Metal Reviews

That means abandoning the notion that different communities should be able to live according to their own values and traditions as long as they stay within the law.

Today, Dish Face will tell an eager press that "Britain" (he means you and me) must rejoice in being "British" (he means being like him). It will be lapped up by right wingers and nationalists as a way to ensure conformity, if necessary by force.

What he will not say is "do as you please, as long as it does not adversely affect the lives of others", the Libertarians motto. He will insist it is for the good of the "State" that he inflicts a thinly veiled attack on Islam. He will insist that the "British" have values that all must adhere to (whilst roundly ignoring the very same values as he bombs wedding parties in far off lands). He will insist that all are welcome (whilst quietly cancelling the 30 year direct debit that supported an authoritarian regime in Egypt) as long as they aspire to be "British". He will give succour to the thousands of EDF marching in Luton against "the Islamification of Britain" whilst continuing to fund Somali pirates.

I am not a Nationalist. I do not celebrate my "Britishness" whilst adoring roast beef, fine ales and my stiff upper lip any more than I celebrate my "Britishness" when drinking Margaux, feasting on Lamb Madras or listening to heavy dub with a joint.

In his attempt to stamp "conformity" on the tiny percentage of radical Muslims in this country, he will alienate huge swathes of the public that do not wish to watch cricket on a Sunday afternoon or prefer to grow dreadlocks and smoke weed. The harmless pastimes of those who choose their own lifestyles will be crushed and derided as "un-British".

In your rush to appease the masses, Mr Cameron, you will simply repeat what many others have attempted and failed to do- State controlled behaviour.

If you want to deradicalise Muslims, stop bombing their children. Stop supporting brutal regimes. Stop bribing your "friends" in the Middle East with weapons deals, stop stamping your "influence" on all you can see to aid the vested interests of those who fund your politics. In short, leave us alone.

If how others live does not adversely affect my life, I am happy for them to live their lives how they wish. If they wish to eat halal and pray 5 times a day, it is no business of mine and certainly no business of your all powerful State to insist they shouldn't.

My version of "Britishness" doesn't need State protection. It needs protection FROM the State

Cameron talks about how we should reassert our national identity, our British values of freedom of speech and equal rights for everyone. It annoys me when people appropriate such positive values, which are common across all of humanity, for their country.

I find it quite distressing that he wraps all of this up as "active and muscular liberalism". It's not the sort of liberalism I recognise, which is all about ensuring that none are "enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity" (a phrase from the Preamble to our Constitution). I rather liked how my friend Norman Fraser summed it up on Facebook earlier today:

Muscular Liberalism' would appear to be liberalism with the tolerance and intelligence taken out.

I don't like the way that Cameron used a speech about dealing with Islamic extremism to talk about things like equal rights for women and gay people as though sexism and homophobia were confined to that very small bunch of people.

Marx had no idea about capitalism because his sociology was based on the flawed economics of Ricardo, who didn't even know about consumer surplus in market equilibrium. Granted, I may have drawn some of the same conclusions given the information he was aware of at the time, but it's a house built on sand.

Right. I think the concept that people need to understand in order to 'get' this is what I was talking about earlier that Marx didn't understand. At market equilibrium there is both producer AND consumer surplus. The economists at the time of Marx had only figured out the producer surplus side of it, which would indeed paint a bleak picture of capitalistic markets as they saw it.

That's not to say Marxian economics is 'stupid' or uninteresting. It was just based on flawed assumptions, so its conclusions are likewise flawed.

You honestly don't see a contradiction in proclaiming Europe to be a beacon of mankind due to freedom of expression, and then saying that everyone must 'align themselves' with a certain culture? Liberalism does not mean freedom to think along state-mandated lines.

You honestly don't see a contradiction in proclaiming Europe to be a beacon of mankind due to freedom of expression, and then saying that everyone must 'align themselves' with a certain culture? Liberalism does not mean freedom to think along state-mandated lines.

You honestly don't see a contradiction in proclaiming Europe to be a beacon of mankind due to freedom of expression, and then saying that everyone must 'align themselves' with a certain culture? Liberalism does not mean freedom to think along state-mandated lines.

I read this about Marxism and am too lazy to do research of my own about it so share your thoughts, metalreviews!

The "War on Terror" is a war that will never be won. It has simply become an excuse for Western governments to limit the freedoms of their citizenry. The more this becomes acceptable, the closer we are to having no freedoms at all.

To limit the freedoms of their citizenry? How about limit the freedom of other country's citizenry? The war on terror is a war that perpetuates terror. What is to be gained by doing so? More power for the sake of power isn't the right answer.

And immigration is good for the economy.

It's not just a war being waged on a culture or region. How our government is set up, a fragmentary collection of bureaucracies and private contracts, waging war becomes an instrument of private corporations who influence these bureaucracies and receives the contracts. Dick Cheney, Halliburton, etc.

It's interesting to read this, coming from a boy who, just a few months ago, was saying he's not averse to violence in left-wing demonstrations etc.

So violence can only legitimately further your cause, and no other?

Violence directed towards repressive institutions is different than against helpless populaces? Waging a war against Hitler is different than the violence in any number of third world countries being reigned down on the people by homicidal dictators?

an anarchist state

Que?