Gordon Brown, (Who became Death, the Destroyer of Worlds) has the brass neck, the immortal rind…to…


…complain (it is alleged) that his child’s medical records were “hacked”.

David Davis

I said all I wanted to say about this on the Daily Mail just now, who printed it. My comment is not being at all well-received: people, in the mass, do not seem to have got the point at all. That is why I remain so pessimistic about the prospects of a Libertarian (or even liberal) revival.

It’s sad that this had to be about his child, but I (and millions) will have no sympathy for Gordon Brown. He and his government presided, on purpose, over the largest surveillance-attack on a people in the history of the world, using all kinds of modern technology. His government, indeed, were going to even bring in an “Identity Card”, disguised as an “entitlement card” (sounds rather like rationing, to me!) whose “database” would ultimately be connected in a cashless society with everything about the holder. You could not even park your Ferrari outside the hotel where you would be meeting a “female celebrity” for “drinks”, without swiping your “ID card” plus your payment card in the meters-to-come! And now, he has the brass neck to complain that he was “hacked”? What goes around comes around.

And here’s an update:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2013993/The-Sun-issue-statement-regarding-Gordon-Browns-son-Frasers-cystic-fibrosis.html

About these ads

18 responses to “Gordon Brown, (Who became Death, the Destroyer of Worlds) has the brass neck, the immortal rind…to…

  1. C H Ingoldby

    I remember in the early days of the last Labour government an eldery lady had the temerity to complain about her hospital treatment. Almost immediately, embarrassing details from her private medical were leaked to Labour supporting reporters.

    So, when it comes to the the complaints of Labour politicians, I think they can go to hell and rot.

  2. Unfortunately the prospect of a liberal revival are dim at the moment. It’s a matter of the right time for these things. There have been two great opportunities for liberalism- the 18th century and the Post-War II period. Both times, the ball was fumbled. The first period was followed by a period of crushing illiberalism- the “Victorian Era” that gave birth eventually to communism and fascism and, in our own countries, “Anglo-Socialism”. I think we are living in much the same sort of collapse of liberalism again. I also believe, as you know, that this is because we don’t really understand what we’re up against and have constantly misunderstood both the game in progress and the opponent.

  3. Brown is a deceitful twat.

    As Guido points out, the day (back in 2006) the story about his kid broke, was the same day a Charities Commission investigation was launched into the Bottle-fed Boy’s illegal channelling of funds to his stooge/sidekick Balls via the Smith Institute, a fake charity. Brown prob fed the story to the press himself.

  4. Ian as you know, I agree to the extent that I think the opponent is here at home, and that the emergent liberal classical environment actually aided our opponent’s coming-into-being. By contrast, the “Taliban”, whatever he is, and “fundamentalist Islam”, are nothing at all to worry about. In fact they are catspaws, being used by our own home-enemy, just as Nazi foreign policy attempted so to do in WW1 and also WW2.

  5. David, I wouldn’t say that emergent classical liberalism aided the Enemy. Rather, it was a reaction against their first manifestation- which had culminated in the Cromwell despotism. Charles II consciously tried to de-nazify the country by excluding them from Parliament, the clergy and the Universities. But as it turned out, that wasn’t enough.

    The Enemy was the Puritans. By the late 18th century they were re-organising and rebranding themselves, “community organising” in working class communiites and the new industrial areas, and recasting themselves as a persecuted minority. In 1832, they had their first Big Win, with the Great Reform Act, which did little to increase “democracy” but got them back into Parliament. By the 1860s we were in the full flow of bloating government, perhaps best characterised by something that would have been unthinkable not long before, the nationalisation of the telegraph system.

    The Enemy in the anglosphere isn’t communism. It is a rabid form of Protestantism based on the theocratic cult of John Calvin.

    On the continent, the struggle was between Catholics and Protestants. In England, thanks to historical accident, that was a rather minor affair; our struggle- including our civil war (and later the American copy of it)- was between Protestants; moderates on one side and the “taliban” of the Puritans on the other. That’s why we’re different.

    The struggle has been ongoing ever since. Roundheads and cavaliers, that’s the game.

    In my humble opinion, of course :oD

  6. In “The Constitution of Liberty”, F.A. Hayek warns that the greatest danger to Classical Liberalism comes from those who insist on conjoining it to Laissez Faire economics.

