Gurkhas (might now be able to stay) : quite right too

UPDATE1:- Jeff Randall sticks it good and proper to Gordon Brown. But I take issue with Jeff on one point. He thinks ZanuLieBorg is inept and venal.

I do not. I think they are astonishingly patient, irremediably wicked, exquisitely organised _and_ with a Plan, and inimical to Western liberal civilisation on purpose. They have got like this quite voluntarily, willingly lapping up GramscoMarxian evil and corruption from the mother’s-milk of their University tutors, who we should never have allowed to be in place where they were in the first place. I can’t right now think what ought to have been done with such intellectuals instead, but they should certainly never have been allowed inside a teaching establishment – indeed, exactly as State socialist functionaries in the Warsaw Pact countries barred liberals from any sort of academic post whatever.

“Hate speech” is what these buggers want to prosecute people like us for: actually it is what they do to others.


David Davis

Round One to Nick Clegg  – and to a band of honourable Labour MPs, for either voting against their dear Leader or at least abstaining, despite the protests of Tacqui Jacqui.

One thing that libertarians understand, and GramscoFabiaNazis actively and purposefully reject, is the common currency of human morality, honour and respect. It ought to have been obvious to a child of six that if A encourages B, C and D to enlist as soldiers, who carry the implicit risk of injury or death while in service of A, then A cannot in all logicality stop B, C and D from coming to live later in A’s country, if it should please them to do so.

I can’t think many would, specially now. But it’s not the point. Although these unreconstructed primitive shysters, snake-oil-peddlers and gangsters who today rule us have made this place a vision of hell, moral principles are absolute – or ought to be. Libertarians understand this, which is why we are frequently to hated and challenged in debate by relativists.

A future Libertarian British – or English? – administration (a tautology I admit) cannot afford to make such mistakes. We shall need friends, and will understand how not to rat on people.

7 responses to “Gurkhas (might now be able to stay) : quite right too

  1. The trouble being the parliamentary vote for some unaccountable reason is not immediately binding on these NuLabour Trained State Liberallist Managerial NuLabour pissbrains. On the other hand, if /I/ sell my ground and get cash, I can lay my wallet on the line, if not my life, and I can “get to” live (!) in NuLabour “Britain.”


    What IS wrong with this scene?

  2. I thought that libertarians believe in contracts and the contracts the Gurkhas signed said that the would not be allowed to immigrate.

  3. Pingback: 1st May 2009, [New] Labour Day! A tipping-point for liberty. And I want to know why people get like that. « The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

  4. Bodwyn Wook

    DJF supra asserts a contract was in place, gherkin by gherkin. Now we are in a pickle, he implies. If so, what ARE the implications? Contracts /are/ subject to renegotiation one supposes… And /I/ am still for the Gurkhas.

    But in the event, what gives?

  5. Dear DJF

    I have no idea at all, what the Gurkhas’ contracts said. The content is frankly not important to me and of no interest at all. The fact of the matter is that they served, and serve, us, often in peril of their lives, and for little money too, after all.

    It is simply scumbaggish and cheapskate (do you know what that means? I don’t know anything about you so I can’t tell whether you’re a good-person, or a socialist) to not give them the nod – that’s all it would take after all – to let the poor buggers in to live here if it pleased them.

    I can’t see a problem with that – can you?

  6. I am not British so it is not up to me. If the British people want it then it should happen, I was just pointing out that there seems to be no “right” for them to immigrate, at least under the contract they signed.

    If you hire someone to guard your store, and they do it for 20 years, and their contract says that they can’t live in your house then they have no right to live in your house. If you want to let them live in your house then that is another separate issue.

  7. DJF
    That’s the point I was, perhaps rather ineptly, trying to make.