Tag Archives: BNP

The public breaking of the BNP, on live Wireless Tele Vision, says something about what will happen to anybody who…


…gets on or appears to get in the way of the Enemy Class Project.

David Davis

I am back. [GROAN….I hear you all say: I bet you preferred Michael who held the Fort while I was out and about.] Happily I missed all the hoohah and Wireless (you get it) Telly-Telly stuff about Nick Griffin and the staged public demolition of his policies, by those who either have the same policies or will have to institute completely identical ones. Which is to say, The Enemy Class.

As an Enemy-Class-ist, the problem you have when you want to (a) disenfranchise, and (b) marginalise and ultimately exterminate the culture of, a whole very very large section of the people of a nation which you have decided to eraze, out of misplaced but correctly-targetted revenge for successes of real liberalism in the past by others, is this. It is that you have to demonise the people who see a Main Chance, and can speak up for it, however mistakenly. You do not, yet, through your incompetently GramscoFabiaNazi faith in historical inevitability, have access either to terror-Police, or not many, nor have you taken care to set up “Vernichtungslager” or even concentration camps: worse, you have failed to label the proposed Concentration Camps as  “positive-health-and-dietary-amelioration-supplement/education-augmentation-facilities in relocational-theatres”….

Really, over this BNP scruck, they the Enemy-Class are on a smallish hiding to nothing, at least from now on.

If they said nothing about the BNP at all and just let it go and be, then its support will grow because it simply says the things that the disenfranchised Old White Working Class (and other bits) wants to hear being said. [That does not imply that what it wants is a right solution.]

And if they demonise it, then that will then just amplify the feeling that there is a class – the Enemy Class – that is the enemy of the aspirations and hopes of ordinary individuals who know nothing political, have nothing much in this world in the way of goods and chattels, and just want to be allowed to get on with grubbing along in even slight comfort before dying, and without too much in the way of hegemonic interference. Which is pretty much what has happened to nearly 100% of all humans since the beginning of history.

Really, it’s the hegemonic people’s fault. They hegemons will really all have to go, as Michael said yesterday.

All this is good for us. really.

Advertisements

Aynbody going to watch Question Time?


Michale Winning

The fascist left have guaranteed that Nick Griffin of the BNP will get prime time billing tonight or whenever it is. What they don’t get is that we all know they’re spitting tacks over the BNP exact;y ‘coz it’s stripping votes off what they think is their own little Pocket Borough. Ive just learned about these and that’s what Labour thinks its’ entitled to. So they are climibing the wall with anger and rage at the BNP, which is just a socialist party realy but a more nationalist one than they like.

You know, if libertarianism os to get off the ground ever, and les’t face it we are not exactly winning right today, all these bloody people may just have to go. I don’t care where or how, just go. Gone. Deprived of power, amployment (they don’t do anything worthwhile anyway) and the ability to influence events. It’s just too effing difficult to deal with them and their whingeing and obfuscation of everything that’s objectivly right. I’m not saying the BNP is right, far from it: why does everybody have to be seen to say loudly that they think the BNP’s wrong even though everybody knows you know it is?

But the sort of people writhing in public rage for TV consumption,  at the BNP’s man being on the telly, are the same sort of people that attack and try to shut down power stations. This doesn’t make the BNP right, and it just shows up where the enemies of liberty and free speech are coming from.

Sorry about that rant, I couldnt help ot.

I’ve upset someone


Shit happens: oh well, we sometimes differ about the means of achieving a libertarial polit, and specially about how to communicte with those still to be persuaded…

[UPDATE: There is a constructive exchange of strategic views about what the Libertarian Alliance blog ought to be for, over here. Do read: specially Patrick’s long and detailed reply to me.]

David Davis

[OLD STUFF:]You can read what he thinks of my opinions here. It’s a pity that so many libertarians disagree so violently about so many things. This is a sad and inevitable result of lots of intelligent people trying to unsuccessfully reach agreement about important matters: it’s how we lost WW2 for example [ I leave Stalin out of that group for he always knew what he wanted, and got most of it.]

The Libertarian Alliance has existed for so long, and has, apart from being noticed by a few thousand academics, achieved so little reduction in the socialist-megadeaths-per-year count, that one begins in the evening of one’s life to despair of any improvement. Having said that, I do have the pleasure of inviting you all to our conference on 24th/25th October 2009! Only £85, a snip: no increase on last year, unlike what biofuels have done to food.

Perhaps we have not amplified our appeal-base /because/ we are so ideoligically pure, and not despite this.

There is no point in just sitting on one’s arses and talking academically to academics and think tanks and conferences, when real people with real guns are really killing other people who either just want liberty, or are “in the way of programmes”, or just don’t think about politics at all at all ever. (And thus get killed.)

Look here you purists: I’m building a blog – or trying to – and I have not got all the time in the world. People like these might want to know about libertarianism before people like these get to them instead, and make the task of repair impossible.

Or perhaps it’s this that he objects to. I do not know.

I just think that although it is clearly right to be ideoligically pure and consistent, there also remains an ultimate risk to the survival of liberalism at all in any form, as the world darkens. We ought to be sen as serious about defending what we believe in, as well as just being seem as a load of wimpish academics who sit about all day and talk about it.

No possible number of truncated interviews with Sean Gabb on the wireless will alter the course of either this government or the “Taleban”, or the course of Kim Jong-Il before he died. If I am to be now regarded as a hawkish “NeoLibertarian”, then let it be. I am fine with that.

