Politically-correctly-rewritten Christmas Carols…this just has to be a wind-up, since…


even the usual Gramsco-Marxian Anglican Vicars, with which we are saddled by the Nazi-State, can’t really care that much about this.

Surely?

David Davis

They can’t care….not really care, not that much? Or do they just think they’re now into the tidying-up-operation, after the slaughter?

I shall certainly have acerbic stuff to say about these supposedly-Anglican shitbags of devil-sputum, and it will be somewhat less mildly-critical than in this post today…in our Libertarian Alliance Christmas Message….to be published sometime soon.

The main point that I have to keep on, and keep on, and keep on, making about Libertarianism, is that it can and only will survive in a functionally-liberal, which is to say, Judeo-Christian-based, civilisation. One of these did actually manage to arrive and get off the ground. It used to be called “The Anglosphere”.

It’s no use just going on and on up our own arses, talking to ourselves, describing what the plant looks like in its perfect shape.

You have to think about the pot and the soil too. We have to maintain and preserve and improve the culture, in which liberty and individualism flourish. Perhaps I am a Gramsc0-Marxian-turned-upside-down.

About these ads

13 responses to “Politically-correctly-rewritten Christmas Carols…this just has to be a wind-up, since…

  1. Steven Northwood

    I agree completely with you there Sir. What’s more, we ought to remember that although much of Libertarianism is heterodox, most of it is, and always has been fundamentally correct.

    This is one point I always try to make in relation to the previous assaults made by the current ruling group in the name of ‘Political Correctness’. Practically none of the examples of so-called Politically Correct actions thus made were politically correct, that is to say that they must be correct in a political sense.

    The whole history of Western jurisprudence says so (at least from my reckoning, and I’d love someone to correct me if I’m wrong). It’s only by fiddling with the legal system, on the mandate of Karl Marx and his Mysterious Ways, that these things were allowed to occur.

    I have to say though, regarding Marx, it would be folly not to acknowledge the wrongs he documented, and although he was a useless Economist, he was an excellent Social Scientist.

    Let’s hope they (yes you, Sir Davidstonshire) don’t ever again give the British people cause to elect such people again. And that’s the voice of the man in the street Sir, albeit the Travis Bickle-looking one. :-)

  2. Excellent reasoned argument there by SN. The problem of course with Marx was that, although he thought he was right “in theory”, the theory was wrong a-priori. So of course his stuff could not work in practice. (See “Karl Popper”, kind of almost anything he wrote….)

    That is not to say that Marx didn’t make accurate observations of what he thought he saw (or was it Engels writing? We shall never now know.)

  3. Oh, and Steven, my dear old fellow!

    You comments are valuable and amusing! So don’t go on at me tomorrow in the morning begging for them all to be deleted (again) because it has been a great night down ‘t’pub! I shall be out anyway and can’t get you off the hook till evening-time, so there, me-old-chestnut.

  4. It’s a term of endearment, old chap, in Lancashire.

  5. Steven Northwood

    No worries, they are my thoughts. Albeit sometimes from one of my excesses. Beer, the German sort as it happens.

    Thanks David.

  6. Steven Northwood

    Yeah anyway I didn’t read Popper, to be honest I never finished Hayek.

    We have to be right but we must be right, know what I mean?

    To me, it must be like reading the old Masters.

    Milton’s the best bet.

  7. Pingback: “Persecute! Kill the heretic!” « The Landed Underclass

  8. Call a spade a spade.
    Cultural Marxism! by calling it political correctness it tends to make it seem clean instead of what it is.

  9. I’m forced to ask,at risk of betraying my ignorance,what in the devil is a Gramsco-Marxist?

  10. “chris geralds”:

    Someone for Dave to hate…

    “The Rage of Caliban, seeing his own face
    Reflected i’the glass…” — Shakespeare.

    Someone other than Thatcher or Reagan for Dave to blame for the adverse consequences of Reaganism and Thatcherism..

    Someone, anyone, to hate, for anyone who revels in hating people at any price…

    Just another form of “I ++ ; They – - ; (therefore get rid of)…”

    A wholly imaginary hobgoblin on whom can be blamed everything in Dave’s universe that doesn’t function the way he thinks that it should…

    Anyone who disagrees with Dave about anything…

    At least, that’s what I’ve been able to glean from Dave’s writings thus far…

    Happy New Year To You All!

    Tony

  11. Tony,

    Thanks.
    So,Gramsco-Marxists are Dave’s personal boogeymen. It’s a bit more creative than the usual,like ‘the state’,the leftists,those scumbags in____’fill in your capitol’.

  12. They exist. I’ve met more than several. Some I have not met, but know of.

    They profess that Marx was quite correct, but “did not go far enough”…..they profess that “in addition to raising the consciousness of the “working class” (whatever that may now be) towards the iniquitites fo their oppressors, you also have to “obliterate the institutions and traditions that give meaning and credence to the oppressors’ philosophy”, and “engineer renewal”.

    Sounds like Marx, to me, with Gramsci added on.

    Agreed, now?

  13. Ahhhh,

    All is made clear. Never heard of Antonio Gramsci before,but I’ve run across his disciples. It’s nice to have a term for them.

    Yes,I agree.