It is not for a State to decide what people can or cannot say, or think. Even I, who’d like to muzzle GramscoFabiaNazis – because they are _objectively_ wrong, not just misguided – cannot justify doing it, even under the auspices of the War Secretariat.
People ought to be free to think or say, things that might be offensive to others. There are Natural Rights: but there is no right to not be offended if someone says or thinks something that offends you – or worse – “may offend” third parties not even present at the time. This is utterly ridiculous.
Oh, and YOU MUST NEVER use the phrase “political correctness gone mad”. Doing that legitimises “political correctness” as a credible way of dictating the terms of public discourse in a liberal civilisation. You must not do it. Ever. (I know that no readers of the Libertarian Alliance would ever do such a thing, but you must tell others. We’re wasting our breath and time otherwise.)
The poor bugger will probably go down for £2,500, and then we will be forced to watch the Read more
I’m sure there will be plenty of bloodstained butchers in attendance, fawned upon and traded with by our own obsequious bunch of irredeemable warmongers. It may sound bad, but I have more respect for the former: at least they have some experience of getting their *own* hands bloody, rather than having all the torturing and murdering done by proxy and hiding behind the collective irresponsibility of ‘peacekeeping’ organisations. For the most part brutal tyrants confine their evils to their own countries, whereas our ‘decent’ politicians spend much of their time interfering in countries that are thousands of miles away, that they know bugger-all about, and that are neither their moral nor their official concern.
Probably Gordon Brown could not organise an Acid House Party even if he tried.
Brian “gets” the importance of what Guido has done, more than probably any other blogger at this time – to say nothing of the MSM. He also helps us understand that Guido is not “nihilist” or “right wing” – certainly not that latter calumny for sure! The Enemy Class just can’t yet understand what it means to be “anti-politics” – which is to say, “against the destruction of proper discursive politics conducted in a Classical liberal tradition.
There would never probably have been an “anti-politics” front in “politics”, if politicians had not set out on the gramsco-FabiaNazi road they have latterly, in the last 120-odd-years, taken.
There are, some say, 130 million blogs. I have no idea, and it doesn’t matter really, for 129,900,000 are read by one person a day, and you can guess who. I don’t even bother with “David Davis” and “Ordure! Ordure!” – not yet anyway, for I write nothing there at this time, being busy enough with this one. (We do try to think about what to write, you know.)
But via The Landed Underclass, our primary eyes and ears in the foremast director position, for he spends much time there, and from whom we learned first I think about Nightjack. Nightjack states that he now has said everything he thinks he ought to, and has other plans, such as a book which is fair enough – he does have a job to hold down too.
It is still fun but I have now written down everything that I think is worth me writing. In some areas I am conscious that I am starting to repeat myself. If I keep on going I believe that I will end up spending the next year or so attack blogging the government rather than blogging about policing. I don’t want to be all about that. There are plenty of other people doing that better already.
But, attack-blogging the government will provide everyone who wants to, and more besides, with more than enough material, almost for ever….sadly. In an ideal world, none of us liberal blggers would need to do what we do: we could become rich instead by selling things people want to buy, such as electricity, burgers deep-fried in goose-fat, tungsten, cars, steel, space-rockets, cigarettes, and sex. Furthermore, if we do not attack-blog the government, stridently, enthusiastically and with relentless ferocity, then it and lookers-on will start to think that it is winning, and we are losing heart.
Governments know, with perfect clarity, what they are doing, and they are doing it all, without exception, on purpose. They are composed of GramscoFabiaNazis, which is the sort of person who wants to be a GoverNazi – and that’s it, just it. And thus everything is pre-planned and pre-agreed by them, from the first places where they meet each other: for these are astonishingly bright people we are up against, and not only that, but they have been to the finest education establishments you can buy, and have met each other and have been Eagletonized, and vulcanised, to (jack)boot (sorry.).
For example, there was no “mistake” or “oversight”, or “error”, on the part of the husband of “Jacqui” “Smith”, a “Bair Babe”, in claiming for whatever passed as “pornography”: it was claimed for deliberately, to check if it would get through, so that other MPs would know thereafter that they could do it also, and that this sort of expense would pass. There is no other reason – as the bugger is the Home Secretary, and his wife the “Bair Babe” sits in Parliament and does his wishes, this must have been the plan.
Nightjack’s loss to us in The Line is sad: his perspective as a proper Serving Police Officer was useful and illuminating, but his ceasing to write will not be a disaster. Others will come. But if you have any favourite Nightjack posts, I guess you’d better copy-paste them down to your Type Writing Machine as soon as you can, for as he says, his blog will self-destruct in not many days, as they do.
Electronic search terms;
Babes; Blair; parliament; guy fawkes; police; right to roam; farming; common fisheries policy; silver iodide; rain; acid; road access; education;
We stand aghast, at the possibility of “military intervention by the USA” against – of all places – Mexico. We know that, since “drugs” are grown in Latin America, and since Mexico is in the way of their transfer to “Film Stars” and wannabes in British North America, where these things are officially illegal to have or trade, that therefore mexico will be on the road of transfer.
This is all very well and ought not to matter. Cars and lorries carrying cocaine and other stuff whose names I can’t remember ought to be able to cross Mexico as though it was anywhere. The problem arises because – and only because – it is locally illegal to have, sell or use these substances, in the points of destination.
This has several effects:-
(1) It makes the substances themselves more desirable in the eyes of certain people. They will want it more because “The State” says they shouldn’t have any at all at all at all, for their own good at all at all at all . Nsty useless Hollywood delinquents film stars will leak details of their use of it, and because they are pretty and shaggable (and that’s just the men) you will want to do it too, as you are sheeple because the liberals Stalinists have told you to become so.
(2) It makes it risky and unprofitable and demoralising, for legitimate businesses to supply the stuff. If you wozz an off-licence, would YOU want to supply cocaine to any willing buyer, if you got raided every week by the rozzers for doing it, and had your shop smashed up by them (rozzers) and were put in jug?
(3) It makes the risks of supplying it worthwhile, for shysters and hoods, who don’t mind having to shoulder the boring business of killing people including police and soldiers, in the course of securing their hold on the distribution of of their stuff, to you. The £5-a-day habit, if the stuff was legally sold through chemists even including the impost of State Taxation, becomes the £100-a-day habit if you have to buy it through hoods who have to insure themselves – at your cost – for their own risk against both the State and against other hoods who want to compete, for what is really a rather small niche sector.
(4) it makes jobs for Police rozzers. Rozzers are inherently tormented people, who ought not to have got like that; they need psychiatric help, and quickly. Just as you ought not to want to be a criminal, also you ought not to want to be a policeman in the 21st century: what does that desire say about you, and your morals, and world-view, as a person?
So the way forward is quite clear. ALL drugs have to be legalised, in all jurisdictions, preferably by yesterday. This will have a number of good effects:-
(1A) The “Police”, currently a pantomime collection of gamma-minus droids unfortunately increasingly supplied with real guns as opposed to things that shoot out a flag which says “bang”, and who are “employed” by their “states” not in chasing real muggers, robbers, burglars and killers but in harrassing “drug dealers”, “motorists”, “paedophiles”, “racists”, “terrorists”, “non-payers of council tax”, “TV-license-evaders” and “climate-change-deniers”, will find that their workload is decreased alarmingly. We will “need” fewer of them. Good.
The main solution to civilisation’s ills is
and more and better people.
There may even be “calls for” “FEWER POLICE ON THE STREETS”. I think that in a civilised society, the police ought to be invisible: see poll below.
(2A) The use of “drugs”, which is to say substances currently classified as drugs”, by all people, will fall dramatically. or it may not: I do not know. But I think it will fall.
(3A) The legalisation of “drugs” will mean that Galxo-Smith-Klein, Schering-Plough, Ciba-Geigy, and all the others, will be abot to compete legally for whatever market they think they can get. Adverttisisng will be allowed. Advertising is the best way to garotte bad stuff fast. The purity and quality of products will thus rise, and the price will fall to the point where the “State” will come in.
(4A) The “State” will take a take. Where GSK wants to sell you your Ecstasy for 50p a go, via the chemist down the road in Shaky-street (PR8 . . . ) , the State will take £4 or so, making it about the price of 20 fags. What’s the point of going and doing crime, if it’s only that much? You can get it from your dosh you that get “on the sick”.
OK so the “State” wins, win-win in the short run. But it’s got to justify how it needs to spend so much less on policing, since there’s so much much less less petty crime going on down.
Don’t get me wrong, for I hold no brief for poor tormented Prince Charles. He talks to his plants: he refers to nanomachines as “grey goo”: he supports the thesis of anthropogenic climate change…..I could go on. Superficially he is not really a mentally tough enough person to be a constitutional Head of State, where the prime libertarian responsibilities of such a man ought to be to take the side of the people, and rip down the enlarging police-apparatus being built behind his and our backs.
On this blog and elsewhere, I have been regularly got at by people who don’t think a British-style constitutional Monarchy is needed if we are to move towards a libertarian or minimal state – if that idea is not an oxymoron. But I think something like what we have got would be the best interim defence against violent reactionary leftist statist forces – and they WILL be violent, just watch – while we undertake the libertarianisation of public life in any society which is fortunate enough to have our services in this task.
This is probably why the “Royals” are coming increasingly under attack. What you have to do each day is see what the lefties are assaulting right now, and decide to do exactly the opposite of what they say.
Ah, I remember Sooty! I wonder, if Sooty (the Indian property magnate, not the teddy bear) has a wife? If she was called “Sweep” in private by Charles and Camilla, because she had long hair or floppy ears, would the News of the World investigate in the public interest, and would the (anti) British Council object? I think we ought to be told!
The left laments its lack of “big” or interesting blogs. (it has just launched “labourlist“…..really catchy title isn’t it…..same old dreary stuff – Tory cuts etc etc etc) This is a classic manifestation of why they’re aren’t many, and why reading what’s there is like chewing unsalted sawdust and rat-droppings – unlike Guido for example, or The Remittance Man. The left, and most illuminatingly the British left, who whine and lament the most, are all humourless totalitarian thought-controlling bastards and c***s; consequently, nobody wants to listen to their whingeings or read their dour drivel. Ordinary humans without dangerous leftist brain-disorders have all got better things to do. (This of course leaves the more midly-mentally-tormented of us, who hold quite opposite views to the fascist left, to blog about them, irrittaing them even more.)
Either this new series of attacks on the Princes is a publicity stunt by the left to get attention, or more sinisterly they really mean it and are gearing up to destroy even more Free Institutions.
Perhaps the BBC is just another socialist-sausage-machine: it takes money from the terrified bourgeoisie, who are afraid of being prosecuted and destroyed as a result, uses it to fund pornography, such as people saying “f***” on live television, and then gives the product to the socialist-state-clientariat, for nothing (as it will not prosecute them for “watching without paying”.) If they do…. They probably do (watch without paying, a lot of them.
In a libertarian society, I fully expect that there’d be TV channels where you oculd say “f***” on live television. But you’d have to pay for them. I expect. They would not be especially mass-market. This is just not what Anglosphere people want to do or see. We are moral and liberal. (I DID say “liberal” yes.)
In return, nobody would force you to do so. No “detector vans” would come round, to pretend to see if your telly was saying “f***” without having paid the channel that transmits “f***”. All that the State would have to do (and not even that really) was to supply Courts which would discover if your telly had said “f***” without your having paid for it to do so.
The whole thing, as Auberon Waugh would have discovered long ago, is just an intellectual-property problem. If the monies collected by the BBC were regarded as collected by force, whether you used the service or not, then it was just stealing and doing robbery. If not, and it was regarded as consensual, just to fund sort of journalists and machines and stuff, then it could transmit, but could not also then charge you as well for receiving. Also it could not legally know who was receiving.
The corollary of this is the death penalty exacted by the Nazis for “receiving foreign broadcasts” or “having prohibited receivers”.
I think we all ought to start cutting off our BBC direct debits. Let’s see what happens.
Let’s call their bluff. I’m going to cancel our DD now, and see what happens.