000 words per hour blogging output... prolific or obsessive compulsive I have yet to decide..."—Europhobia
  • "a more favoured blog from the sensible Right..."—Great Britain...
  • "Devils Kitchen, a right thinking man indeed..."—EU Serf
  • "an excellent blog..."—Rottweiler Puppy
  • "Anyone can cuss. But to curse in an imaginative fashion takes work."—Liftport Staff Blog
  • "The Devil's Kitchen: really very funny political blog."—Ink & Incapability
  • "I've been laffing fit to burst at the unashamed sweariness of the Devil's Kitchen ~ certainly my favourite place recently."—SoupDragon
  • "You can't beat the writing and general I-may-not-know-about-being-polite-but-I-know-what-I-like attitude."—SoupDragon
  • "Best. Fisking. Ever. I'm still laughing."—LC Wes, Imperial Mohel
  • "Art."—Bob
  • "It made me laugh out loud, and laugh so hard—and I don't even get all the references... I hope his politics don't offend you, but he is very funny."—Furious, WoT Forum
  • "DK himself is unashamedly right-wing, vitriolic and foul mouthed, liberally scattering his posts with four-letter-words... Not to be read if you're easily offended, but highly entertaining and very much tongue in cheek..."—Everything Is Electric
  • "This blog is absolutely wasted here and should be on the front page of one of the broadsheets..."—Commenter at The Kitchen
  • "[This Labour government] is the most mendacious, dishonest, endemically corrupt, power-hungry, incompetent, illiberal fucking shower of shits that has ruled this country..."—DK

Blogroll

Campaign Links

All: Daily Reads (in no particular order)

Politics (in no particular order)

Climate Change (in no particular order)

General & Humour (in no particular order)

Mac,Design Tech & IT (in no particular order)