Nice valve amp with 8 x KT88…would you like one of these?

David Davis

This is in the process of being built now. it is basically a Williamson but updated and improved using modern components. Copies would be between £4,000 and £5,000. And you’d have to have it without the Avro-Lancaster-T1154 meters, as I only have one more,

It uses 4 x KT88 in each output stage. But lesser copies could be built using 6L6 output valves, for about £2,000.

I designed the entire transformer set of four myself, and they were specially wound to order by a good maker in England. An identical set would cost about £1,000 of the total price, like a Bentley or an Aston Martin. You could have lesser ones of course, which would work perfectly well, like a Peugeot, for less than £500 of it.

Cook’s-Tour of the new Williamson valve amp

►

The specifications are as follows:-

(1) Two channels, VERY conservatively rated at 50Watts RMS per channel.

(2) Total Harmonic distortion <0.7% between 30Hz and 30KHz.

(3) Outputs to speakers 4, 8 or 16 ohms.

(4) 40-volts DC aux power supply for preamp using valves or transistors.

(5) variable or removable neg-feedback.

(6) Front-panel meters from recycled Lancaster bombers (you will not be able to have any more of this pattern as this was the last pair I owned, but others could be subbed.)

(7) Optional high-voltage-delay for valves (heaters on first).

Those of you who knnow about audio/HiFi and valves also know that there is a certain indefinable something about the valve sound. Yes of course transistor amps are perfectly faithful to the signal and in some ways even more reliable and  responsive, but …. it’s not like that entirely. Valve stuff just, well, sounds better to the human ear.

If you would like a Williamson, get in touch. I am happy to make it entirely to your order, and will quote bespoke accordingly. In a recession, Libertarians have got to do what they have got to do.

He likes us!

He likes us!

Found a new MUST-READ blog, re global warm-mongering and lefty Goracle lies

David Davis

…..here. This is especially good. Tipped via Bishop Hill, who did a good bit on demolishing the tree-ringy-thingy.

Crime and punishment in the 21st century British Socialist paradise

David Davis

I am not a cruel man. No, not at all. I am merciful. I do not kill. I would not. I want to educate and to make-better. I only want to explain to our enemies the meaning of Hell. Before it is too late to not send them there, after their dangerous intellectual and real isolation from other humans is exposed for the hideousness that it is.

Truly, I say, that I would be willingly personally to take their surrender, now, and march them into the prepared-cages, and give them MRE’s. But I just have not the facilities here in Lancashire for all the millions of prisoners. So I can’t.

The freezing and dying leftie stalinists who are going to inhabit the Udenopticon, and while collapsing from gangrene and frostbite, will, later, just have to sit (or cower) shivering in the freezing howling rain and darkness of a Hebridean night. Or indeed for many mights. It is very sad.

While sitting, they can be explaining to the hoodies who have been suddenly put with them (there are not many, less than a few hundred thousand I think) the reason why they (the hoodies) were brought into being as “barnyard-animals” by the lefties, and how this was a tactic in the overall strategy of destroying Western Civilisation.

The reaction of the hoodies, to the real reason for their creation (like as of orcs, by Morgoth) will be interesting. I wait with interest to see how many “principal-lefties” will be unkilled and uneaten by morning.

Disgusting woman – and how to curse leftie fascists in future.

David Davis

She’s from Waterloo, down’t-road although technically we have to accept her as ours (that is to say: Lancashire, ‘coz that’s where Bury is.) NEARLY all people from either place are of course charming and normal human beings, as is ever the case.

She has said, among other things:_

Mrs Blair also admitted that her husband had not reacted well to her decision to disclose in her memoirs, “Speaking For Myself”, that their son Leo was conceived on their annual weekend at Balmoral with the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh.

“I think he’s rather embarrassed by the love affair bits,” she says. “I don’t think he particularly read those closely. Been there, done that! He did read the political things.”

But she defended her decision to include in the book the fact that she had forgotten to pack her “contraceptive equipment” for the Balmoral weekend. She said it struck a blow against outdated taboos about women speaking about their birth control experiences.

“Part of that is the fact that women can control their own fertility. I’m not ashamed of the fact that that has helped me. My mother fell pregnant with me and it changed the course of her life. That was something I had a choice about. All my children were my choice.

