Idle parenting means happy children…but…

David Davis says it depends on the kind of idleness…

…from Old Holborn.

If the parent or parents is/are (a) GramscoFabiaNazi creation via deliberate-scumbag-non-schooling, then perhaps not.

Faith schools under attack…again

David Davis

Rather than bludgeoning “Faith Schools” (‘coz they hate them for being an alternative power-centre) to conform to the trumpeting of State-Nazi-Sex pursuits, in the guise of “PSHE”, it might be instructive if we saw something else. Such as, if we were allowed to see a breakdown of teenage pregnancy statistics by type of school. The “40.4 conceptions per 1,000 girls aged 15-17 might, just might, be rather concentrated within that sector of girls that goes to “non-faith” British-State schools.

In fact I suspect it probably is, but would be interested to see the evidence for my prejudice. My prejudice is against miserable humourless GramscoFabians gratifying their lust for coercive-collective-pornography, by forcing children to hear about “how to put on your partner’s condom”, and the like – being correct here.

Sean Gabb: Should We Vote Conservative with Pinched Noses?

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 190
23rd February 2010
Linking url: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc190.htm

The 2010 General Election:
Advice on How to Vote
By Sean Gabb

There must, within the next few months, be a general election in England. I will not presume to advise my readers on how to vote. I will, instead, explain how I am at present inclined to vote, and will invite any comments that may arise.

My present inclination is to vote for the Conservative Party. I do not need to be told that these people are, for the most part, trash. I have been mixing in Conservative circles for thirty years now, and I have grown used to the idea of running home after most meetings for a bath. For the avoidance of doubt, let me admit what I think would be the nature of any Government led by David Cameron. It would not withdraw from the European Union. It would not roll back the multicultural elements of our police state. It would not require the police and other public bodies to behave with more humanity or common sense than they now do after thirteen years of Labour tyranny. It would not restore freedom of speech and association as they were understood in 1960. The identity card scheme might be cancelled – but not the national identity database that makes the scheme possible. Any cuts in government spending will fall on the services that are the excuse for such spending. None of the – often very well-paid – administrative and support jobs that are the real purpose will be cut. There will be no tax cuts. There will be no change to our external policy of slavish subservience to the United States. The “climate change” charate might even be become more scandalous.

This being so, why do I propose to vote Conservative? The answer is that a Conservative Government would probably continue with most of the suicidal or simply demented policies of the Blair and Brown Governments. But, at the end of five years, it would then allow a free election as these things have been commonly understood in England. A re-elected labour Government would not. When these beasts in human form lied their way to office back in 1997, they came in with the same assumptions as Hitler had in 1933. They did not regard themselves as having acquired a limited and renewable leasehold interest, but as having inherited the freehold. They and their clients would never again have to sell their services in any open market. They would reorder the State wholly to their own interest. No private sphere, no ancient and immemorial rights would stand in their way. 1997 was Year Zero of their Thousand Year Reich.

So long as it was reasonably plain that they could win the next few elections – if with a dwindling fraction of the total possible vote – they were willing to keep most of the old rules. Even so, they took steps to cartellise politics with party registration and “human rights” laws that now allow them, given courage, to shut down dissident organisations like the British National Party. For the past few years, however, they have lived in constant fear of losing the next election. And, if Labour does lose, that might cause the implosion of their Party. Therefore, if they do somehow win after all, we can be reasonably sure that they will never allow another free election. I doubt if they would go so far as abolishing elections, or openly rigging them. But they are already talking about schemes of “electoral reform” that would keep them permanently in office – even if office must be shared with the Liberal Democrats. They would also tighten the party registration laws, so that only those parties willing to guarantee the existing order would be allowed to run in elections. They might also extend their control over local politicians to Members of Parliament – setting up some system whereby Members who were too outspoken could be removed for “misconduct”.

For all their faults, the Conservatives would not do any of these things. Therefore, a vote for the Conservatives would be a vote for keeping the system open for a real party of national restoration – whatever that might be.

