Category Archives: Firearms

Some help perhaps from across the pond


Hello Mr. Gabb.

My name is Drew Warner, a friend from across the pond.

I stumbled across your blog after a night of surfing the internet. Love the gun rights posts, and the chutzpah. I’ll continue to read it.

I’ve been following the issues of overbearing domination by the power of the state on your side of the pond, and thought that some of these videos could provide some assistance. If you already are aware of these, or do not need them, I apologize. I only send them because they’ve helped out in quite a few of my own debates about the rights of free citizens (particularly when cornered by gun grabbers that are only too pleased to share their wisdom with me uninvited).

1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHIQtxLCgrM

2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9npUXVx2pg

If you have any advice yourself for us Americans dealing with the gun snatchers over here, I would appreciate the advice of an old hand. United we stand, and all that.

Good luck Sean. I mean it. Don’t give up, and remember… you’re fighting on the right side of history. Keep it up mate.

~ Drew

I think that few of us spotted this one coming. EU reintroduces death penalty via LISBON “in the case of war, riots, upheaval”


David Davis

http://www.archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2008/04/lisbon-treaty-introduces-eu-wide-death.html

I think it might be time to flag this one to The Faithful. Some of us may not have noticed it – I certainly didn’t. Do you read Eurotreaties? I do not, for I have not time.

And since it was in a footnote to a footnote to something that few if any normal people would be willing or able to spend the time reading through comprehensively, we all might be forgiven.

The entire notion now throws, into ever-sharper focus, this Nation’s relationship with the EU. I have nothing to add to that sentence for you may all have your own thoughts.

As we all know, I am not in favour of modern States being able to take life: this is because in all cases the right to do that to another human has been denied by the state’s law.

If I have not a right to end someone’s life who has wronged me and mine, and if my arms and guns and kitchen-knives and screwdrivers have been seized off me in that regard,  then I also have not the right to delegate that right to Continue reading

Would it help if I put this on my Amazon Wish List?


It Didn’t Take Them Long to Hit the Panic Button


The Only Defense is a Good Offense


The Only Defense is a Good Offense
by Boris Karpa
Attribute to L. Neil Smith’s The Libertarian Enterprise

I am, sadly speaking, the inhabitant of a country which has—by every sensible measure—absolutely draconian gun control. I am not eligible for a permit, and if I were, the mightiest weapon I could get would be a single pistol and 50 rounds of ammunition (rifles are restricted to sportsmen who train for two years). I have written extensively—in American and Israeli media—on the subject on gun control, and am even now making an effort to set up a gun rights organization in Israel. Continue reading

“Gun Control for the Children?” Sorry, No Sale.


by Thomas Knapp
http://c4ss.org/content/16370
“Gun Control for the Children?” Sorry, No Sale.

“This is our first task as a society,” said US president Barack Obama at a January 16th press conference: “Keeping our children safe.”

The event’s purpose was to leverage last month’s school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut into support for a set of new executive orders and legislative proposals relating to what supporters euphemistically refer to as “gun control.” Continue reading

Was Hitler Really Anti-Gun Control?


by Anthony Gregory
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/thelibertarianstandard/~3/5wMyEqMkIgA/

Was Hitler Really Anti-Gun Control?

A Salon.com article by Alex Seitz-Wald called “The Hitler Gun Control Lie” is making the rounds, purporting to challenge a myth Second Amendment enthusiasts spread that blames the Holocaust on Hitler’s policies of civilian disarmament. The thrust of the argument is that Hitler’s 1938 firearms law indeed ratcheted back restrictions from the Weimar era. But here is the most telling paragraph: Continue reading

Fear, Violence and the Absurd


by Trevor Hultner
http://c4ss.org/content/16185

Note: I don’t suggest he should be deported, because it’s none of my business what people do in their own country – and because it would mean his coming back to England, and I’d rather have Abu Hamza back here than him. However, why is anyone in America paying attention to Piers Morgan? He’s a resident alien.

In a normal country, such people should have the right to life and property. Of course, they should have the legal right to speak as they please. But it strikes me as bad manners if they use this right to demand changes in the law. They don’t perfectly understand the ways of the country in which they find themselves. They’ve had no ancestral part in the formation of the country. Neither they nor their children have any obligation to share in the consequences of what they recommend.

I find Janet Daley irritating for the same reason as Americans do Mr Morgan. Some years ago, when she was banging on about the need to scrap the double jeopardy rule, so the alleged killers of Stephen Lawrence could be locked away, I suggested she should clear off home to America. She hasn’t spoken to me since.

I’ll make a partial exception from this rule for the Irish, and a larger one for people from the white dominions – ie, Germaine Greer, Peter Tatchell and so forth. Then there are variable exceptions for foreign immigrants – variable according to their degree of identification with the country. Outright foreigners should have a right to speak, but none to be heard and taken seriously. SIG Continue reading

How to Stop School Shootings


http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=399
How to Stop School Shootings
By John R. Lott, Jr

This week’s horrific shootings in Arkansas have, predictably, spurred calls or more gun control. But it’s worth noting that the shootings occurred in one of the few places in Arkansas where possessing a gun is illegal. Arkansas, Kentucky and Mississippi the three states that have had deadly shootings in public schools over the past half-year all allow law-abiding adults to carry concealed handgun for self-protection, except in public schools. Indeed, federal law generally prohibits guns within 1000 feet of a school. Continue reading

Guns: A Case against Victim Disarmament


The War Against Armed Crime:
We Need Guns to Make Us Safer
Sean Gabb
(Published in The Birmingham Post, 7th June 2006)

The current debate on armed crime is depressingly predictable. Everyone agrees something must be done. Just about everyone agrees this something must include laws against the sale or carrying or simple possession of weapons. More controls on weapons, the argument goes, the fewer weapons on the street: therefore lower levels of armed crime.

Now, this whole line of thinking is nonsense. We already have some of the strictest controls in the developed world on the carrying of weapons. We also have some of the highest levels of armed crime. Indeed, we are reaching the point where we shall need to show proof of identity before buying knives and forks. There is no reason to suppose yet tougher laws will succeed where all the others have plainly failed. Continue reading

POST APOCALYPSE RECOVERY PROJECT


POST APOCALYPSE RECOVERY PROJECT
James Roger Brown
Sociologist, Intelligence Collection and Analysis Methodologist
Director
P.O. Box 101
Worthington, KY 41183-0101
thesociologist
www.thesociologycenter.com
Last updated 09/22/2011

Check back frequently, I will be adding to and improving this page.

Suggestions for inclusion may be submitted to the above e-mail address. One high priority document has not been located. Between the end of WW II and 1950 Naval Intelligence created a classified archaeology report about prior civilizations on the North American Continent. Talk to your family members who served during WW II and Korea to determine the title and author of the document. I suspect it contains maps that we need.

Introduction

Activating this Post Apocalypse Recovery Project begins an effort which there is no documented evidence has ever been done before in all of human history. The purpose is to manage information, knowledge and resources to minimize the intentional disruption of social stability caused by the engineered collapse of civilization and minimize the recovery time to develop new stable social processes among the survivors. There will be survivors. Continue reading

Killing no murder – the right of the individual to defend their home


by Robert Henderson
http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/killing-no-murder-the-right-of-the-individual-to-defend-their-home/

Note: This was written after the Tony Martin case. However, it applies just as well to other cases. SIG

Killing no murder
By Robert Henderson

Tony Martin’s conviction for murder after he killed the burglar Fred Barras, raises these important issues: the right of self-defence; the protection of property, the general use of police resources; the policing of Martin’s locality, the fairness of Martin’s trial and, above all, the relationship between the individual and the state.

The right to self-defence

Any attempt at definition short of giving a person an absolute right to defend themselves how they will is doomed to failure. Once a definition includes general qualifications such as “reasonable force”, it becomes unworkable, because the qualifications are hideously imprecise. The practical result is confusion and uncertainty and anyone who defends themselves is at risk of prosecution. The problem is exemplified in comments by Ann Widdecombe, the Conservative home affairs spokesman who recently said “People whose person or property is attacked should be able to defend themselves without fear of penalty from the law” (Daily Telegraph 24/4/2000), but then qualified this by saying that prosecutions could still take place in extreme circumstances. Once that qualification is made, the uncertainty returns. Continue reading

False arrest of victims


by D.J. Webb

As libertarians will be well aware, English Common Law confirms the right of Englishmen to use arms in their self-defence. I am one of those who would not accept the legality of purported laws to strip us of this right, but in any case, we have not been stripped of this right, at least in terms of statute law. The 1688 Bill of Rights, which has not been repealed and has been affirmed by higher courts as being a major constitutional law that cannot be impliedly repealed (i.e., can only be repealed by express language clearly repealing it), specifies our right to use weapons in our own defence. Continue reading

The Political Ideas of Anders Behring Breivik


by Kevin MacDonald
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/?p=9198

Note by Sean GabbI have copied this in full from The Occidental Observer site because Professor MacDonald’s posting seems to be the longest and most thorough analysis of what drove Mr Breivik to commit his crimes – always assuming he did indeed commit them. He has actually read the killer’s book, and this lets him say a great deal more than the mainstream media, which appears to take its entire coverage from statements by the Norwegian police.

For the record, the Libertarian Alliance deplores these killings and has no sympathy whatever with the ideology that may have been used to justify them. Nor do we endorse any claim that Professor MacDonald may derive from his analysis. At the same time, we thank him for having read and summarised an 1100 page book that has been made important by the the alleged deeds of its author.

It should go without further elaboration that we oppose all demands for gun control, which is nothing more than victim disarmament, and we oppose all demands for censorship of supposedly “hateful” ideas. Here begins the analysis by Kevin MacDonald:- Continue reading

Gun control kills British soldiers in Afghanistan…


Christopher Houseman

according to this BBC article. So how will it keep British civilians safe at home?

