Monthly Archives: February 2010

Idle parenting means happy children…but…

David Davis says it depends on the kind of idleness…

from Old Holborn.

If the parent or parents is/are (a) GramscoFabiaNazi creation via deliberate-scumbag-non-schooling, then perhaps not.

Faith schools under attack…again

David Davis

Rather than bludgeoning “Faith Schools” (‘coz they hate them for being an alternative power-centre) to conform to the trumpeting of State-Nazi-Sex pursuits, in the guise of “PSHE”, it might be instructive if we saw something else. Such as, if we were allowed to see a breakdown of teenage pregnancy statistics by type of school. The “40.4 conceptions per 1,000 girls aged 15-17 might, just might, be rather concentrated within that sector of girls that goes to “non-faith” British-State schools.

In fact I suspect it probably is, but would be interested to see the evidence for my prejudice. My prejudice is against miserable humourless GramscoFabians gratifying their lust for coercive-collective-pornography, by forcing children to hear about “how to put on your partner’s condom”, and the like – being correct here.

Sean Gabb: Should We Vote Conservative with Pinched Noses?

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 190
23rd February 2010
Linking url:

The 2010 General Election:
Advice on How to Vote
By Sean Gabb

There must, within the next few months, be a general election in England. I will not presume to advise my readers on how to vote. I will, instead, explain how I am at present inclined to vote, and will invite any comments that may arise.

My present inclination is to vote for the Conservative Party. I do not need to be told that these people are, for the most part, trash. I have been mixing in Conservative circles for thirty years now, and I have grown used to the idea of running home after most meetings for a bath. For the avoidance of doubt, let me admit what I think would be the nature of any Government led by David Cameron. It would not withdraw from the European Union. It would not roll back the multicultural elements of our police state. It would not require the police and other public bodies to behave with more humanity or common sense than they now do after thirteen years of Labour tyranny. It would not restore freedom of speech and association as they were understood in 1960. The identity card scheme might be cancelled – but not the national identity database that makes the scheme possible. Any cuts in government spending will fall on the services that are the excuse for such spending. None of the – often very well-paid – administrative and support jobs that are the real purpose will be cut. There will be no tax cuts. There will be no change to our external policy of slavish subservience to the United States. The “climate change” charate might even be become more scandalous.

This being so, why do I propose to vote Conservative? The answer is that a Conservative Government would probably continue with most of the suicidal or simply demented policies of the Blair and Brown Governments. But, at the end of five years, it would then allow a free election as these things have been commonly understood in England. A re-elected labour Government would not. When these beasts in human form lied their way to office back in 1997, they came in with the same assumptions as Hitler had in 1933. They did not regard themselves as having acquired a limited and renewable leasehold interest, but as having inherited the freehold. They and their clients would never again have to sell their services in any open market. They would reorder the State wholly to their own interest. No private sphere, no ancient and immemorial rights would stand in their way. 1997 was Year Zero of their Thousand Year Reich.

So long as it was reasonably plain that they could win the next few elections – if with a dwindling fraction of the total possible vote – they were willing to keep most of the old rules. Even so, they took steps to cartellise politics with party registration and “human rights” laws that now allow them, given courage, to shut down dissident organisations like the British National Party. For the past few years, however, they have lived in constant fear of losing the next election. And, if Labour does lose, that might cause the implosion of their Party. Therefore, if they do somehow win after all, we can be reasonably sure that they will never allow another free election. I doubt if they would go so far as abolishing elections, or openly rigging them. But they are already talking about schemes of “electoral reform” that would keep them permanently in office – even if office must be shared with the Liberal Democrats. They would also tighten the party registration laws, so that only those parties willing to guarantee the existing order would be allowed to run in elections. They might also extend their control over local politicians to Members of Parliament – setting up some system whereby Members who were too outspoken could be removed for “misconduct”.

For all their faults, the Conservatives would not do any of these things. Therefore, a vote for the Conservatives would be a vote for keeping the system open for a real party of national restoration – whatever that might be.

