Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Climate Change Against Free Speech - Moderation at *The Daily Blog*

Why is the Left so arrogantly intolerant of free speech and dissent to the theocracy they assume of themselves? Their willful blindness to any ideas outside their perceived truths means that even on any point they might be right, they are still wrong. At heart it's an emotional immaturity, arising from their truths being the product of emoting, not thinking. For example, every sane human being wants to see an end to poverty, the Left have no monopoly over compassion; but no reasoned solution will include theft, the destruction of rights and freedoms, and creation of dependency on the state that leads into a cycle of poverty which the cult of redistribution gives. Though what concerns me is, once free speech is gone, there is only violence left. More on that soon; first the latest litany of proof.

I am always respectful when commenting on other blogs, yet my comments seldom make it past moderation on most Left-centric sites. I've not tried to comment on The Daily Blog for six or seven months, but over the weekend decided a comment was warranted on a post talking about what a disaster Peter Dunne's Psychoactive Substances Act is, because I agreed with it. That Act is a disaster from the toxic, psychosis forming sludge it legalises, to the barbaric animal testing it authorises. My point to the blog post was, however, that due to the nanny state mentality of all our governing parties, and central to the Left ethic, we are treated as children, hence non-toxic, harmless, medicinal, even, cannabis remains criminalised. That comment never made it past moderation.

My blog is not moderated because I believe absolutely in free speech. The Daily Blog has every right to moderate their blog, but once they start choosing who is allowed to comment, and what they're allowed to say, that begins saying more about them, than their blog's content. Once you start moderating you may as well simply switch off comments, as No Right Turn does, and then you can pretend you are the alpha to omega of truth, while ignoring the illusory truth of the free lunch.

And moderated blogs also undermine themselves, as Mark Steyn makes plain in the climate debate:

The fact that 'climate change' is not secure enough to tolerate dissent, helps explain why it's going nowhere.'

This is not a post on climate change, I'm not sure enough about the science either way, (or overly interested), but the manner in which the 'alarmist' camp are playing roughshod over free speech, is putting me firmly in the camp of the deniers, even if they're wrong, given free speech is far more important than man-made climate change, if that is, indeed, occurring. There certainly seems to be a new era of McCarthyism:

At the heart of the current, poisoned debate about global warming lies a paradox. Thanks to the ‘pause’, the unexpected plateau in world surface temperatures which has now lasted for 17 years, the science is less ‘settled’ than it has been for years.

Yet, despite this uncertainty, those who use it to justify a range of potentially ruinous energy policies have become ever more extreme in their pronouncements. Their latest campaign is an attempt to silence anyone who disagrees.

This reached a new and baleful milestone last week, with a report from the Commons Science and Technology Committee saying BBC editors must obtain special ‘clearance’ before interviewing climate ‘sceptics’.

Yes, that. The advocates of global warming, as with too much of the blinkered, conservative Left politick, need to grow up. And don't pretend some type of compassionate, moral superiority that gives you a right to run my life: the reality is far removed from that. Plus like Steyn, my mind remains, always, firmly onside of the free society: I'm a free speech absolutist, because the alternative is only violence:

I've always been in favor of freedom of expression, but lately I've become a free-speech absolutist. It takes all sorts to make a world and I've met a lot of them over the years, and I can stand pretty much anything anyone says about anything — until someone says to me, "You can't say that." At which point my inclination is to punch his lights out. I do this not just because I'm a violent psychopath with a hair-trigger temper, but to make the important point that in societies where you're not free to speak your mind — to argue and debate — the only way to express disagreement is through violence.


  1. I was wondering about the use of a particular polemnic technique, which I have frequently observed and not only in your output. You begin by accusing 'alarmists' of having it as an article of faith that man made climate change is a real thing however you then go on to state that its an article of faith that you are on the opposite side to theirs regardless of the facts.

    To me this would debase any accusations made against the targets of the polemnic, on the grounds you are advocating an openly hypocritical position, but I see this in so many cases I assume there must be more to it. Was this intentional? And why would this not undermine your credibility with the reader?

    1. It would only ruin my credibility with sloppy readers: i'm saying that climate change, or not, is unimportant compared with free speech. If you have no free speech you're living in a barred cell and the weather outside doesn't matter.

      Right' that's the first pin pulled from the pin cushion of Nic, do we have to pull the remaining 1,000 now?

    2. By the way, I never said alarmists take it as a matter of faith, indeed I said I have no solid view on the science.

      See, sloppy reading.

    3. You will have to excuse me in that case as I took it that your first sentence, "why is the left so arrogantly intollerant to free speach and dissent and theocracy they assume of themselves" was a hat tip to the oft repeated nonsense that climate science was simply assuming its conclusions. In fact it seems from other comments I was not the only reader to take such an implication. And to further back that up you hasten to use the name 'alarmists' which only adds the implication that concern about changes in the earths climate is an intentionally overblown issue. Its more than clear what your meaning was I think, why you would deny this was the original implication is beyond me.

    4. Mark Stein has on the otherhand rather taken you in. He does not have any kind of issue expressing himself or his dissent and there is no punishment for his continued decision to do so. The BBC is simply protecting its reputation as a reliable public broadcaster which presents credible scientific evidence in their reporting. Stein has nothing to offer in this regard and he is complaining that he cant sponge off the credibility of others (without editorial approval) to try to imply credibility his message lacks. Obviously this is not a free speech issue.

    5. :) And here was I thinking for once I'd missed torture by a thousand Nic pricks.

      I am simply using the climate debate as an example, and a good title. My opening sentence refers, as I later state, to the fact even when I write comments in good faith - ie, nice posts as opposed to the bad faith you also show on this blog - left centric blogs, including The Daily Blog, The Standard and Labour's Red Alert, they never get posted, caught up every time on their razor wire of moderation.

      In other words, if you take a mirror image of this post and your comments, plus comments on other threads, regarding the blogs I'm talking about, none of you posts would've seen the light of day, as your's do here.

      It certainly is a free speech issue 'in totality'. I admit they have every right to moderate, but that says more about their intolerance and insecurity, than their content says anything useful, therefore.

      Better pull your next pin out quick: I've got to clean my beer shed and cellar.

  2. Great post, shared on Facebook.

  3. Refresh my memory, didn't our very own Green party try and block a denier speaking in Wellington? My memory is hazy around this.

    1. I don't follow the Green Party close enough to know, but if true it would be unsurprising.

    2. (OT I wish I could figure out google+)

  4. "The fact that 'climate change' is not secure enough to tolerate dissent, helps explain why it's going nowhere.'"

    In this vein its hard to see why Islam is going somewhere. Perhaps its just at the point of a gun?

    The left hate dissent because the dissenters often make sense. When you know you can't debate the facts you have to shut down the debate and that's what has happened with climate change. I remain convinced its was an engineered vehicle that would allow the UN to take charge and it must be of some concern that the climate won't play the game.