Oh dear, a spat with Pakistan, again


David Davis

UPDATE: I forgot to include a link to the report – apologies.

Our Coagulation-PM has got into hot water, it seems, with certain nationalist elements in the Pakistani Intelligence Services.

Apparently this is what Cameron said:-

”But we cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror whether to India, whether to Afghanistan or to anywhere else in the world.”

The problem of interpretation centres on TWO WORDS…”able” and “promote”. If his advisers had said to him to say “unable” to “prevent”, or even “finds it difficult to prevent”, then I don’t think the ISI could have complained – for that would, as we all know, be substantively true.

Perhaps the coagulation is going to founder on the rock of the British Political Enemy-Class, which still owns the Terms Of Discourse, which wants our culture and civilisation dead, which believes what it is saying and thinks we don’t think that, and still, sadly, briefs Cameron’s speechwriters.

Pakistan is a surprisingly large place, like neighbouring Afghanistan, and it is difficult to police much of it, even had its government the strategic will and vision to supress “certain elements”.

“Johnny-Taliban” is clearly getting his gear (even if not his squaddies) from somewhere, and nearby – given his logistics-set-up – is the obvious place. I don’t think the Russians’ writ quite runs as well as it did in those parts in the 1970s/80s, so “north” is probably out: furthermore, ShootinPutin187 knows, to a nicety, how far to push us or not, and this is not something he’d go the the stake over.

France always makes trouble for the Anglosphere on principle, whenever it can. That’s how it is: it’s France’s job and has been for 1,000 years. So I’m prepared to believe that money might be coming from there, if not explosives and IED-technology. But Occam’s Razor does, sadly, point to our old chum “West Pakistan”.

If the ISI geeks want to flounce, let them.

101 Years Ago – G.K. Chesterton on the English Governing Class


Christopher Houseman

the evil of aristocracy is that it places everything in the hands of a class of people who can always inflict what they can never suffer. Whether what they inflict is, in their intention, good or bad, they become equally frivolous. The case against the governing class of modern England is not in the least that it is selfish; if you like, you may call the English oligarchs too fantastically unselfish. The case against them simply is that when they legislate for all men, they always omit themselves.

Chesterton, G. K. (2010). Heretics (276). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

In 2010, for instance, most UK citizens live under such strict gun control laws that even the British Olympic pistol shooting team has to go abroad to practice. Meanwhile, members of the Royal family and Government ministers have armed bodyguards available whenever they appear in public.

Current gun control laws are a frank admission by our glorious leaders that the only ordinary British citizens who might carry guns near their leaders are would-be assassins. This in turn rests on an unspoken acceptance by the governing class that (no matter who’s apparently in charge) at least some of its policies are deeply provocative to a sizable number of British citizens and/or visiting foreigners.

I can think of no other way to explain the governing class’ obvious conclusion that the vast majority of law-abiding British citizens can’t be trusted to train and equip themselves to defend themselves, their homes, and their leaders. Tragedy, farce and gross insult are, in this case, aliases of our leaders’ (in)actions. The sensible political option remains what it has always been – to govern less and so cause less offence in the first place.

Has someone shot the gun control lobby’s Cumbrian fox?


Christopher Houseman

Recent events in Cumbria have led to an entirely predictable concern among UK libertarians that even more restrictions on gun ownership and usage are on the way. But on this occasion, I don’t share their pessimism.

UK domestic gun legislation is already among the tightest in the world (which is a bit ironic for a country that is one of the world’s largest arms exporters). Furthermore, even the most dyed in the wool statists are currently resigned to having their budgets (and therefore their de facto powers, at least) cut in the short to medium term. These facts, combined with the rarity of shooting sprees in the UK by licensed gun owners using their own weapons, make any attempt to administer further restrictions uneconomic.

So, might a total ban be contemplated? I couldn’t help noticing from the outset that key elements of the Whitehaven episode didn’t play out according to the standard gun control script. Jamie Reed, the local MP for Copeland was interviewed by the national media as the story broke on 2nd June. Although a Labour MP, he didn’t go along with one reporter’s efforts to corral him into calling for tighter gun control laws. Clearly, Mr. Reed knows something of the realities of his rural constituents’ daily lives. Quite simply, the prominent role of shotguns in particular in rural pest control means that a shotgun ban is unlikely to be supported.

Since 2nd June, it’s emerged that Derrick Bird had held shotgun and/or firearms licences for 20 years with no prior incidents, so it’s unlikely his actions could have been foreseen by anything short of continuous human and/or audio-visual surveillance (and then only in the very short term). Furthermore, it’s also emerged that local police officers had sight of Derrick Bird and might have been able to prevent his last 9 killings – except that the officers were unarmed, and therefore backed off when he confronted them directly.

This last snippet of news has clearly been released in an effort to deflect criticism away from Cumbrian officers. It may have the effect of relaunching the debate over the routine arming of police officers (that would be the state-thinkful option). This is unlikely to be deemed acceptable, but combined with the recent attack on 2 baby girls in their London home by a fox, it opens up new public debate opportunities for libertarians.

What’s the point of relaxing or scrapping the “reasonable force” restriction on householders’ defence of life and property against intruders if householders aren’t allowed to own and train with the best technical means available for home and self-defence (including pepper sprays, tasers and guns)? No wonder ministers are getting jittery about changing the law. And as urban foxes get more numerous and bold, isn’t it time to stop thinking of home defence purely in terms of repelling human burglars?

But what, you may ask, if the forthcoming debate does result in the police being routinely armed? In that case, civil libertarians of all stripes will unite to get it reversed. A significant number of police officers will meanwhile complain about the potential damage to their public image, and the extra pressures routine carrying of a gun will put on them. And then we will have to wait and see how well the state’s prefabricated “one rotten apple” justification will stand up to the public outcry when an armed police officer finally goes on the rampage with a Heckler and Koch. What, then, will be the justification for using the law of the land to allow only the police and the criminal classes to carry guns in Britain?

Intellectually speaking, at least, I suggest the gun control lobby is only a few steps away from shooting itself in the foot.

Aktuelle Nachricht – Amoklauf in Nordengland: Wiederbewaffnung der Bevölkerung „schützt vor Massenmord“ – Redaktion eigentümlich frei – eigentümlich frei


A superfast translation from Robert Groezinger!

Aktuelle Nachricht – Amoklauf in Nordengland: Wiederbewaffnung der Bevölkerung „schützt vor Massenmord“

Aktuelle Nachricht – Amoklauf in Nordengland: Wiederbewaffnung der Bevölkerung „schützt vor Massenmord“ – Redaktion eigentümlich frei – eigentümlich frei

Cumberland Shootings: LA Statement


NEWS RELEASE FROM THE LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE
In Association with the Libertarian International

Release Date: Wednesday 2nd June 2010
Release Time: Immediate

Contact Details:
Dr Sean Gabb, 07956 472 199, sean@libertarian.co.uk

For other contact and link details, see the foot of this message
Release url: http://www.libertarian.co.uk/news/nr081.htm

“CUMBERLAND SHOOTINGS: GUN BANS MEAN MORE GUN CRIME” SAYS FREE MARKET AND CIVIL LIBERTIES POLICY INSTITUTE

The Libertarian Alliance, the radical free market and civil liberties institute, today calls for the relegalisation of civilian gun ownership in the United Kingdom as the only way for ordinary people to protect themselves against gun massacres. [This news release is prompted by the killings of at least five people on the 2nd June 2010 in and around the Cumberland town of Whitehaven.]

Speaking today in London, Dr Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance, comments:

“This outrage will certainly bring calls from the police and other victim disarmament advocacy groups for further gun control. However, bearing in mind that civilian ownership of handguns was outlawed in the two Firearms Acts of 1997, we fail to see, unless the murder weapon was a shotgun, what there is left to be outlawed.

“The Libertarian Alliance notes that these shootings would have been extremely difficult in a country where the people were allowed to arm themselves. We understand that the killer, Derrick Bird, was able to drive in perfect safety around Whitehaven, shooting people at random. None of his victims was in any position to return fire. Only when armed police could eventually be brought in did he feel it necessary to run away.

“In the United States, at least one campus shooting was brought to a premature end by armed civilians. The same is true in Israel, where many members of the public go about armed. Only in a country like England, where the people have been systematically disarmed, can a killer go about like a fox among chickens.

“The Libertarian Alliance believes that all the Firearms Acts from 1920 onwards should be repealed. The largely ineffective laws of 1870 and 1902 should also be repealed. It should once again be possible for adults to walk into a gun shop and, without showing any permit or proof of identity, buy as many guns and as much ammunition as they can afford. They should also be able to use lethal force, at home and in public, for the defence of life, liberty and property.

“Only then will ordinary people be safe from evil men like Derrick Bird.”

END OF COPY

Note(s) to Editors

Dr Sean Gabb is the Director of the Libertarian Alliance. His book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, may be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3. It may also be bought. His other books are available from Hampden Press at http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk.He can be contacted for further comment on 07956 472 199 or by email at sean@libertarian.co.uk

Extended Contact Details:

The Libertarian Alliance is Britain’s most radical free market and civil liberties policy institute. It has published over 700 articles, pamphlets and books in support of freedom and against statism in all its forms. These are freely available at http://www.libertarian.co.uk

Our postal address is

The Libertarian Alliance
Suite 35
2 Lansdowne Row
Mayfair
London
W1J 6HL
Tel: 07956 472 199

Associated Organisations

The Libertarian International – http://www.libertarian.to – is a sister organisation to the Libertarian Alliance. Its mission is to coordinate various initiatives in the defence of individual liberty throughout the world.

Sean Gabb’s personal website – http://www.seangabb.co.uk – contains about a million words of writings on themes interesting to libertarians and conservatives.

Hampden Press – http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk.- the publishing house of the Libertarian Alliance.