There is one other consideration. This is that, while a Cameron Government with a majority of less than fifty would be little different from Labour, a majority of more than a hundred would bring in new Members who had not been hand-picked for their willingness to obey. A big Conservative majority might force a Cameron Government to take a more liberal and patriotic line on the main issues.

Many of my friends assure me they will vote for the UK Independence Party or for the BNP – or, in one case, for an Islamic Party. I understand their frustration with the existing political arrangements. However, the main purpose of a general election is to send a majority into Parliament from which a Government will be drawn. Whatever individual chance Nigel Farage or Nick Griffin might have in their constituencies, the majority party after the next election must be either Labour or the Conservatives. I wish it were otherwise. But that is the choice we have to face. Do we want a pack of smirking hypocrites, who will leave office after another election? Or do we want what I have already called beasts in human form, who will never leave office thereafter, short of revolution?

Some of my friends insist that voting for minor parties will bring on a hung Parliament. This might be true. However, a hung Parliament would not give decisive weight to any of these minority parties. It would simply result in an auction between the two big parties for the Liberal Democrats. That would be about as bad as a Labour Majority. The choice remains Labour or Conservative.

Am I wrong? Is there some other viable option that I am overlooking? I look forward to hearing if there is. After all, if I do vote Conservative, it will be with forefinger and thumb clamped hard over my nose.

NB—Sean Gabb’s book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/ya4pzuh

Perhaps we Islanders have a racial problem

NB:- Not a “racist” one, but a “racial” one….rac“ism” is being used as a weapon against us: but everyoone knows that different races react to different things in different ways….

David Davis

I am now going to proffer wild suppositions and hypotheses.

It says on the BBC , via the UN (who else?) that Scotland is the “most violent country in the developed world”. Next highest are England+Wales, Australia and New Zealand. The USA, our first large child, today’s whipping-boy of leftist anti-gun-mums and “liberal” campaigners, and the home of beer-fuelled-pickup-driving-rednecks with-guns-in-their-trunks,  is at a level about one-third of Scotland.

With my evolutionary-paleobiologist’s hat on, a hat which I sometimes wear in bed (while reading such things as Richard Dawkins as is natural for a human) I think here and there about the selection-pressures acting on early hominids. Then one also wonders about the survival-related-usefulness, or otherwise, of genes which confer intra-specific aggressiveness as a strategy for survival, as opposed to whatever its opposite might be called. But then one comes up against a difficulty: aggressiveness, which can lead to you braining another hominid with a large nearby log (or a special one which you’d previously shaped in the dead of night) for such things as “looking at a couple of your own five current breeding-females in a funny and sexy way and then saying “Ugg-Ugg-Ugg!” while pelvic-thrusting” or “trying to pinch Sea-Buckthorn-berries from your huntergathering-patch of duneland”. Or, tell it not in Gath to the paleoFabians, for “throwing his sharp stick at the wild-bison’s jugular-vein more successfully than you did”, so his children would enter the forward-Gene-pool at higher frequency that yours will, and your breeding-females would “go to him” in his cave each time just after the Full Moon, rather than stay in yours…

Is it that the “Anglic type” peoples have been more successful at settling “foreign parts” and turning them into things such as “Dominions” _because_ we might be more naturally aggressive as individuals (as suggested circumstantially by the BBC report on Scotland – remember that there are more places on the earth called “Mackenzie” than any other place! – or is the opposite? Is it that _because_ we have been so successful at sidelining the problem of individual aggressiveness in an emergent modern civilisation through notions such as the Rule Of Law, Minimal-Statism, Individual Liberalism and the like, that other places bearing lots of people with our genes have also proved to be successful and orderly places?

If it is the latter and not the former, then is GramscoFabiaNazism, home-grown sadly and home-nurtured through our failure to stamp it out aggressively at the first appearance of it, then to blame for our terrible standing at the top of these personal-violence graphs?

