What to do next: how shall we make Gordon Brown’s socialism unacceptable and dangerous to espouse, and who shall we sue?

….and why, when I am editing this and other pieces online in realtime, do I keep on deleting great titles, and then I am having to replace them with saddo ones?

David Davis

I was intrigued by a spread of responses at the Coffee House to Fraser Nelson’s thingy about how Gordon Brown’s lost it.

One in particular caught my eye. You should be aware that the thesis of his posting was whether and how politicians lie. I give you an exerpt:-

Brown himself upped the ante during that BBC package yesterday, telling Nick Robinson “I always tell the truth,” and (to me) sounding uncannily like Bill Clinton saying “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”. People who tell the truth never say “I tell the truth”. They don’t have to. It’s never in question.

The problem lies, strategically, not in whether Gordon Brown is lying about whether spending by “his” government will go up, or down, or even in “real terms” or “Sterling terms”. This now really does not matter at all. Indeed, discussions have already taken place, not just here but elsewhere, about whether prospective Prime Ministers, be they Cameron, Clegg (how can you have a british PM called “Clegg”?) Farage, Griffin or Paisley or Sutch or anybody else, ought to implicitly underwrite any Sovereign Debt taken out by this government –  including what Brown’s got to try to do from now till June 2010, or draw a line and say “no more”….

I now reproduce a passage from a commentator on that thread at Coffeehouse:-

The underlying truth behind all British politics right now is that Labour have failed – and comprehensively so. We’re broke. Kids can’t read. Crime is the worst in Europe. Unemployment is soaring. Etc. Etc. There is no good story to tell.
But Labour can’t very well base any campaign on a position of honesty then can they?
All they have left is to lie about their record and their plans. In the internet age that is no longer really an option. So Labour are out of options.
They’ve ruined the country. They deserve to be routed at the election. End of story.

The underlying truth behind all British politics right now is that Labour have failed – and comprehensively so. We’re broke. Kids can’t read. Crime is the worst in Europe. Unemployment is soaring. Etc. Etc. There is no good story to tell. But Labour can’t very well base any campaign on a position of honesty then can they?

All they have left is to lie about their record and their plans. In the internet age that is no longer really an option. So Labour are out of options.

They’ve ruined the country. They deserve to be routed at the election. End of story.

This kind of protest is all very well. But ruining an importantly productive and historically-defining part of the population of a small spaceship – out of spite totally – which is “hurtling defenceless through the Universe”, as the lefties are frequently wont to tell us [anybody remember “Only one Earth”?] ought to be wrong and punishable.

They persistently go after us and our culture and civilisation, /because/ we publicly exposed the errors and inconsistencies in their supposed neopastoralist pre-capitalist-barbarian anthology of “ideas”.

If Labour have [again] failed, kids can’t read (we all know in our hearts it is so), crime is worst and also up (we know this too from observation) then in Civil Law if some employees of a firm had deliberately done this, they’d get sued and rightly.

We can’t allow those who now happen to be, or in the [increasingly dark] future will happen to be, the inheritors and torch-bearers of socialist ideology, to get off. It ought to be made clear, by all liberal, conservative, libertarian or free-market-oriented parties, that, in the end, the enemy will not escape.

/BLAME/ /will/ be attached to whosoever at the time of our victory is caught espousing Enemy Class ideas. We can’t pursue the dead for retribution, but we can pursue the living, and we will do so. Members of the Enemy Class still standing at the time would be presented with a bill for rectifying what they have done.

Obviously details would have to be worked out in more clarity, but I can’t see a problem with statements like…

“…if what you or your forebears did has ruined our economy and “cost” “£150 billion of other people’s money” (eg private pensioners) then /you/ who happen to be here now, are liable”.


12 responses to “What to do next: how shall we make Gordon Brown’s socialism unacceptable and dangerous to espouse, and who shall we sue?

  1. I think there’s no need to apply some kind of final solution or class extermination program. That sort of thing never goes well – one looses control of the full coercive apparatus required to bring it about and ends up on the receiving end.

    Better to just bring about market anarchy / real free markets – most of the enemy class will do very badly since they have no productive or creative skills.

  2. True, David. But dying starving, freezing in the dark and penniless as tramps does not, I believe, bring home to the worst ones the wickedness of their previous (and who knows? – even continuing) espousal of collectivism.

    If they are as committed GramscoFabiaNazis as I am a libertarian, then their freezing starving death in utter penury and isolation will not convince them of their awfulness and their depravity, even then.

