Tag Archives: Gordon Brown

Diane Abbott for “Labour” leader


David Davis

As I have often said on Facebook, it is of no account whatever who is the leader of the “Labour Party”, since it will try to do the same thing over and over again regardless – which is to say: burn down and destroy what semblence of liberalism still exists in the UK.

It must, simply, be shut down and its hard disks malleted, before it can continue to exist to do yet more damage to liberty in the world.

But although people are rating her as a 3%-cert or less, I think all support should be given to her. That will ensure that Labour is unelectable for at least three years.

Bank Holiday caption competition


David Davis

The Gordon gaffe


See it here before it’s pulled.

And his point is what?


Michael Winning

Fixed-term-parliaments? Isn’t that what we already have with a 5-years-max? Nasty man, liar, snake-oil-salesman.

And as of now, we can even get rid of them earlier too

Smoke and mirrors


Michael Winning

But it probably will work and the bastard’ll get in

It does not matter


whether Gordon Brown stays in after being defeated at the (when?) election or not.

David Davis

Britain’s AAA credit-rating has been lost already. The markets have discounted it by letting Mervyn King buy up all our Gilts for the last year.

The Agencies are merely waiting till after the poll to announce it, for fear of being thought “political”. You’d think that the bear-raid on Sterling that will inevitably follow will be worse if he’s there than if he’s been arrested and sectioned.

No use voting Tory, Sean, not really, not any more


David Davis

Sean Gabb, on this column, bravely defended the position that we ought to vote Tory this time, to give us just a little more time before fully-sliding down into the eternal cesspool of the socialist Endarkenment. Something might turn up: you cannot know unless we could try it. It could be worth the candle, the game could. A few more years to organise, under a State that won’t, probably, actually turn its police’s guns on its own people.

But now we have this. And indeed, when you watch Gordon Brown at PM’s questions, he really does seem like a fighter whho truly believes what he is saying, and who truly believe in the unutterably-irrevocable wickedness of the Tories and others, any others, that oppose him and his. You can see how Simon-Cowell-educated people will wamr to him and will tend to vote for him.

We are truly f****d. But hopefully the setting-in of the true rot will take some time. However, knowledge still exists in distributed form, and we can ameliorate the effects of civilisational decay (barring violence and fire) over the years and decades.

It looks like we have to go down to the bottom, before we can go up. Like the poor Germans. So we might as well vote for whoever pleases us.

Gordon Brown and the Lost Gold


David Davis

It may all come out sometime, but I don’t think it will be soon.

You know something? Sometimes it is quite impossible for me to decide what the individual penalties ought to be, for deliberately carrying through a known and planned Act Of Destruction such as this.

The Poles, in 1945-46, at least got to hang hundreds and hundreds of minor socialist functionaries. The trouble is that they were hung by merely another sort of socialist functionary.

I can’t imagine anything we could do to Brown, Balls and Miliband and their Treasury apparatchiks, that could possibly atone for this amount of loss.

For them to say “Sorry” somehow does not cut the mustard.

We could make their eternal descendants pay, for ever and ever and ever, but this would begin to lose its meaning after a few hundred years and would merely become some sort of annual ceremony, the purpose of which has long been lost in legend by the MSM, such as the Armistice thing is going to be.

Simon Heffer explaining things about nation-breaking


Michael Winning

A slow day today I am back inside early and so I spot this from Simon heffer. The man seems more sensible than other intellectual bods I know give him credit for. Didn’t he write a book about 15 years ago foretelling all this? It was called “Nor Shall My Sword” I think it was.

When Tony Blair said in 1997 “New Labour is none other than the political arm of the British People” I cringed in horror. Wish I’d done more and worse I think.

The Taiwanese media take it more seriously


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

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

Could Mandelson be describing Stalin?


David Davis

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

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

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

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


michael Winning

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

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

Protect and survive…Gordon Brown


H/T Old Holborn via Guido

An old small thing…


David Davis

…but I found it by accident. Perhaps what it says in my piece below has a grain of realism in it after all.

h/t The Last Ditch, which was here at the Beginning Of Time, but is now always to be found here.

Let’s hope it’s not just the GramscoFabiaNazis desperately trying to look popular with humans


…and that they really really did mean him to be released on account of bad justice and law.

David Davis

About time this happened, and all.

Watch for excitable PR announcements delivered by newcasters called things like “Kirsty” or “Shan”, and coming from the Home Office Interior Ministry about “Gordon Brown today announced that he has demanded a review of the laws about people defending themselves against intruders…here’s Candy Linkwoman at the Court of Appeal with the the latest…..etc etc etc etc etc….”

It will be interesting to see…


…what grim Gordon Brown and the fun-Chancellor do about this. They’ll either have to increase taxation (even more) or force people to work longer hours….in which case, who pays the employers…?

David Davis

Perhaps cutting your hours to save your job, and thus decreasing your liabilities to the State, will be classed as “Tax Evasion” in the 23,447th  Criminal Justice Bill introduced by This Government. (Queen, offstage: “One is getting a bit bored with these now…can’t one announce something else?)

We were made to “apologise for slavery”, we who were the first to disinvent it. And by the people who support the people who will stand or fall by how much tax revenue they can raise over the next few years decades.

L is for Labour, L is for Lice


The Prime Minister and the grieving mother: This story worries me


David Davis

Although no possible number of Prime-Ministerial calls (and from a New Labour one they’d have to be very many) can make up for the loss of a child, I am in two minds about the rightness of the Murdoch Tabloids in going postal with Mrs James’ pre-recoreded transcript of her conversation with Gordon Brown. You can read it on Guido of course here, for what we here want is the utter demolition and erazement of GramscoFabiaNazi administrations in the UK for all time and for ever.

But, I note that the PM is partially blind, probably has not written a letter by hand for many years, and is actually a PoliticoGeek. He is not a real human being, he probably has forgotten how to spell, and has certainly forgotten how to write letters personally to people: this is since Fascist-left-policy-engenderers must have no personal feeling for anyone, anywhere, ever. They are “movers-and-shakers” – it is their term, they and their “PR” hangers-on in the 1980s invented it, and they will come to be lynched by it in the end-times.

We shall think about the delights of moving them about, perhaps from Westminster to other places, and then we shall think a little bit about shaking them, perhaps on the end of a piece of piano-wire, or string if that’s what’s allowed by health and safety, until they are dead. Then we may, or may not, eat them. That depends on whether they have caused us to starve, freezing in the dark, by then, or not. Thinking about eating them is what they would call a “real-time tactical proactive option”.

That said in Gordon’s defence, and then thinking about our war against GFNs, I think it’s perfectly fair to use all available underhand means to destroy and utterly discredit and mudsling this bastard administration, out of existence.

