Since people occasionally ask what I think of Tony Blair, here's a post I made about him on the Libertarian Alliance group during his first term as PM - before everyone had come to realise the full extent of his wickedness.
New Labour: a qualitatively new danger.
Part of this I've said before, in April when Nicholas was temporarilyoff-list - but for those with a high boredom threshold here's the fullversion - in all its venom.Over the last few years I've heard many seemingly intelligent, sensible anddiscerning people claim that Tony Blair is the acceptable face of moderndemocratic socialism. He's a moderate, they claim - prepared to listen, flexible, non-dogmatic,in some ways progressive, respectful of the market, a reforming character,well-intentioned, caring, affable, decent, principled, courageous, honest,sincere, and above all, better than the Tories. I think all such claims are entirely mistaken.In my opinion, Blair is NOT for liberty, peace, justice, self-interest,this world, rights or any type of political decency that I recognise: hisopen contempt for Britain's ancient institutions and traditions of freedom- the Bill of Rights, the Lords, the Commons, trial by jury, doublejeopardy, habeas corpus, presumption of innocence, the right to bear arms,and conversely his love of civil forfeiture, on-the-spot fines, the minimumwage, price controls, the Euro, EU warrants, the World Court, war [ 6 sincehe came to office], etc., is surely a matter of public record. He is a mystic, an altruist and a collectivist - his seemingly pro-libertywords have no more meaning or truth than either Kant's or Rousseau's orComte's on the same subject. His agenda is entirely 'internationalist' based on a twisted Tooheyesquevision of man - his deepest desire being the establishment of a global,unelected, Platonic elite who will be our state appointed guardians in boththis world - and the next. Neither should he be congratulated for his firmness in the face of aserious international threat in the Middle East.His main man in Basra was an Imam [!] subsequently shot and killed, and hisstated purpose in the Iraqi war was NOT to defeat terrorism but to save theUN and EU from being abandoned by the USA - see his speech at the LabourParty's 2002 conference:'If at this moment having found the collective will to recognise thedanger...we will destroy not the authority of America or Britain but of theUnited Nations itself.'He continues:'...we need coalitions not just to deal with evil by force if necessary,but coalitions for peace, coalitions to tackle poverty, ignorance anddisease. A coalition to fight terrorism and a coalition to give Africa hope. A coalition to re-build the nation of Afghanistan as strong as thecoalition to defeat the Taliban. A coalition to fight the scourge of AIDS, to protect the planet from [waitfor it - JC ] climate change...''...the Euro is not just about our economy but our destiny.''Interdependence is the core reality of the modern world. It is revolutionising our idea of national interest. It is forcing us to locate that interest in the wider internationalcommunity. It is making solidarity - a great social democratic ideal - our route topractical survival. Partnership is statesmanship for the twenty-first century.''The [Tory] purpose is not just to undermine the government, but toundermine Government, to destroy the belief that we can collectivelyachieve anything...' 'Those great Governments of 1906 and 1945 did great things.' [The worstgovernments in British history - JC]'Why shouldn't classroom assistants and IT specialists be every bit asimportant as teachers in the future.' [ IT specialists may recall the effect of IR35 - the tax which the Tories deemed unlawful. - JC]http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/IRAQ/TB011002.HTMI could go on - the dismantling of the British Union to Europe's greatdelight, for example - but you get the collectivist agenda.OK, you say, so isn't he just like any other labourite?No.Previous traitors like Lloyd George and Clement Attlee were cut from thesame cloth sure enough, but they DID leave us with the capacity topeacefully put right the damage which they had wrought upon ourconstitution. The welfare state COULD have been pushed back by any Tory party withsufficient moral conviction to do so. That they didn't is a lastingdisgrace - the Tories often appear, to me, to be an ingenious front forlabour - but leaving cynicism aside, the fact is, they could have turnedthe tide on welfarism if they had wanted to. But will that be the case with the EU and Blair's new EU Constitution?I've already read comments from senior Federasts claiming secession fromthe current EU to be unlawful. Any new EU Constitution is certain to strengthen that view.Indeed I wonder what type of response the EU would make if a future Torygovernment did decide to do the sensible thing and take us out of the EU.Would Brussels insist on an economic blockade in spite of the tremendouseconomic harm it would have to the EU itself - they are mercantilists afterall. We are already in deep trouble, up to our necks, and, thanks to Blair -getting deeper.So how has Blair managed to place us in such jeopardy and with so littleopposition?This leads us to my main criticism of Blair - his calculated capacity toappear as one thing while being another as he acquires complete control ofan increasing degree public and private life. No other politician that I know of can match his chameleon-like duplicity.Definitely not Gordon Brown who is a standard labour ignoramus doing hisutmost to destroy the economy in the usual labour manner. True, Brown could be the next labour leader but he would still be the typethat we're familiar with and know how to defeat. Middle England will never endure his Dr. Death demeanour for very longanyway - they are too pro-life. And it's the same with the other potential labour leaders. For the great,vote-casting swathes of Middle England Robin Cook is merely a Scottish gitand Claire Short is but a common slut - they're all easy to identify andthe average swing-voter is amply capable of seeing through their phoneypublic veneers.Even a Marxist Prime Minister like Arthur Scargill would still be only aMarxist - if by some miracle he ever became Prime Minister he'd last lessthan a term before the forces of opposition would throw him back on thepolitical scrap-heap where he currently