New Labour … Playing into the hands of the BNP


David Davis

Tim Worstall identifies what’s the matter with our “leaders“. And he asks how and why a “possible ban” on them “working in schools” will help to put people off them (a creditable objective, to be sure, since they are a left-wing-corporatist party.) But think of the __paarents__  , of the children so deprived of this controversy – who will they then decide to vote for, eh?

Perhaps our “leaders” are doing all this on purpose, and have some agenda afoot.

In 2004, at the time of the Tsunami, I was driving a white van casually for a hire shop here. The boss – and is still today – was a lib-dem-brown-nozer, aged about 55, and a bit autistic. On the day of the “silence”, he shut the shop and shooed all the customers out, except those he couldn’t, ‘coz they wozz trying to pay the silly-bugger. He said we all had to have 2 minutes’ silence, because ” __the leaders__  had said we should…

…there was a lock-in, and everybody inside had to comply with the silence….

I buggered off, me: pretending to do a delivery of a cement mixer. Sod them. Wouldn’t trust the lovey-dems an inch then if I was you, if they attract people like that. Very unlibertarian.

BNP: How seriously lefties fear other lefties. A great boon that we don’t have these problems.


David Davis

The Independent tries, flailingly and hyperglycaemically, to stop the BNP from winning, er, what?  A couple of council seats, and maybe one at Brussels. Or even not. The BNP. Oh, come on, and think of the BNP: thikn what they are, and think what they say. Thibk, after reading their stuff, how socialist they are. So! Why do British lefties fear them?

Who cares? Those of us who can read, and who therefore can analyse parties’  policy, can see that the BNP is an Old Socialist Party. It competes with the “modern” Stalinist or Hitlerite or Pol-Potian-Left, for the votes of what it thinks, still, is the “old white working class”.

The “modern” lefties, which is to say, the british Stalinists, of which there are a few too many in the £”public sector” and elsewhere, and some are in Parliament, think this class has disappeared. Not. Not quite yet. Thye have shot their semen too early, while wanting a Stalinistically-beautiful orgasm, into the **** of global-one-nation-socialism based on the AnnaBramwelliaNazi-interpretation of how things are.

Look at its policy position on the railways for example. That’s just one. “British jobs for British workers” – that’s another: what’s the diff between that and North Korea? We are no better or worse off with the BNP in power here (and there) than we were with ZanuLiebORG – but all that we could hope is that we may get a few more years of time to mitigate the worst excesses of Stalinism, ‘coz the BNP are “not very serious at all” (ask Stalin if they shoot priests. As far as I know, they still do not do so.)

Now, it does not mean that an being  [or even aspiring to be]  an old fascist-lefty, as opposed to a new one, or a “Labour Party Supporter”, or a “Liberal Democrat”, is a wrong thing to be in a liberal democracy (although actually being an old-fascist-lefty is indeed wrong objectivistically and will lead to tears, famine, death and an Extinction Boundary.) You could even be a “Conservative”, and old-fascist-leftyness – unless you have your thinking-cap about your person – cannot be far from your pledge-list.

No. The problem about the BNP is that the wrong people think it stands for the wrong things. It is  _not_  a “right-wing”, anti-government, anti-socialist party. It is a temporary repository for the votes of people (who would norlally be socialists) who have not thought things through properly, but who are rightly angry about what’s been done to them and theirs, by people whom they thought were on their side. In this respect it is precisely like Hitler’s NSDAP: it is the cradle of the franchhise of all those people who have felt let down by those whom they thought they trusted.

There is nothing that can be done about this matter for now, for the UK’s governing party has done all that it can – via its own policies – to bring about a great result for the BNP. This will be sad but I am afraid inevitable. 

We will have to Drain The Bitter Cup. For now.

Internet censorship coming soon….


….from Andy Burnham, the bust TV channels, and the Onebama…

…but The Landed Underclass has the right idea here.

Harry Haddock at “A nation of Shopkeepers” is more hard-hitting. Wish I’d had the foresight this morning,  to say what he does.

David Davis

This morning the Quislingraph led early with news of proposals to “give Internet Sites Cinema-Style Ratings”, which is of course newspeak for the first steps in censoring the internet, probably via state pressure on ISPs.

Guuido Fawkes, always with a nose checking the wind, has already made plans to move his site out of vulnerable jurisdictions, such as the UK and USA.

This is coupled with earlier tentative threats from the EU and from someone called Hazel Blears, to “regulate” bloggers (which States do not like) – this basically means Classical liberal and libertarian-leaning ones I expect. Once this power and the one flagged above are in place, Gordon Brown and his new accolyte the Onebama will be able to trumpet that they’ve done it all “for the children”. The Quislingraph piece is a classic screed of socialist caring-nonsense, dripping with parental concern which gets the sheeple nodding vigorously in agreement (we all love children don’t we?) while yet shrouding a terrible threat in the subtext, which next to nobody will pick up.

Again, once in place, i wonder which political parties a State will force the ISPs to proscribe? Obviously the BNP will go down the road of invisibility first, it being the State’s main left-wing competitor and also fully-corporatist, for mass franchise support. I expect UKIP won’t fare much better, and it will take some time for the buggers to catch up with LPUK, but they will, they will.

If “major ISPs” cave in and refuse access to sites deemed “unsuitable for children”, then “Best Practice” will inevitably be followed. You won’t even be able to get Wikipedia or Google, since this is unavailable on the LANs of most British State schools – and I dread to think how we’ll get ot Youtube.

Does anybody know how people get round this sort of restriction in places like China, Iran and Pakistan?

« Older Entries