Will opposition to the EU fragment in the face of new Labour….


...and what ought to be done about it?

UPDATE: there is a good debate going on over at Samizdata, here.

David Davis

There is a school of thought (to which I do not subscribe) that the Tories are cleverly allowing themselves to be the hard-done-by party, courtesy of Labour who has reneged on a referendum promise about Lisbon. The “Labour has boxed us into a corner on this one, so we’ll have to make the best of a bad job” might wash with Old One-Nation-Tories, and perhaps with neo-Labour-voters coming across. But what about the increasingly large constituency of liberals (both Tory and from elsewhere) who think UKIP is more in the right?

There is a danger of fatally splitting the Tory vote in constituencies where it matters, either for the Tories to hold on to them or to throw Labour out on its ear to simply get a bare majority. We must agree that, if Labour failed properly to rig the election-results in its favour (it  _will_  try: you and I both know it) then a Tory majority, however slight, might give sovereign individuals precious time: either to get out to Montana or Alberta with their assets intact, or to continue to oppose GramscoFabiaNazi creep and EuFederalism, for a bit longer – so that there might – just might – be created what Chris Tame used to call “enough people to make a difference”.

More than one of us on here has already stated that we propose to verbally assault the Tories (if they manage to form a government) just as vehemently over their Europhile and other GFN-type policies, and for their flagrant betrayal of liberal ideas. But the election that matters is _this_ one. There may not be another chance after it.

Their election is (a) more probable than that of UKIP,

and (b) the ratchet of GramscoCollectivism will proceed slightly more slowly under tham than under ZanuLieBorg.

Imagine if you will the re-election of a Gordon Brown administration, next June. How do you all think the bastards are going to feel, and therefore to proceed with all their most nefarious plans? And at what sort of pace?

My quote of the day: from Charles Moore in the DT, on Afghanistan


David Davis

I have called this one _MY_ quote, because I know that a majority of libertarians, especially in Britain, think we ought not to be militarily involved in Afghanistan – or anywhere else for that matter. Therefore I will not annoy and insult these people by calling it the “Libertarian Alliance Quote of the Day” (although it ought to be.) I take responsibility for it instead of the august think-tank for which I have the privilege to be allowed to blog.

These libertarians, and others, know that I have never failed to support war in Iraq, or Afghanistan, and that I say [regularly] that the West _must_ take war, if need be everywhere that is required, to all those who cheerfully, frankly and materially oppose individual liberty anywhere. The people the West is trying to resist are not “insurgents”. They are not even “terrorists”, which is why the notion of “The War On Terror” is so glib, shallow and meaningless – these people are willing soldiers for a cause, they really believe what they are saying and they mean to destroy us: they are the willing agents of purposeful and committed deconstructors of everything they think we stand for and love.

Here’s Charles Moore:-

If we truly want to win the war in Afghanistan, we need to challenge its opponents much more fiercely. Politicians such as Nick Clegg, who congratulate themselves on asking the necessary, awkward questions, need to be interrogated about what they actually want. Do they want the first defeat of the most powerful military alliance in history at the hands of a small band of fanatics armed with little more than rifles and IEDs?

Do they have any conception of what such a defeat would mean for the world order, for the stability of countries in the region, or for civil peace in every European city? Do they not understand that this fight will be seen all over the world not as a battle for control of some jagged mountains, but between values, and that, if our values do not win, they will lose?

Please read old Charlie Moore on the whole thing: he puts some sharp perspectives on war, its roles – good or bad they may be – in intercivilisational conflict, and where we ought to go from here. I already said a couple of days ago that the alternatives are only (and ever) victory or defeat, and what it will mean. He’s probably read Sir John Keegan. I doubt most of our present politicians have even heard of the bugger.

Taliban “claim responsibility”…now we know [that they know] that they are winning.


David Davis

Libertarians don’t do wars. Not really. We all go about in a sort of drug-like RothbardoHayekian Haze, claiming never to want to initiate force or fraud, because of course that’s what States do, right? Of course they do, and of course it’s why we’re broadly all more or less in favour of small, controllable-by-Law, states, (some of us are in favour of no states at all, but not me, I have decided) which only do things like basic law-and-order, courts that anyone can apply to, impartial judges, possibly a small, efficient and uncorruptible Police Force of authorised civilians, and the like. And of course no ID cards or “passports” or any crap of that sort.

We also as a group are broadly against Britain’s involvement in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, since it can be argued that Britain has “no vital foreign policy interest” in what may or may not go on in those places. As I have never tired of repeating, I do not agree, and never have done, that Britain has no business being there as an armed force. I am a Jihadist turned upside down: I take the view that it is the Jihad obligation, the absolute foreign-policy-duty no less, of liberal Classical States to actively destroy un-liberal scumbags, wherever they may be, if the nominal “State” on whose writ they scamper is unable so to do. If this was done, socialism, and also pre-capitalist death-cults which periodically use sex anda sort of yearning neo-pastoralism to infect rational civilisations, would simply melt away and disappear. But that’s the subject of another debate. What I mean to briefly dissect today is a change in the type of signals the “Taliban”, whatever that says it might be, is sending. The exceptional glaring tautology in what I have just said, namely the presence of British soldiers doing what I have described, at the bidding of a scumbag GramscoFabiaNazi administration at home here, is a result of the British State going GFN, and not a refutation of my premise.

In my long experience, terrorists, and other warlike agents of counter-revolution and people’s progress, tend to “claim responsibility” for dastardly deeds when they are ready to start dictating terms to what they see as the losing side. It’s a case of “we did this and we can do it some more: do you want that, and ultimate defeat, or shall we talk?” In the inverted scenario, such as, say, the Dambusters Raid, the Allies claimed responsibility globally from the rooftops, which wasn’t mechanically necessary I admit since there were crashed Lancasters scattered from Holland to the Ruhr, but it was a moral point being made, in front of an audience of spectators,  just like what this Taliban-man has just done.

The problem of wars is that there are only two ways out: victory or defeat. No “third way”, sorry Tony-B. If either Britain, or “The West” or indeed any individual ally involved in Afghanistan (Spain! Take Note, although you left earlier when some buggers who you tried later to say were Basques blew up all your trains) leaves before the Fat Lady Sings, it will be counted as a defeat, with all the malign foreign policy and (at home) inter-racial, and inter-precapitalist-barbarian-survival-guidetype issues that will flow from that.

