Sunday afternoon thoughts on male aggression, and socialism


David Davis

WE watched, as is usual when we have the time, the Belgian Formula 1 GP, which was slightly less unexciting than normal owing to a good pile-up on the first lap. Perhaps we subliminally enjoyed the implied violence? I do not know….

…There is something wrong with today’s car-racing tracks, which I will deal with in time. But in short, they are (1) too short, (2) have got too many really really sharp corners straight after the start, and (3) don’t allow driver/car-changes midstream if you prang or the driver gets killed, and (4) don’t allow you to jump into the spare car (and where is it then?) while the track is still covered with shrapnel. Peter Davis and I did a nice track nearly two years ago on here, about 26 miles long and rather interesting on Googleearth. We will come back to it. You can serch for it in the meantime.

But…..male aggression. It’s probably one of the things that made Homo sapiens sapiens as successful as (he) is, in the battle for survival against shithead short-arsed-bears bureaucrats, sabre-tooth tigers Soviets, and so on. I have been thinking about this for some time as I find that male students vary considerably in their ability to manage or mask or evince aggression as a statement of attitude, and it does seem to vary corelationally by school. (The Governmint might want to know that.)  Janet Daley today examines what she suggests the fascist PC-left have done to being about the explosion of gang culture and knife crime among young boys and young men. It’s worth a read, even though lots of libertarians don’t like her.

In “New Britain”, youth male aggression is not channelled, and so individual directionless crime is rife: why? Because:-

(1) There are no fathers, only “mums”. Girls are born to “mums”, but boys are born by parthenogenesis to “single partners”. “Fathers” are just devices which prodice the necessary gametes, seemingly on demand (I can’t figure out how or why.)

(2) Young boys have to have their heads shaved at three and watch football all day on the Wireless Tele Vision, and “hang out”.

(3) “Schools” have sold their football fields for the building of “affordable housing”, so there are no “competitive sports” which foster “elitism and “inequality” anyway, and so are bad.

(4) The Naitonalised Curriculum has been voided of content and also femiNazised, in order to render school (on purpose) seemingly useless to boys, so that they can be made to prefer streetgangs as a form of daytime outdoor relief.

Socialism (a fungus) of course needs this machinery to propagate within what is otherwise a highly-ordered civilisation, formed sort of accidentally under liberty.

Is socialism a fungus born out of evolution and natural selection, and which exploits a niche? DISCUSS

Libertarian Alliance quote of the day, no-24,689B/42z3 … 0550-ABFF-09CC-042E


And before you even think of reading on, this is scary.

David Davis

From Legiron:-

“….Therefore you must be on the database on the off-chance you commit a crime in future. You cannot be trusted to behave yourself. The State must watch over you in case you step out of line. All the time. With coercion and threats….”

I don’t normally allow swearing and 4-letter words on the blog: it is a family blog for women and children as well as all us thugs. That’s why we feature people like Keeley Hazell in their pretty knickers and smalls, and why we discuss the finer points of the Holocaust, and the problems of human cruelty by GFNs.

There are quite sufficient classical liberal bolgs out there to satisfy anybody’s apetite for that sort of four-letter-**** thing, and you all know which they are. But this State-DNA crap makes you want to utter them too.

WE are not their effing farm-animals: they don’t pay to keep us – we pay to keep THEM.

Ministers are determined to spread more crime


More drugs to be banned or further proscribed in various ways.

The Occam’s Razor- reason has to be that then they can employ more police.

People do not learn that hard cases make bad law: moreover, that if one proscribes or prohibits the dealing in and possession of something, one will increase its street price by something like 20x to 100x.

About 90% of moderate-to-serious crime in the UK is related to the compulsion to acquire cash for currently-illegal drugs. Now, if trade in or possession of these was decriminalised, then almost all of this crime would disappear straight away: the Police could “spend time doing more useful things” like…..er…..chasing motorists….. (no I don’t think we’ll go there right now…) and the £100-a-day habit would become the £5-a-day habit.

Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Ciba-Geigy and Schering-Plough and others could compete legally to supply the purest and safest drugs at the lowest prices, assuming the market was large enough for major players which I doubt.

Perhaps we could even move towards governments “promising (owing to efficiency savings) to put fewer police on the beat”….

Now that would be a result – for Liberty!

Wrong analysis of rural recession crime


David Davis

Read about it here.

The reason you te more crime in rural areas in the Dark Ages is that there’s fewer people about.

Pubs are all closed and dead because of no-smoking and no vertical drinking.

No possible amount of police you could deploy, owing to logistic problems, could solve the fact that if you have a £15,000 Chippendale Commode under ZanuLieBorg, and you live in an isolated house in Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh, then some hood will remove it from you.

The solution is not “more Police”.  This is the typical socialist solution, as propounded by the Tories. I do /not want to/ live in a country which has “more police”. This represents failure, a Falling from Grace for a civilisation, and an suggestion that people can only be made “good” by force and threats: the definition of “good” also suffers as a result, as it becomes artificial and at the whim of the police-paymasters.

This way, crime will not be solved until the entire nation consists of “Police”, and we shall all be watching each other.

The solution is /better people/.

Then, political parties will self-hucksterise on the platform of “fewer police”…or even “no police”.

I would like to live in a society where there was no need for “the police”. They sort of morph, into, well, you know, worse kinds of police. And the more money for police, the faster they morph.

/Better people/ will come into being automatically, when socialism fails to be taught as a /MEME/ in “courses”.

Discuss.

The MP buggers are going to get nasty now….


David Davis

This could be fun. Guido (of course, who else?) has a thing about the panic about the leak about a leak. How could you not laugh, I mean it’s just got silly now? Here’s the rest of it.

If they have allowable expenses, then they can’t complain if details are published – or even published by people they don’t like, which is what the fuss seems to be about.

IF THEY HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, THEN THEY HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR.

I can’t see that involving the poor, overworked and underpaid British Police (who are of course unarmed as is natural in a Classical liberal civilisation) can help matters at all. The Police are very, very busy, catching burglars and muggers. They can’t cope even with that stuff, so they are also having a rest from time to time by looking for motorists, smokers, illegal parkers, defenders of one’s home, envirocriminals, people who download music tracks (whatever those may be), and other various kinds of nasty antisocial scumbags.

Except to help us to get  _[all]_  the money  _[and houses and bath-plugs]_   back, when a Libertarian Administration will have been elected with a landslide majority.