Liberalia – http://www.liberalia.com – maintained by by LA Executive member Christian Michel, Liberalia publishes in-depth papers in French and English on libertarianism and free enterprise. It is a prime source of documentation on these issues for students and scholars.

Citizen Safety Directive no:326


Fred Bloggs.

It’s times like this that makes me sure that Mr. Orwell got his dates a bit wrong.
I’ve now heard that the Police are using UAV’s and the government is planning on getting even bigger ones. This means that, in addition to all the CCTV cameras dotted liberally (no pun intended) around the landscape, you can also be watched from 50,000 feet.

All this goes on without you knowing however, so you will be able to expect parking, speeding, and, knowing this lot, littering fines dealt out like a bolt of lightening from the gods above. Shortly after this, we, knowing our luck and their determination, will be seeing these things being armed with missiles and smart bombs. Indeed, health and safety will take a sinister turn, for you will be driving along without your seatbelt on, by accident or on purpose, then BOOM! a streak of fire will rain down upon you and end your criminal ways, for you have to remember:
“Driving without your seatbelt on is dangerous.”

Afghanistan: If I was Gordon Brown and considering my policy of fostering a Taleban to take people’s eye off what I’m up to here, then I wonder how Wootton Bassett will vote in an election.


David Davis

[It seems that The Ranting Penguin already agrees with what I'm about to say.]

I don’t think I know what a “Taleban” is. Is it some kind of yoghurt? If so, why are we dying? Or is some “friendly power” secretly arming these buggers? We need to be told.

[In Lebanon, "Laban" is Greek yoghurt, and "Lebni" is a sort of slightly tart soft cheese (it's very nice, on a hot day, on a cheese-biscuit or something. With a biggish glass of Chateau Musar from the Bek'aa Valley vineyards.)]

A “Taleban” ought to be easy to eliminate in theory, faced with the theoretically-sufficiently-armed and armoured specialists of a First-World military power…..

Now, this town has the sad destiny, currently, to be where The Men Whose Names Live On These Walls and who have fallen in Afghanistan, pass through most days now, on their way to rest.

(That’s not in Wootton Bassett, it’s here.)

It is beginning to dawn on me, after years, that I am a curious sort of libertarian. I am in fact a Marxist-Leninist turned upside down. This is getting quite comfortable for me these days, and I will develop my ire further in this regard.

Thus for now: I do not object to foreign wars at all, if fought by a minimalist State based on Classical liberalism, which knows it has an obligated, indeed actually a divine, mission to supress wickednesses elsewhere, such as Statism, fabian-subverted-pre-capitalist-barbarian-survival-guide-warlordism-masquerading-as-religion, general slavery of all kinds (still going on in countries about 3,681 miles from you), “communism” (getting to be old hat now as Chè, Castro, that Sendero-Luminoso-droid, Kim-Jong-Il and Hugo Chavez, Jimmy Carter, and the fascist-pig Mitterand all died physically years ago) and the like.

Indeed, an emergent British – or more possibly English, “state”  having withdrawn from both the UK and the EU – libertarian government, may find itself with a variety of post-Bandung kleptocracies arrayed against it, with erstwhile “friends”, such as “France”, and perhaps even “Belgium”, eagerly selling modern armaments to our new potential enemies, speciifically to threaten us.

But in these wars which we now seem ot be fighting, I believe that we do //not// have to have what Sean Gabb calls a “vital national interest”, in my opinion. The very fact that terrible evils and unfathomable wickednesses are being done to humans in the name of “unity”, in the name of “progress”, and in the name of “people’s democracy”, is the justification to act to stop this nonsense and blood, if we have the power. We are in favour of Natural Rights, which human beings all possess by definition. If we do not have the power to act in these situations, then it is //our problem, and our failing//, and thus I am moving rapidly to the belief that it is [imho] our obligation to acquire the needed power – and to use it in such fashion. Sean knows quite well that he and I disagree in general terms although not necessarily specific ones on this matter and it is quite friendly: we argue about it from time to time in his sojourns up here, and thus reports of the death of the Libertarian Alliance are very premature.

The problem for GramscoFabiaNazis such as Gordon Brown, who like all socialists wants to be seen as “hard” and “warfighting” [it's in their genes sadly] while also crooning pacifistically to the post-modern British neo-CND left, is that he can’t sit on two toilets at once, like John Prescott that unexpectedly clever fellow, can. He can’t both shit and get off the pot simultaneously in two places. He wants to be seen as an important chappie in three ways: “supressing the supply of heroine and cocaine”, fighting the “War On Terror” [a contradiction in terms] and also cosying up to people like ShootinPutin187 whose gas and oil he thinks he needs and who got bloodied in Afghanistan 20-odd years ago. And yet at the same time he has also to appease his Enemy-Class-Paymasters who hate all things British (especially English) and who especially hate the Armed Forces, who of course /won’t/ cosy up to the ZanuLieBorg “Project”, and consist mostly of people either disregarded or despised and hated by the “New Labour Project”.

So where does poor little Wootton Bassett come into this terrible story? You will already all know how very, very deeply I despise and excoriate synchronised public grieving. I have never failed to bore you, year after year, with my hatred of the emotional incontinence which overtook this strong and gripped nation, at the death of the horrible Diana.

But this is different. [If the lefties can say such things, so can I.] Nobody told these poor people, sad at what was happening, to turn out. Not like the mafia-instructions to close all our shops [or else] on the day of Diana’s funeral. They just turned out.

A casualty list of eight chaps in a day, in 2009, is a disaster in today’s terms. This is not 1916, when we were locked in an insoluble battle against an equally-technologically-advanced set of enemies – this is 2009 and we are again fighting what used to pass for [pre-1914] small colonial wars against people that we called “towelheads”, in which we expected to take small but ongoing casualties while yet assuring victory. But our priorities and our perception of the deaths of soldiers in wars today has changed, while our supposed ability to deal with modern battlefields has increased.

This sort of misfortune ought not to be happening to a First-World-Economy’s armed forces, against pre-medieval barbarians [OK they are individual humans, but they "chose poorly" , as the old mailed knight said in the end-scene of "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".]

Gordon Brown clearly wants and needs a war in Afghanistan. That’s why he has both flagged an increase in the number of our solders there (currently about four brigades) and also a decrease at the same time. He wants to please all his paymasters at once, and thinks we don’t listen. Either he wants “victory”, to destroy all the cocaine and heroin, please ShootinPutin187 and look hard, or else he does not, through not giving our chaps any kit at all that works, so that he puts them all off from joining the Army [a GramscoFabiaNazi medium-term-objective] and thus pleasing the neo-Harold-Pinters of this planet.

But the people of Wootton Bassett are trying to tell him something. I can’t think it will be to his advantage as a Prime-Mentalist.

Scottish Cyclops Indeed…


Fred Bloggs.

Gordon Brown’s African cousin….

Sean Gabb on the Commons Expenses Row


Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 182
18th May 2009
Linking url: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc182.htm

A Political Class is Blown Away:
Cui Bono?
by Sean Gabb

My British readers will need no reminding of what has happened during the past few weeks. However, most of my readers are not British, and many will be coming on this article several years into the future. So I will begin by saying that The Daily Telegraph has “acquired” a disk that contained about a million pages of expenses receipts put in by Members of the House of Commons, and has been publishing its findings day after day. Many of the receipts show a scandalous indifference to the niceties of honesty and proportion. There has been one resignation from the Cabinet so far. Several other Ministers are at least tainted, and may not survive much longer even in Gordon Brown’s apology for a Government. Dozens of letter political careers have been blighted. The Police have now been called in, and we are waiting to see who will be charged and with what.

It is very funny to watch these creatures squirming – rather like bugs in the sunlight when the stone under which they were sheltering is pulled over. The general defence is either to blame accounting carelessness. Otherwise, when this defence cannot reasonably be made, they blame “the system” that never stopped them from slipping their hands into the till. That the sums involved have not usually been that great makes it all the funnier. These people have, since 1997, burned their way through about two trillion pounds of our money. Most of this has been used to buy Labour votes or to oppress us – often for both at the same time. If they are now on the brink of political oblivion because of a few thousand pounds here and there spent on tampons and television sets, it is because these are things that we can comprehend. A trillion begins with one digit and is followed by twelve zeros. Claiming back £65 for a summons for non-payment of council tax is much easier to imagine.

Various further questions arise from the scandal. The first and most obvious is how anyone could be so careless in his accounting – especially when he has spent decades advertising his peculiar fitness to govern this country. Then it may be asked how so many politicians can afford to write out repayment cheques for what the rest of us might think substantial sums of money. I am not poor, but would have to wait a while before signing a cheque for £20,000. Have these people additional sources of gain that have not so far been revealed? But the question I want to ask today is why has The Daily Telegraph seen fit to expose all this dirt?

One answer is that this is the sort of thing the media of a free country exists to do. But this is not a satisfactory answer. I have been watching the British media at work for about thirty years now, and I can say that – weather reports and cricket scores aside – nothing is published in the way of news that does not serve some agenda of the great and powerful. These expense claims show at worst rather petty corruption. There are much larger scandals that are not covered by the mainstream media – and certainly not by The Daily Telegraph. There is, for example, the former police chief who used his position to stop his mistress from being blackmailed. There is a senior judge who was arrested for exposing himself to little girls in a bus shelter. There is the whole background to the Dunblane massacre in 1996. There is much else that has never found its way into the newspapers. So why this?

Another possible answer is that The Daily Telegraph is supposed to be a Conservative newspaper, and that it should, therefore, do whatever it can to hasten the end of this Labour Government. However, it has done very little against either Tony Blair or Gordon Brown. Most of the dirt published on this Government has been in The Daily Mail or The Independent. In any event, if the worst abuses have been by Labour politicians, these expenses claims have damaged politicians in all the main parties. Using them for party political purposes is much like using atom bombs to win a trench battle.