Our own government today is the main difficulty, for this Taliban fellow knows it is on his side in the end, and wants him to win for Gramscian reasons. They’ve done a deal. “I’m Gordon…I’ll tell you what – I want to deconstruct and demoralise my Queen’s Armed Forces, so I can re-staff them with the right sort of Officers and persons so that I can then dissolve the People and elect another in their place. This is because  these forces are currently mostly viscerally opposed to me and my “getting on with my job”, and may refuse to “regulate” their own people back home here later. So I’ll send you periodic batches of good ones, which you can then kill a lot of, because I’ll deliberately make sure that you can, by only allowing them really really crap gear. When you think you’ve killed enough, and when enough of the present officers and squaddies have resigned in disgust, we’ll talk about me bowing to public opinion and “bringing the boys home”, and also about you getting hold of Afghanistan, and any industrial cities in the UK that you want your religious and legal writ to run in. And the monetary contribution you could reasonably make, to The Political Arm Of The British People, will be £…………………”

Talk about the German Army in 1918 being “stabbed in the back”!

Whar goes around comes around, and we are now the Faraway Country of which the Czechs know little


David Davis

The Czechs have given in. (Who can blame them? Not I.)

BUT they have betrayed Britain!

Shame! We wuzz robbed! Klaus knuckles under! Munich! Death! War! But….

Poor guy, what can he do? We are not ultimately his problem. Like they were not ours, in 1938.

We will have to look to ourselves. AND I don’t care what Cameron says or pretends to say or not say, about “referenda” and on whay terms, or means or does not mean, for it is quite irrelevant. Nothing will change unless individual Tory politicians in power are forced at gunpoint to do so and to yield to majority opinion and gracefully accede.

We have all known this, for many many years, which is why all the thousands and thousands and thousands of  liberal blogs exist: we all pretend it is otherwise, but it is not.

In the early 1990s in the warm wet afterglow of Soviet-Imperialist dégringolade, I used to, while over there, tell my Czech and Slovak friends about the deceptive and only partially-visible undercurrents embedded in “the End of History”, and that “The Germans are Not Your Friends”. Happily I guess, they did not believe me for a moment about the Germans, for there are many German car factories in the Czech republic, employing thousands of Czech and Slovak workers, and turning out not Trabants but rather snazzy VWs rebadged as Skodas, and also a lot of Skodas. Rovers and MGs are now of course Chinese. This is probably for the best, and probably a good thing for us all, if all factors are taken into account. I also warned them about the post-Gorbachev-USSR, but that will be another future story, the end of which cannot yet be perceived.

In the meantime, a new threat to individual liberty and small-nation-self-determination has emerged. If you are here, you know all about it. It is called the EU. Now you must be told, if you are new here and also perhaps not a Subject of The Queen or even a citizen of the wider Anglosphere, that “the EU” was not what was originally being sold to us here. What was initially aggressively, and very, very, very submissively sold, as an “honest, Guv, this is a really really great train, you ought to be on it” thingy,  to the British was a “Free trade Area” or “Common Market” – we should have got our hackles up at that already but didn’t. We already could have had free trade but it was supressed by the GramscoStalnists in power in the UK  from 1945 to 1979. The Schumanno-Monnetia-Nazis thought we’d bite on “Market” and fail to notice the barbed tarantula-sting in the “Common” bit, and they were quite right. We were had.

It did help them of course, that in the decades involved we did have more or less perverted-GramscoFabiaNazi-collectivophile administrations: these saw the way things were blowing in Europe and the world, saw the nice food with olive oil and garlic and the lovely sexy girls and the warmer and drier and more predictable weather and the vineyards and the cheap sex, and jumped in, on our behalf but for them and not us. (Why else did upper-class women throw wine over Sit Ternece Conran at parties, as a punishment for selling glass Tuscan pasta-jars in Habitat for £3.99 so “everyone” could buy them?)

To the British Enemy-Class, the EU is about power, money, unaccountability for expenses, junkets to Bamberg (twinned with Bedford!), sex with expensive “escort girls” (and you can pass it through as “entertainment”, which it of course is) and “calling for harmonisation”. To British people who can afford it, the EU is about lovely, lovely, sexy food at “bistros” that we were “just passing”, not having to “change money”, sex with expensive British chavettas in Ibiza so you can chat them up while pissed, getting English beer in Benidorm, garlic to make everything taste of something, and being able to fly to Prague for “stag” “dos” for 99p return. Oh and “buying that really great farmhouse, to live off the land”….

All this of course is not what Europe was really about.  Not even Jean Monnet, the Great buroNazi, envisaged that it would be that easy to defeat the Real Enemy. We did that ourselves. Europe, as in the “EU” is about recreating a Reich.

That’s why you have to keep voting until you give the right answer….until the Terror-Police are here which means you are relieved of having to vote, for the choice is the right answer or else to be killed. They are a little late with the Terror-Police, but I am sure this is being worked on even today.

Poor Vaclav Klaus, noble and intelligent chap that he is, cannot help us now. It is even the fate of his people’s principal politicians who mattered to be like that. How ironic and sad can you get? So. Either our history as a nation, and as the foundry-crucible of libertarianism, comes to and end here, or else something is done. There is no long-term strategic problem, as the history of Russia and the USSR has shown, in denouncing and repudiating things laughingly called “treaties”. We should look as a nation to our own interests. If we are a libertarian nation, then we ought to look out for our own interests even more fiercely, since we shall find ourselves under open threat even from those whom we once called our friends – as I have always warned and will continue so to do. There is no founding libertarian doctrine that says a nation state, once it has discovered itself either again or anew, ought to observe treaties that are inimical to its survival and which have been made by its predecessors.

Even Westminster says that no Parliament can irrevocably bind its successors.

So, well, there you are.

Shall we just go, now?

This is how and why Gordon Brown will resign and soon


David Davis

Here you go. Health reasons. It’s the best way probably for him to go, but not for us: we needed to _inflict defeat_ seriously and with great power, specifically upon anti-English, deliberate, directed and focussed socialism, with an anti-English and wicked socialist in charge at the Helm of the Enemy Class Fleet.

This will not be as possible with somebody prettier and more Wireless-Tele-genic, later.

We need a vast and bloody defeat, inflicted on purpose, at challenge, against the Enemy Class of the Untied Kingdom (yes I typed “untied”) really in the next three months. I do not know how to bring this about, but it is strategically-necessary: anybody got any ideas?

What exactly is… this…??(?)


Peter Davis

‘We’re not done yet, insists Brown’- Sounds horrifying, init?


