Chris Tame on Immigration, Multiculturalism, and Western Civilisation


Chris R. Tame (1949-2006) was for many years the face of British libertarianism. Tame discovered Ayn Rand’s work when he was seventeen and quickly became a libertarian. Having been involved with established organisations such as the Society for Individual Freedom and the Institute for Economic Affairs, and dismayed by the lack of an explicitly libertarian organisation in the UK, he and a few others broke away to found what was later to become the Libertarian Alliance, of which he was the first director. His activism also involved a highly successful period as director of the smokers’ rights organisation, FOREST. He died of bone cancer on 20th March 2006.

Recorded by his successor as director of the Libertarian Alliance, Sean Gabb, these interviews show Chris Tame at his very best, speaking on a wide range of issues without inhibition. By this time, Tame could no longer be described as an “orthodox” libertarian. Nevertheless, they support the statement that he was the most interesting and insightful libertarian of his day.

The interviews are being edited and released one at a time. To keep up with what we have released, we suggest you subscribe to the Libertarian Alliance YouTube channel.

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “Chris Tame on Immigration, Multiculturalism, and Western Civilisation

  1. To a small degree too, I found Ayn Rand.
    What she says in the Virtue of Selfishness and her definition of a “right” as being the “freedom of action in a social context” is the essential yardstick which one needs when looking at the UN Charter or Convention on “Human Rights”,(see Ed Griffin’s “The Fearful Master, a Second look at the UN”, the European Convention on “Human Rights”, Labour’s Human Rights Act and even dear Mr Cameron’s belief that there is nothing wrong with the Convention and that is should form the basis of every democratic nation!!!

    At every level we find that our right to freedom of action can be curtailed by some aspect of the Convention. In other words, “big Brother decides”. Any objector to multi-culturalism is an extremist and is a potential terrorist according to Mrs Theresa May. I hope that her miserable face which she displays while sitting on the Front Benches is a true reflection of her miserable inner self and that her conscience is bothering her. Mind you. how long can one keep a conscience when in the House of Commons?

  2. People in the UK have the notion that the government cares about “them”. That what the government does is in “their” best interest. The fact that no government gives a dogs dinner about the people of the country is missed by most. Many moan about “the government” but do absolutely nothing to change the system. Be it the voting system or the doffing ones cap at the likes of Cameron system. The notion is that such men and women know best. That is why people allow freedoms to be curbed or even removed. Two ways to discombobulate a society is one, to infiltrate it by diverse cultures, enforcing mass immigration to form disruptive multi-multiculturalism which brings about ethical and moral relativity, and two, by changing the monetary system. As long as ordinary citizens believe those in power care for them the longer said citizen will keep loosing liberty and freedom.

    • I agree. We face three big threats at the moment: mass-immigration, multiculturalism, and the resulting Balkanisation; the abolition of cash and the fraudulent banking system; and universal surveillance. These threats will atomise the individual and destroy the English nation for good if they are not resisted. Other threats to freedom (the sugar tax, EU directives and regulations, and drug laws) are secondary.

      • Keir, again you are too trusting. efgd is right when he says “no government gives a dogs dinner about the people.” They don’t even care about “the people” as a unit; still less about us individual persons.

        You’ve missed at least three other big threats. One, the corruption of the press. Two, the “humans cause runaway global warming” fraud, and the actions it “justifies.” Three, the propensity to make war on any excuse.

        And I do invite you to consider efgd’s last sentence. He has expressed something I’ve been trying to say for years, but never found the words for; and he’s upstaged me. Well done, Sir.

        • Yes the global warming scam and neoconservatism – these escaped my mind, possibly because they are global threats. But they are very serious ones. The corruption of the press and its transformation into a tool of the executive is part of a broader undermining of the British Constitution by the new Political Class. The security services, Parliament, and other institutions have also been corrupted as a result of this.

  3. I should have added that the clever trick of the party system is that all manifestos come in “package deals” and how have to choose one package or another – IF you vote. You get the lot when you vote and that is the trick. By voting for just one item in the manifesto you authorise or consent to the whole package, whether you realise that or not.
    Freedom by another definition being the ability to accept or REJECT one thing or policy at a time. Using that yard stick you realise what a fraud democracy is and how accurate was Hailsham’s description of “elective dictatorship”. That is why Independents are the only antidote but you would have to have a huge co-ordinated network of them

    • Actually Martin, I think you understate your case. Why should any policy, that you vote for, constrain me? Or vice versa?

      From my point of view, there’s only one reason that you can legitimately claim to tell me not to do something; and that’s if what I am doing is harming you in some objectively measurable way.

      And if you claim a right to force me to do something… that’s an order of magnitude harder to justify.

      Quintin Hogg was right about dictatorship, no?

      • But we have progressed from the era of elective dictatorships to a new era. Lord Hailsham coined that phrase in 1976 and was referring specifically to Governments with workable majorities getting any legislation they liked through the Commons.