No – I believe that this wind that will blow away much of our political class was produced for – if not by – Boris Johnson. He is not currently in the House of Commons, but is Mayor of London. He has obvious ambitions to be at least the next but one Conservative Prime Minister. He is, so far as I can tell, the only person of significance likely to benefit from this expenses scandal. He benefits so far as he is untouched by it, and so far as many of those who do or might stand in his way will be discredited.

I have no direct evidence of this claim. But I can supply what I regard as reasonable inferences from past behaviour that stand beside estimates of present interest.

To begin with past behaviour, it may be recalled that, around the turn of the century, I ran the Candidlist Project. This provided information about the stated or likely views of Conservative politicians about the European Union. It was a very feeble thing compared with what has since been achieved by Guido Fawkes – or even by The Daily Telegraph. But it scared the life out of several hundred normally shameless politicians, and destroyed about a dozen careers. I may have unseated one Member of Parliament. During the approach to the 2001 General Election, I put the Candidlist Questions to Boris Johnson, who was at the time the Conservative candidate for Henley and a senior journalist at The Daily Telegraph and Editor of The Spectator. At first, he refused to answer my questions. Then he gave some very unsatisfactory answers. I made great fun of him, and this was picked up by several newspapers.

What I did next was to start pressuring the directors of companies that were funding a campaign for Britain to join the Euro. This pressure included a threat to publish the home addresses of directors who refused to stop funding what I regarded at the time as treasonable propaganda. Almost at once, I found myself on the front page of The Daily Telegraph, for two days running accused of what would nowadays be classed as terrorism. The journalist concerned managed to claim that publishing the home addresses of people like Fred Goodwin was tantamount to putting dynamite through their letterboxes. I was outraged by the claims, and it took me several days to appreciate the funny side of things. Back then, though, this was still a free country, and everyone else had a good laugh at me and then forgot the matter. It is unlikely that the Police even read the claims, let alone considered how many dozen officers they could fit through my front door before shooting me.

Now, it might have been some alarmed company director who had me done over. More likely, it was Boris Johnson, calling on his friends to punish me for what I had done to him. This was his newspaper. He has always had a reputation for bearing grudges and for a ruthless viciousness in advancing his own interests. If so, it may be relevant that the journalist who defamed me in 2001 was Benedict Brogan – and that it is Benedict Brogan who is now supervising the publication of the Commons expense claims. It may also be relevant that no claim submitted by Mr Johnson while he was in Parliament has yet been published or commented on. Perhaps Mr Johnson ran his finances as a Member of Parliament with more attention to the proprieties than he did his private life. We may one day learn the truth.

As for present interest, I have already explained this. At the beginning of the present month, Mr Johnson was an important elected officer. But he was out of Parliament, and had dropped out of competition with a leadership that growing in confidence with every downward step of the Brown Government. He is now the one leading Conservative who has not been tainted by allegations of fraud or allegations of having tolerated the frauds of others. It still looks as if the Conservatives will win the next election – even they cannot managed the incompetence and cowardice now needed to save Labour. And it looks as if David Cameron will be the next Conservative Prime Minister. But Boris Johnson has grown in public stature during the past fortnight, and he may be able, after the next election, to come forward with claims to preferment that cannot be denied.

I have no reason for not wanting Mr Johnson to succeed in politics. He is no worse than anyone else, and has given the occasional sign of being better. He was beastly to me a long time ago, and has almost certainly been beastlier to other people who have got in his way. I say what I have said because I believe it to be true, and because, if it is true, I might pick up some credit for having said it first.

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/34e2o3

Margaret Thatcher – New Labour’s Midwife


Sean Gabb
Director, The Libertarian Alliance
(Carbon-positive since 1979)

30 Years After: I reject Margaret Hilda Thatcher and Most of Her Works

 Since everyone else is boring on about the 30th anniversary of her first election victory in 1979, I was until ten minutes ago disinclined to say anything of my own. However, I have now promised to put something on the Libertarian Alliance Blog. Therefore, having nothing else to write, I will say why Margaret Thatcher was a bad thing for the cause of liberty in England.

Here goes:

She started the transformation of this country into a politically correct police state. Her Government behaved with an almost gloating disregard for constitutional norms. She brought in money laundering laws that have now been extended to a general supervision over our financial dealings. She relaxed the conditions for searches and seizure by the police. She increased the numbers and powers of the police. She weakened trial by jury. She weakened the due process protections of the accused. She gave executive agencies the power to fine and punish without due process. She began the first steps towards total criminalisation of gun possession.

She did not cut government spending. Instead, she allowed the conversion of local government and the lower administration into a system of sinecures for the Enemy Class. She allowed political correctness to take hold in local government. When she did oppose this, it involved giving central government powers of supervision and control useful to a future politically correct government. She extended and tightened the laws constraining free speech about race and immigration.

Her encouragement of enterprise never amounted to more than a liking for big business corporatism. Genuine enterprise was progressively heaped with taxes and regulations that made it hard to do business. Big business, on the other hand, was showered with praise and legal indulgences. Indeed, her privatisation policies were less about introducing competition and choice into public services than in turning public monopolies into corporate monsters pampered by the State with subsidies and favourable regulations – corporate monsters that were expected in return to lavish financial rewards on the political class.

She virtually began the war on freedom of choice where smoking is concerned. She started the modern obsession with health and safety as an excuse for controlling our lives. She vastly expended state powers of supervision and control over parenting, and immensely expanded the numbers and powers of social workers.

She made the environmental nonsense politically fashionable. She was the first senion British politician to start wittering about climate change and ozone holes. She doubtless thought she was further stuffing the coal miners. In fact, she was a useful idiot for the ideology best suited to replace socialism as an excuse for Enemy Class domination.

She hardly cut taxes. She ruthlessly pushed the speed of European integration. Her militaristic foreign policy and slavish obedience to Washington mostly worked against the interests of this country. The one war she fought that might have some justification was only necessary because her own colleagues had effectively told the Argentine Government to invade the Falkland Islands.

Even her reforms of the trade union movement had malevolent effects. Before her, trade unions were run by ordinary working class people who used the strike and violence to achieve their ends. She ensured that the unions were taken over by the usual Enemy Class graduates. These were the only people capable of using the health and safety and workplace discrimination laws and so forth that were brought in to replace the older methods of advancing working class interests. The result has been the co-option of the trade unions to purposes that have done nothing at all to advance working class interests.

Forget Margaret Thatcher as some hero of our Movement. She was at best the midwife of the New Labour Revolution. She did not just make the world safe for New Labour – she created New Labour. Without her precedents and her general transformation of our laws and institutions, Tony Blair would have been impossible.

I am inclined to wish James Callaghan had won in 1979. If things had turned nasty thereafter, it would at least have been an honest despotism. No libertarians or genuine conservatives would have been making idiots of themselves nearly a third of a century later trying to tell themselves and everyone else that it was other than it was.

Well, who would have thought it!


David Davis

“Sources” sat that the Police “believe” that “an Al Quaeda cell” was “days away from“…doing something a bit down south from this type writer here. Better install a few weaponised dustbins inside the Trafford, to be on the safe side….

Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. Who now can tell? 

I don’t watch the broadcast MSM “news” any more, finding it as I do rather sensationalised and unhelpful in discerning the truth of matters. But I expect this is all over it already. Gordon Brown and our MPs are sinking fast and need to be make to look big again, with some security-theatre: why? Because everybody slumped in front of their Idiots’ Lanterns has already totally forgotten whatever it was Carla Sarkozy and Michelle Obama were wearing at G20 – and how it was designed by Sarah Hobbsbawm on an inspiratory revelation from the Dear Leader Himself. (Her reward was to get to borrow a £9,000 bra, and only have to pay 10% of the price…)

._._._._.

Let us now play an informal little war game together:

Let’s pretend that there actually are (for there may be some) dudes out there, inflamed by certain pre-Rennaissance and amoral-barbarian beliefs, egged on by a number of “deeply-respected” mountebanks and pisstaking mysogynisticoNazi scumbags who stand to gain a lot out of the result, that the West is comprised of sub-human turds who have turned our faces from God, deliberately underdress their women and other sex-slaves, and thus surely deserve to die – as must be obvious to everyone.

Now are these dudes doing what they allegedly have just been doing  _because_  we have decided to assault the buggers in faraway countries who put them up to it? This is predicated upon the notion that the vast majority of adherents to these ideas want nothing at all to do with blood and gore and explosions – which is patently clear although none of them seem to want to come out and say so….

Or, would the said dude-droids be doing it anyway regardless,  _because_ certain “belief-systems” explicitly exhort that this is the right thing to do, and it’s fun to kill people you don’t know in very large numbers? I incline to the latter.

Thus, the “War on Terror” (a conflation of ideas substantively empty of meaning as we all agree) has been talked up as an excuse by the new ruling Enemy Class of the West, to introduce control of individuals’ lives more typical of those Police States which the detonating-buggers come from, than of a Classical liberal civilisation.

Look now. We here always, always get blown up by successive historical swarms of evil fat-heads, not because of what we have done to the afforesaid fat-heads at sometime or other, but  _because_ they are innately evil (“they just are”, as a British teenager would harrumph, inarticulately unable to acticulate exactly why) and can’t stand to be outshone by real civilisations: it happens to us all the time. It’s an occupational hazard of being right.

The fat-heads’ ultimate unimportance and actual destructiveness and negative value is threatening to them, for they would if made to operate as normal humans merely fade away and become sad meths-drinkers and hobos: deep down, in what passes for their hearts, they know fully that it is as I say. They are those who would be helped to a dignified death by concerned old ladies and retired, heavily-decorated wing-commanders.

We must just stop being so wimpish and accept the fact that if we want to be “The City Upon a Hill”, we shall continue to be attacked by those who still inhabit the cesspools.

“Improved”? Pah! THIS is improved!


Fred bloggs

Gah! Now mere mortals are attempting to challenge the supreme power that I have over dustbins.