The Taiwanese media take it more seriously

I personally don’t care if Gordon Brown is alleged to “bully” people or not. But it’s just rather embarrassing internationally. And if Mandelson and Balls are defending him, it seems suspcious.

Even if we’re not allowed an election ever again, cound not we just have somebody else?

I’m a Lumberjack, and i’m ok.

Fred Bloggs.

Just been doing a bit of rooting, and i found this:

I want one…

‘Orrible little people

Michael Winning

But am I describing them…or us?

Could Mandelson be describing Stalin?

David Davis

Truly, Lord Rumba of Rio wins the circumlocution Grand Challenge Cup 2010, for this statement as part of a defence of his boss puppet Gordon Brown.

‘He is demanding of himself, he is demanding of people around him, he knows what he wants to do, he does not like taking no for an answer from anyone, he will go on and on until he has got a policy and an idea in the best possible form which he can then roll out.”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1252584/Gordon-bully-claims-Mandelson-PM-accused-abusing-Downing-Street-staff.html#ixzz0gCeEuD06

Truly, also, we The People are just a “human resource”, upon whose supine canvas “policies and ideas can be rolled out”.

Now presenting… “BUROCRATIC ADVENTURES 2: RETURN OF THE RED TAPE”

Fred Bloggs.

Of all the things the EU has done over the years, i have to admit that this one suprised me.
The EU is now going to be producing a comic book, detailing the crimefighting shennanigans of two European Commission bureaucrats.
Take that free market capitalism! *BLAMMO!*
Eat this civil liberties! *THWAP!*
Wave goodbye Freedom of speech *KLONK!*

Even Prime-Mentalists should not behave like thugs to their stafff

michael Winning

It says in today’s Daily Mail that Gordon Brown has been told off by his most senior Civil Servant to “curb his volcanic temper”. You wonder what else is not stated and what else was told to hm. Where there’s smoke there’s fire or willl be soon.

If the election (if, not when) goes ahead and we are stuck witht his fellow, I don’t fancy five more years of this lot. Prime Ministers even lefty-fascist ones, ought to know how to behave at least to their nearest conspiratoors. We;ll be laughed at even by bemedalled African dictators in sunglasses, at least they wastes no time killing their opponemts.

I do not care if Tiger Woods is sorry for anything or everythhing

Micheal qwinning

Why does it matter to the world, what these men do? Does it matter if the golfer-chappy lives or dies? Not really.

But also, to help us from being assailed by this sort of news-rubbish-stuff too often, I agree with what Celia Walden (who is that?) said earlier today about sportsmen. They ought to be forbidden to marry until age 350 or somethng. And trying to sit their animal passions with what “sponsors” whatever those are want them to seem to be, is just mad and silly, it will end in tears as it has done with Tiger Woods and John Terry and who knows how many more.

And this is really realyl funny, you have to have a laugh, please have a look! It’s sort of a bit related to the guys above.

The Daily Mail outdoes _/itself/_ in triviality

David Davis

It is very nice – and I have no objection at all to these inconsequential models and celebs amusing themselves  at “charity auctions – that Sir Philip Green (more consequential to our fortunes than the others) can afford to pay £100,000 for some bits of blueish cloth. Especially as the money will go “to Haiti”. I wonder, though, how much Kate Moss’s “women and children” will see of it after the UN has got its fingers round the swagbag. I admire Sir Philip Green: he is a smart businessman, insofar as these still are these days, and knows what he is about. And so does cunning-Kate Moss – so aptly positioned for the camera so she could cry in public…..(I blame the wicked and evil woman “Princess” Diana)….still “reeling” from the death of Alexander McQueen (who he?)

It’s a nice little minidress, though. If I had a 20-y-o girlfriend, I’d probably get her mates to run one up on a sewing-machine for her. Shame about the leather bra-restrainer that the poor dead-bugger saw fit to apply to the top of it, though. She’d look better without it.