    My own death in such a manner, in a NeoStalinist People’s democratic State, in which my “identity-based-personal-entitlement-facility” had been “centrally-denormalised”, would not cause me to decide that libertarianism was wrong, or that I should not continue to say it was right and continue to try to convince others, or even do acts.

    The really nasty ones, of which there are very many, employed throughout government departments , quangos especially, University teaching departments and the like, truly and fervently believe they are right. They are committed, just as we ourselves are convinced of the rightness of our logic and cause.

    We must not impute to our enemies, in The Enemy Class, any less strong convictions than we ourselves hold. we cannot assume they will do any of the following things:-

    (1) sincerely become converted to market capitalism in any form,
    (2) quietly knuckle down and get a job filling shelves in Tesco, from which they will hope to rise to Fresh Produce Manager (Slough store main, Bucks) and thence hopefully to Head of Fruit buying-dept, Cheshunt…
    (3) be resigned to their ultimate fate as a tramp, dependent on the Salvation Army for blankets and hot tea.

    They know four things, and they know them with every fibre of their being:-

    (A) They do very well indeed, without effort
    out of believing in GramscoNazism, and will not believe we can destroy their world so easily – like ground-elder they will return,

    [This,seen by then as academics seems right to them – just like me, there is no proper, tiring effort involved in knowing or finding clever things or increasing your knowledge of them – it is the least physically-stressful and least mentally-exhausting activity I have ever known.]
    (B) They don’t believe that we will “be serious about them”,
    (C) They believe deeply and uncontrovertibly in the rightness of their analyses of how human relationships work,
    (D) Their faith in their self-belief is founded on what they really also believe is logic.

    I may make exceptions for the “enlisted men” – such as Council-rubbish-collectors, ‘impressed’ female Muslim filing clerks in Tax offices of Northern Industrial towns, and the like. But not for “outreach workers” of any grade at all, or Hospital trust executives”, and so on.

  3. But I must make clear: I would never kill them, for that was their method. I would make their lives acutely, and very very very randomly, exciting – like those of all the people they ruined and destroyed along the way:-

    (1) Only they, of all people, would have to carry ID cards (they’s have to pay for them too, even if it means selling their house to pay the sign-on-fee for the card, I think it’d be about £489,000 for them.)

    “Yorrr Pappers, Plizz!!”

    (2) You’d better not be having me as a libertarian “Interior Minister”. Why then? Because
    I’d have fun turning their card “off”, just about 5 seconds before they are about to put in their chip-&-pin” to pay for their daughter’s wedding dress….using the video-cam which _they_ caused to be installed.

    Then I’d do it again the next day, just after daughter has forgiven daddy for embarrassing her in public.

    (3) They’d get really good health care. So good in fact that I shan’t allow them to die. They will positively _crave_ corporeal death even before I’d gone a year with them, and for many other reasons, but their bodies will be kept alive interminably, really really.
    While they are still semi-conscious and can understand what’s going on, in the first 150 years or so, parties of primary-school children, already skilled in Latin, second-order-partial-differential-equations, proper historical analysis, paleogeology and paleoclimatology, ancient and modern comparative Greek grammar and quantum electrodynamics, as has always been right and achievable by them, will be brought to view them in their life-support-machinery, as examples of how belief in socialism corrupts a human being.

  4. john in cheshire

    I’m afraid I would kill them; all of them; following public humiliation. I’d have their heads mounted on poles and put them alongside all the main roads throughout the country. I’d record each public execution and have them replayed continuously so that we who have suffered at their hands can watch them die as many times as it takes to eradicate the stench they have created in this country and which has contaminated all of us.

  5. It’s no use if they die, John.
    Socialism will live on. You know, like religion does.

    They __do__ of course have to be ppublicly humiliated first. But that’s only the start. In the midst of a free-market liberal civilisation, they and only they will have to carry “Pipperz”. A bit like what the Nazis did to the Jews with yellow stars and all that, but then I have often been called, by the very best of friends, “A Marxist turned upside down”.

    We will enjoy activating and de-activating their electronic “Pipperz”, at moments when it will cause them the maximum of embarrassment and humiliation. Like when they have just filled the gas-tank, and find they can’t just now pay, owing to us, and there’s a queue of angry Daily-Mirror readers with tattoos, behind them.

    They will have to wear, in heat-waves, high-visibility-jackets, (for health and safety of “the children”) that say “Councillor”, or “DEFRA notifiable diseases Inspector” at all times when in public spaces.

    __And__ they will not be allowed to physically die. Not ever. Or at least not until our free great-great-grandchildren have got bored with them, and want to turn off the machines.

