I don’t usually comment on this sort of thing….


One sort of knows, in the background, that it goes on, but one is rather tired from striving to pay Gordon Brown and all that stuff….and Yemen and Afghanistan are rather far-away countries right now, of which we know little…

…but I even wondered about this picture for a LA caption competition – just look at the poor LITTLE girl’s face: this is her wedding photo, the poor mite – he’s “about 40”, and she’s eleven:-

David Davis

...you mean, I have to shag THAT?...

...you mean, I have to shag THAT?...

In my mind, there is no problem for a woman to marry an older man, in principle. I am 16 years older than my wife, and even the Director, Sean Gabb, married his dear and nice wife whom we know and love, when she was at the time about 12 or 13 years younger than he was. They have now caught up in age together, as you do, and as we have done. My wife is still 16 years younger than I am, but we are both now old warring scrag-bags together.

But I think for the wife to be “eleven”, as in the above picture, so it is said, is pushing at the boundaries of the envelope” a little bit, or even a lot. If this is what is going on, then I as a Libertarian who believes that individual humans have Natural Rights, believe this sort of process to be disgusting. If we believe that children are children up to a “certain age” (about which there can be some argument but broadly we all agree it is “about” 16 (or so) and therefore cannot consent legally to serious interpersonal arrangements or other sorts of contracts under that age, then that must be the case for all humans. It cannot be that our children here can’t do it, but Yemeni (or other) children can, for some spurious and quasi-religious or other pre-Renaissance pre-capitalist reason.

Ragged pre-capitalist, pre-classical-liberal, and barbarian-warlord-survival-guides, cleverly promoted and peddled as “religions”, and dealing with the disposal of debts, animals, defeated tribes, the enemy’s widows-of-beheaded-warriors, and his relict children, his men’s and boy’s severed heads, and his slaves and concubines, are no help to these poor children in the photo. Not at all.

Libertarians, when they will have regained The West (a long job, Boyo!) will have their foreign-policy-work cut out for some time. But perhaps not as long as against Lithuanian EU Commissioners who hate light bulbs.

This is the real, primary sort of Enemy-Class enemy that we ought to be “servicing”. We can then, having secured our civilisation, “service” people like that “Taliban” bloke who seems to be able to get lots of interesting and exciting weapons to attack our boys with. I can’t find a correct wikiref to “service”, which in the Cold War, meant “kill on the battlefield”. Sorry.

That’s all very well….but…


David Davis

British schoolchildren are now being taken wholesale to visit “battle sites on the Western Front.

What do I think of this? We are approaching Remenbrance Sunday, and the third part of the ongoing World War – the bit from 1914-1918 – passes finally out of living memory and into a sort of perverted legendary existence, in politically-coorected school history books.

But something about the reasons for which hundreds and hundreds of thousands of perfectly ordinary human beings willingly volunteered to go, must be said in the light of my earlier and frequent calls to consider what a free society would have to do to defend itself from its less-free neighbours. We must remember that until almost 1917, enlistment in Britain was voluntary (I do not care about France, Russia and the Central Powers and the like – they were not free societies in any meaningful sense.)

It’s all very well to go and indulge in emotional catharsis as encouraged by today’s UK school history teachers, perhaps writing some approved formulaic phrase in each cemetery’s visitors’ book, such as “NEVER AGAIN”…perhaps if they are lucky they might get Richard Holmes, one of his officers, or Ian Hislop to take them round at least, and say a few more sensible things about the reasons for these sad battles.

Bit I’m worried that these trips are taken out of context by the teachers on purpose, and the pupils by accident. I fear that nothing today is done to emphasise the willingness with which most of these millions – at least of the British and Imperial soldiers – went to war…and to let the children ask “for what exactly?”

As I keep repeating on here, Free Civilisations go to war for principles. Unfree ones go to war for power, influence and territory – just view the treaty of Brest-Litovsk of 1918: it’s clear that it was really what Imperial Germany thought WW1 was about.

The poor children ought to be told that these men, whose graves they visit, went to war because they freely though it was a good and right thing, and therefore a needful thing to do. They were not “lions led by donkeys” either – this is a monstrous calumny upon the memories of (mostly) devoted and brave officers, who were doing the best job they could in newly terrifying and unfamiliar kinds of war.

If ever a libertarian society emerges, then it will have to consider the possibilities of conflict with unfree outfits surrounding it. Furthermore, its children ought to begin learning the process of deciding things like “why ought we to fight, if it’s needed, and what for?”, as the war will undoubtedly be long. This is because the socialists, Utopians and other Nazis like them don’t take hints about their mortal error easily.