Peter Davis

here

I have a propsition:

List all of Labours achievements to this day, I won’t, since [a] i can’t be bothered, and [b] my laptop would fall apart because of sheer over-typingness (if thats a word) as it is shoddily made.

then tally up:

1.how many have been a complete waste of your money, and have been engineered to put this nation at an educational, tactical, and economical disadvantage,

2.how many have actually been benificial.

i think you’ll find that the ultra-huge-vastly-immense majority will be: a complete waste of your money, and have been engineered to put this nation at an educational, tactical, and economical disadvantage

And, Brown says, ‘We’re not done yet’…

it is now 22:07 GMT and my brain has almost completely shut down, so i expect Fred Bloggs to do a humerous, but serious follow-up to this, while i set up the weaponized dustbin in our ultra-super-secret-weapons testing lab for a ‘demonstration’. expect to see the fabled weaponized dustbin in action soon:

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/fredll-like-this-one-2/

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/yesterdays-technology-for-today-tomorrow-working-together-to-combat-enviro-crime-for-the-children/

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/improved-pah-this-is-improved/

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/new-impooved-weaponised-dustbins/

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/dustbin-o-doom/

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/here-is-the-weaponised-dustbin-for-your-entertainment/

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/here-is-the-weaponised-dustbin-for-your-entertainment/

Brownfisk


Michael Winning

In his speech to the Labour conference in Brighton, Mr Brown accepted that Labour facing an uphill struggle at the election, but insisted that the party still has a chance of winning and taking a fourth term.

They will rig the important labour marginals with postal votes, in whihc they have of course put the more illiterate immigrants.

“Never, never stop believing,” Mr Brown told Labour members. “We are the Labour Party and our abiding duty is to stand, and fight, and win.”

When I was very very young, I heard Hugh Gaitskell on the raiod, saying “we must fight and fight and fight again, and WIN the party back to power!” What’s all this need to fight about all the time?

He added: “Because the task is difficult, the triumph will be even greater. Now is not the time to give in but to reach inside ourselves for the strength of our convictions.”

They will never apologise, as david D keeps reminging us.

Telling his party not to give up, Mr Brown said: “There is nothing in life which is inevitable. It’s about the change you choose.”

I don’t  understand that, sorry.

With the odds against him, Mr Brown was under pressure to set out a vision for the future in his speech.

Everything to do with Lefties is about the future, they never seem to refer to the past. Specially theirs.

During his address, he set out a range of pledges that will form the basis of the Labour election manifesto next year.

Among them:

* If it is re-elected, Labour would hold a referendum on changing the rules for electing MPs. Instead of the first-past-the-post system, Westminster elections would use the additional vote system, where voters chose both a constituency MP and one from a regional top-up list. This will be the sacked BlairBabes, then, so they can get back in. * Labour would create a new “National Care Service” to provide social care of the elderly, he said. The new system is likely to be funded by up-front fees levied on all workers when they turn 65. I don’t fancy being invited onto that scheme, sorry. Mr Brown also promised: “And for those with the highest needs, we will now offer in their own homes free personal care.” He did not say who would qualify. Not disabled soldiers I epxpect.

* Middle class parents will lose tax relief on child care in order to fund free childcare for 250,000 poor parents of two-year olds. The pledge comes only days after Mr Brown pledged to make middle-class concerns the focus of his Government. I’d better beget a couple of two-year-olds, pref by different girls, and quite quick. Then I cna put them in the same cresh, get a volume-discout, and finally get an XBox!

* Teenage single mothers will be “placed in a network of supervised homes,” shared homes where they will be taught parenting skills and given other skills. Mr Brown said: “It cannot be right for a girl of sixteen to get pregnant, be given the keys to a council flat, and be left on her own.” So the home-supervisor can finally pimp them out now properly and get away with it! Add to her salary it will.

* The national ID card will not be made compulsory during the next parliament, Mr Brown said. But he stopped short of scrapping the scheme as many critics are demanding. So it’s going to come then, no change there then.

Responding to critics of his personal style leadership, Mr Brown lauded his own role in responding to the world financial crisis last year. I’m the Dear Leader….fly me (to Washington)

“Even when they told us last year that a great depression was inevitable and the world could not come together, we did, even when others said it was beyond our grasp. It still is.

“Maybe you think it’s because I’m the guy who doesn’t take no for an answer, and you’re right: I don’t.” I never apologise, I’m the arch-Gramscofella of the current Enemy Class.

For the second year running, Mr Brown was introduced to the conference by his wife, Sarah. think what would have happened if Denis T had introduced Margaret T.

In a short personal speech about the man she called “my husband, my hero”, Mrs Brown spoke of the Prime Minister’s intensity, workload and character. Hitler in thewar

“He’s not a saint. He’s messy, he’s noisy, he gets up a terrible hour,” Mrs Brown said. “He will always make the time for people, for the family, for his friends. That’s what makes him the man for Britain too.” the father of his people, yes. Ceaucescu also?

Risking criticism of Labour’s support for the Armed Forces, Mr Brown devoted only three paragraphs of his hour-long speech to British forces serving in Afghanistan, paying tribute “to them and their courage.” I think sometimes in my worse moments about a revolution supported by the Army etc. But I don’t think they will.

If I wanted to destroy the UK’s taxation-base….


..and I was Gordon Brown, then this is how I would start off.

David Davis

I thought that Statists like taxation. I thought they liked to do it.

They not only like [other people] to pay it, but they like to raise [lots and] lots of it.

If they want to do it, then there perhaps ought to be something large and worthwhile to tax economically and profitably. Surely, it’s worth more net revenue to tax about 10,000 guys each collecting lump sums of say £200,000 each, every year year in year out, (40% of 20 billion = 8 billion for 10,000 audits) than to tax 20 million people each yielding, let us say, £4,000 each per year (80 billion for 20 million audits) and with the same volume of paperwork per unit as the big guys?

They will merely have 200 times the paperwork per billion raised, if they drive the Banks offshore, as they now will.

And I haven’t even costed in the marginal taxation-losses due to death of small-businesses who service the bonus-earners.

‘I DO NOT ROLL OVER’ – says Brown… …whatever that means…


Peter Davis

It appears Brown is stating that he’s not a dog, perhaps?

anyway, this may intrest you.

Sorry guys


UPDATE1:- And here’s a little bit of circumstancial evidence for my case: they bastards don’t even rate their own slaves, let alone us, who don’t acknowledge them as our masters.

David Davis

This is going to be an unpleasant posting for me. Indeed it may perhaps mark the point of my break with mainstream libertarians, who favour nothing at all but peaceful engagement with the Enemy Class. But the battle between liberty and evil indivuals who wish it to be suppressed has gone on too long, it is now inconvenient and irritating, the Cause of Liberty is being held up, and I want to trigger some discussion about our desired results.

Libertarians ought to have well-articulated and widely-trawled plan of what to do about members of the Enemy Class. They ought to start to be told that they are identified as inimical to personal liberty in all areas of a person’s life.

The stupid FDR’s stuff in 1943 about “unconditional surrender” was at the time an unproductive and costly mistake, directed accidentally as it was against a people who would probably – just like the Italians – in the mass have been pleased to accept “terms”, being civilised individuals unlike the junta which they tragically failed to not elect in 1933. We could stillhave tried and hung trash like Frank, Frick, Rosenberg, Seyss-Inquart, Himmler, Goebbels, the other chappies, even the Führer himself if it had come to a deal. The Jews and all the rest of those exterminated would still have been vindicated, and Stalin might not even have got his unjust deserts.

