Ed Balls nasty man


David Davis

I’m saving my virginity for this election.

When I was a young boy, we were sometimes being warned, usually by our parents, about people called “nasty men”. We were all of course quite familiar with the history of WW2, as it had just occurred that morning in relative terms, so we wondered if Stalin was the finger-man, or if it was somebody else such as the Gestapo or the SD (as boys, we all were quite familiar with what the SD did and why, for it was only the 1950s). We didn’t think it was German Generals, since we knew all about these by name, and mostly they were “clean” insofar as behaviour on battlefronts was concerned. Even as sx- and seven-year-olds, we accepted a few departures from full Geneva-Convention-Stuff, “in the heat of battle” sort of thing. We even weathered the Cuban Missile Crisis without being “afraid to die”. It was only 1962, sex had not yet been invented, and so therefore we “knew that we were right”, and that “all will turn out for the best, boys!” in the end.

I now know what these “nasty men” were, and one of them is this one here. They were not people that my sad mum called “men who want to play with your wee-wee” ( I have never, ever, ever understood what the attraction of this might be, especially as it now smells most of the time whatever I do to the blasted thing) but actually politicians of the anti-liberal-Political Enemy-Class”.

If Ed Balls wants to come and play with my wee-wee, then everybody has his price, and I have mine. He can fondle my wee-wee, and suck me off (it will do nothing for me as I know this already: the practice of “fellatio”, forced on young men who didn’t see the point of it, by feminist women in the early-70s, appeared to me to be disgusting, un-necessary and totalitarian, since women were already pre-equipped with all the required apparatus anyway and the human mouth was not needed for the process) or do what he wants…but this is the price….. All remaining structures, political, concrete and virtual, that were ever Raised In This Land by the Socialists, and latterly by the GramscoFabiaNazis, will have to come down.

For ever.

And I mean _/ever/_ .

Soclialism must be eliminated, totally. For ever.

If the nasty-man wants to suck my wee-wee, then that is the cost.

I don’t usually comment on this sort of thing….


One sort of knows, in the background, that it goes on, but one is rather tired from striving to pay Gordon Brown and all that stuff….and Yemen and Afghanistan are rather far-away countries right now, of which we know little…

…but I even wondered about this picture for a LA caption competition – just look at the poor LITTLE girl’s face: this is her wedding photo, the poor mite – he’s “about 40”, and she’s eleven:-

David Davis

...you mean, I have to shag THAT?...

...you mean, I have to shag THAT?...

In my mind, there is no problem for a woman to marry an older man, in principle. I am 16 years older than my wife, and even the Director, Sean Gabb, married his dear and nice wife whom we know and love, when she was at the time about 12 or 13 years younger than he was. They have now caught up in age together, as you do, and as we have done. My wife is still 16 years younger than I am, but we are both now old warring scrag-bags together.

But I think for the wife to be “eleven”, as in the above picture, so it is said, is pushing at the boundaries of the envelope” a little bit, or even a lot. If this is what is going on, then I as a Libertarian who believes that individual humans have Natural Rights, believe this sort of process to be disgusting. If we believe that children are children up to a “certain age” (about which there can be some argument but broadly we all agree it is “about” 16 (or so) and therefore cannot consent legally to serious interpersonal arrangements or other sorts of contracts under that age, then that must be the case for all humans. It cannot be that our children here can’t do it, but Yemeni (or other) children can, for some spurious and quasi-religious or other pre-Renaissance pre-capitalist reason.

Ragged pre-capitalist, pre-classical-liberal, and barbarian-warlord-survival-guides, cleverly promoted and peddled as “religions”, and dealing with the disposal of debts, animals, defeated tribes, the enemy’s widows-of-beheaded-warriors, and his relict children, his men’s and boy’s severed heads, and his slaves and concubines, are no help to these poor children in the photo. Not at all.

Libertarians, when they will have regained The West (a long job, Boyo!) will have their foreign-policy-work cut out for some time. But perhaps not as long as against Lithuanian EU Commissioners who hate light bulbs.

This is the real, primary sort of Enemy-Class enemy that we ought to be “servicing”. We can then, having secured our civilisation, “service” people like that “Taliban” bloke who seems to be able to get lots of interesting and exciting weapons to attack our boys with. I can’t find a correct wikiref to “service”, which in the Cold War, meant “kill on the battlefield”. Sorry.

And the “dangerous Marxist twaddle award of the day” goes to….


The Gramsco-Eagletonian “student activist and welfare wing” of these people, who were spotted in the toilets by Obnoxio the Clown.

Some of this pretentious tripe just has to be quoted. Sorry:-

A row has broken out at the University of Manchester after its students’ union toilets were “de-gendered”.

Temporary signs have made the “ladies” simply “toilets”, while the “gents” have become “toilets with urinals”…

…..

……the student union said it was needed to tackle transphobia.

…..

Welfare officer Jennie Killip told the BBC: “If you were born female, still present quite feminine, but define as a man you should be able to go into the men’s toilets – if that’s how you define.

“You don’t necessarily have had to have gender reassignment surgery, but you could just define yourself as a man, feel very masculine in yourself, feel that in fact being a woman is not who you are.”

And what’s the place doing with “35,000” students anyway? I thought it was a University, not a small city. Mine had about 10,000 when I was up, and we thought that was big – alhough it was moderated somewhat by us being parcelled out to various august institutions for living and drinking and shagging socialising purposes.

Of course, a strictly libertarian stance might be taken that one can “feel that one is” [the buggers use “define as” : gosh what a two-edged sword the English Lanuage is] whichever sex one likes to be. Except that if you are a man but “define as” (I never heard that before! What lovely, lovely, priceless twaddle! ) a woman, you can’t be f****d: and I guess if you are a woman but you “define as” a woman, you’re about as much use to your “partner” [who I presume “defines as” a woman, and whom you can’t f**k either] as a one-legged man at an arse-kicking-party.

Right: we’ve thrown smelly squashed tomatoes and bad eggs at the fascist lefties…now comes the philosophy bit:-

Problems would arise though when it comes to behaving in ways that have evolved largely by consent, such as what toilets one ought to go in. Segregated toilets (which is to say, in public spaces and places with public character like offices and factories etc, as opposed to family homes) are really a voluntary product of “Free Institutions”, and have probably always existed in some form.

Perhaps feminazi-toiletwatch is another assault-tactic on the existence of free institutions, and theseĀ  “trans” people (who ought to be receiving boisterous assistance and lots of free alcohol from their mates instead of being encouraged to parade their particular hangups) are merely a stalking-horse for the erasure of more of ordinary Western civilisation.

I wonder what the good burghers of Manchester make of it?

Come to think of it…..two “lesbians” wanting a pee:- which one goes into the Men’s, and how can we tell?