Why should not the “pretty blonde” be “in her twenties”?

David Davis

This piece is of great levity and little substance, and heavy-libertarians will sneer at the LA, but I will type anyway. It’s about how people do life, and what some regard as important or interesting or even, just, fun: something you could even have got for yourself.

When an English Llibertarian adminsitration comes to power , I’d just like to tell some of you buggers how to behave in the places where certain rituals are conducted. This is how you get to be “accepted”, and how to get to go out with (and possibly marry) the best women, who will understand best how to continue “the liberal project”, using you and your genes. Next week, I’ll do Henley for you. This week, it’s Ascot.

My rheumatoid arthritis is giving me some remission, and so therefore I get ired about the presumptious presumptions of the journalists who work for the British Political-Enemy-Class. This piece amused me – or at least its subtext did.

Ascot (pronounced ” asc'(a)t” – and YOU MUST NEVER SAY … “We’re going to “Royal Asc-Ott” (as in “ASCOTT” – it’s like saying “HarrowGate“) instead of “harroga’t” – and YOU MUST NEVER go “horse-riding” or “horse-racing” – it’s “riding” or “racing”….everyone knows that only horses are ridden or raced – there is no other kind of racing at all) is one of those things which I think would persist even under a liberatarian administration. It is not even certain that we would remove The Queen or any English hereditary monarch as Head of State. Certainly, British libertarians would continue to uphold a British (minimal) State, I feel sure, and which might well have an hereditary component.

Oh…and you must never say “Royal” as in “Royal Asc-ott”. If you do, it tells us that …well…the GramscoStaliNazis would understand what to do with you as you are trying hard to better yourself. But we, however, as liberals, will let it pass, and you may proceed……you are allowed under our admninstrations to better yourself and we will forgive verbal faux-pas.

No, the point about this link is that GramscoStaliNazis have succeeded in corrupting everything, as planned. This is what they do, what they have always cheerfully planned to do, and what is their job. The Fabians who were their preliminary-scribes, were quite clear about what would be done as early as 1884. I am surprised that it has taken so long for people to begin to twig what is going on. Very sorry to rub it in now.

In the early 1990s, I was very fortunate through the good offices of friends and colleagues and people who had known me for some time, to be able to enter the Royal Enclosure. At that time, under conservatism and unlike today under Stalinism no amount of money could get you in (socialism is different) I even clocked up enough appearances therein (four or five, I can’t now remember) to be able to “enter” my own wife. She has been once – in 1998 or 1999 (I think, I will have to check the badge if I can find it ever): that was enough, for it is merely honorific and of no substance, as you people all know. In a society of StaliNazis, where status is all, it did count.

If people are brawling and fighting over women, at Ascot, then I imagine that this is going on in the “Silver Ring”, or even outside that, where “Public Service Employees” may even congregate. This is the enclosure wherein anyone can go, on payment of a fee. I expect that this grawl (or “brawl”) has been organised in advance by the “Wireless Tele Vision Services”.

You can always tell if the MSM has organised an “Ascot” event, of any kind. This is because (a) there are no top hats (too expensive to trash – even grey ones – ) and (b) all the men’s morning suits are grey. You DO NOT hire a grey morning suit. Sorry. A Gentleman does not wear grey morning suits, even if Prince Charles (sad fellow) has been seen in one.  Morning suits are black. That is what they are.

6 responses to “Why should not the “pretty blonde” be “in her twenties”?

  1. Nice to see you back blogging again David! I hope this remission in your condition will last!

    Off topic, but speaking of Gramscos, I got censored twice by the Grauniad today. Her majesty Dame Beatrix Campbell OBE GFN put in appearance on a comment thread to an article about feminism by Deborah Orr (it was a busy thread; all the greats arrived, it was like the posh box at Ascot- Julie Bindel, Cath Elliot, you could barely move for dungareed misandrists). So I politely reminded everyone that Ms Campbell’s major contribution to Feminism was ringleading the Satanic Abuse Panic with her girlfriend, including hounding two innocent nursery teachers (one female!) to near suicide, leading to a maximum-possible-under-law compensation payout at the High Court. And dragging some underclass woman onto telly to pretend she was a witch (La Campbell had implied it would help her get her kids back). I wasn’t too surprised when after a little while, the comment was moderated out of existence as contrary to their “community standards”.

    So, I posted something similar again, and this time the whole comment vanished as if it had never existed within minutes.

    Which is nothing to do with your article, I admit, but does remind us of the morals of our ruling class. Campbell’s OBE was for, er, “services to diversity”. We can only hope it can get her into Ascot, and somebody twats her with a champagne bottle.

  2. Do be careful. If BC does a Yasmin, we’ll all have the pigs on our backs. Let us say for the avoidance of doubt that your comment was solely intended as a vulgar abuse, and not intended in any sense to constitute an incitement to any illegal or even unacceptable act.

  3. Sorry Sean, feel free to edit the comment (or anything else I post[1]) if you’re concerned. I appreciate that it’s not wise to kick wasp’s nests.

    My comment was entirely meant as vulgar humour reflecting the original blog posting. I do not advocate violence against any persons, either in the general or the specific case. As to my description of her behaviour, it is part of the legal and public record.

    [1] Unless I’m slagging off Kevin Carson, in which case I will set my team of ravenous legal rottweilers on you, or some such empty internet threat.

  4. I don’t think David edits comments. I certainly don’t. Of course, if someone posted something so legally scary that we began worrying about pig/social worker swat teams to steal our children, we’d make an exception and take it down. Otherwise, anything goes. The most we’ll norally do is ask for clarifications – as has just been asked and received.

    My own view is that, while it is based in property rights, a real commitment to freedom of speech requires a willingness to tolerate just about anything. I hope you’ve noticed this.

  5. I certainly have, you egregious hamster-fecker.