We might also not even have needed to have been tricked into destroying Dresden on Stalin’s orders, and thus not have trodden into seemingly eternal and embarrassingly deep shit because of it. (It riles me, you can see. Germany did NOT need to elect Hitler in the first place. We are equally at fault for allowing our Enemy Class to gain ascendancy while we had been busy. We have even less excuse for our negligence than Germans in 1933, for we live in a nominally-liberal society.)

Nurtured in the bosom of benign capitalism, yet schooled in the dark perverted lights of false science, the Enemy Class of today is sadly not like the semi-hezitant-Nazis of 1933 at all. It is far, far more confident and hubristic.

We libertarians are too fixed on the universal provision of Natural Rights and individual liberty for all. In pursuing this admirable goal, we neglect at our peril its mortal enemies, who have pursued their own “Project” for centuries, are doing so now, are now extremely able communicators and media-mobsters, and will continue so to be and to do.

They have “learned lessons” from the fates of their friends, in Germany in the 1930s to 1945, in the USSR from 1917-1989, from Red-Ted Heath their friend, from Harold Wilson who was not serious enough, and from Ceaucescu whose fate they do not want to undergo.

They will, from this day forward, never change, never apologise, and never surrender. Living and recently-dead-examples in no special order? Polly Toynbee, George Monbiot, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Baroness Scotland, Douglas Hogg, the BBC top brass, Castro (who at least died), Madeleine Bunting, Sunny Sandalwood, Kim Long-Il (ditto), that woman in the EU who wants to shut “right wing” political blogs down, the other guy who forces toxic defective lighting on us, and so on. Form an orderly queue, chaps, to convert one of more of these to liberalism, starting now.

Can you do it?

Can you?

Our objective can’t be cleanly reached in any even vaguely reasonable timescale, if there are intelligent, highly-educated and well-resourced humanoids who openly and sincerely mean to impose the opposite case by force if need be. What, after all, is “choice-editing”, for God’s sake?

These buggers are in it from times primeval in their lives, probably from swaddling-clothes in fact: they are collectivists deliberately, and they deliberately do collectivist things to masses and masses of unwilling or too-busy-to-do-anything-about-it-people. And then, when parts of the Project go pear-shaped, they get parachuted out to other parts less exposed to our ire. Sacked Prime-Monsters who go on $100,000-speechmaking junkets are another case in point.

We can hold conferences till we are blue in the face. In fact I will raise this very matter at a frnge-meeting which I will try to set up on 24th/25th October at the Libertarian Alliance’s annual binge in London.

We can publish stuff till the Finnish paper-forests are razed. (Indeed, you ought to weigh the tonnage of paper which the Libertarian Alliance alone produced from the 70s to the 2000s, until http://libertarian.co.uk came fully on-stream.)

Libertarians have blogs – there are probably hundreds out there, mostly talking to each other. Libertarian blogs’ blogrolls are among the longest you will find anywhere in the internet. They are usually a good read, unlike the collectivists’ attempts: perhaps we are cleverer or wittier or better educated (I doubt it) writers, or we read more things faster in wider areas, and so write better.

But all the while, the collectivists and other GramscoFabiaNazis seem to gain ground. They now openly flaunt the levers of State Power,  brandishing joyfully and exultantly the hammers-and-anvils-of-compulsion, dressed warmly and cuddlily in the clothes of caring, security, safety, community-concern and the like. They will never admit they are unfathomably evil by design, nor will they ever backtrack.

I do not, any more, believe that even a minority of them are capable of honest conversion to liberalism and liberty of humans all as sovereign individuals. Their potential rewards for the successful completion of their “Project”, of total and eternal human enslavement, to the benefit of the chosen Honestiores and believers, exceed in their eyes the importance of the general destruction of Man’s prospects in The Universe.

After all, why ought they to care about that? They think we all die in the end, and that there Is Nothing After. If they get to be Earthly Lords – for even a little time – to whom we always and everywhere bow the knee: and if we are forced to offer our sexiest daughters (and sons?) for their shagging, in return for our paltry rations of saltless boiled vegetables and water, eaten and drunk in the freezing darkness: then, what is it to them? Nothing.

They will have taken /revenge/ – for what? Here are five reasons for vengeance ‘pon the rest of us that incense the Enemy Class. And I could go on after…

(1) Revenge for the slow but sure concatenation of events that followed Magna Carta -

(2) Revenge for the Rennaissance -and for printing -

(3) Revenge for the Industrial Revolution (a wrong name) which took millions of us out of their mud-bound, sword-flatting, oak-hard-grip -

(4) Revenge for agricultural-surpluses -which meant that 98% of us didn’t have to spend more than all our lives simply trying to grow food and eat some -

(5) Revenge for towns and cities where poverty first became hideous at last, for scientific and medical progress, with Christian Charity (not fake ones, they’d have been appalled, specially the “poor”) showed what would be achieved instead -

If they’d thought harder about it, they’d even have been decrying and execrating the invention of the WHEELED PLOUGH. This brought the rise of the “New Towns” from about AD 1050 to 1400. Newport, Neustadt, Neuville, Newton-le-Willows, Newcastle, Novgorod. Clearly hotbeds of anti-Righteous sedition and revolution, all of them. I don’t however see George Monbiot and Paul Ehrlich criticising it though.

I have said before that we have to have a serious, and published plan about what is intended for those of the Enemy Class who do not recant, and who will not recant. There will be many. Furthermore, many will recant who are not sincere, and who will intend to prosecute their evils after recantation. These will need specially to be identified.

People who oppose liberty for sovereign individuals – the utterly individual, contractual, trust-based, one-to-one, fully-atomised kind of libery that Lords so hate and fear, must be made to feel that we are as serious about promoting this kind of liberty as they are about demolishing it and replacing it with collective liberties for masses, handed out by said Lords as acts of dispensation.

The time has come to draw the line.

GramscoFabiaNazis are institutionally-not-funny, so they try terribly terribly terribly hard…


…to inject (what’s that?) “Razzmataz”…..er?

David Davis

I feel a caption competition coming on:-

He's had the jab...but I've had THREE!

He's had the jab...but I've had THREE!

It is not the function of Statesmen, while we are stuck with them up our arses, to inject “Razzmataz”. Not up our arses anyway, not like happy-laughing-boy on the left would.

It is their function to _Provide against Preventable Evils_ …and that is all, for the time being, until they are gone.

