Tag Archives: Dunblane

If arms offer power and protection, they belong in the hands of the People


David Davis

And no I didn’t invent that myself: it is the formal policy-position of the Swiss “Government” (if that word is not slightly tautological.)

Paul Goodman at ConservativeHome nicely articulates the position most of us take on here, which is that now is definitely not the time to do kneejerk, Tabloid-Million-Moms-driven legislation to further restrict, or even ban entirely, all firearms, thus taking us as a people into the territory of the Third Reich, wherein Himmler said that private gun ownership and licensing was “inconvenient” for the State. Except for Göring of course.

I have been excoriated on Facebook, for saying that these periodic massacres, ostensibly by lone crazed lunatics, are set up by the “authorities” every time they want to ratchet up the gun controls here. With hindight, I’m prepared to suspect (but only suspect) that I was wrong in this particular case. But my major thesis still stands I think. We will anyhow know the truth about Dunblane in about 80 years’ time.

This whole story sounds “made up” – it is a mechanism for…


removing more guns.

Sad man crying and being “violent”, and “seen in possession of a gun” and “waving it”, by a “member of the public”.

Police turn up, shoot man dead.

Police happy: end of story.

Guns = bad. Stalinism = good. Killing of 30 million Russians who opposed collectivism = good (as they had no guns.)

“Mums” = happy.

The killing of young children in schools and nurseries is quite modern. Is it socialism trying to use incidents to exert more control, or has something really gone wrong in the software of individual people?


David Davis


There has not been a mortal attack on a school or nursery here in the UK  for some time. Dunblane was the worst, but was not alone. I firmly believe, AND not being a conspiracy-theorist myself, that it was deliberately staged as an incident to justify the forced removal of all “hand guns” from the population of the British Isles. I have no evidence for this assertion at all, and I probably never will, nor have I time to find out. But the choreography was all so smoothly executed, and so fast – within hours – with total compliance from all side of the House of Commons. There was another one, in Tazmania.

Those of us who don’t do conspiracy theories such as the 9/11 crap, but who are quite able to impute base motives to our leaders in matters such as gun control, have probably been bracing ourselves for an event involving young children, or, preferably, babies. So here it was, but in Belgium, and involved knives not guns.

So: is the covert state strategy the same as before… “guns in the hands of the people are unacceptable, but let’s demonise knives more, so we can take those away too in time”?

Or…has something gone wrong in the way people relate to each other at a basic family level, and which also could be due to socialism or at least its lovechild femiNazism?

FemiNazism, I must explain to those not familiar with the clever leftist chappie Gramsco-Marxski (whose works are often bad-mouthed on here)  is a software-program that is for corrupting instinctive human interactions at a family level. This then creates desocialised sub-humans who go about killing autistically-defined targets – such as children or babies, or Kulaks (if you are Stalin), or “intellectuals” (if you are Pol Pot) or Jews (if you are Hitler or Stalin or Lenin or Hamas – whatever that might be – or AlQuaeda – whatever that might be, perhaps it will turn out to be the UN in disguise, we shall all, if possible, have to stay alive to find out.) FemiNazism’s principal weapon is the humiliation of males at an early age, by removing the authority – or even the presence – of the father figure.

I obviously know even less than the poor stressed Belgian Police do right now, about this poor tormented creature who decided to attack babies and their carers with a knife, while dressed as a “batman” or something. Libertarians would agree that we don’t think it’s important what he was wearing at the time. But these sorts of crimes all share a common thread:-

(1) They are terribly visible – strange, if you are going to do a crime? Why leave a trail? And in front of the MSM?

(2) They are against terribly vulnerable individuals – children, babies, unarmed teachers for example.

(3) The perpetrator is often killed, or commits suicide at the scene, such as Thomas Hamilton – also very, very, very odd – why? or is arrested and then kept in isolation for ever, such as Martin Bryant.

AND….why is there no wikipedia page for Thomas Hamilton? Eh? You are redirected to “Dunblane Massacre” only, which you already knew about or you’d have buggered off already.

Very odd. But even against that,  George Bush will be shown by history to have not blown up down the twin towers and told all 4,711 Jewish employees to stay away made it look like the “Islamists” wot dunn itttt……uuurrrrrrrrrrr, duhhhhhhhhhh.

Oh, and I’ll put a pound on that. So there. A Pound of Silver against any one Truther at 50-to one. Watch. Let’s see if truthers watch this blog. If I’m right, you pay me 50 pounds (729.9 TROY ounces) of silver metal. In metal. Here. You will bring it or courier it.

I want Silver, not Gold, sorry.

I have to say I find all this very odd, given that privately-owned firearms were quite commonplace in my youth in the 1950s, and that almost no crime was committed with them whatever. if one was, then it was a seminal and global event, and was mentioned on the WireLess Radio News, on the BBC Home Service.