        But now Governments themselves have been sidelined, just as Parliament had been by the dominant executives arising in the mid 20th century. What we now have is rule not by the executive, but by the Prime Minister and a Cabal of special advisors and perhaps one or two other Cabinet members.

        When I wrote above of Parliamentary Sovereignty, I was technically right, since this Cabal rules through Parliament formally. But Parliament itself, and most members of the Cabinet, are powerless if Mr Dave or Mrs May or Mr Osborne or the SPADs use their usual methods of bribing, intimidating, circumventing etc.

        Even so, this emasculation of the major institutions of this country rests on the consent of the victim, in Randian terminology. When you look at most MPs, do they fill you with hope, or do they make you sick?

        And so when Eurosceptics talk of regaining national sovereignty, it is a wonderful idea in principle. But in practice all would be the same.

  4. Neil. If I understated my case it as because I was in a hurry. Party political democracy as I described it traps us all in a no win situation. A vote for any party in itself amounts to a transfer of power from the individual to the party. Only the Independent candidate respects the liberty of the indivdiual to accept or reject ONE policy at a time.
    The Independent keeps the vote in safe custody to be exercised with discretion and regard to the liberty of the voter. It is the party system which transfers power to the government, see my website http://www.camrecon.demon.co.uk and it is the party system which destroys the separation of powers. so, I ask gain. how are you noble chaps going to resist all these laws which have taken away your freedom and are destroying england? Idle chatter will frighten no one. what is your weapon?

    • Our weapon?

      Martin, you yourself are wielding it. Honesty, logic, and not being beholden to other people’s agendas. Seeking and reporting truth as far as we can. And calling a spade “a spade.”

  5. The problem is: you already have anti-discrimination legislation which curtails your freedom to choose in all those areas specified and if you contravene it, as should be your right or liberty, you will be punished.
    Take the case of Robert Relf who all those years ago refused to sell his house to a black man and was sent to prison. I ask again. The dictatorship is here – it is destroying our culture and our liberty. What are you going to DO about it, other than spin words on this website?

    Well, on my website (camrecon) I have all the ammunition you need to expose the system.Coupled with what I have written about “package deals” which you can extrapolate if your imagination will allow, yuo have al the intelIectual ammunition you ndeed. Indeed, Ayn Rand wrote “the battle consists not only of opposing but EXPOSING and offering a full consistent and radical alternative”

    At the start of the election period I campaigned on the streets of Malton with the slogan “Fed Up with Party Politicians” and it was very well received, obviouslly because of the way people feel. I had very fair coverage in the local paper.

    The ONLY reason I withdrew from being an Independent at the last General election was lack of funds as I could not afford to lose my deposit. Otherwise I would have exploited the disgust which party politicians are held to the full.and used the hustings to tell the people. However, in North Yorkshire one has to recognise that the Tory vote is very strong. It was not that I was afraid of anything except losing my £500.

    Indeed, by being allowed at one hustings to speak, even though I had withdrawn, I was able to tell the people how dangerous political parties are. We are now experiencing the result of why they are so dangerous. I am now 76 and it is too late for another go – but you younger ones can use my example and try the same tactics. The great thing about standing as an INDEPENDENT is that you rise or fall on your own merits AND they cannot smear you by association, i.e because of what someone else in your “party” has said or done. I include UKIP in this category because the mechanisms which it uses and the effect on the constitution is identical to the other parties. Indeed, there is a row just brewing about a UKIP candidate in Wales whom they want to de-select because of alleged racist remarks.

    From what Steven Woolfe said today on Daily Politics anyone with racist inclinations(whatever that word means?) would be punished as severely by a UKIP government as by any other.

    Like many others I had to vote UKIP last time because they were the only ones offering withdrawal from the EU.but anyone reading their manifesto may have reasonable doubts about their immigration position because they will accept anyone who has enough “points” to satisfy the economic requirements of employers. So,despite what Nigel Farage said about not hearing English spoken on the train from Waterloo the need to protect the cultural needs of the native British is secondary to the requirements of the “economy”..i.e money talks yet again

    UKIP has said nothing about rejecting the needs of the hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers who will want to come to the dis-UK .Since immigration is such a big issue why is Farage letting off the hook Cameron, who was responsible not only for the disastrous attack on Libya and the ensuing refugee chaos but also the Syrian mayhem (see John Pilger report). For the moment UKIP (dubbed by the press “the BNP in blazers”) is all we have, but given that it was responsible for destroying the existence of the BNP who truly were anti-immigration of any sort and who bore the brunt of the Marxist assault when they tried to stop immigration I urge other readers to keep a wary eye open.

  6. “What are you going to DO about it, other than spin words on this website?”

    The answer, Martin, is nothing. Playing with words on websites is about all they have to offer. The enemy is not at the gates, he is within the gates. He, however, is not the one with the sword, others have been co-opted by him to wield that. You know that, and I know that. Others here may also know it, but they are afraid to say so.

    “If you are afraid to speak against tyranny, then you are already a slave.”
    John Bryant

  7. Pingback: Liberty, Nationalism and Patriotism | The Libertarian Alliance Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s