This ends now, meet… FLUFFY!

 

Fluffy

Fluffy

Dustbin ‘o’ Doom.


Fred Bloggs.

In responce to Peter Davis’s weaponised dustbin, i  will post my own WMD ( Weaponized Massive Dustbin).

 dod

Now just wait till i get hold of that hoover…

If in doubt….PAYRISE!


Fred Bloggs

In the face of the current economic crisis (some might say fiscal armageddon) the goverment has devised a plan, which consists of, briefly, giving themselves a 60% pay rise. No doubt this “plan” will solve all the economic problems in the world, feed all the starving Africans, raise Atlantis, and with all its well-crafted majesty, scare the Russians so shitless they’ll give Lenin a haircut. Or, well, maybe not.

Apart from the Atlantis bit.

Find out more Here.

Shootings at schools: last week it was Germany. This week? France….and what did we say?


David Davis

This just in via the Daily Torygraph cyberspace edition. (I don’t really buy wooden newspapers any more, do you?)

But after the sad events of the shooting in Germany, some discussion was had, on here. in a comment, reprodiced here, I said this:-

David Davis // 11 March, 2009 at 9:15 pm (edit)

Now look here Ian, my dear old chap,

57.92% of us who write or read this blog are barmy – not to say barking.

All the world’s a bit queer, except you and me, and I have my doubts about you. But all of us here just don’t even contemplate the possibility that we’d go out one morning (it’s always the morning – I thought these people didn’t get up till 2pm?) and massacre a school?

Nah. The structure’s too formulaic, each one is too derivative of the last one, and the results both mediawise and reactionwise are too similar, for it not to be following a plan.

I predict France next. Then, the EU will “have to step in”. Better keep your children off school for a few years, or a decade, if you’re French.

And indeed, on cue, we have a (rather poorly-choreographed, I must admit) shooting-up, in France, of a nursery school. Whoever is organising this global plan to disarm all the people whose opinions in the first instance matter about anything, diplays all the evaluational faculties of a British State-(dis)educated chav, and clearly thought…”smaller bullets for smaller people”. But managed only to injure about five. Thank Christ for small mercies.

Oh the irony


Fred Bloggs

A woman recently attemped to rescue a seagull from some mud, but got stuck herself, which apparently warrented the use of two fire engines and twelve firemen, if it had gone on any longer they probably would’ve sent in a armoured brigade, fourteen helecopters and a destroyer.

At the end of it all a spokesperson announced that the bird had to be put down.

I couldn’t even write this stuff.

Hate-leaflets against soldiers in Luton (of all places, who’d have thought it?)


UPDATE1:- Charles Moore in the Torygraph, 14th March 2009

Here. very sad, and probably paid for by the Gramsco-Fabians, who will, sadly I am sorry to say, simply have to go. (I don’t care where, just not anyhere on this planet where they could interfere any more with normal people.)

Libertarians are mostly, I find, against the UK’s involvement in war in Iraq for certain, and to a large extent against our being in Afghanistan too. As you all know, I have always found this position to be a strange one. But a libertarian government in the UK, which comes closer with every move the Enemy Class and its apparatchiks make against liberty here, will need armed forces, not least against what will turn out to be surprising and un-looked-for enemies. I could not begin to make myself name any here now.

Right now, I view trashing of the Armed services as an anti-libertarian act, to be remembered later. I hope we are not at Versailles, and then heading for Weimar, and what followed.

War on drugs


End it now, says liberal Conspiracy.

David Davis

We couldn’t agree more. Tip Guido.

Worrying stuff


We have been alerted to this by an Ian Parker-Joseph piece, flagged also by The Landed Underclass. As many foreign readers as possible had better know what’s going on and rumbling suspiciously under the surface here. This must be before the BBC (and other almost equally-reprehensible News channels) tell them something quite different in their usual oily authoritarian tone.

Bloggers, and especially liberal and libertarian ones, are specially sensitive people, reading a lot as one does, and also ignoring – largely – the MsM, which we find to be increasingly unhelpful and useless as a real information source. We have sensed tension “in the air” for some time now.

Dungeekin had a go at this idea also, back-end of last year. And Legiron, on 26th February, warned people _not to_ riot or even “take to the streets”, as this would give the British régime just the excuse it wanted in order to invoke all its “special powers” it has awarded itself while everyone’s back was turned. you have to wonder where the Queen stands in all this – not that there’s any hope she could arrest the seemingly inevitable course of events which we now mostly suspect.

(I don’t know why that’s all underlined, and I can’t get rid of the underscoring, sorry.)

We guess that what should be done, to anyone who is ostensibly _not_ some form of “Interior Ministry Troops” and who appears to be trying to stir up trouble, is this: that they should immediately be bundled by five or six burly brickies into the nearest white van, and taken somewhere quiet, in order to spend a period of reflection in the company of people determined to find the truth. Although the future life of the brickies may be nasty and short, at least information will be gained about what is to be faced.

The killing of young children in schools and nurseries is quite modern. Is it socialism trying to use incidents to exert more control, or has something really gone wrong in the software of individual people?


David Davis


There has not been a mortal attack on a school or nursery here in the UK  for some time. Dunblane was the worst, but was not alone. I firmly believe, AND not being a conspiracy-theorist myself, that it was deliberately staged as an incident to justify the forced removal of all “hand guns” from the population of the British Isles. I have no evidence for this assertion at all, and I probably never will, nor have I time to find out. But the choreography was all so smoothly executed, and so fast – within hours – with total compliance from all side of the House of Commons. There was another one, in Tazmania.

Those of us who don’t do conspiracy theories such as the 9/11 crap, but who are quite able to impute base motives to our leaders in matters such as gun control, have probably been bracing ourselves for an event involving young children, or, preferably, babies. So here it was, but in Belgium, and involved knives not guns.

So: is the covert state strategy the same as before… “guns in the hands of the people are unacceptable, but let’s demonise knives more, so we can take those away too in time”?

Or…has something gone wrong in the way people relate to each other at a basic family level, and which also could be due to socialism or at least its lovechild femiNazism?

FemiNazism, I must explain to those not familiar with the clever leftist chappie Gramsco-Marxski (whose works are often bad-mouthed on here)  is a software-program that is for corrupting instinctive human interactions at a family level. This then creates desocialised sub-humans who go about killing autistically-defined targets – such as children or babies, or Kulaks (if you are Stalin), or “intellectuals” (if you are Pol Pot) or Jews (if you are Hitler or Stalin or Lenin or Hamas – whatever that might be – or AlQuaeda – whatever that might be, perhaps it will turn out to be the UN in disguise, we shall all, if possible, have to stay alive to find out.) FemiNazism’s principal weapon is the humiliation of males at an early age, by removing the authority – or even the presence – of the father figure.

I obviously know even less than the poor stressed Belgian Police do right now, about this poor tormented creature who decided to attack babies and their carers with a knife, while dressed as a “batman” or something. Libertarians would agree that we don’t think it’s important what he was wearing at the time. But these sorts of crimes all share a common thread:-

(1) They are terribly visible – strange, if you are going to do a crime? Why leave a trail? And in front of the MSM?

(2) They are against terribly vulnerable individuals – children, babies, unarmed teachers for example.

(3) The perpetrator is often killed, or commits suicide at the scene, such as Thomas Hamilton – also very, very, very odd – why? or is arrested and then kept in isolation for ever, such as Martin Bryant.

AND….why is there no wikipedia page for Thomas Hamilton? Eh? You are redirected to “Dunblane Massacre” only, which you already knew about or you’d have buggered off already.

Very odd. But even against that,  George Bush will be shown by history to have not blown up down the twin towers and told all 4,711 Jewish employees to stay away made it look like the “Islamists” wot dunn itttt……uuurrrrrrrrrrr, duhhhhhhhhhh.

Oh, and I’ll put a pound on that. So there. A Pound of Silver against any one Truther at 50-to one. Watch. Let’s see if truthers watch this blog. If I’m right, you pay me 50 pounds (729.9 TROY ounces) of silver metal. In metal. Here. You will bring it or courier it.

I want Silver, not Gold, sorry.

I have to say I find all this very odd, given that privately-owned firearms were quite commonplace in my youth in the 1950s, and that almost no crime was committed with them whatever. if one was, then it was a seminal and global event, and was mentioned on the WireLess Radio News, on the BBC Home Service.

The fact that “incidents” have been multiplying (and I have not even talked about the various campus-massacres in the USA) lead me to deduce that either some males are going mental under the stress of socialistic-FemiNazism, and fail to be properly socialised as free individuals able to take decisions about not harming others – therefore being reduced to the status of primitive apes, or else the State – whether it be here or elsewhere in the Anglosphere such as Australia – wants to obliterate the ownership of any kind of lethal weapon….for the protection presumably of the Statists themselves.

But how will Jamie Oliver react to the blanket prohibition of kitchen-knives for example….after the “amnesty”, of which there will inevitably be one? How will we prepare his tucker, for the cheeky-chappie?

I just ask to be told, that’s all. And here’s what somebody else whom I do not know, but who seems sane, thinks.

Keeley Hazell doesn’t want you to get burgled, so buy an i-Pod with a gun attached…..


David Davis

So that you can shoot straight, it seems you need an i-Pod now:-

Here she is, I expect the gun fits between the boobs, without being observed quickly:-

khburglaryimage1

And, thanks to The Remittance Man, we have this, just in! When I grow up, I want to be like mommy:-


And here she is again….(update, someone on the interwebthingy seems to have removed the image from the link…)


The price of socialism, part 46,574-C/5-a : one home burgled every two minutes


…..and where is the safe haven, just askin’ – as it’s an interesting question……….

David Davis

Well well well: the powers that be have noticed that crime might rise if people are struggling to find their daily bread. But only if you are intent – as Fabianazis and Gramsco-Marxians deliberately are – on creating an anti-civilisation of bad-people, whom you think will vote for your handouts, or better – not vote at all on anything.