The fact that “incidents” have been multiplying (and I have not even talked about the various campus-massacres in the USA) lead me to deduce that either some males are going mental under the stress of socialistic-FemiNazism, and fail to be properly socialised as free individuals able to take decisions about not harming others – therefore being reduced to the status of primitive apes, or else the State – whether it be here or elsewhere in the Anglosphere such as Australia – wants to obliterate the ownership of any kind of lethal weapon….for the protection presumably of the Statists themselves.

But how will Jamie Oliver react to the blanket prohibition of kitchen-knives for example….after the “amnesty”, of which there will inevitably be one? How will we prepare his tucker, for the cheeky-chappie?

I just ask to be told, that’s all. And here’s what somebody else whom I do not know, but who seems sane, thinks.

Baby P: What’s this got to do with libertarianism? (Big-States, guns and children. Let’s smell some rats.)


I’ll tell you.

David Davis

When you beget (as you do, for one does) a child, and bring it into the world, then, whose property is it? Apart from the fundamental Human Rights aspect, which is that that (human) child belongs to itself, it is to all intents and purposes “yours”. While it is of an age when it can’t legally or informedly take certain kinds of decisions (all for obvious reasons) then you own it. It is yours. It is your child. I don’t think even the most absolutists Popes or Emperors, with the possible exception of sadly many failed civilisations and Papistic juntas authorities would have disagreed with this position.

This sad business of “Baby P” (the poor sad bugger MUST have had a _name_, for Christ’s sake, for he was Human!!!) is sadly illuminating. The “agencies” which were “involved”, and the “practitioners” who “lost opportunities” , are clearly not interested in the individual fates of individual children, at all. Firstly, we are never to know (officially) who this poor person was. Secondly, and worse, even, the organisational structure, which we have paid for (who else did?) will close ranks about itself and anodynely reassure us all that “lessons have been learned” (but I thought they said that earlier?)

This is part of what Theodore Dalrymple has just said:-

The first is that the work of child protection is very difficult, emotionally wearing and even dangerous. Staff turnover in the organisations that carry it out is often rapid. Most British paediatricians in training have experienced threats from parents or guardians, and 5 per cent have been assaulted sufficiently badly to need medical treatment. If this is true of doctors, who generally still retain a modicum of public respect, the situation of social workers is likely to be even worse. There is nothing like a constant fear of violence for undermining both the will to do anything and the judgment.

The second is that the fundamental purpose of the British public service is to provide a meal-and-mortgage-ticket for those who work in it, especially at management level. The ostensible purpose of an organisation is rarely its real purpose. I know this from my experience in the Health Service.

The State can’t assume ultimate control over the lives of all, until it can dictate not only the fate of children but also the begetting and ownership of them. People who will be designated as good “guardians” of children will be things such as “Lawyers”, “Administrators”, and the like. People who will not be so designated will be things like “Agricultural Workers”, “Retail Assistants”, ” Plaster  Ers “, “Brick Layers”, “Wait Trons”, and the like.

I am beginning to think that there is an agenda going on down here, regarding who will and who will not be “authorised” to have children.

Mechanisms that make it look like ordinary people (sometimes carefully-chosen like in this case) can’t or oughtn’t to be allowed to have little children near them, are good for the advancement of this kind of State control. Here’s what we said yesterday, in the beginnings of our rat-smelling-operation.

Baby P: Child Abuse, Social Services, and socialist boroughs. This is quite interesting in a macabre and sinister way. Guns and children. Let’s smell some rats.


David Davis

(Here’s what we are gong to say tomorrow, about Baby P.) This is what’s commonly and Stalinistically called: “a leak”.

I don’t quite know how far to come out in the open and risk enemy fire, here. But I am sort of intrigued in a Sherlock-Holmsian way, you know, sort of, by the seemingly endless trail of poor wretched children, mostly from inner cities and under the care of Stalinist New Labour Soviets boroughs, who seem to be left to die, by “Social Services” while “under their observation”. The news only gets out after the poor child’s terrible death at the hands of a violent male or some other feckless “carer”. there was the Victoria Climbié business some years ago, and now this, from Obnoxio, but also reported on Guido.

I decided not to pick it up as the issues are not strictly theoretical-Libertarian, but I do begin to smell a rat, and, er ….. and see it floating in the air.

Could it be that a regime of draconian State “Child Protection” (and State-child-databasing) is being engendered (and by whom?) through a series of “regulated and allowed” high-profile cases of the death of a small child, in which the “Social services” are instructed actually NOT TO intervene until it’s too late?

Are the “pretty children” who occur from time to time in these scenarios, (who of course will need to be saved immediately) being farmed off quickly somewhere (and by whom, and for whom?) which is why we never see any?

Or hear about them?

And why the poor dead ones have been those few who were really in the soup beforehand? And about whose deaths “lessons can be learned”?

Is this rather like the Dunblane business and guns?