“I’m sure that in political books people don’t talk about their contraception, but this is not a political book,” she said. “This was a book about a woman’s life, about my journey and how it reflects the journey of so many other women.”

Mrs Blair revealed that when she was in Downing Street she followed the advice she had been given by Hillary Clinton when she was First Lady.

“Hillary said to me: ‘You have to realise you’re not going to please all the people all the time, and there are going to be some people you’re never going to be able to please. So you must be true to yourself and to the people you know and respect’.

“It’s a difficult role, to be First Lady. That’s why I admire Hillary so much. She played that role, and she also showed us she could play the role of president too.”

Terrible and silly woman. I hope and pray that she does not have quite as much effect on the world’s stage as she thinks she will either have, or thinks she is entitled to.

TELL these people:-

MAY YOU IN FUTURE BECOME LESS IMPORTANT THAN YOU THINK YOU ARE, OR HOPED TO BE.

Bush quote of the day

David Davis

“You can fool some of the people all of the time: those are the ones to
concentrate on.”

Possibly apocryphal. I do not know. From an email going viral:-

eurorealist] Apocryphal
Date:	30/09/2008 13:29:25 GMT Daylight Time
From:	muirsimon@yahoo.com
Reply-to:	eurorealist@yahoogroups.com
To:	eurorealist@yahoogroups.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)

Oh dear. We are now worse off than we were yesterday.

David Davis

Cameron “stands ready to work with the Government” on the “financial crisis”. I thought that:-

(a) he was supposed to be in opposition – that is to say, he is to bite their ankle, throttle their windpipe, garotte them,, pull them down and then kick their bloodied faces until they die in the ambulance…. (after all, that is what they have done to him and to us since 1997…and this govmint is a collection of overgrown hoodies after all… would not they actually have been delinquents, aggresso-hippies, lefty demonstrators, femaile students who smelled, and thugs, while at “uni” in the 70s and 60s?)

(b) he was to pin the blame for the “crisis” on government, and on Stalinist New Labour regulation and interference.

This will NOT gain Cameron votes. No, not even a poll lead. It is the wrong speech. It will merely serve to continue to identify the Tories with all other (which is to say, leftist) politicians in the UK.

Better the devil you know, eh?

This is something he said:-

Seeking to portray himself as a national leader above partisan concerns, Mr Cameron asked Gordon Brown to bring forward legislation to increase protection for savings and overhaul the rules covering the collapse of banks.

Conservative MPs will vote with the Government in the national interest, Mr Cameron said, dropping earlier objections to some parts of the legislation.

He said: “We are all in this together. Let us stick together and together we will find a way through.”

He added: “Everyone needs to know that we are doing everything we can to help you keep your job, your saving, your pension, your mortgage safe, that we are not playing politics with this and we will always do the right thing to protect your job, and your pension.”

Nah, Dave. You’ve lost it. Sorry. You have just snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

And…………………

Am I the only person who thinks that “Mortgage” has become a “terror-word”, deployed by lefty journalists (most of the buggers as we all understand) to whip up pro-Gordon sentiment to bash capitalism? I thought that, so long as you can pay it ongoing, as per the original terms, then they can’t foreclose, even if they are Northern Wreck. Or has the law been changed while our back was turned?

John McCain Gambles……..so? And your point is….?

David Davis

Hands up now!

Who plays the Lottery here? (Or whichever is your national or Euro one? it’s all the same?)

Honestly, I’m such a slow bumpkin sometimes. I’ve picked up the latest Democrat lefty smear-jibe via The Remittance Man, whose women I periodically check from whom I get occasional useful hat-tips.

Read the blogpost. You’ll see that it’s a case of “Parturiunt montes: tamen nascetur ridiculus mus”.

Blast from the Past: Post-Modernism and Hot Air

Sean Gabb

Free Life Commentary,
an independent journal of comment
published on the Internet
Issue Number 51

9th July 2001

Review Article by Dr Sean Gabb
Deep Citizenship
Barry Clarke
Pluto Press, London, 1996, 168pp, £10.99 (pbk)
(ISBN 0 7453 11016)

Every so often, I gather up a mass of the review copies I have been sent of new books and take them to the nearest charity shop. The book that I am briefly reviewing here has lain unopened on a shelf for about five years. Looking through it, I realise I should have made an effort with it, as it is deserving of some notice. I cannot be bothered to give it a full scale review. But here are my brief thoughts on it.