The answer is more guns, and knives. In our hands. if the bastards get gutted, or blown away in shreds and their remains have to be hosed off the front path, it’s their problem.

Mexico coming undone at the seams: why ALL drugs should be legalised absolutely everywhere.


David Davis

We stand aghast, at the possibility of “military intervention by the USA” against – of all places – Mexico. We know that, since “drugs” are grown in Latin America, and since Mexico is in the way of their transfer to “Film Stars” and wannabes in British North America, where these things are officially illegal to have or trade, that therefore mexico will be on the road of transfer.

This is all very well and ought not to matter. Cars and lorries carrying cocaine and other stuff whose names I can’t remember ought to be able to cross Mexico as though it was anywhere. The problem arises because – and only because –  it is locally illegal to have, sell or use these substances, in the points of destination.

This has several effects:-

(1) It makes the substances themselves more desirable in the eyes of certain people. They will want it more because “The State” says they shouldn’t have any at all at all at all, for their own good at all at all at all .   Nsty useless Hollywood delinquents film stars will leak details of their use of it, and because they are pretty and shaggable (and that’s just the men) you will want to do it too, as you are sheeple because the liberals Stalinists have told you to become so.

(2) It makes it risky and unprofitable and demoralising, for legitimate businesses to supply the stuff. If you wozz an off-licence, would YOU want to supply cocaine to any willing buyer, if you got raided every week by the rozzers for doing it, and had your shop smashed up by them (rozzers) and were put in jug?

(3) It makes the risks of supplying it worthwhile, for shysters and hoods, who don’t mind having to shoulder the boring business of killing people including police and soldiers, in the course of securing their hold on the distribution of of their stuff, to you. The £5-a-day habit, if the stuff was legally sold through chemists even including the impost of State Taxation, becomes the £100-a-day habit if you have to buy it through hoods who have to insure themselves – at your cost –  for their own risk against both the State and against other hoods who want to compete, for what is really a rather small niche sector.

(4) it makes jobs for Police rozzers. Rozzers are inherently tormented people, who ought not to have got like that; they need psychiatric help, and quickly.  Just as you ought not to want to be a criminal, also you ought not to want to be a policeman in the 21st century: what does that desire say about you, and your morals, and world-view, as a person?

So the way forward is quite clear. ALL drugs have to be legalised, in all jurisdictions, preferably by yesterday. This will have a number of good effects:-

(1A) The “Police”, currently a pantomime collection of gamma-minus droids unfortunately increasingly supplied with real guns as opposed to things that shoot out a flag which says “bang”, and who are “employed” by their “states”  not in chasing real muggers, robbers, burglars and killers but in harrassing “drug dealers”, “motorists”, “paedophiles”, “racists”, “terrorists”, “non-payers of council tax”, “TV-license-evaders” and “climate-change-deniers”, will find that their workload is decreased alarmingly. We will “need” fewer of them. Good.

The main solution to civilisation’s ills is

fewer Laws,

and more and better people.

There may even be “calls for” “FEWER POLICE ON THE STREETS”. I think that in a civilised society, the police ought to be invisible: see poll below.

(2A) The use of “drugs”, which is to say substances currently classified as drugs”, by all people, will fall dramatically. or it may not: I do not know. But I think it will fall.

(3A) The legalisation of “drugs” will mean that Galxo-Smith-Klein, Schering-Plough, Ciba-Geigy, and all the others, will be abot to compete legally for whatever market they think they can get. Adverttisisng will be allowed. Advertising is the best way to garotte bad stuff fast. The purity and quality of products will thus rise, and the price will fall to the point where the “State” will come in.

(4A) The “State” will take a take. Where GSK wants to sell you your Ecstasy for 50p a go, via the chemist down the road in Shaky-street (PR8  . . . ) , the State will take £4 or so, making it about the price of 20 fags. What’s the point of going and doing crime, if it’s only that much? You can get it from your dosh you that get “on the sick”.

OK so the “State” wins, win-win in the short run. But it’s got to justify how it needs to spend so much less on policing, since there’s so much much less less petty crime going on down.

That in itself will be tremendous fun to watch.

The heat’s really on the Jews now.


UPDATE3:-

JANUARY 13, 2009 – During the past months, Canada has increasingly become one of Israel’s staunchest supporters as reported today in The Toronto Star.

“OTTAWA–Canada stood alone before a United Nations human rights council *** yesterday, the only one among 47 nations to oppose a motion condemning the Israeli military offensive in Gaza. (*** what is that please?)

The vote before the Geneva-based body shows the Stephen Harper government has abandoned a more even-handed approach to the Middle East in favour of unalloyed support of Israel, according to some long-time observers.

Thirty-three countries voted for the strongly worded motion, which called for an investigation into “grave” human rights violations by Israeli forces, while 13 nations, mostly European, abstained.

The United States, regarded as Israel’s greatest ally, is not a member of the council.

Marius Grinius, Canada’s representative on the council, said the language of the motion, which accused Israel of sparking a humanitarian crisis, was “unnecessary, unhelpful and inflammatory.”

He said the text failed to ‘clearly recognize’ that Hamas rocket attacks on Israel triggered the crisis.”

The report can be read in its entirety at: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/569872

UPDATE2:-

Call to move Arab League to Venezuela

KUWAIT CITY (AFP) – A Kuwaiti Islamist MP called on Wednesday for moving Arab League headquarters from Cairo to Caracas after Venezuela expelled Israel’s ambassador because of its onslaught on the Gaza Strip. “I call for moving the Arab League from Cairo to Caracas,” MP Waleed Al Tabtabai said during a special debate in parliament over the Israeli offensive. Tabtabai said that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez “has proved that he was more Arab than some Arabs”, after he expelled Israel’s ambassador to Caracas on January 6. Israel retaliated a day later, saying it was expelling Venezuela’s charge d’affaires.  - Jordan Times, January 14, 2009.

(When Hugo Chavez weighs in against you, you know you are right.)

UPDATE:- Actually the phosphorus bit is quite old….here it is on All-That-Jazzera from Monday just gone (12th.) From Moliberty’s newsblog. And here’s some moral relativism from Carmenscafe.

David Davis

Oooooooh……tut tut tut !!! White Phosphorus….what naughty boys….been raiding the chemistry-lab cupboards then, have we? Even that boy Saddam (always persisted in playing with guns and killing his fellow pupils) didn’t do that….not after he gassed the Kurds anyway, and got a bit of a fright witht he ADI he got in 1991.

And hitting a UN building building which would be inevitably and predictably full of top Hamas thugs too (probably smoking indoors)…..wonder if Israel will get a detention for that one? Or will it be an ADI? *** …or, even….EXLUSION FROM SCHOOL?

Will the punishment be mitigated because the occupants were smoking? I think we should be told.

Officially the Libertarian Alliance has nothing that could be described as a foreign policy, in regard to the various wars going on around us today. Insofar as these interest most British Libertarians, if there is no vital british interest at stake, then we should take no position and not become involved. that’s fair enough.

However, the libertarian issues of interest to this blog, which is concerned about creating and maintaining a world in which libertarian ideas can spread and become effective, are that “world opinion” seems inexorably to be turning in favour of totalitarian thugs who oppose Western-style democracies however imperfect, and against the same said democracies. In the UK in particular, much of the same media bias is in favour of the setting up of a Police State that will structurally resemble a theocratic one – although outwardly cloaked in a non-religious legal system.

We should watch the progressing demonisation of Israel with trepidation.

Look at all this hearsay:- (from All-That-Jazzera)

Doctors in Gaza City have told Al Jazeera that people have been admitted suffering burns consistent with the use of the controversial chemical white phosphorus.

Human rights campaigners say that Israeli forces have used the munition, which can burn away human flesh to the bone, over Gaza City and Jabaliya in recent days.

Al Jazeera’s Ayman Mohyeldin, reporting from the Shifa hospital in Gaza City, said: “Doctors here say they are seeing unprecedented levels of deep burns.

“They cannot categorically say that white phosphorus is being used, they are saying that the munitions being dropped are unprecendented.”

Residents in densely-packed Jabaliya have described Israeli forces exploding shells that drop scores of burning fragments and spread suffocating smoke.

“Its the first time we see this type of weapon, it must be new and its seems like its phosphorous,” one resident told Al Jazeera.

“Its suffocating and has a deadly poisonous smell that I am sure will cause a lot of sickness and disease on all of the civilians here,” he said.

***All-day-Isolation

Israeli “atrocities” ! Coming soon to a TV channel near you!


UPDATE:- The Remittance Man has also picked up on an aspect of the Israelis’ problem – which is beginning to be one of PR, in the face of…..the world community (as represented by “western” media.

….and Hamas does not need to attack Israel: discuss…

David Davis

Those whom the Gods media and “international Community” wish to destroy, they first make mad accuse of atrocities and violations. You can tell what’s in store for Israel in the next epoch of the ongoing struggle to abolish it: even the Daily Quislingraph is giving prominence to UN “allegations” that a “safe house” full of evacuees was shelled.

And quite why Indonesians riot to clse a KFC “to show solidarity” with “palestinians”, is quite beyond me, I fear. I didn’t know KFC was Jewish? (It’s the sort of thing my old mother would have automatically known, or pre-assumed: she believed that “The Jews” ran every successful business in the world – a not unreasonable assumtion I guess.) I can’t seem to embed it, so here’s some silly film footage of the buggers:-

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1488655367/bctid6767414001

Everybody’s got it in for the Jews now, you cna tell. What an extraordinary and absolutely global volte-face, and in just under 40 years. I expect that the next principle people to be graced with the all-purpose left-Nazi portmanteau of involuntary genocide will actually be an imaginary one this time: the “Palestinians”.