When the world is sliding towards the cesspool, the Falklands are about to “brew up” again, Brown’s spent all our money, and even Polish satellite TV finds it more important to report on China, the Greek-State crash bailout, Iran and French Internet-censorship, one of our leading MSM papers finds space for this kind of tosh.

Green wasters

David Davis

When I drive around, usually in a hurry to do tasks and chores, I am often struck (not literally, thankfully) by the use of Municipal waste-collection vehicles, and the effect they often have on surrounding traffic.

Let me explain: I am not in principle against many parts of the GreeNazi-recycling terror currently oppressing us. It would be preferable if we were incentivised to recycle rather than threatened. Some things like metals can be recycled rather simply, and often have been until socialism lent a hand.  And I have always tried to recycle metals, even in the past befriending Gypsies who used to recover about 40% of British Steel’s volume input before they were turned en-masse into Accredited-State-Mendicants, Local-Authority-Authorised-Neighbourhood-Modifiers, and “travelling people”, in the hope of votes for apparatchiks.

Municipal waste-collection vehicles have become recently enormous. Moreover, they spend large time-segments occupying the entirety of a street to the effect that traffic can’t pass either way, while the “refuse disposal associate operatives” and “neighbourhood recycling co-ordinators” stride about in high-visibility-jackets, tipping nugatory amounts of metal, paper or plastic into compartments on their juggernaut, which proceeds at a pace bearing no relation to the street traffic.

I can’t help thinking that the nett contribution to atmospheric CO2 – if that is what the GreeNazis really care about or say they do – is increased due to these recycling activities. You have a large slow-moving diesel truck (indeed, in each Soviet there are many) plus the stalled traffic, engines idling for some minutes, either end of it. The amount of fuel burned while not going anywhere must be high, surely. The later savings in CO2 production due only to the recycling activities must be small in comparison.

Perhaps the whole thing is a gigantic Marxist-Leninist scam-trick, designed to load the economies of MEDCs*** with cost-burdens, so as to keep as large a proportion as possible of the world’s humans on or below the poverty-line…..so the same Marxist-Leninists can have a captive slave-brood to talk about….

NewLabour surrogate mother of the day

Michael Winning

says I saw this on Man Widdecombe, its quite funneh…enough work today, and I fell in a ditch and a pig fell on me.

Constitutional Monarchy, government and liberty

How can these co-exist, you might ask?

David Davis

Obnoxio the Clown has answered it very tightly in about 500 words. Wish I could do it that fast. I think this is such a good essay that, as well as putting is link in, I’ll reviralise it here:-

Abandoning constitutional monarchy

There was a vote held at the House of Twits about whether or not Britain should abandon the constitutional monarchy. Contrary to what one might expect from a libertarian and, even worse, an Anarcho-Capitalist, I voted no. In fact, if I had my druthers, I’d undo that shameless huckster Blair’s “reform” of the Lords and re-instate hereditary peerage as well!

It’s crucial that I explain why. A constitutional monarchy is not the endgame objective of any Libertarian. It is profoundly unlibertarian that someone can rule over you by accident of birth. However, through happy accident, it transpires that having a ruling monarch that is required to give assent to laws, along with two strong chambers of debate is a pretty good mix for reasonable governance in a democratic, rather than an anarchic state.

And while a lot of libertarians resent the land-ownership of the hereditary peers, the fact that they weren’t all from the grasping, venal classes actually made them quite good custodians of our rights. If you look at the regime of New Labour, for instance, the official opposition was utterly useless in the Commons and all the serious defence of the common man ironically came from the Lords. And if we look at the rapid increase in common petty theft in the Lords, is it any surprise that it has all come about since Labour started throwing the money out there to be taken and then appointing people from the grasping, venal classes?

