Practical swamp-draining: and…ahhhh…”they” have even noticed that they are preparing to ditch the Cyclops…or maybe not…


David Davis

You know, it’s a funny thing: it troubles me in the night: it’s about how absolutely insensitive to the moods and needs of real human beings GramscoFabiaNazis actually are. Today, you have some of them whining on in the Guardian about how Brown needs to survive “one more week of torture”, in order to pull through and drag the charred bollocks of Stalinism out of the upended, raging barbecue of mass opinion on his and his cronies’ total cock-up of this nation.

How on earth do real people (I presume?) get like that in the first place? 

I think it’s the central problem that libertarians ought to address: how do we stop socialism/Fabianism actually happening, in anyone’s brain, anywhere, ever, in the first place?

You know – swamp-draining stuff.

There are two hypotheses about how these people got to see the world through such a distorted prism.

(1) “They” really really believe what they are saying about how a liberal civilisation of free individuals ought to be chained and regulated (by them) and express sadness and incomprehension that we can’t see it their way. They really think that a “Honestiores/Humiliores” model is the right one, and that they are the first and we are the second, and that the technology required to maintain it is minimalist, and that if only we are persuaded, all will be well.

(2) It’s all a put-up-job, a mask of concern to hide their ineffably-wicked determination to destroy, to upend as above, to viciously (jack)boot the whole of Mankind – barring themselves, their tribes and their harems (of both sexes I opine, though not at the same time of course) to the Neolithic Age. (GreeNazism must feature strongly here.)

The problem of how and where and when that prism of distortion was implanted in their brains also remains. I can’t tell today what ought to be done with most of the staff of our schools and universities, but it’s got to be considered.

I can’t really tell any more which it is, of (1) or (2) above. Can anyone help?

Furthermore: we also are still left with the problem of what to do with them, and what to do with exterior nations inevitably friendly to them after we shall have cast them out. Bodwyn Wook dealt with this the other day too.

About these ads

4 responses to “Practical swamp-draining: and…ahhhh…”they” have even noticed that they are preparing to ditch the Cyclops…or maybe not…

  1. Pingback: Where do the buggers get the money with which to “repay the Fees Office”? « The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

  2. Pingback: Scottish Cyclops Indeed « The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

  3. Bodwyn Wook

    You know I am starting to get old (again, in this time-line) and it really is apparent that people’s motives are as a rule a kind of wilted salad, of opportunism and self-exculpation all ‘flang’ together; and, yes, the sincere desire it all be more than that somehow. To say that ‘if only we are persuaded [for example by NuLabour or the now-defunct American New Cunts], all will be well’ is of course a blinding glimpse of the obvious; only, to us, Libertarians, it is all rather (!) dreadful.

    How does this come about?

    Well, it was al-Ghazali (pbuh) or someone who first noted that all human set-ups are conditioning systems. In the West we have the added tension if you will of /competing/ conditioning systems. For good long time this principle of competition has been at least in principle accepted; on both the material and, indeed, moral sides the demonstrable gains in technique and awareness are very great. In that lies the freedom, or at least a possibility of freedom, which we as libertarians for whatever innate and nurtured reasons /taken together/ are able to perceive rather more easily than others. The problem arises now in the saga of the children of what are to us at least all the lesser gods.

    Nowadays of course we can off them preferably before birth with CAT-scans and DNA tests; and, to-day, with state connivance. I personally find this objectionable as a manifestation of the general drive-thru convenience ‘culture’ everywhere; and, of the constant attention- and income-seeking of the supervisory professionalists & public liberals ['You poor cow, one up the duff AGAIN...whee, ain't we got fun!'] However, even in the midst of all that, I must and will accept your /gradually developing/ freedom of choice in the matter. After all, the usual way always as we know above all from both religion and literature to a deepened humanity is /through/ sin and wallowing and rut and stupidity and self-indulgence and the gutter. No better way after all has ever been invented to teach us what assholes in one way or the other we all are, than by letting people /be/ themselves.

    It is the role of /other/ conditioning systems such as faith and culture to supply to people in advance (an element of coercion, alas, does here enter in!) with the tools for the kinds of thought that typically can arise only after downfall. Now state liberallists, as I know well from my own emotional orientation, want badly that /all/ this suffering somehow be ducked & evaded; in that, really, they are no more infantile than the leering ‘technologists’ who degenerate pure science everywhere just in order, babyish, to make everything ‘easier’. On the point of our common immaturity, all that is sincere enough. But then, when you fling in the usual stale garlic and MSG onto the watery custard, then you do have the blind (and fearful) mis-leading the rest of the blind “just plain God-damn dumb.” Our own honest rage at being ordered around by these malodorous un-developed emotionalists with poly-technical ‘certification’ as intake-workers & dust-bin RFID chip-readers then can cause us to miss the social, or indeed moral, point in this all:

    It is actually emotionally offensive to us to speak of conditioning, I know it, but for a fact /I/ would as likely not be libertine to-day were it not for the facts of an individual & particular & specific biography. And yet I have survived it all and retain somehow a moral sense. Or, rather, this has developed hand-in-hand with all the rotteness & crime. And that is my point: in crime, too, we are a social critter as attested by all the words we fling out of the lonely darkness of all the subjectivities of this vaunted ‘indviduality’; most find that isolation a curse and /can not/ enjoy the solipsism of an Ayn Rand. Therefore, that we use the state to coerce is a symptom as much as anything of the general /moral/ laziness of men. It is wrong mainly because it is inferior and inadequate; and, worse, allows the so-called ‘over-class’ to go blind to its own fits and flaws:

    Therefore, we will only be free of the state when once a satisfactory number of us in each village and town internalise charity and compassion and, I daresay, consent to be ordered around /from within/; it comes down in the end to an actual recognition of, and an affinity and affection for, all we find most disgusting in ourselves (dumped on others, ie). But, make no mistake about this, we will not be free until we each one know how, morally, and when, urgently, to give freedom up — to love.

    Training in morality & good timing is everything.

  4. Pingback: Bodwyn Wook