    Tony

  7. When I looked at the Daily Mail comments, they all seemed to be variations of yours.

  8. Ian B – You have written at length here about the failure of liberalism after the 18th century. Would you care to explain how it failed after WWII? I suggest that our Blogmaster might promote your posting to the front page.

  9. C H Ingoldby

    I’m surprised that anyone should consider the post WWII period to have been a window of opportunity for real liberalism. From my understanding, the prevailing intellectual climate was deeply collectivist. It seems fortunate that we didn’t have actual Soviets established in Britain.

  10. Well, the hegemonic class are always collectivist. That’s their job. You don’t keep power by giving it away, after all. When there is struggle within the hegemonic class, it will always be over who has the power, and nothing else. Thus, the only strategy for liberalism must be to strike at some moment when they are at their weakest and most divided, and destroy them utterly; as Sean has himself declared in one of his books; well, at least that last part about how to destroy them. If you don’t they just regroup, and they are very very good at that. As we are now seeing.

    There was never any chance of soviets in any anglosphere nation; not here, or the USA, or the minor colonies. This is one of the reasons I would argue that liberalism has wasted effort in fighting communism. Communism has only ever triumphed in primitive thuggish despotisms, not advanced genteel despotisms like England. Even those calling themselves communists in the anglosphere and more cultured parts of the Continent are not communists, as Paul Gottfried explained in The Strange Death Of Marxism.

    Communism is a red herring. The despotism of the anglosphere is a social control movement, which only uses economic controls secondarily as a supporting framework. Nobody with any serious political influence wants the dictatorship of the proleteriat, and they never have. Their goal is, and always was, a moral reformation of the culture. This is one of the areas the conservatives get so terribly wrong- not least because conservatism is simply last century’s progressivism, but we’ll let that pass. There is a myth that the Enemy are trying to destroy the west by undermining it morally. The very opposite is true. Whatever they tear down is merely in order to build something better in its place, lke tearing down old Saint Peters to build the new one. This new western world is intended as the core and model of a literal new world order, a shining city on a hill, on a global scale.

    Oops, typed a lot and din’t answer Sean’s question. In a nutshell, my argument is that the twentieth century was a reaction against the post-millennialist utopia-building of the nineteenth, and the period of radical social individualism that lasted something like 1955-1980 offered a small chance for a more general liberalism (including economic) to take root; unfortunately, the Puritans got hold of it again and turned it into political correctness, the new Victorianism. Because they’re just much better at what they do than we are.

    So, continuing this incoherent ramble, I guess I would say that we are in the third great Puritan Era; Cromwell, then the Victorians, now the PC Era. Either this is their final triumph, or their Barbarossa. I wonder what the history books will record.

  11. I suppose that will have to do for the moment. Can I ask if our Blogmaster would be kind enough to promote you to the front page?

  12. Well, it’s not one of more cogent comments really. I can try to put something better together if you like, but I wouldn’t call the above front page material really.

  13. Please don’t David, it’s not an article, just a rather incoherent comment.

  14. I’ll save it as a draft for now. You might think you’ve got something else better later.

  15. I think it is worth saying as clearly as possible. I shall be back in England tomorrow, and can then give more encouragement.

  16. Nation’s Spirits Raised As Gabb Returns

    Englishmen and their wives the length and breadth of the kingdom were today much cheered by the news that Sean Gabb would be imminently returning to our shores. On the stock market, there was a sharp rally as a new spirit of confidence rippled through traders. And in the streets of humble towns and villages, impromptu street parties broke out, requiring an urgent and brutal response by the lads of the PCSO.

    A government spokesman reassured this organ that everything is under control, and that our nation’s institutions are well trained to deal with a surprise Gabb. Said Interior Minister Lord Sleaze Of Islington, “we have dealt with a sudden Gabb before, and nobody should be alarmed. While the return of a Libertarian of this magnitude has been known to cause spontaneous outbreaks of spontaneity, rest assured that we will take them in our stride; all police leave has been cancelled and weapons issued. This is England. You are not here to enjoy yourself.”

    Reports that Gabb would be making a triumphal entry into London, riding in a gilded carriage drawn by beautiful white mares and surrounded by a remarkable entourage of dancers, acrobats, jugglers and performing animals have not been confirmed and continued on page 3

  17. Ian, you ought to be on this blog’s staff. I don’t suppose you know anything about phone-hacking do you? If so……you wouldn’t perhaps fancy a little stay at a health spa I’m thinking of setting up for the “right” people, would you?