I’m not saying the Lords were saints before, but because they were disinterested and there wasn’t really anything in it for them, they tended to either not bother at all or take it seriously for its own sake. Sure they could influence big deals for their own back pocket, but they weren’t inspired to enact draconian laws because they’d get a chunk of cash for pitching up and then being “whipped” to vote.

Whether you regard it as class, or breeding, or just some kind of good sense and disinterest, the peers have acquitted themselves much better than our elected representatives, who do not represent us, but rather the interests of their party. And really, for this to work properly, you do need a stronger monarch. Unfortunately, Brenda has really screwed the pooch here and I positively fear Charlie. We need a monarch who would not give Royal Assent to draconian laws, or bad laws. The ideal situation is where all three are strong, because then it’s difficult for any one of them to overwhelm the others. At the moment, the party in power has a toothless opposition and the Queen just gives the nod to any old shit. In fact, she doesn’t even need to rubberstamp anything, as they can now just implement a statuatory order without debate or anything. Not that there’s ever any debate anyway.

Anyway, I’m rambling now. Ultimately, I didn’t really have a problem with the pre-’97 constitutional monarchy, because no one group of the government had too much power. Blair screwed that completely by abolishing hereditary peerages and every other “reform” he did. Now the Commons dominates and is only held in the vaguest of check by the Lords.

Having seen any number of elected-only government models around the world, the UK’s odd mixture of Crown, hereditary peer and elected thief was a very good one. If I had to endure a government, I would rather it was that one.

I would rather endure no government at all. But that wasn’t what was asked.

GramscoFabiaNazis CAN be confronted and beaten, locally, with forethought and commitment

David Davis

Tickle Cock Bridge has got its proper name back, after “local people” objected en masse to the GramscoSoviet renaming it “Tittle Cott Bridge”….the excuse for the Gramsco bit was that…oh… “a Councillor spotted it and wrote it down like that”…

Haarrrrrumph….

It shows that the GramscoFabiaNazis _can_ be browbeated in their own front yards – which are in any case ours – and so it shows how they will be made to go without our having to resort to war.

As to criticisms of my term “GramscoFabiaNazi”:-

(1) They apply Gramscian political conflict theory to how they go about undermining and replacing our value systems with theirs,

(2) They are Fabians, in that they know how to boil frogs, very very slowly, and this is what makes them, in the British context, especially dangerous, for we as a nation are inclined to laziness in maintaining defences, and this has always been a serious and potentially mortal failing on our part,

(3) They are Nazis in that Green-Leftist-State-Fascism is what they propose to impose.

France today – the UK tomorrow

David Davis

Government internet regulation: this is how it will be here, and soonish I guess. Harriet- Harmonisation, Corpus Juris and all that.

Speaking merely personally and very generally, I don’t think we will ever return to a state of even partial liberalism, like what existed for some decades aaround the turn of the 19th Century and a little after. WE’d better try to enjoy what’s left, and make the best of the Endarkenment to come.

There will be local and passing opportuities for skilled people to keep stuff working, here and there, to preserve archives and libraries of knowledge where possible for the distant future, and to try to maintain something of what we might have had.

Soviets’ pay-packets for Commissars: now THEY can afford to work!

Muchael Winning

Saw this too. Privacy is a two way street, people! If thyerae afraid they aren’t worth it, then they ought to resign and do a job of work.

Socialist-derived inactivity…because you can’t afford to work

Michael Winning

The British-State laments the fact that “Eight million people are economically inactive”. I quote:-

Public sector jobs increased by 5 per cent over a year to 6.09 million. In all, the state gained 290,000 employers (sic: he meant employees!) from September 2008 to Sept 2009.

During the same period, private sector jobs fell by 735,000 to 22.82 million.

They cna come and work here if they want, on the moor, pushing pigs around. But i could not pay them the minimumwage, so I guess they wont be allowed to come then…the job’s worth in reality about £2 an hour for the price i get for the animals…I cuould have queues of Afghan immigrants doing it and they’d be good too and feel rich, but it’s not allowed so I can’t.

