Does it matter much if the LA blog is banned in Starbucks and people’s offices in large leftist corporations??

David Davis

I have read, indeed with some sadness, that the Director says that this blog is blocked in certain providers of “free wifi”. I doubt that this only because we show a couple of rather demure pictures of pretty young white women on our header photo. The Director thinks this is because of our, and our commenters’, use of naughty words.

There are no words naughty enough to convey the exasperation and – dare I say it? – sheer depression that comes over some of us, when we see the ongoing destruction of the entire civilisation that was kind enough to give birth to those that wish its death.

I do not know, but I believe that in many “firms” and “institutions” the use of the internet is very restricted anyway. A few years ago, I asked the Older Boy if as an experiment he could log onto the LA’s main site containing all our publications but not the blog, via school computers (this was a year-11 boy): he found that he could not.

The kinds of people that go to Starbucks to “use wifi” are probably not the sorts of people who we (a) either want to convert or (b) would even want themselves to give our worldview even a second of the time of day. Worse still are the ones with (a) no hand-luggage while also are (b)  knowingly carrying a cardboard coffeebucket about on the sidewalks of the the public roads.

On balance, I am not inclined to give in to these effing bastards. Once they have taken away the use of f***, c***, shitbag leftoid, scumbag fascist leftoNazi, GramscoFabiaNazi and the like from us, they will start taking other words from the hinterlands of these.

They stole “nigger” from the English Language last week while our backs were turned for five minutes: the scumbag thieving shoplifting moocher turds.

Subject nevertheless to a ruling in due course by the Director, I would say that I think we draw a line in the sand, and let them ban us.

The Chinese will be coming up with proxy-servers by which we can be accessed from universal wifi, which I am sure people’s phones etc will be able to get without having to lick Starbucks’ arses.

8 responses to “Does it matter much if the LA blog is banned in Starbucks and people’s offices in large leftist corporations??

  1. Edward Spalton

    Bad language is so rife these days that it has lost its power to do anything except relieve the feelings of the writer/speaker. It shows mere self indulgence, immaturity and an inadequate grasp of effective invective.

  2. I defer to the Blogmaster’s opinion. Please ignore my own request for self-moderation.

    • I’m not saying that Sean hasn’t got a point: it’s just that, well, if we’ve been blocked, even if “en-masse” with other sites, that says more about the blockers than us.

      Also, just because we stop using naughty white English Racist Words, they’re not going to go out of their way to re-instate us, are they! lol

  3. I’d boycott Starbucks if I ever went there!

  4. Glad to hear it Sean. As an Apprentice Libertarian I was most dismayed to read your earlier request. I was hoping to read of your plans to challenge said ban

  5. It’s the old problem in any sort of social tyranny. You go along with it, you reinforce it. You don’t go along with it, you’re penalised. Always a tough balance between outcomes.

  6. Julie near Chicago

    Um. Without defending Starbucks’ regressive policies in any way, I do go there occasionally for the free wi-fi. I certainly wouldn’t want the LA weblog to get a big head, but if I can’t read it and post comments to it from Starbucks, that effectively removes LA from my ken, depending on where I am.

    Also, just recently I overheard a lengthy and heated discussion of politics, one combatant arguing that labor unions are being rendered weak, along with much other anti-social mischief’s being done, in part by the pernicious influence of libertarians, and the other trying to explain the position of libertarians on these matters, as well as giving historical examples. In another example, two young ladies were having the same sort of discussion. So the arguments that nobody at S’s cares about libertarian issues and that old-fashioned coffee-house political discussions no longer occur are just not true.

    On the other hand, my natural instinct is not to give in on issues with important implications…see my comment in the other discussion on PC-mandated usages. For instance, “gay” properly refers to an important concept in the English language; lose its proper usage and you lose that concept. See Orwell. Especially since there is already a perfectly good, NEUTRAL term for homosexuals, namely “homosexual.” “Gay” tries to promote homosexuality as an actively pleasant and harmless activity: That’s why it was chosen, deliberately chosen, as a matter of historical fact. It was designed to attach the connotations of happiness and “carefree-ness” of the word “gay” to the condition of homosexuality. Now we have homosexuality being actively promoted, sometimes even in the schools if reports are to be believed, and homosexuals demanding the right to override the “rights” of others in various ways.

    Also, perhaps I skimmed and thus mis-read, but I thought that Sean in the other posting made a statement to the effect of being worried about being banned in schools. Including trade schools, colleges, universities?. That would be a great pity, because those really ARE important places where libertarians should be working to publicize ourselves and our arguments.

    In sum: As I think about this, it seems to me that IF we can use the hallowed asterisk and other “upper-case” symbols to replace the actual letters in proscribed words, we should do so in order to maintain a presence in these places. Or even better, of course, we might use accurate but perhaps roundabout phraseology to denote a concept, as for instance “for conjugation’s sake!”

    Also, what Edward Spalton said in the first comment. And I speak as one whose use of the f-word has become, unfortunately, all too frequent.

    Issues of censorship based on links and references to other websites are another matter. It is, of course, perfectly possible to “link” to a website in a bot-blinding manner, such as linking to YouTube by writing UT, period, com, /restofactualaddress once the code is known, you can type into the address bar, and then copy and paste the rest. Similarly for other sites, for instance, “see vee dare period com /restofrealaddress” — if you must.

  7. Those that want to ban ideas are admitting that their own ideas can’t compete.