We said it would happen


Michael Winning

First you try to do some dirty deals with a dirty old shitty murdering dictator who’s no better than he ought to be. (It’s ALL ABOUT OIL!….choris offstage.) Those deals could not be more designed to piss of the uSA your friend and ally, and also individual people associated with the Lockerbie-dead, like their surviving relations and legatees, even if you tried hard to bring it about.

Then you pretend somebody else did them, not you.

That gets Scotland into trouble (your tirn will soon come) which also pisses off the Scots while you’re at it. Even the Scottish Labour party.

Then yo go into hiding, pretending there’s nothing to talk about.

Then it comes out that you did it after all.

People like my colleague warned of the strategic consequences. Even Guido has noticed.

Then of course the soft-boiled-egg does actually connect with the electric fan after all. Brown’s apparent flatfootedness has gone beyond mere galumphing ineptitude and is thus a position cultivated for a reason. he hates us, he hates liberalism and the west and he wants it to fall down.

Now Brown is a rapidly-addressed kitchen servant, compared with these:

“It was disclosed earlier this week that Mr Brown would not hold bilateral talks with Mr Obama, despite the President hosting individual meetings with the leaders of Japan, China and Russia. Downing Street claimed that this was not unusual.”

This is not good for libertarians if the USA is going to tactfully pull up the ladder against us, while obviously talking to more impoartant people in Japan Russia and China. Actually I’m surproised India France and Germany were left out of that list but the journo might just not have finished his whistky in time to write them down.

I note this blog has been critical of Obama in the past. Clearly he’s no liberal in the libertarian true meaning of the word, but he also clearly knows which side the USA’s bread is buttered.

My real worry is that the American People will think the worse of us now, for things we didn’t want to do but wree done in our name. Even their Bankers despise us.

The enemy rhetoric is very clever and persuasive


Michael Winning

Read it all, to the end, not long. You’d be forgiven for thinking these politicians are not our masters but our humbal servants. Spit.

Charles Clarke articulates everything about the GramscoFascist-Left mindset


David Davis

It’s all about “power” and being “progressive”…but I think we all gathered that some time ago. Progessive towards what, of course, is what matters. As libertarians we need to sit down and decide whether or not to Get Serious about those who frankly and openly want our defeat, because they fervently believe us to be wrong, and that they are right. We need to decide what to do about the (now real and dangerous)  force – of many kinds – used by them, against us and against individual humans who resist intellectually. They know they are so right that they ought to prevail : against truth and reason, and against anyone who thinks they are “mad”, “illogical”, or beginning to think about sometihng called  “Political Correctness Gone Mad”…

…as you all are tired of being told by me, we MUST NEVER ever ever use that phrase, for it legitimises “Political Correctness” in that it admits of a “mad” condition which it might adopt. As if it was not totally “intelligently designed” (which it is.)

PC is designed to do, under fully-logical and quite sensibly centralised intellectual direction, those things which it has done and intends to do. Which is to say, destroy the ability to articulate certain words and therefore certain thoughts. Until there are only the allowed ones.

Now then: Charles Clarke, the old Marxist student “activist” (all today’s fascist bastards were, so what: they never had real jobs in their lives – pity I didn’t run over his sandals with my motorbike when I could have done) may be doing one of three things.

(1) He  is either wanting to seriously help along the “Project” – which is to say, total and irremediable enslavement (and deletion as even an idea or concept) of the one people which “progressives” have most hated in all history, and so he cares that “Labour” should win the next election.

(2) Or else he is just expressing the usual GramscoFabiaNazi emotions on finding that their now-frankly-expressed policies and objectives are less than fully-popular all the time with everyone.

(3) It’s the power thing, and he sees his last chance of getting the Main Chance. Even if it’s for a few months only. And as he knows, you can always rig elections and stuff ballot-boxes, or get lots of “postal votes” – specially in Rotten Boroughs, but especially in those that are not quite so rotten that there is a chance of a Non-Labour-non-GramscoFascist-lefty being elected. The ballot-boxes to be stuffed under the tactical-terms of the “Project” will be in these places which matter.

Cameron (for it sadly will probably be he) ought to be under no illusions about how his “poll lead” will strangely have been seen to have evaporated, on election night, owing to a “huge last-minute-groundswell of support for Labour”.

Libertarians, in my sad opinion, will have to be prepared to be very, very, very unforgiving, in the sense of “unconditional surrender” towards principal members of the Enemy Class. Classical liberal niceness towards defeated enemies, certainly for the duration of the War which the GramscoFabians cheerfully trumpet is going on, will have to take second place to seriousness about our objectives.

And probably for many many centuries afterwards until all trace of their deliberately prosecuted, unfathomable wickedness is lost under isotope-traces in sedimentary rocks.

“We have found traces of evidence that, 3 billion years ago, a class of persons in an ostensibly modern civilisation actually _thought these things! (Horror!)…

(1) There should be a “State” (chorus: what’s that???)

(2) Its employees could _take money off you by force_ !!! (chorus: Naaaaaaaaahhh !!!…. errrrr?….uh…?????)

etc etc etc

Brown “orders Libyans to kill Megrahi” to “meet Libyan SAS training timetable”


If Megrahi, who we understand from “doctors” was actually quite well when released, is to “die inside three months”, so that bilateral trade agreements between the two governments can go ahead, well, I guess…when you’ve gotta go, you’ve gotta go.

Poor bugger: he oughter never-a-gotten mixed up with scumbag statists. Honestly, making the poor boy blow up aeroplanes and stuff…

…so Ghaddafi could get our oil…

David Davis

The politician-buggers are now bullying us openly


David Davis

This is either a wind-up or else the GramscoFabiaNazis think they are in their end-game against us.

And you might like to think about this one too:-

“Gordon…say something that’ll get a few buggers to vote for us…


however irrelevant…”

David Davis

I would not be surprised if that was what Lord Rumba of Rio ordered the PM to do yesterday…

“Every schoolboy knows” (now) that poor clever tormented Alan Turing was gay, and that he perhaps helped to shorten WW2 by (3?) years (proper modern digital computing certainly shortened it) and that we have all moved on from outdated laws about “gross indecency”….so why bring it all up again now?

Could Gordon be feeling the pressure?

But let’s lighten up, and look at what Turing and others made possible, not forgetting Tommy Flowers:-

At least the Brownbugger didn’t say “Our Thoughts Are With…”


David Davis

Not this time, at least. Small mercies, thankful for, we are. For now.

Libertarian Alliance Enemy-Class bullshit-identification-program: No-1… “Our thoughts are with…”


“OUR THOUGHTS ARE WITH…..”

David Davis

This phrase is usually uttered by member of the Enemy Class, in this case the current British-Bureau-Chief-thereof…Gordon Brown humself.