I used to be troubled by the post-modernists. Whenever I looked into their works, I found them full of claims that everything I believed was wrong, with arguments in support that sounded impressive but always seemed just outside the range of my understanding. I would look up from the page feeling distinctly unintelligent. Perhaps, I would think, I was an intellectual incompetent. Perhaps I was able to travel easily enough along paths that generations of previous thinkers had made smooth and provided with sign posts, but not to strike out in new directions which might lead more directly to the truth, but where the ground was still uneven. It took me a while to realise that this was one of the main objects of post-modernism, and that the arguments themselves, so far as they could be translated into normal English, were just hot air.

Post-modernism is the last refuge of people who realise they have been wrong for most of their adult lives, but who for reasons of pride or career cannot make a full recantation. They simply claim that circumstances have changed, and that because of this all the old ways of thinking and doing things are obsolete—not just their own, but also those of their opponents. Without ever admitting to having been wrong in the past, they have abandoned their old positions in favour of new ones from which they can continue sneering at everyone else and preening themselves on their own effortless superiority and fitness to rule.

To some extent, this is an improvement. Our musical establishment, for example, will never admit that composers like Hans Werner Henze were charlatans; and so any theory that lets them start commissioning real music again without public embarrassment must be a relief. It is the same with the more intelligent socialists. If talking about “post-Fordism” lets them forget about their printing press and machine gun economics, we all gain.

As well as benefits, however, post-modernism has its costs. In politics, for example, though it may disguise a retreat from evil, it also disguises much remaining or even new evil. The old socialists may have been wrong, but they usually argued in the normal way from their premises; and their opponents could see where and why the arguments were wrong. The post-modernists prefer to advance behind a barrage of ambiguity and verbal tricks. We can suspect their intentions, but these are plain only to the initiated.

Turning to the work under review, it is almost a classical illustration of these faults. According to the puff on its back cover,

[p]olitics is on the verge of a radical break with the past, permitting a post-liberal democratic politics that is relevant to the politically empowered individual. Yet such empowerment is only possible against the backdrop of a re-conceptualisation of citizenship.

The author spends 125 pages arguing for these propositions; and, so far as I can tell, he fails to establish either of them. He begins with the standard claim, that

Marxism, as a systematic ideology, is by common consent, dead [Dr Clarke's punctuation]. But… liberalism, or at least that part of it that takes European history and purely European characteristics as universal, and that part of it that takes civil society as unpolitical, is equally dead.[p.15]

Of course, he nowhere proves this second part of his claim, or even seriously tries to. He never tries to show what is bad about limited government, or how the laws of demand and supply stop working in places like Africa and Central Asia, or how the health, wealth and happiness that derive from respect for these things are either bad in themselves or regarded as irrelevant by non-Europeans.

A few moments’ thought should be enough to tell anyone that European history and characteristics are of supreme importance, so far as they allow people to understand or join the only real civilisation that has ever yet existed on this planet. It is wrong to despise people because they come from cultures that have not our heritage of legal and scientific progress. It is wrong to expect them to put away all their local customs, and to dress and eat and worship and be entertained exactly as we are. It is also false to claim that European civilisation is entirely the achievement of Europeans, owing nothing to the genius of earlier times and other places. Even so, the basic elements of European civilisation are of universal value, and must be accepted by anyone who does not wish to remain poor and oppressed.

All Mr Clarke does succeed in showing is a reason to cut off all public funding to the University of Essex, which employs him as a lecturer—and where I understand he is thought to be tremendously clever.

Indeed, his book is so opaque that even its intention would have escaped me without the back cover to act as a guide—a back cover that was probably written by somebody else.

The first private space ship in Earth orbit!

David Murphy

Forget about failed banks and corporate communist bailouts, this is the top story today.

Rejoice!

Just some examples of why bureaucrats and safety-Nazis will have to be sent somewhere to recover…

Here.

