But at least Kerplunk thinks this instead.
Thank God for Kerplunk.
…is correctly spotted, with his pants down, by Freedom and Whisky.
David Davis (still not that one.)
It is a source of great sorrow, to me and to Sean Gabb, and others who write for us, that this blog seems to be all about war and conflict at this time. it is pre-capitalist stalinism that is to blame. We didn’t invent it: it merely falls to us to try to help eliminate it, before we die.
David Davis (as if you had not guessed.)
Better to be dead that red “socialised”.
I od hope everybody notices this one, since it it now getting serious (as Stalin would have said.)
Civilised nations DO NOT GO ABOUT defining in public, or otherwise, other nations as “Nuclear Targets”. Specially in a time when OUR companies are enriching, by YOUR PM’s leave, YOUR oligarchs who own OUR Foot Ball Clubs.
Sorry General! You shall have to go. If I ever meet you, even at a Chatham House Symposium, at the Royal Institute (for) (of?) (who cares a f*** which!) International Affairs (or whatever the thingy is called) I, a Lancashire Bumpkin, will have to kill you.
How can we sit here on our arses, and say that “what goes on in Georgia is not our concern and _does not affect our vital interests_ … “, when unsocialised, pre-capitalist barbarians say this? “THIS” is a USSR General Officer in the DT, describing what his government would do to Poland, a nation in NATO, because it has decided to have some American missiles, a good move I would have thought in view of the coming war, which crept up on us while we were asleep.
I have to return, to entrench the necessarily hawkish position that I have been taking here. I know that many libertarians are rightly suspicious of statist aggression. I am also. But the present most crying need, as far as libertarianism is concerned, is to defend what’s left of roughly-liberal-western-democratic nations, so as to keep fertile ground for libertarianism itself.
It’s much harder if we are starting out from the Gulag itself, or from the face of a firing-squad, than from London or Liverpool, be they ever so trodden-under by local stalinists.
It’s no use to carry on, if we are all 100% dead, or enslaved. The wicked will then have won.
I repeat: “Russia”, while it continues to be socialoist and to behave as though it can direct events and regimes in other nations, must be regarded as having no “near abroad”.
WE have a near abroad – it is called “the world”. Governments that behave like the current one in the USSR, are making messes in OUR backyard. It is OUR job to clear it up, kick their butts, take names, and impose detentions.
Can’t all you buggers get it into your heads that there is Good, and there is Evil, and that both are objectively definable? A war may come: You have to know how to decide which side you are on.
… at Kerplunk, tuesday 12th August. Very good analysis, worth reading in full.
I perhaps did not make myself quite as clear as I ought to have done in my very hawkish statements about this conflict that is developing. Because we (the West) have done nothing on account of not really being able to do anything, it will get worse – not necessarily today or in Georgia, but elsewhere. It is my sad prediction that we shall eventually be forced to intervene, somewhere. I do not think we will raise a finger for the Baltic States, should they come under some pressure, nor the Ukraine, USSR passports having previously been issued in large numbers.
I am afraid that I do not really accept the diplomatic notion of a “near abroad”, in relation to neo-tyrannical powers, such as the USSR Russia. Rather as militant Islamists and Wahhabis view the world, where there is the Ummah-Wahida and the Dhimma. There is, logally for me, no “near abroad” in which the USSR Russia is allowed to behave as an occupying power.
This notion is an illusion, fostered by intellectual sympathisers with socialism, who live in the West, have never grown up and had real jobs, and who can afford to send their servants to queue at “little local shops” for organic food, served to them by a jovial grocer in a brown labcoat, in line.
Now, through all this Georgian hoo-hah, I have realised something. It has come to my notice that I honestly and sincerely view tyrants (such as Putin) – all of whom are leftists in the end – as Dhimmis. Thus they are seen by me as living on borrowed time, not with us but somewhere else: also, for now, at our pleasure, in “our” (“our” is not accurate: it is more accurate to say, other sovereign individuals’) lands, and to be dealt with as soon as possible, and they and their actions and beliefs are to be consigned to the dustbin of ideas.
The people they enslave, which is to say, mostly “their” own that they have elcosed in a “Reich”, are there to be liberated (by us.)
Conversely, libertarianism does not, ot me, encompass the concept of a “near abroad”, in which the writ of individual liberty runs, and not tyranny. Everywhere in the Universe is meet to be rid of collectivism. Why? Because is it inherently bad, and that’s the end of the matter.
In this respect, I really am a jihadist turned upside down. I want the West to actively stand up for liberty, without any regard for national self-interest or cost. I believe this on principle. I do not think that it disqualifies me from being a minimal-statist-libertarian with Old Whig tinges.
But we won’t, will we.