These days I take its appearance to mean that neither the utterer nor the rest of the Enemy Class actually gives or has even given a monkey’s f*** about the fate of whoever-it-was (currently soldiers figure a lot) but that it is not politically expedient to be seen to be saying nothing.

So they say something that means nothing instead.

When we come to power, all persons of the Enemy Class, who are known to have uttered it over such incidents and where there is a record of it, will be “invited downstairs to an exciting place, for questioning”.

Libertarian Alliance caption competition…again…


001-article-1212030-06517842000005DC-35_468x338

Interesting take on the tottering of Gordon Brown


Here.

Libya, Lockerbie, Scotland, Kenny whatsit and Brown…well, there you go


David Davis

(Oh, and a thought – why ought a place like Libya – bursting at the seams with oil so it is said, and with practically no people at all – need “secret police” or “agents” of the same?)

I am slightly amused, and also I think enlightened a bit, by the goings-on in the Scottish Parliament over this sad and rather unexciting but important affair. I may as well now refer to it as The Scottish Government, for the Union is dead in all but name. Not in the way I would have wished it to be put to bed either.

You can understand the indignance of ordinary Scottish people, who can’t be expected to view terrorism in any other light different from the way English or Americans view it. Why should they? And so their Parliament should reflect it. After all, if you consider nothing else, the flaming bits of blood-spattered-ironmongery fell on their blasted houses for God’s sake. The allegation that “Scotland’s reputation has been damaged for years to come” is perhaps emotionally an initial response, but you can see what the poor buggers mean.

Nazis (which is to say, all the observed classes of GramscoFabians) of course being what they are, dirty deals could well have been done in Westminster by Brown and his Junta, behind even the backs of the SNP in the Scottish Parliament (Nazis, all being lefties by definition, have no ultimate regard for “Teh Peepull” or even for “Teh Views of Teh Peepul’s Prep-presentatives” – whether those of its Reich or of any of its dependencies or GeneralAmte.)

Let is suppose for a moment that this sad event had occurred in the skies over a Libertarian Polity – whether or not “allied” to the USA, the home country of the affected airline, is of course important too. For the record, here, now, I don’t think the USA actually has ever had in its short life “allies” in the sense that Europeans, even Atlanticist ones like us, view “allies” – it has only “had” other nations in whose success or failure, against various third parties such as The Kaiser or Stalin or Krushcho-Brezniev***, it has had an interest for a short time.  A very British position to take if I might say so now. But I go on:

There could be two strands of thought about the para-but-one-above. The polity could wash its hands of the whole affair…..(saying that there is no fundamentallly-important national interest of its own, involved here)….

……or it could say that since people’s lives, liberty and property had been destroyed, and in its front garden (whoever the destroyed people were and whosoever’s property that plane was) its Jihadist Duty ought to be to pursue the perpetrators to the ends of its strength.

I should hope that a libertarian administration would take the position that it ought to hound the perpetrators to within an inch of their lives – or better even than that. The “release on compassionate grounds” of a perpetrato

*** I have decided I like Mr Krushcho-Brezniev: he does it for me as a Leninist lamp-post-pianowire-label for our enemies, and so I will use him quite a lot from now on. I might even call him Mrs Annabelle Krushcho-BrezniPutin. Don’t go there.

There is no reason why the USA should always be our friend


We should think sometimes.

See update below, and the MSM heat is, slowly but inevitably, building:-

David Davis

It is an independent federation of States which chooses (and does choose) to behave as an independent nation. We ought not to take its benignity in any form of alliance for granted. Remember who gave them the Statue of Liberty, and for what historical deed and attributes. The USA has never needed critically to be our friend, or indeed anyone’s friend!

(There are in fact interesting arguments in favour of its having been better for it to continue in utter isolation, as “A City upon a Hill”. Especially to defend against institutionally-European diseases and mortal risks such as GramscoFabiaNazism, in all its various vile guises. If the USA goes down to GFNs, and it does seem now to have its fair share, we are all in trouble. But this is the subject of another post later.)

Conveniently for us here, the USA chose to aid us in most of the 20th Century, in our manichaean struggles with sundry tyrannies, at critical times. In 1917 for example – even up to February, and even up to the Zimmermann Telegram –  it was an entirely neutral and almost uncoloured decision, for the USA, to side with one or other batch of belligerents. Or even not at all.

Whatever valuable points Sean Gabb makes or implies about the First World War, it was (1) probably unavoidable in the end, and (2) our underlying motives were just and noble. The sheer scale of waste and slaughter is another matter, as is the generality of libertarian opposition in principle to war.

What happened over Lockerbie, which accidentally happens to be in Scotland, affects the USA more if anything than the UK. What would, for example, have been the prosecution’s position against Megrahi et al , in either of these two cases? Firstly,  if the device had exploded, say, over Ribblehead or Slaidburn (if earlier it might have done – I am the Director of Northern Affairs: I know these places!) or secondly instead over international waters of the North Atlantic?

Here, I must add that it does not even matter a monkeys, whether it was the Gaddaffi-Megrahi mob wot dunn it, or another mob, most likely Syrian/Iranian, as the estimable Devil (pbuh) suggests here. If the Devil is right, then it’s the renaging on deals, of whatever sort (ask Stalin, he renaged on lots) that endanger them. And the initial results, always, are bad for liberty.

If public opinion in the USA leans towards refusing to buy our stuff (and they are I still think our major trading partner – the EU is nowhere by contrast) then that’s one more to chalk up to Gordon MaCavity, who seems to bugger off and go to ground when things get embarrassing. It’s becoming clearer by the hour that his pawprints (and most likely Mandelson’s, his puppet-master) are all over Megrahi and his release. But none of these three will be on the DNA database, you can bet the usual 17p.

Libertarians should hope that the sound good sense of the American People (it did however fail last November, for a critical minute) will prevail, and that little lasting damage will be done and this sleazy-dealy-oily-scumbag-under-the-carpet-while-nobody’s-looking event will sidle gently into oblivion. Libertarians in the UK and Europe will need all the help they can get in the next few decades – not just from US bloggers and think-tanks and philosophers, able to narrowcast to us and to each other – but from a broad front of general friendship and fellow-feeling for liberty – from an entire Nation.

And now this stuff is getting about:-

not useful to us, and embarrassing

not useful to us, and embarrassing

Look, guys: it’s all very well to strike postures – like about how Megrahi is not the right man, althoug he probably is. The Syrian and Iranian fascist guvmints were much much too clever, even in the late 1980s, to be seen with own their fingers in the blood if they could get somebody else to be the fall-guys. Also it’s just as heinous of Westminster to pretend to agree, by inference, and (worse) by silence, that it was a “Scottish Government decision”.