And here.

And here.

David Davis

This is where the Udenopticon will be

(NB! The videos refer to the populated Berneray – not the uninhabited one which was originally intended!  – Blogmaster.)

David Davis

Do you remember when I suggested what would be done with captured socialists, other similar fascist-lefty right-wing scum, bureaucrats (same thing), stalinist Wireless Tele Vision “Tycoons” and the rest of the Enemy Class who would not beg to break stones and heft bricks in our nirvana? Well, here it is. Berneray…but I changed my mind later:-

Actually, now I think about it, Berneray is too flat, too benign now, too near other islands, and has people living on it, and actually looks quite civilised. There are even roads and live buildings and quite nice houses (all of which would have to be ruined first before turning it into a prison for lefties.) I will put the buggers on St Kilda instead:-

The irony of its status as a “United Nazis Nations World Heritage Site” will not be lost on the new, albeit slightly unwilling, inhabitants:-

It’s a pity really, that it’s not further away from us than it is. I suppse we could put them on South Georgia instead (see below) but there are two issues: (1) They are too far away to have a cheap eye kept on them and be serviced with daily rations, and (2) fascist idiots like the Soviets Russian Government might try to “rescue” them while our back is turned one night.

Richard Hammond is a driving God

David Davis

Libertarians will like this car. If a true libertarian state was to come about, then i expect they, and the petrol, would also beocme far cheaper, and we could all enjoy one.

Fractional Reserve Banking

Freedom and Whisky puts it in its proper place.

Funny video of Paxo being done by Michael White and Guido Fawkes

Nice cars…shame about the tyres.

Obama lampoon’s animal house

ID cards: want to stop this Stalinist GramscoMarxiaNazi plan from happening? First, watch the funny video…

Here….

Global stalinist bank meltdown…no money…F1 “chiefs” voice fears

David Davis

Formula -1 is, in the final analysis, a quite libertarian sport. Not like the Stalinist collectivist flag-waving “olympics”, in which States pretend to idolize individuals, but don’t mean it at all, for there is no champagne or cups. The regulation bureaucrats, such as the “Regional Prime Minister of upper-Thuringia-Alsace” (er…I made it up, but he probably exists) troop on but are relegated mercifully to secondary supporting roles, like handing up the cup.

In the end, it’s this. It comes down to how good a driver or his engineers, or his computer-techies, are. I would like it to be cleaned up just only a little bit, so that we could have some more excitement while yet preserving the individuality.

Gerhard Berger, great guy, good driver, thinks this. I think so too. if the buggers want £300 million a year for a couple of engines and about 8 tyres and a driver and a petrol hose, then right now it’s not going to happen like before. Especially if half the banks who used to sponsor them don’t exist or are bust.

The whole sport should gird itself up, grit its teeth, and follow our new suggested model, which will both make it cheaper to enter and also more fun.

Techie stuff, war and Marianne Mikko

David Davis

(Oh, and Obnoxio the Clown has noticed Marianne Mikko, wallowing in his own distress, too. I do not know what this man has against bloggers, except that bloggers, being unpaid sovereign individuals, have no interest in any thing but saying what they think the truth is. I wonder what he would do with socialist anti EU bloggers? There must be some.)

Those grand heroes at The Landed Underclass, who always do more than their duty in the current-and-to-be-sadly-continued titanic battle for liberty (and no, DD here didn’t join up to be shot at, honest, Guv) have also noticed that the awful EU-neoGestapo-man Marianne Mikko, an Estonian person who thus ought absolutely to know better than to be in favour of muzzling inconvenient opinions, has it in for bloggers.

I suspect the chaps at TLU are fellow-techies: here’s a couple for you, lads:-

And here’s a sadder one. Shame they didn’t put in a better armour belt, or at least flash-proof doors in the turret inter-stages and lobbies – and in the secondary-armament-lobbies too, where it actually went off, on the day. Seydlitz learnt it at Dogger Bank, more than a year before Jutland – why not us? (Or don’t we care about winning and defeating evil?):-

Here’s Seydlitz stuff too for you techies:-

Thanks to Peter Davis, Libertarian Alliance Youtube Research Officer, for help here.