I tell you, this socialism lark will end it tears, itwill. It always does. Can’t think why we rubb our noses in it willingly every election.

1959 conviction still haunts gay man seeking work – Yahoo! News

Sean Gabb says:

This is disgusting. No one should ever be punished for consensual activity. And a bad law is only half repealed when convictions under it are allowed to stay on the record.

AP – John Crawford, 70, poses for photograph at his home in central London, Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2010. Crawford …

By GREGORY KATZ, Associated Press Writer

– Tue Feb 16, 12:51 pm ET

LONDON – He was convicted of a crime more than half a century ago, but what he did in 1959 — have consensual sex with another man — would be perfectly legal today.

So John Crawford, 70, wants his criminal record cleaned up for good, so that he doesn’t have to disclose his conviction when he seeks volunteer work, and because of a deeply held belief that he should not be punished for his sexual orientation.

“I came into this world without a criminal record and I’d like to leave this world without one,” said Crawford, a retired butler. “The police beat me and beat me and forced me to confess to being gay, but I know in my heart I did nothing wrong.”

Crawford’s bid to clean up his record is backed by gay organizations looking to help others who were convicted under Britain’s once draconian anti-homosexuality laws, which only began to be eased in 1967, as social values changed, and sex acts between consenting adults began to be decriminalized.

“These laws were homophobic in the first place: that’s why they were rescinded, but the laws are still penalizing people,” said Deborah Gold, director of Galop, a gay rights group that has helped Crawford. “We’ve always had a regular trickle of people asking about it, how to get their records cleaned up.”

She said Crawford suffered horrific treatment from the police and should not have to disclose his criminal conviction when seeking employment or volunteer work.

His lawyers wrote to Justice Secretary Jack Straw last week asking that the law be changed so that Crawford and others in his position would not have to disclose their convictions during the job interview process.

If no action is taken by March 12, attorneys will seek a formal judicial review because the policy is not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, said lawyer Anna Mazzola.

“John Crawford wants to do it, to change the law for other people,” she said. “Others are in exactly the same position. The justice secretary has the power to do this, without going through Parliament.”

Mazzola’s firm has also filed a freedom of information request for data about the number of people convicted of consensual sexual offenses that would now be legal.

“I think there are quite a lot,” she said.

Crawford’s legal campaign has already been productive. In response to a letter from his lawyers, police have removed the record of his conviction from the criminal database, meaning it will not turn up during a computerized criminal records search.

“We are very sympathetic to Mr. Crawford’s concerns,” said a Hampshire police spokesman, who asked not to be identified under department policy. “We recognize that this is an exceptional case and have acted quickly to resolve it.”

The spokesman said the conviction is no longer relevant and has been taken out of the Police National Computer database. The special ruling applies only to Crawford, however, not to other gay or bisexual men with similar offenses in their past.

This welcome decision removes one substantial obstacle Crawford faces in his retirement as he pursues voluntary positions, such as hospital work where he would be helping to feed ill people.

He is not satisfied, however, because he is still legally required to reveal the 1959 episode when asked if he has ever been convicted of any criminal offence. This happens frequently on questionnaires when applying for volunteer work with vulnerable persons.

“I think it’s ridiculous,” Crawford said.

His lingering anger comes in part from the humiliation he suffered at the hands of police officers in 1959. He said they abused him physically and harassed him with vulgar taunts, then coerced him into pleading guilty by threatening to continue beating him if he did not cooperate.

As a result of that plea, he said he was saddled with a conviction that would not have been possible otherwise, especially since he was not accused of having sex in public.

“I wanted to plead not guilty, and the case would have been thrown out and I wouldn’t be talking about it now,” Crawford said. “Until the police drop it completely, I won’t be happy. I’ve got to be able to put my hand on my heart and say to the world, I haven’t got a criminal record, and I can’t say that now.”

1959 conviction still haunts gay man seeking work – Yahoo! News