Libertarians are worried, because there are still a few hundred over this side of the Pond, and they want there to be somewhere they can disappear to more easily than Mexicans can, and in which there is enough space not to be found for decades, if not ever. Libertarians with British versions of EU passports are therefore endangered as regards their human rights to become refugees, by decisions like this one.

But I doubt it will.

Thank Christ nobody’s in charge!


David Davis

Gordon Brown is somewhere in the Cumberland mud, Harriet Hardbint is (who cares where) and Lord Mandyperson is “in Cor-Eff-Yoo. That might, just might, give the British People a break, to get on with a little recession-busting, uninterrupted.

Don’t you just wish that the buggers (no pun intended) would be away 100% of the time? Laissez-nous-faire!

Unfair to bankers


David Davis

The State should get the hell out of Banking – and I mean literally, in the sense that it should not even issue Monies if it holds an enforced monopoly on this activity, legitimised directly by itself. I am not going so far as to say that a State should not issue a Money at all – just that others ought to be allowed to compete.

The Free Market will discover very fast whose moneys are worth something and whose are not.

The kneejerk-Daily-Wail-three-health-scares-a-week-MSM-rag-style lynching of “bankers” for our current woes, caused as they actually are by a profligate and financially-incontinent Stalinist State, ought to be exposed for what it is: fingering an easy and conspicuous small target instead of the real culprits. Shades of Hitler and the Jews under Weimar and later, come to mind.

In the 90s and early 2000s, poor old Sir Fred Goodwin was only doing what all other “successful” (in the context of the time) bankers were doing, only more aggressively. He’s Scotch after all, so we can’t blame him for his aggression in business either.

These people were responding in a logical way to what the British State Treasury was doing to its own (monopoly) money: they were “getting it away”. What would we have done in their stead? Inside the only system they knew, they were trying to turn worthless paper into (at least some) performing assets.

Road tolls, and no tax cuts: time to slag off the Tories, in advance of their (still debatable) win


David Davis

Some of us have always known that, in the event of a ZanuLieBorg defeat, they not having rigged the results sufficiently or stuffed enough !”postal votes”! in their Rotten Boroughs , a Tory win would not mean the start of a Long March Towards Liberalism.

For those who are confused, I, in here, use the word “liberalism” with a _/small L/_ to mean free-market non-socialist/minimal statism: this word belongs to us and not to the Enemy Class or people like US “democrats”, who have twisted and corrupted it, and who deliberately and purposefully and with conviction lean towards big-statist Nazism. Watch Obama morph as he finds his feet, more’s the pity – and we did warn you nearly two years ago about what he would get like.

So now we are being softened up with “no tax cuts,” and “possible increases”, and a delay in the “pledge to abolish IHT”, and even “road tolls”. The upside is there won’t be any money to build many “new roads” for some time.

Tories in the UK think that once the election is “won” – (will it be? Better be quite serious about the guys you face, for they hate you and us and they won’t stop now) – they will get an easy ride from “right wing bl0ggers”, whatever those are. Well, we shall have to see, but the signs are not enouraging.

Cameron thinks that we’ll all have to dig into our pockets to right the wrongs of this administration: but he did have other alternatives as follows:-

(1) Formally repudiate ALL UK sovereign debt taken out by _this_ administration after a date he could have set. That would stop the borrowing in short order…

(2) Announce that instead of tax rises, or non-removal of most existing imposts, very very large areas of the State would simply be closed down… He could simply publicly nominate huge departments and fiefdoms for absolute closure and which are not populated by Tory voters, which is most of it, without any electoral penalty….The fact that Sterling would rise on that revelation would not benefit Brown as cameron would already have said that he’s not going to pay any more new debts incurred by the said Gorgon…

(3) He could then announce the prospect of actual tax cuts, seeing as he’d save at least £300 billion in wages bills straight away. Conservatively [bad pun, sorry] we could have £150 billion of tax cuts per year, plus an extra £150 billion earmarked for debt servicing, and we might get out of debt in as little as ten years. Moreover, the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of desperate ex-public-employees, starving on the streets and many even without housing – it having been repossessed and the Banks unable to sell or let it, would drive wages and real rents down to a right market-clearing level, which will benefit the private sector which could then recover a modicum of tax-paying-ability in time.

But the Tories won’t do it, will they.

They are _/not really serious at all/_.

Time to attack them, now, before it’s too late.

Jeremy Clarkson calls Gordon Brown a ****


David Davis

He can’t be sued for libel on the grounds of truth.

10 Drowning Street


Quite humorous and ironical.

Such a clever boy


A pity they are  __all__  Enemy-Class Scunbags: some of them night even have made good in proper jobs.

Some people may like this site…


others may not. I’ve put in on the bog-roll anyway, as although they may not smell nice to some Libertarians, they may do things which make them into our friends for a time (like how Churchill thought that “…if Hitler was to invade Hell, then Imight at least make a favourable reference to The Devil”.)

David Davis

Take your choice. Their take on the saddo GramscoFabian Gordon Brown***, and his posturing over Afghanistan, is instructive.

***I don’t think he genuinely thinks he’s a Nazi, the poor fellow, so I won’t call him a GramscoFabiaNazi by name [in public] in case we get sued.

***But he __is__ a Gramscian, which is true by observation and therefore not actionable by him, and he __is__ a Fabian, evinced by the way he has gone about things for the whole of his political life.

Riddle: “Why won’t Gordon Brown go to Wootton Bassett?


David Davis

Because he’d get told what people really think of his attitude towards the Armed Forces (whom he hates and despises and fears and won’t give money to, all at once.) And so he’s quite afraid his appearance there might start a riot, quickly turning into a revolution.

Green custard would be nowhere: it would be something worse.

Don’t expect any members of the Government ZanuLieBorg gramscoFabiaNazi Enemy Class there any time soon.

Just bugger off, Gordon, just go....

Just bugger off, Gordon, just go....

Libertarians – at least some of us – are not against prosecuting foreign wars in the absence of a “vital national interest”. It’s just that we perhaps differ about what the boundaries of a vital national interest are.

I happen these days to believe that, under the threat of extinction by new Labour, the borders of a Libertarian Polity actually encompass the entire globe. Like the Saxons and Vikings saw the Sea as a Road and not a fence, and like our borders once ran along the coasts of all other nations at once, the destruction of extremely “serious” and cheerfully-frankly-unlibertarian chaps in the mountains of Northern Pakistan, who have sincerely vowed, on television, to destroy us and what we stand for, can be seen merely as the protection of an English national interest.

So Gordon won’t be going to Wiltshire quite yet, then. (People seeing the coffins, and him, in the same moment, will trip them over the edge.)

But if there was an election, he’d get to Swindon in about 9 minutes.

Surely, though, the Minister of Defence could go? Not even incognito? Nobody knows who he is anyway…He’d probably get egged – nothing worse, even if discovered…..