I am old enough to remember the time when this day was – without our being consulted – socialisticosolidaritized in Britain with the State “holiday” of the brave and victorious Workers and Peasants of the Soviet Empire. Previously in May we just had Ascenscion Day, which tended to fall at the end of the month, easter depending. Everyone (sort of) cheered, in a resigned kind of way. Stalinators here, in those times, were what his Evil Eminence Himself would have called “not serious at all”, so they just introduced “May Day”.
Which brings me to my second point. I now want to do some amateur and doubtless entirely inept forensic psychology (for I am a bumpkin) on those sorts of people who think in terms of fascism. This is to say, why some people are on purpose becoming an Enemy Class so that they can bully and push others about, in “groups”, to achieve “plans”. Nothing on the scale we have witnessed in the last 200-odd years really came about before.
The problem in Britain with Statists is that there are in my view, today, two kinds.
First kind: the “serious” ones, the Stalinators:-
There is the really, really “serious” [aka Stalin] kind, the GramscoFabiaNazis, who are (as I said yesterday regarding what they tried to do to the Gurkhas) irremediably wicked, quite voluntarily and purposefully evil, and who know and have always known __/exactly/__ what they are doing, why, and to what timetable: it would interest me greatly to understand how and why individual human beings get to be like that – it can’t __just__ have been their University Tutors, shaggable though the students might have been to them, although I frequently blame a younger Eagleton, Derrida and others for much poisoning of young and intelligent minds with Marxism. Examples in no special order are of course Julia Middleton, Kim-Il Sung, “Ted” Heath, Hitler, Ed Balls, Stalin himself, Gordon Brown (I don’t think he’s an idiot at all [it's all deliberate], he may not even be Scotch for all we know, and he may be malingering about his eye), Mao tse Tung, “Jacqui” “Smith”, Vidkun Quisling, Tom Watson, Robert Mugabe, Dawn Primarolo (how can you give a job to someone with that name?), Francois Mitterand, the suitably-dead-butcher-pig Saddam Hussein, that guy who runs the Europarliament monkeyhouse whose name I can’t remember and haven’t time to look up, that 5-years-dead chappie Fidel Castro, his brother and successor, and so on. They employ “public relations” people, such as spin-doctors.
Perhaps being a glorious charismatic leader and killing your bugbears and others who don’t agree with you in their millions is a buzz, but I can’t quite see how. Perhaps it’s a form of autistic spectrum disorder, and I ought to ask my wife about this condition and how it in particular affects intelligent and focussed males who can’t get proper jobs as engineering-machinists, painters, bankers, dustmen, brickies, truck-drivers or shoe-cleaners. (She’s a SENCO.) Perhaps they stamped on frogs while young boys, or shone magnifying glasses on ants in the sun. We need to know.
Secondly, the “not very serious” one, the MacMillanisators:-
“Not very serious” Statists, although they either don’t murder people directly or else don’t even actually issue the orders so to do, perhaps becasue they don’t want to for moral reasons, are still often a dangerous and latent problem. They frequently look like, behave like, dress like, are brought up like, and act like conservatives, or even like liberals. They are people who can’t, not really in their hearts (for they still have some) take all the humourless pomp and self-regardingness of real, mortal deathly statism, with all its military parades, death-camps, psychiatric hospitals for those who failed to vote correctly, calling-out of all schoolchildren to mexicanwave flags on camera all day, the lack of Internal Pissports and so on, quite seriously enough. These people would, for example, _not_ shoot Catholic priests – or Imams either – who had stood up to their People’s Courts and won anyway, whether the said priests had used Jesuitical-type/Masonic/Zionist-type arguments or not. Some examples again in no special order are Harlot Macmillan, Rab Butler, George Bush (both classes of him), David Cameron, Frank Field, Silvio Berlusconi, Nick Griffin, Jeremy Paxman (what a curious name?), David Trimble, Helmut Kohl, and many many more. Perhaps these people only stamped on ants, in the rain. They also don’t really understand “public relations”. (See the buggers above, who do.)
My third point is this.
Gordon Brown’s “government” is visibly disintegrating at the seams. This is to be applauded of course, because governments that can’t pass any legislation which they want, and are moribund and hated, are what we always wish for, if they are statist. In a Judeo-Christian civilisation that has had a certain but indeterminate measure of individual liberty for long enough, say about 300-400 years, such as ours has, the absence of an administration with “power” is a grand thing and to be wished for.
But if. as we might suppose, the less-serious-statists are about to be elected, what then? True, we might see measures such as ID cards scrapped (although you can bet 50p they won’t shred the files…) for the time being at least. We might even see a few minor parts of some government departments we had never heard of being closed. Even, dare we say it, some QUANGOs might be terminated. But not many.
The Conservatives will f*** up, in government. It is in the nature of non-serious statists, who have either no terror-police or who have not been setting these up from day one, that they go about trying to undo statist stuff rather half-heartedly and without the necessary firepower they’d need to make their changes stick – they try to do it “by consensus”… which will fail, for it is the nature of masses of people to want free stuff apparently provided by someone else.
The “non-serious” think that the Stalinators have gone away – but it is not in the nature of these bastards to do so – they are much, much more resolute, and brave, and committed, that they are given credit for: they _know_ they are right (just like we libertarians do) and they _will_ stay around, in the mud and the sewers and the stagnant puddles, until the time “non-serious” statists do f** up and get unelectable, because they have mishandled the proper and total disappearance of proper statists.
There are two solutions. There is the statist one, which is to round up all the serious bastards and kill them. We could apply it, but we ought not to and it’s evil and we should not do it. And there is the libertarian one, which unfortunately takes longer, and means we have to watch, in all our lifetimes, shedloads of colateral damage, to societies and to institutions which were of value and did good, and which we can’t stop. But the solution lies in the end in better people.
But we should not, on the ejection of this government, this year or next, if it comes, imagine like we did in 1979 that the problem has gone away: for it will not. The buggers will be back, they will hide in the woodwork of our universities and “councils” in the meantime, and we should winkle them out, seize their computers, sack them, shop them to their local papers, shame them, have their houses daubed by vigilantes, have their children taken into “care” and so on – but we won’t, will we.
And they won’t piss about for 12 years next time, before getting their terror-police-network working, like they orta-av-dunn in 1997.
Guido seems to have noiced something’s up with the British Left today too.