The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

David Davis 

…… which hate and fear the minarchists, for the possibility that the enslaved people will want to be like those of the minarchist lot …… see just the history of the last 500-odd years to see my point proved. They HAVE to get rid of us, Britain - not the country, but the CULTURE - for that is all that the Anglosphere is in the end, a culture that is inimical to tyranny, and maximises individual liberty within imperfect institutions, and therefore blasts away the ground from under the feet of warlords, tribal “civilisations”, socialists and other types of Nazis, “community leaders”, dictocrasts, and the like.

For as I so often say, we showed the World How To Live Without Excessive Tyranny (which is to say the normal amount, as seen in North Korea, Brussels, Russia today, and in Cuba) and We Must Be Punished.

Even minarchist states probably have got to have a Head of State. I have never asked Sean Gabb about this but perhaps I ought to; he may have views about what sort of “person” or “corporation” could fulfil this function, but I think he would agree with me that it ought to be a Real Person. All things being equal, the setup we have got in Britain is probably the least bad of all the possibilities. We (or the electing-body-of-the-day, such as “Barons” (early), or “Parliament” (later) ) elect, at some time, a suitably-qualified family to take on the ceremonial functions of Statehood, and provided that it does not dip its hand in the till, get us embroiled in foreign wars with its less salubrious or more European (same thing) relations, or interfere in the agreed processes of government, then we will allow it to personify our self-image and nationhood.

In time, such a family may produce a sequence of basically and innately good, and ordinary, sane people, espcecially if it is influenced by and presides within an increasingly liberal polity of organised, staggeringly violent, opinionated and deeply moral people who will keep the State in line, such as England used to be and ought to be again, were it not for tele-stalinization and socialist-state-Wireless-Tele-Vision. You may get sovereigns such as, say, those from William IV to Elizabeth II. I am specifically excepting Edward VIII, who was a prima-donna and failed to understand what he was expected to do. I even think , in my kinder and less angry moments, that poor tortured mad Charles will make a reasonably sound King, now that he has the woman he has always loved near him at last, and not the diabolilcally-tormented and unstable Diana (not an Officer type, at all.)

If such a liberal State has to go to war, then it will usually will be for the upholding of ideals and not for the personal gain of its own people (see “World War 1″, Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Iraq 3, Korea, Afghanistan-7, Falklands, and “World War 2″ for examples plus others I cannot put my hand on right now.) Such a people does not go to war to scam and to scrag stuff off other peoples and nations, which is what other tyrannical elites do with their peoples to other peoples. 

 In the Anglosphere case which historically is special, then it is important for the chaps who have to to the heavy-lifting, that an important representative of the Head of State’s family ought to go with them, as the representative of their Commander-in Chief, which is nominally the Head of State.

This did Prince George (later G-VI) serve in HMS Marlborough at Jutland; thus did Prince Andrew fly choppers in the Falklands. Thus indeed did the King threaten to have to go with Churchill to D-Day if the PM insisted on landing with his soldiers (the Queen Mother vetoed both of them in the end.) Therefore Harry went this time, and which meant he got his desire which was to be with his soldiers. Those who have not trained for war, such as incorrigibly-priggish and unreformable leftie scumbags such as “Jon” Snow (oh, the demotic proleness of “Jon”!!! How “in-touch with the people he must be !!! “Jon” !!! I get such a Guevara-esque orgasm from “Jon”…as opposed to “John”, and I bet “Jon’s” T-shirt is not cool! )  do not understand this relationship at all, and they never will, for lefties don’t “do soldiers” - they just kill people with guns and stuff, which is not the same thing at all.

Poor Harry had to be with his soldiers, for not only is he their Officer, and therefore he loves them (that is part of what duty means) but they look out for him in the Field, as opposed to any other Officer. It is disreputable of probably-by-no-means-freedomly-reliable scragbags (in the final analysis, would you trust the freedom and the fate of the world to “Matt” Drudge, or to the Libertarian Alliance?) such as “Matt” Drudge to smarm in and blow a delicate situation, just to make himself more famous than he is.

This is not helpful to the cause of freedom and liberty in an embattled world. Blowing Harry’s cover is an abuse of the toleration that exists between a people which voluntarily accepts a measure of Statism, and for whom family members of the Head of that State accept, nay agree and wish, to go into danger in company with members of that people, on behalf of the ideal for which they fight.

“Matt” Drudge ought to sit down in a dark room, with a cold towel round his head, and think, very very carefully, about whose side he is on in the titanic battle for Western Civilisation.

If he wants to remain a profitable part of it, then he ought to spit on his hands, draw his swordpoint out of the mud, and get alongside us and fight for it.

The enemies of our Prince are his enemies too.

This post is rough, but I want to get it out now. it will probably be refined and improved, as I do with these often.