GFN means a GramscoFabiaNazi.
I needed to put up a flag for Google to “see”, when I refer henceforth to GFNs.
GFN means a GramscoFabiaNazi.
I needed to put up a flag for Google to “see”, when I refer henceforth to GFNs.
But it probably will work and the bastard’ll get in
From our own comment thread on here.
Stuff was in red, because at the time when the Nissen-Hut-chimps lifted stuff bodily from what people other than they themselves had typed, the supervisor-chimpanzee insisted that it ought to be highlighted. Chimps, while being ever so politically-savvy, are not – by socialit-Nazi-standards very intelligent: and so it was merelydecided that the colour of the text would be altered to show external authorship – a rather simple solution. All the chimps agreed, and gyrated about in return for bananas, so it just sort of, er, happened.
Sean, I don’t think voting makes much difference at this stage, but as I said before, better to vote counter-hegemonic (UKIP, LPUK, even BNP) than pro-hegemonic. Cameron’s entirely a creature of the Enemy- indeed his plan for 5000 state activists, funded via the Proggie Network, will just broaden and deepen their power. A Tory government certainly won’t help us a single jot. A Tory lose however may throw that useless bunch of quislings into terminal disarray.
I also don’t think Chris Tame’s worthy plan- of influencing the ideological hegemony- is going to ever work. It simply isn’t in their class interest to listen to us, even if the occasional maverick does. The reality is that the Gramscian methodoloy works for people seeking to expand state power, in their own interests. We need a better political strategy that will work for people trying to abolish the ruling class.
So one way of looking at it is, we have to achieve what the Marxists failed to achieve, which is the mobilisation of the proleteriat- in our case, our proleteriat being everyone outside the government, rich or poor. The big problem is that over the past century the state has expanded into every area of life. It’s not going to be easy.
One thing in particular libertarians have to stop doing is attacking weak people. You mentioned in your book the political error of banging on about welfare recipients, and I entirely agree. The Enemy succeed because they always, always, ally themselves with some perceived weak group (the poor, blacks, gays, etc) so that even when they’re doing something ghastly, it’s “in a good cause”. Attacking poor people etc is equivalent to being seen kicking a cripple in the head. Even when you explain he stole your wallet, people will still think you’re a bastard. No wonder the “right”, or the non-left, or whatnot, have consistently lost with such dunderheaded ignorance of human nature.
We may need to rebrand ourselves. We certainly need to start working under non-libertarian banners. Greenpeace may be a socialist group, but they don’t call themselves that. We need to pump out philosophy and propaganda, we need to make whatever alliances we can, and we need to pull together realistic programmes that show how a society can transfer from state dependence to liberty without millions collapsing into poverty, rather than the libertarian habit of arguing constantly about what the Glorious End State will be after some miraculous transformation. We’re in the position of wanting to free some poor desperate population from a ghastly Victorian institution. But the fact is, they’ve lived there their whole lives. They don’t know how to cook, or get a home, or go to the shops. If we threaten to fling the doors open and turf them out onto the streets, we’ll just get terror, not gratitude.
Five more years of Labour, or five of the Tories, it makes no real difference. Whichever we get, things will be more desperate and ghastly in 2015 than they are now. But, things are better for us than they were five or ten years ago. The message is getting out. The Methodist State is reaching its apotheosis, the political class become more transparently fascist and disconnected with every day.
And, we must always remember that the State we’re in is not the inevitable consequence of government. It has the form it has because of specific politicking by specific groups that stretch back a century and a half or even two- kicked into gear by evangelists from nutty sects (Methodists, Quakers etc here, Yankees in the USA (Rothbard wrote a lot on this without quite following it through)). They are our enemies, and they have to be rooted out of the nests they’ve built. The dumb politicians who do their bidding are barely of consequence. