Tag Archives: armistice

Libertarian Alliance Remembrance Post 6: what ought Libertarians to plan for, and discuss, regarding what’s worth defending, and why ought we to defend anything at all?


UPDATE….and Tim Worstall does it better than I do as well….

David Davis

That’s it for this year, you’ll all be relieved to know…but first, I will direct you to the Devil, who writes all this quite important stuff, which ought to be noted and spread virally into the endarkening before it’s too late, far more effectively that I do. Then I’ll just make the point that this being the 90th commemoration of the end of World War 1, it’s probably the last one of any size: moreover, that it’s remarkable that we have any of what my old dad used to dub “the poor old chapsleft to witness it.

The centenary will probably have State-regulated fireworks compèred by Jonathan Ross. There will be scantily-dressed BBC-news-readerettes who will hand out strangely unfamiliar red flowers in the streets shopping prestinks, to bemused passers-by, the whole thing edgily-videoed by wildly-waving handycams. (“And now it’s back to you, Russell Brand, in the studio!”)

There are many strands of Libertarianism. Chris Tame used famously to say that “there may be two Libertarians somewhere who agree about everything, but I’m not one of them!” Of course he was just making a point theatrically, which he was good at, but he meant that, unlike Trotskyo-Marxian fascists and big-statists, we can amicably discuss a large range of ideas without pogromising each other.

For example, Sean Gabb and many others have always opposed British involvement in Iraq (and for all I know elsewhere too) as not involving any vital British interests and therefore totally unjustified. He may turn out to be right, but I have always disagreed. I think the West responded with much too little, and much, much too late after 9/11, dragged down and back (until it was too late) as it was, by internal traitors in the UN, the EU, on the Beltway especially, and elsewhere, from the easy and clean fulfilment of its essential and unitary objective.

Then, there are Libertarians who would restrict the Franchise on property criteria. Insofar as we have a State, and a government, and while this is unavoidable, then it should be a pluralist democracy and so therefore I support these people, Salisburianly speaking. But I risk scandalising others as a result. It does not matter: we will not bury ice-picks in each other’s skulls.

To libertarians like me, Western Civilisation, especially when conflated with all the popular externalities created BY free markets and minimal State-Planning and especially when un-influenced by what Sean Gabb calls the Enemy Class, offers the fastest and least-destructive path for all Men to improve their lives and be happier. We do not know what comes after this life, if anything (that can be perceived in a physical sense) and can’t ever so far as we know find out; although many of us – even among Libertarians – believe there is a God, and that He approximates to that Being hazily described in 1.Genesis and also in 1.John.1. Paul of course said that “for now, we see as through a Glass, Darkly”: all we can therefore do is what seems best, or least bad, at the time. Human existence is imperfect, but small bits of progress can be made, and accumulated, provided they are allowed to. It’s the “not allowing” bit that totalitarians do that causes the problem.

What distinguishes Western Christian (in the old pre-secular sense) Civilisation from those others it has had the bad fortune to have to oppose and defend against, is the gradual if imperfect rise of a notion of individual conscience and liberty of thought and action. The going has not always been easy or uninterrupted. But in the end, we arrived shakily, “darkly”, at something whereby one could go through life substantially without coming into contact with the jaws of the State (Sean’s words roughly interpeted, not mine) and a degree of liberty meant also that there was a degree of spontaneous order.

These poor old chaps now finally pass out into the sunset of history, soon to be followed by those left from a later and worse conflict. They thought through the prism of their time, rightly or not, about what was worth defending. It would be nice to think we didn’t have to, but what we face now is just another manifestation of the enemies of individual freedom, this time very sadly right at home inside the West. Yes there may be a few terrorists skulking about, but add up all the deaths and destruction they have wrought and yet could, and it’s a pinprick compared with what the Gramsco-Marxians intend and are incrasingly coming out into the open with. Terrorists can only kill people and blow stuff up: they can’t begin to erase ideas.

If individual people are strong in what they believe, and if they honestly believe it, then terrorists can only isolate themselves further. But if we all acquiesce in the deliberate and purposeful Gramsco-Marxian elimination of our culture and the freedoms it gave rise to, then there is no place for llibertarianism to hide.

Advertisements

Libertarian Alliance Remembrance Post 5: Giant Music in the Western Canonical tradition


David Davis

Firstly, this is a British Blog. There are no conditions under which we can easily see the titanic struggle we face for liberty, other than through the eyes of the Anglosphere.

Then, Libertarianism is about ultimately bringing individual freedom to all. We, or someone, shall: if not here, then somewhere far in the future. But in the meantime and in the coming “endarkening” (a Denis McShane word but none the worse for that) it can fall to some peoples through their history and traditions – better than to others because of their historical misfortune – to say things and do things which try to defend the idea of individual liberty of action and thought.

The Western Musical Canon, its traditions and its archive of sometimes giant material, is arguably the greatest legacy, with the possiblt exception of Hard Science, to be left to those who come after.

ICELAND … and RUSSIA … I’m such a cretin, why didn’t I see it coming?


David Davis

Tony Hollick will have a good go at me and will say why it’s good for the USSR Russia to counterbalance the USA or something….but….

…..honestly, I’m such a gamma-minus semi-moron sometimes. I fail to spot screaming stuff festering under my nose, which others can smell a mile off.

Of course! THAT’s why the USSR Russia, of all the unlikely stalinist nazi buggers to come to the aid of Iceland, wants to do it. (Er, primarily from Coffee House for making the intellectual leap, sorry guys! Also Christina Speight whose shrill round-robin alerted me to it a few seconds earlier.)

I mean, who’d bother to bail out  _specifically_  _Icelandic_ banks which have slightly over-reached themselves in the eternal struggle to get round socialist regulation of capital ratios, for goodness sake? Specially when the said bailer-outers (the USSR) are sitting on the West’s windpipe? Why not, if it’s money and “stability” you want, bail out, say the Royal Bank of Scotland? No?

Nah.

The Stalinists Russia want wants something else.

To make sure of this: that when the USA/Canada (Canada not I think any more now, they have HRCs) and other parts of the Anglosphere coming to the aid of liberalism and self-determination and so help threatened Britain and perhaps other European nations to escape the EU and the USSR, something bad will happen. Their Merchant Navy crews and convoy escorts will _go home in body bags_ (or not, being at the bottom of the North Atlantic, joining all the other ones still down there, as is more likely.)

Why does the USSR Russia seem to think is has the need to fly its bears at us? Are we threatening it? Is Georgia threatening it and they have lost their map which was kept in Moscow? Is it trying to make a point? Is Putin’s willy too small? (I doubt it, but I have no first-hand evidence.) If there’s a point, then what? As Peter Simple used to say, “I only ask because I want to know.”

Is it angry that Reagan and Thatcher beat its ruling Enemy Class hollow while that outfit yet espoused Socialism, and does (its unelected ruling class, mostly the same buggers, but with more money) want revenge? If so, is the war over, in its eyes? Or not?

I opine that the West is having a 1919-1939 Armistice-moment. The enemy’s just the same, nothing has changed in over 200 years – it’s national socialist imperialism, just like Napoleon, like the 2nd Reich, the Third Reich, and the USSR (and of course now the “EU”.)

If NATO was worth the paper my boys could write it on, it would say (1)

(1) WE would like to be your friends, BUT………

(2) you seem not to want to be ours……….

(3) and so….

(4)…….”by the way, there will be no USSR Russian facilities in Iceland. Too sensitive for us. You would not allow us to “refuel” our SSBNs at Sevastopol or in the White Sea, so we will not allow you near a strategic island in the middle of the North Atlantic…..

….you see…..it’s the geography, stupid. We would need to send stuff to the people over there, if you decided to stand a bit harder on their windpipes.”

Libertarians anre often the most irritatingly neutral people, when it comes to deciding which specific “states” are “worse”, which is to say more anti-libertarian than other states. Worse, libertarians, being geeks who drink coffee all night in front of their Linux screens, often have very infantile views about foreign policy, trying as they do to find as much fault as possible with more or less pluralist-democratic Western governments – such as poor bloody George W Bush – why the W all the time? We know who he is!

The world is getting darker, and we are involutarily slipping towards the possibility of wars, the polarity of which we cannot yet predict, and the rationale for which our politicians refuse to understand, yet they may mostl likely be continuations of previous episodes – especially if the seminal contribution of socialism, as the prime enemy of the Western Civilisational Canon, is not understood and expunged, and soon.

It is almost too late, but not quite. When things like the USSR’s bid for Russia’s bid for facilities in Iceland, is not rebutted, we get more into trouble.

A society that wants to be, and more importantly, remain – libertarian – must look to its strategic requirements and to its defence. Sorry to be a 1930s Churchillian bore – it is necessary. (Oh, and I do NOT want the job when it may be offered.)

Have to go on school run now. Sorry.