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

The Police, and what they are supposed to be for.

David Davis

In a Libertarian civilisation (they WILL exist, they WILL!) there would I supose be police, sometimes, in odd places….for as long as there was crime, which of course would not be for very long. For people are good. The “Police”  would, in paractice, have little to do but play cards and computer games and watch porn videos.

Christians and others who think that religion is useful (I do, mostly, most of the time, despite occasional evidence to the contrary) sometimes think that Man is a Fallen Creature, but I think that he is, like the horrible nasty pre-barbarian socialist Utopians and Fabianazis think, perfectible, or nearly so for all practical purposes. man does it himself – that’s the only thing that the original Utopians and Nazis got wrong. All we need is a liberal Classical Civilisation and the Market. They and we don’t agree about the means, that is all.

Obnoxio the Clown has a good take on the Police today in the UK. It is quite funny.