    Then, of course, socialism will return, covertly at first, in “pre-barbarian-paleophilosophy” departments of the better Universities. but it will pick up the odd few adherents. Like Marx, V. I. Ulianov, Dugashvili, Gramsci etc…..

    And then it will be to-do, all over again.

    But it’s up to us to be “more serious”.

  6. …This time around….

  7. Bodwyn Wook

    ‘…and /whom/ shall we sue’?

    Or is ‘who’ alright, or at least acceptable, with the conditional?

    /whom shall be sued/ is in the clear & pellucid subjunctive; but, The Readership, in the present antinomian fit happening in this posting, may well unite in regarding actual grammatical enquiries all as a bit too, too wookean…for words.

    [/Those whom we shall/shall be (+verb) & cet/ would seem to be the form, /eg/]

    Oh, to Hell with it (and WHOMever!)….just cut the seats out of their duds, paint their asses blue and send them around in gangs and relays as Morris dancers.

  8. The answer is simple, David. There is only one weakness in their fortress, and it is only a slight weakness, but this is the weakness we must exploit. Education.

    Every belief system requires control of education. Every authoritarian religion knows this. Every political movement knows this. If we are to triumph, we must take their schools away from them- or rather, take the children away from the schools.

    Our task then is to discredit schooling. Not to campaign for better schools, or for private schools, or for vouchers or other wealth transfers. We must fight for no schools. To do this, we must fight for real education; that is, the separation of the concept of intellectual development of inviduals from the system of factory schooling.

    Our task is to denormalise schools. Our task is to turn schooling into a thing of horror, like child labour; we must seek a state in the future where people will discuss their forebears forced into schools as they now discuss infants forced up chimneys and down coalmines.

    Home education, unschooling, self directed learning, individual development. Private tutelage, community tutelage, voluntary learning.

    These are our levers. Think of the children they say, using the children as a crowbar. Well, the children must become our crowbar; but whereas our enemies destroy children, we seek to free them. Where our enemies seek to smother them, we must fight for their right to breathe freely.

    Down with skool. That is how the evil will end.

  9. Pingback: Simon Heffer charitably thinks this death-throe-government is incompetent. I say it is premeditatedly wicked. « The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

  10. To Ian B:-

    The problem with that is how deeply ingrained the concept of “school” is, in the minds of the very population you want to and must succeed in influencing.

    Hell, we even managed, until rudely interrupted by the Kaiser and other later and even worse GramscoFabiaNazis, to export “school” to poor wretched Africans, and all those other lucky piccaninnies from Upper-Jipoopooland, whom the scientists, navigators and researchers of the Old Empire managed to find in the dark even, across the High seas!

    There is nothing wrong I think with “school” as a concept for teaching. You get economies of scale in the Adam-Smithian tradition, as shown very well by the Japanese and the Chindians, plus control of the “syllabus” , __if __ and __provided that__ it is of the design that evolved quite freely between say the 1860s and 1950 in the Anglosphere.

    [Conversation in a schoolroom in Leatherhead, Surrey, (c) 1959…boys aged 8 (ish) – master a white pensioner-ex ADC from Tanganyika who also went Over The Top at the Somme on 1.7.1916]

    Master…BOYS!!!! WHY are you HERE?
    Boys……To learn how to learn, Sir.
    Master…HOW will you do that?
    Boys……By listening to you, Sir.
    Master…And HOW will I HELP you?
    Boys……By telling us all you know, Sir, and by telling us what you think about it, Sir.
    Master…And how ELSE will I help you?
    Boys……By asking us what we think too, Sir.
    Master…AND HOW will you know what to THINK?
    Boys……By learning how to learn, Sir.

    Poor old Mr Woods is probably dead by now. But I remember that “conversation” quite well. I was nearly eight.

  11. David, after posting that comment I wrote a more expanded version at Counting Cats. I mentioned (if briefly) in that that there are good teachers in the schools, and some good is done, but I believe the idea of institutional schools has got to be done away with.

    That doesn’t mean doing away with teaching, or tutors, or places where young people can learn communally. But the school format is I think a terrible mistake- that is, attendance day in day out at a general place of miseducation en masse. There are many possible models of education, and we need a market in different ideas more than anything else. For instance, the idea of children voluntarily (that is, a choice made by child and parent) purchasing and attending a course of particular learning is a world away from the factory based school ideology which is ingrained in our society. If we weren’t squandering vast amounts on schools, imagine how much money there would be to pay for actual education.