But they can take comfort that, in just under a century, although there may then be no Jews left, the following will happen: aged but rich, successful and highly-westernised Ghazi-refugee emigrés, sitting surrounded by their equally successful decendents who will be the world’s diaspora of lawyers/bankers/doctors/scientists, in affluent westernised places like Peking, Pyong-Yang, or even Noo-Yoork, will collectively lament the global amnesia about their own holocaust of 2009. They will wonder, sadly and confused, about the world’s apparent forgetfulness of the plight of their people, as the pan-palestinian-enclave from Syria to Aden is assailed by the better-armed and highly-technological Hittite usurper-state.

ShootinPutin187 plays with gas-tap and naked (de)lights, makes wargaming threats….


David Davis

Apparently he’s turned off the gas to the Ukraine…..again….because he can’t shag its PM I expect. I should have known. He’s done it before, here.

Of course, one could argue that it’s “his” gas: well, not in terms of strict property-title perhaps, since it belongs to GazProm until it’s been paid for by someone. There is a grain – but only a grain – of truth in the supposition that he can set light to the entire stock of Siberia’s gas if he wishes: it’s none of Ukraine’s, or “Europe’s” business if he does, so long as they’ve not yet paid for the burnt stuff.

But I can’t help thinking that we should take less seriously on the “world stage” such a man, and that we should move towards showing him up in front of “his” people…why?  For the self-publicising little gun-toting clown that he is. The people of the USSR Russia deserve better than ShootinPutin187, on the way to not having to host any of the f*****g buggers at all, when the poor wretched downtrodden sods are finally libertarianised.  He has similar forebears, here, and the political-development-parallels between the two buggers are uncomfortably congruent.

And to annoy ShootinPutin187 even more, you can send money to PizzaIDF.org, on the link. Hat tip Guido Fawkes.

Some people are not home yet


Peter Davis

A soldier’s night before Christmas:-

But one came home in a box:-

These chaps are still there:-

Yeah this will really help “motorists”.


David Davis

It has always struck me that the word “motorist”, chiefly used by a certain sort of robotroid which is to say bureaucrats and “planner” types, sounds rather political. Nobody I know uses it in conversation or written prose – we tend to say “driver”, or “person”. So, when it appears you just know something bad’s coming next. It’s dressed up as “streamlining the process”… “making the system more tranparent and fair” … ” helping to fund integrated public transport links”… or some such Nazi guff.

Nobody seems to have spotted that convictions for “careless driving” could have declined because … people are more careful? Because modern cars – the population of which is inevitably rising – are “smarter”? One gets the feeling that the government, saying things like this…

“The level of enforcement is steadily dropping,” the Government noted in the consultation paper.

This, it is believed, has resulted in an increasing number of cases of careless driving going unpunished.

…is merely following in the footsteps of Stalin and Mao and their foul cockroach apparatchiks, chided by their bosses for not shooting enough bourgeoisie last month…..

Why not criminalise “driving while at the wheel” while they are about it? Or they could just be honest and state frankly that “really we don’t think private “motoring” should be allowed so we are going to ban it.”

Happy Christmas. Business as usual.

This is what you will get when you only let the Police and thugs have guns.


David Davis

This is what I believe is called a “Face Book page” or “Face Book group”. I have no clue what these things are at all, but I have looked at it, and it sort of looks like a blog I suppose. Thanks to The Remittance Man (who lives and works sufficiently far away from all this sordid stuff to be able to comment disinterestedly) for flagging up the business to do with poor Rhys Jones, of whom I guess by now that the world has heard. Not the sort of posthumous fame he would have wished for… What the world thinks of the socialistically-trashed city down the road I can’t dare to guess.

The Army’s got the right idea though.

Libertarians have been banging on, mostly unheard or ridiculed, for decades, about the need for all free people to have, and to be trained to use (by their fathers, which mostly they will have) guns. This sort of rubbish, of gun-toting unsocialised teenage gansters, would be moonshine in such a civilisation. They would last about five seconds.

Graphs and things


David Davis

here’s a good one. Hat tip Burning our Money, via The Landed Underclass.

The trouble with socialism is that what it does is a parasitic/evil reflection, a sort of anti-chimera, of Christian charity. Just as Morgoth made orcs in corrupt imitation of elves.

Just as orcs cannot ever, ever emulate elves in any way, (see The Silmarillion,) big States and bureaucrats cannot ever, ever begin to “solve” “problems” of “unequal distribution of opportunity, wealth and access to public services”.

People go along with it, because (a) it looks sort of charitable and “big” (ie it might work, sort of, and they have not time to scratch their arses anyway, let alone give a few dollars to someone today) and (b) the statists have GUNS.

More on metrication, the EU, and British home-grown fascists


David Davis

Earlier today I just flagged this up. I now have time to say something. (The original post is not only lower down your page but also here.)

The EU, with its usual disarming frankness about objectives, has gone on record as saying that it’s not really important if people here (or by inference elsewhere) go on using pre-metric, which is to say “Imperial” measurements. For one thing of course, these are still commonly encountered in all sorts of places on the continent of Europe.

The real subtext of the assault on “Imperial” measurement use in the UK is of course, and always has been, ideological and manichean. It is obvious, now that we know the facts. Those kinds of people who so publicly have championed “metrication” (and that also included the quite un-necessary and politically-motivated “decimalisation” of our currency) share a fully philosophical objective: what is this objective, then?

It is the exemplary punishment of Britain: especially, it encompasses an objective of the destruction of a place which they view as “England” – together with all its customs and traditions which act as a sort of conservative glue. The whole idea of “England”, historically, is essentially conservative. England’s history returns almost like clockwork, to a theme of looking to tradition and custom (as understood at the time of decision about the future) to decide what to do. This is mortally dangerous to gangsters like Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Gordon Brown, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il (who will continue to remain dead), Huggy the Chav, Ken Livingstone, Castro (who has been dead for some time) and whoever that bugger was who ran the Sendero Luminoso (I hope there won’t be a pop group called that any time soon.)

This stuff, this conservative glue, hard to create over the centuries, but easy to abolish with a Gestapo-sweep of A4 paper containing “enhanced statutory requirements”, holds a free people in friendships and relationships in a comfortable place, and confers order on civilisation. This of course is quite inimical to the fascist/stalinist concept of “more and faster change”, beloved of “management” “consultants”, or one of the other ones, which is “best practice in health and safety”.

Most importantly, it is because an essentially conservative civilisation is all that stands in the way of the intended destruction of what helps ordinary people to live and get better and better as time advances – that destruction which is crucial for the survival of wreckers, murderers, fascists, socialists and other theoretical idealists who have never inhabited anything more important (such as a factory or a mine or a ploughed field) than a room at a university. These latter groups know, with every fibre of their being, that their usefulness and significance diminishes visibly and fast, with the arrival of every person who can make his own way and decisions in his life.

You can’t, if you are a statist, allow people essentially to better themselves and their lives…and then you just go home and grow stuff or watch TV. The hog won’t slaughter itself.

There will come a time when they won’t need you or your “help”, and they will be able to know it. If they are armed, then you are toast already (so you’d better have got their guns off them quite early on.) If they are unarmed, then you will still have a difficult time, and you may have to shoot the right people (they didn’t in this case), but you may get through if you can manufacture a scare or two, preferably together, and hobble them further.

I think that British statists, being cleverer and more (what Stalin called) “serious” than continental ones (their weather is better and the food and girls are nicer, so they don’t really have to concentrate so hard) are far, far more finely-tuned to the threat of incipient liberty arising in a population, than their European conterparts.

I shudder to think with what ruthless efficiency the Police authorities in the UK would have complied with Nazi orders to round up people and have them “resettled”. Anti-Imperial-measure-police-and-Soviet-staff are merely taking a “directive” at its face value, and applying it to the letter, together with their own ingrained (ought I to say “institutionalised”?) racism against a civilisation which they (rightly) see as the one which has done most to try to make them as redundant as possible.

Via the UK Libertarian Party…


Sean Gabb will speak at the Oxford Union. We had already flagged this much earlier but it’s worth repeating, and also plugging our friends.

I don;t think Sean resembles the totty on the frontispiece of this youtube thingy:-

Hands up all those who think it’s deliberate


David Davis

I return to my pererennial hobby-horse regarding the need for a Libertarian Nation (and one or more such ought to be able to exist) to be – at least initially – heavily armed and defendable.

I think that Men would fight for such an entity, freely. Today’s difficulty for the UK (which is currently anything but libertarian and is rapidly descending into the cesspit of Police-Stateness) is that

(a) We taught the world how to live and to rise out of the slough of tyranny towards individual liberty under a system of impersonal Law,

(b) We need to be punished for it, by the fascist left,

(c) This punishment needs to be public and exemplary,

(d) No chance of exerting any pressure on overseas tyrants, nor of there being any armed forces which might conceivably oppose the above plan from a moral Western civilisational standpoint, can be allowed.

Regular readers of course know to what extent Sean Gabb and I disagree, mostly on entirely cordial terms, about the objectives or need for Britain to be involved in foreign wars and expeditions: these are mostly on behalf of other people, always far away and for those people of whom “we know little or nothing”. Now, if such an ideal libertarian state was to exist, discussion would need to be had about the extent to which it would need to “make the world safe for libertarianism”.

I for one firmly believe that it would come under direct attack from day zero. this might or might not be a straight assault: It is more llijely to be cowardly nibbling, by force, at its overseas commerce. We have already had two sharp lessons about this particular one in the past 100 years alone.

Obvious candidates would be the USSR Russia (as it stands today). I am not sure that places such as Iran (until liberated) and Venezuela would be far behind. I can envisage, too, a congeries of African “nations”, collectively whipped more or less violently (and with the active assistance of the United Nations) by people like the fascist pig Mugabe, and Thabo whatsisname or whoever is currently wielding the weapons in South Africa.