There is one other consideration. This is that, while a Cameron Government with a majority of less than fifty would be little different from Labour, a majority of more than a hundred would bring in new Members who had not been hand-picked for their willingness to obey. A big Conservative majority might force a Cameron Government to take a more liberal and patriotic line on the main issues.

Many of my friends assure me they will vote for the UK Independence Party or for the BNP – or, in one case, for an Islamic Party. I understand their frustration with the existing political arrangements. However, the main purpose of a general election is to send a majority into Parliament from which a Government will be drawn. Whatever individual chance Nigel Farage or Nick Griffin might have in their constituencies, the majority party after the next election must be either Labour or the Conservatives. I wish it were otherwise. But that is the choice we have to face. Do we want a pack of smirking hypocrites, who will leave office after another election? Or do we want what I have already called beasts in human form, who will never leave office thereafter, short of revolution?

Some of my friends insist that voting for minor parties will bring on a hung Parliament. This might be true. However, a hung Parliament would not give decisive weight to any of these minority parties. It would simply result in an auction between the two big parties for the Liberal Democrats. That would be about as bad as a Labour Majority. The choice remains Labour or Conservative.

Am I wrong? Is there some other viable option that I am overlooking? I look forward to hearing if there is. After all, if I do vote Conservative, it will be with forefinger and thumb clamped hard over my nose.

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

Perhaps we Islanders have a racial problem

NB:- Not a “racist” one, but a “racial” one….rac“ism” is being used as a weapon against us: but everyoone knows that different races react to different things in different ways….

David Davis

I am now going to proffer wild suppositions and hypotheses.

It says on the BBC , via the UN (who else?) that Scotland is the “most violent country in the developed world”. Next highest are England+Wales, Australia and New Zealand. The USA, our first large child, today’s whipping-boy of leftist anti-gun-mums and “liberal” campaigners, and the home of beer-fuelled-pickup-driving-rednecks with-guns-in-their-trunks,  is at a level about one-third of Scotland.

With my evolutionary-paleobiologist’s hat on, a hat which I sometimes wear in bed (while reading such things as Richard Dawkins as is natural for a human) I think here and there about the selection-pressures acting on early hominids. Then one also wonders about the survival-related-usefulness, or otherwise, of genes which confer intra-specific aggressiveness as a strategy for survival, as opposed to whatever its opposite might be called. But then one comes up against a difficulty: aggressiveness, which can lead to you braining another hominid with a large nearby log (or a special one which you’d previously shaped in the dead of night) for such things as “looking at a couple of your own five current breeding-females in a funny and sexy way and then saying “Ugg-Ugg-Ugg!” while pelvic-thrusting” or “trying to pinch Sea-Buckthorn-berries from your huntergathering-patch of duneland”. Or, tell it not in Gath to the paleoFabians, for “throwing his sharp stick at the wild-bison’s jugular-vein more successfully than you did”, so his children would enter the forward-Gene-pool at higher frequency that yours will, and your breeding-females would “go to him” in his cave each time just after the Full Moon, rather than stay in yours…

Is it that the “Anglic type” peoples have been more successful at settling “foreign parts” and turning them into things such as “Dominions” _because_ we might be more naturally aggressive as individuals (as suggested circumstantially by the BBC report on Scotland – remember that there are more places on the earth called “Mackenzie” than any other place! – or is the opposite? Is it that _because_ we have been so successful at sidelining the problem of individual aggressiveness in an emergent modern civilisation through notions such as the Rule Of Law, Minimal-Statism, Individual Liberalism and the like, that other places bearing lots of people with our genes have also proved to be successful and orderly places?

If it is the latter and not the former, then is GramscoFabiaNazism, home-grown sadly and home-nurtured through our failure to stamp it out aggressively at the first appearance of it, then to blame for our terrible standing at the top of these personal-violence graphs?

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?

I’m a Lumberjack, and i’m ok.

Fred Bloggs.

Just been doing a bit of rooting, and i found this:

I want one…

‘Orrible little people

Michael Winning

But am I describing them…or us?