From Free Life, Issue 26, December 1996
ISSN: 0260 5112

In your last issue [Free Life, No.25, May 1996], you were asked by some of your writers to send birthday greetings to Mrs Elizabeth Battenburg, so called Queen of England.

We were nearly tempted to cancel our subscription. The only thing that keeps the full force of my hatred from Mrs B. is the thought of her disgusting family. Take her husband - a man who spent his youth and middle age fathering offspring, and is now spending his old age whining about overpopulation. Take her eldest son - a tree-hugging adulterer who on the one hand wants to Save the Earth by putting up the price of refrigerators for ordinary people and on the other drives a Bentley that does seven miles to the gallon. Take his ex-wife - a parasitic harlot who would have made the taxpayers of this country about a million pounds richer if only she had tried a little harder the last time she threw herself downstairs. Others in the tribe - we hesitate to give names - are guilty of every disgraceful act from hiring contract killers to pimping their wives and children.

And we are to celebrate and bend the knee when the head of these degenerates makes it to 70? Shame on your writers, Sir. We only hope you were too lazy to send on their greetings!

Yours in outrage,

Vincent and Dianne Parker,
Birmingham.

Sir,

On the cover of your last issue [Free Life, No.25, May 1996], you carried a picture of Perseus, naked except for a sword, which conceals about a two inch strip across his loins. Looking closely at the picture, I cannot determine whether he is sadly under-endowed, or in a state of wild excitement - an excitement that it may be illegal to show, bearing in mind his likely age and what he has just done to Medusa.

I hope Mr Howard is not among your subscribers.

Your sincerely,

Percival Glyde,
Hampshire.

Sir,

In his letter in Free Life No. 25, May 1996, Nicholas Dykes opines that depictions of kinky sexuality are trivial and highly unlikely to recruit people to libertarianism. Indeed, he doubts whether any recruits actually obtained through this means would be recruits worth having. I think he is wrong on each of these points.

First, one reason why freedom is so important is that people are very different. What is of no consequence to one is vitally important to another. Sex is a very significant part of life for most people for most of the time. And some people like their sex kinky. For these people, kinky sex is not a trivial matter; and it takes on a particular importance for them when it is criminalised and suppressed. This also makes it a matter of importance for libertarians even if they have no personal interest in kinky sex.

Second, the fact that kinky sex is suppressed - or even just threatened with suppression - means that those with an interest in it are likely to become acutely aware of the importance of personal liberty. Such people will evidently find some attraction in libertarianism and some of them can be recruited to the cause, if only we make the effort to reach them. I speak from personal experience. Back in 1991, I considered myself apolitical; which means, in effect, that I was a socialist, because I unconsciously imbibed the prevailing left-wing assumptions. However, I had a keen interest in pornography; and the anti-pornography orthodoxies seemed to me to be plainly wrong, as I would point out in discussion with friends and acquaintances. One day, when browsing through the brochure of Ryder Publishing (a publisher of sado-masochistic pornography), I came across a reference to the Libertarian Alliance, which was described as a defender of sexual freedom. I wrote to the LA and was sent a bundle of pamphlets - some on sex, some on other issues - and a publications list. I ordered some more pamphlets, and within no time I was hooked!

Third, I think I am a recruit worth having. But then I would think that, wouldn't I? Mr Dykes will have to make up his own mind.

Yours kinkily,

Danny Frederick,
London.

Sir,

Regardless of whether or not he is correct in stating that the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) is portrayed on television as "embarrassing old fart dinosaurs", why does Brian Micklethwait [Free Life, No.25, May 1996] think that this description is not unjust?

If our political élite has its way, the United Kingdom will effectively cease to exist as an independent nation state within the lifetime of the next Parliament. The UKIP is a non-racist, non-sectarian political party dedicated to preventing this by withdrawal from the European Union.

There is nothing remotely similar presently available to the electorate - nor is there likely to be in time for the next election.

The alternative, if the current Government has its way, is the appearance, within a generation, of fascist "patriotic" parties in this country.

How does Mr Micklethwait propose to avoid this outcome?

Yours sincerely,

Fabian Olins,
London.

Sir,

The belief that China is transforming itself from a socialist tyranny to modern capitalism is false. Even as I write, there are millions of people imprisoned in Chinese concentration camps, and nearly 2 million of them die every year.

And we are among the beneficiaries of this evil system. The concentration camps are easily comparable to those run by the German National Socialists and the Russian Bolshevics; and in them are produced nearly 60 per cent of Chinese exports to the West. The Chinese ruling classes are effectively the owners of vast slave factories. They are seeking - and increasingly obtaining - investment and other forms of cooperation from Western companies.

Considering the above information - which merely outlines the problem - we call for a boycott of all Chinese products throughout the civilised world. We further call on all institutions, organisations and private persons to make themselves aware of which products originate in China, and to make this information generally available. We call for a boycott on China comparable in scale to that organised against the apartheid régime in South Africa.

We plan this boycott to start in June 1997. For help and all further information, please contact us at the address given below.

Yours sincerely,

Jacek Kaczmarek
The Initiative for A General Boycott of Chinese Products
c/o Stowarzyszenie Przyjaciol Ziemi (Association of Earth's Friends)
P.O.Box 65
76-200 Slupsk
Poland.

Sir,

Some information from Poland that your readers may find interesting. According to Gazeta Wycorcza, which is the largest daily newspaper in Poland, there was recently a gun battle in Terespol. About 200 members of a mafia gang attacked a bus carrying private security guards. The purpose of this was to frighten the guards away and then to extort money from passengers on the main railway line between Warsaw and Moscow. But the owner of the security firm had been warned of this attack, and hired hired seven armed policemen from Warsaw. One of these shot a mafia man in the legs during the battle, and the others ran away.

However, when the local police arrived, they arrested not merely the wounded criminal but also the policemen from Warsaw. These were immediately suspended by their superiors, and are now threatened with very serious disciplinary action. They claim that the Terespol police are in the pay of the mafia, pointing out how most of the criminals were allowed to run away without any attempt at pursuit, and how the ones arrested were allowed to keep their cellular phone.

Moreover, the security firm has now withdrawn from the contract, and travellers on the Warsw to Moscow line are routinely robbed of their possessions.

All this illustrates the following:

• Because of strict licensing laws, most people do not have guns and so cannot protect themselves against criminal aggression.
• The state police are no protection against this.
• Only private protections agencies attempt to defend people against criminals, but are not able to arm their guards.
• Therefore, the mafia gangs are more powerful and honest people are weaker.

What conclusion? Of course, the state not only is a legitimised mafia criminal gang, but also assists private criminal gangs.

Yours sincerely,

Jacek Sierpinski,
Katowice.

Sir,

In your last Editorial [Free Life No. 25, May 1996], you said that you had no idea what to do about the childish stupidity of the British people in giving up their ancient liberties.

I have no ultimate solution to that problem. However, I can make one suggestion to moderate the symptoms of the malady. I suggest to any of the fiends and psychopaths who read this Journal, and who may be contemplating some act of violence, that they should also kill as many as possible of the relatives, friends and neighbours of their victims. In this way, we might be spared the frenzied shroud-waving that invariably follows such incidents.

Of course, your more perceptive readers might realise that this would considerably raise the murder rate. It would have required Thomas Hamilton, for example, to dynamite the whole of Dunblane rather than just shoot a few of the children there. On the other hand, this would not have been without its advantages. It would have prevented the "debate" on guns during the past eight months. It would also have rid the world of Mrs Anne Pearston. Indeed, had Mr Hamilton only waited before pushing the plunger until Michael Forsyth was holding a surgery in the town, the world would most certainly have been made a better place.

Yours sincerely,

Eleanor Fosco,
Versailles.