All this makes a credible Blue-Water-Navy, well-backed by air power, and able to transport at need a fairly small but highly-techologically-competent Army, anywhere on the globe within preferably 8 to 12 hours. The point that would need to be made is not just size of response but rapidity – the news Media of the Enemy Class both at home and anywhere overseas do work fast themselves: they would need to be swamped with “breaking news” which is breaking against them rapidly, and moves the jabbering buggers further down their own windpipes and out down through their own arses and into the pot, before they can spin it.

Space-based weaponry and surveillance are an obvious need….cue Tony H!

Another school mass-shooting…another State arms-confiscation plot?


David Davis

Another one of these harrowing horrors. Finland this time…and apparently there was one last year there too. The Finnish government must think, like ours, that it has a problem with privately held firearms…

Am I the only person who thinks that these repeated, and terrible, events are staged in some way? It’d be more plausible to think that “agences” are involved in these, than in the “Thermiting” of the Twin-Towers. Less expensive: fewer people to bribe, for less number of years, to keep silent. And you only have to rub out one guy (it’s always a  guy…what do they promise him, that so makes him do that thing? Sex? Money? More guns?)

There’s something fishy going on here down in the State-Cesspit, and I’m damned if I shan’t, one day, get to the bottom of it.

Georgia on my mind: What is life, why are we here, and what then ought we to do?


A possible eve-of-war message from the Libertarian alliance.

David Davis (not that one)

 What is life?

Even Alfred the Great, arguably England’s most important King, could not answer that one. But if we are sentient creatures, then we can’t but use time given to make the lot of us and ours better. If Adam Smith and Hayek are right, then we should do it because it enhances our own conditions – self-interest. If the racism industry and its socialist chums are right, then we should do it because we have stuff and others don’t (they call it “fairness”.) Either way, we should act, libertarian non-intervention-opinions or no.

 

Libertarians ought to be revolted by what’s going on in Georgia. This is of course courtesy of the Soviet Russian government and its wretched, downtrodden people whom it commands – just like the Communists and their Czarist forebears – as a human resource. If it was not for the existence of Big States, and if State power was not delightful for the wielders thereof, most of the ghastly bloodbaths of the past four or five millennia would not have occurred.

 

Perhaps all of them, and human history will surely have been richer and more full of true progress than it has, even despite the burdens we have endured, placed with force on us by Utopians and pre-capitalists with guns and swords.

 

Why are we here?

Nevertheless, we in the West live in a still-fortunate civilisation, relative to all others without exception that have existed. Fortunate, relative also to those of which we can conceive – except for full Libertarian or practical-liberal-minimal-statist ones, the realisation of which which we still fervently hope will lie somewhere in the future, and that they are not unachievable mirages, forbidden to us by our current masters.

 

It’s true that our enemies, of which much the most powerful lurk menacingly at home, diabolically smiling the anodyne, sedative smiles of the Enemy-Media-Class, are doing their level Fabian best to drug us into a Politically-Correct stupor.  They have subverted the universities, the Schools (with the exception of most of the Private Sector, which they also intend to terminate) and the main media channels. By this means they hope to enchain us in a Police State while our back is turned, so that never more can we, the inventors and then the guardians of true individual liberty, frustrate their return of the whole of humankind to a state of miserable enslavement. You have only to sample the outputs of their Wireless Tele Vision channels, and the content, depth and average slant of the “Television News Programmes”, to see that this is so. The mass-circulation-parts of the Dead Tree Press also bear this observation out.

 

In his life, Chris tame always thought that Libertarianism would succeed in the end by influence of the think-tank type. He wanted to subvert the Conservative Party, but this was in the years when it was fairly liberal and therefore amenable to takeover by peaceful means. This has not happened and probably will not now happen: things came this year to such a pass that there is now as we know a UK Libertarian Party, and we wish it well. But to have any hope of succeeding at all, in the end-times, Libertarians must now get their hands dirty in the rough and tough of comment on dreadful statist affairs, and perhaps take somewhat statist positions on the action appropriate to the disasters that states go about causing.

 

What, then, must we do?

In the possibly interesting times that may soon come, “we” must be “The West”. Why? Because the Libertarian Alliance is a powerless soap-box, only for superannuated demagogues to stand on, shakily at the best of times, and hoot into cyberspace, occasionally receiving the odd squashed tomato, or egg, in return. Occasionally, someone says something nice about us, or maybe throws us a sixpence, which is better. There is no possible reason for anyone to listen to us, excepting that all others might be mistaken, and that every one of us is a MASTERLESS MAN.

 

History shows us all that the price of not standing up to pre-capitalists who do evil to third parties, gets bigger and bigger, the more we let the buggers get away with. Initially, it does not seem to matter to us if a bystander in the middle-distance is felled by a bullet, and his body carted away. He is a “faraway country of which we know little”. We may have had pressure put on us by the assassin-thug and his men, many of whom are uncomfortably close to us, or even under our floorboards, to look the other way.

 

The next thing we know is that the thug actually does plan to perform an act which will do one of two things. It is either fatal for our own honour (Belgium 1914, Poland 1939) because we did actually make an undertaking to help someone, however foolish it was. It is right and good to discharge public obligations, made even for poor reasons, since this links back to the second part of this essay which is why we are here.

 

Or else it will directly affect us finally. Not necessarily today, but it will at some time. This latter is what Sean Gabb calls going to war over a vital interest. He is quite right that in an ideal world this should be the only reason for a war, and I can envisage Libertarian States – a tautology? – declaring war over something of this kind. If all states were Libertarian, then there ought then to be no wars, but since the scenario is entirely theoretical, I can’t give you a prediction. (But I’d bet you 3p there’d be less conflict.)

 

In a post yesterday, I stated that Russia has no tradition of liberal pluralist democracy, or of widespread free institutions of any kind. This is precisely the situation that we found ourselves in with Hitler and pre-WW2 Germany. The Weimar Republic took a huge, huge back-of-envelope-leap-into-the-unknown, in 1918, the results of which may have been to leave the German people vulnerable: the development of liberal pluralist structures (likely to be favourable to the use of ordinary diplomacy – not the Bismarckian model, and likely to hinder rather than help aggressive nationalist demagoguery) went ahead, although nobody knew how to use them properly, and the NSDAP cleverly subverted them, until it could abolish them. (See die Ermachtigungsgezetz, of 1933, almost the first thing the bugger did.) The point is that no german-speaking state of 1918 has much more experience of real liberal participation than the people of Russia do now.

 

So are we going to let the USSR’s Russian govt get away with buggering about inside foreign countries, or not?

 

If we are here to make planets that we occupy into better places, then we have already taken the wrong action (and I’m not even thinking about the great global warming lie that has engulfed humanity in expensive and unnecessary further burdens.) We have expressed “displeasure”. We have used words such as “unacceptable”, and the like. We have alluded, obliquely, to “measures”, and to “Russia’s standing in the world”. Would Hitler have backed down in the face of this terrible onslaught? I think not.

 

“Self-determination” was a very bad concept for Woodrow Wilson to bandy about in a world in flames, as he did. It was probably the least bad-seeming-solution at the time, seem from the position of a well-meaning onlooker. But it did enable a few real nations, themselves the products of the beliefs of millions of individuals, to come into existence, and which were undeniably suppressed by the pre-capitalist, pre-liberal structures before them, which force and terror had made persist long after it was time for them to go. The main problems he left us with arose from the specific decisions about these nations that were entirely arbitrary, and thus the product of “planners” (in itself a socialist concept) such as the “Polish Corridor”.

 

South Ossetia, we are told, wants to go, from Georgia. Perhaps Abkhazia does also: I don’t know. But if they do, then there is therefore also no excuse for the USSR Russia to wade in and pretend that it’s protecting the interests of South Ossetians, or Abkhazians. It’s a matter for Georgia and South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This is therefore a classic example of a scenario in which the Anglosphere ought to commit warlike acts against, not the first and second parties, with whom it has no quarrel, but the third-party which seeks to profit and do a grab (in order to fulfil a pre-capitalist barbarian fantasy) which is the USSR Russia.

 

If, say, South Ossetia really truly madly deeply wanted to leave Georgia, over, say, taxation policy, or some other injustice, then if that’s the outcome we should allow it. It’s none of our business. But don’t you just get suspicious when the great big heavily-armed (not even a) neighbour jumps in shooting, saying that “SO is being prevented from going, and by the way, we gave lots of them our passports! So we’re going to invade you thoroughly while we are about it, and not go away when you ask us to!”

 

Western civilisation is the best. It is. Yes. 100%. We not only have nothing to apologise about, to anyone, but, more importantly, we MUST NOT apologise. Ever, ever, ever, to anyone. That includes behaving apologetically towards wicked people, and those who do not share our beliefs. 9/11 would never have happened if the West had not lost its psychological bottle.

 

Our role, as civilisers, in the grand scheme of human betterment (an idea which WE invented – the hideousness of all other failed branches testifies to this fact) is to teach, and to socialise. Libertarianism, almost a detail – but unachieveable without classical Western civilisation and attitudes and politics-  is the logical conclusion of the entire process. It incidentally takes us a tiny bit nearer towards understanding God’s mind. We have known for centuries, maybe longer, how to socialise children, that they can become sovereign individuals who behave well towards each other as adults, and agree democratically to co-operate in free institutions. What was this all for? Nothing? Is that why the Fabian Gramsco-Marxians took away our ability to do what worked, by statutory means? (You can’t beat even your own child now – you will be arrested, and the State will abuse take away your child.)

 

States such as the USSR Russia are unsocialised children. (There are many others, most indeed of the UN, but let’s start somewhere, and the balloon is going up just there.) They must be taken in hand, firmly, and treated the same way as  wayward, naughty children whom we want to turn into responsible adults, for their own good. It is not only in a third party’s interest for us to do good (since it directly affects someone else vulnerable and the fate of the Russian people, so heavily abused, past, present, and future if we do not act now at our last chance) but Russia’s that we must take it in hand. Positively. Now. Before it’s too late.