resides.But Blair is different - he's far more dangerous to the people of thiscountry than any Marxist because Blair, uniquely, has the capacity tomaintain all the niceties and appearances of Middle England whilesimultaneously destroying every virtue they represent, progressivelysubverting or neutering all rival powers of office - consider how blithelyhe announced his intention to dismiss the 700 year-old Office of LordChancellor.I could give dozens of examples of his treachery but, to illustrate, I'llfocus on just one - his destruction of the House of Lords. Superficially it seems an anachronism that any political authority shouldbe placed in the hands of a small, hereditary and often wealthy minority. But within the context of an unwritten Constitution, it is their Lordship'swealth and hereditary status that raises their judgements above thetemporary egotistical, and often corrupting, concerns of Asquithianunscrupulousness.It is precisely their independence from urgent democratic impulses andpecuniary misfortune that suits them to the impartial task of legislativejudgement - as Lords they cannot propose any legislation themselves - theycan only block or suggest amendments to proposed legislation from theelected chamber.In this sense they function not unlike a very large Supreme Court,constraining the ambitions of the executive through the subjection ofintemperate legislation to the scrutiny of not only justice andpracticality but - in the absence of a written Constitution - to the opencourt of history and tradition, not an insubstantial court either, giventhis country's unparalleled history and tradition.But, incredibly, Blair has effectively neutered the Lords without a shotbeing fired - he has somehow managed to persuade their Lordships, in hisbest Middle England accent, to slit their own throats, something neitherHitler nor Napoleon ever came close to.For a collectivist this is no slight achievement.Why?Let us examine what would have happened if Blair had left the Lords intact.Certainly any democratic tyrant less prescient than Blair may well havereasoned that when it comes to passing controversial legislation, the useof the Parliament Act [which supposedly obviates the need for the Lord'sassent] would be sufficient to bypass hostility from the upper chamberwithin the framework of the UK's existing constitution; it would still betreason in my view, but it's been used before so at least it wouldn't seemunprecedented. But how many times could a popular demagogue have recourse to theParliament Act in the face of a large, influential, connected, andwell-organised resistance of educated aristocrats and still remain popular- trial by jury, double jeopardy, Corpus Juris, Kyoto II, World Court, EUtaxes, UN taxes, anti-trust, on-the-spot fines, ID Cards - would theirLordships and their associates in business, law, and the wider community bewilling to remain silent and passive in the press and on TV for all ofthat, year on year? Far better for the ambitious power-luster to subvert the system at itsfoundation and reduce the potential of opposition from the upper chamber toan irrelevance - though not in the manner of a Nero or a Fascist thug, butcoolly, calmly, openly, as a caring, sharing, progressive, touchy-feely,fair-minded, 'people's representative' who really is 'the best Tory PrimeMinister we've ever had.' Then all he has to do is wait a couple of years and flood the chamber witha pack of Tony's appointed Cronies, which, according to the latest pressreports, is exactly what Blair plans.We've seen this type of cunning, and our culture's critical miscalculationof it, before.In the Age of Reason, Augustus Caesar, like sundry Chinese emperors, wasseen by many educated commentators as the very model of the enlightenedstatesman.Hundreds of books of literature and science were published in dedication tothe great 'Augustan Age' as the Neoclassicists described their own era.Considered in the early 1700's, Augustus Caesar, apparently, was not adictator but a 'persuasive' 'leading citizen' and he didn't issue commandsbut exercised 'authoritative influence.' It wasn't until later, as scholarship improved, that historians came torealise that the enduring damages inflicted on Rome by Augustus Caesar's directsuccessors, Tiberius and Caligula, were facilitated by Augustus' relentlesscentralisation of political power. 'So what?' You might say. 'Blair may well be lousy careerist who can fake a tear, but what's new? Atleast he's an affable chap and he intends well, and unlike the Toryfossils, he's got a modern outlook and has even repealed section 28.'Well, he's also mooted plans to introduce a new Sexual Offences Bill makingopen air sex illegal - even between married couples in locationsunfrequented by the public.This latter epitomises the nature and scope of Blair's TRUE ambition.Every liberal concession to 'civil' rights has been accompanied by anotherdeeper encroachment into the realm of REAL rights.There is scarcely a single aspect of an individual's life that does not nowowe its continuance to his cabinet's political good-will - where we cansmoke cigarettes, to what we can eat, how long we can work, what medicineswe can take, what fuels we can burn , how much water we can use in ourwashing machines and water closets, the standards by which we measuretemperature and the weight of fruit and vegetables - the list is endless.But the ominous thing about good-will is that it is an intangible quality thatcan be as easily withdrawn as bestowed. Imagine what powers a true dictator might wield now Blair has accustomed usto the habit of unbridled political authority.In my view, thanks largely to Tony Blair, it is three full centuries sincethe people of this country were so politically exposed, almost tencenturies since we had a leader so historically retrogressive.In 1962, before he was assassinated, Ayn Rand wrote a pamphlet entitled'The Fascist New Frontier' comparing the policies of JFK '[W]e must...combinethe strength of public and private agencies, public and private purposes,public and private interests,' to the policies Adolf Hitler.Reading that pamphlet today in the context of Blair's Britain is agenuinely chilling experience.For my part I think Tony Blair is a DEEPLY EVIL MAN.I think it is a grave mistake to offer any sort of approval of him for anyof his actions whatever the alleged resemblance to virtue.
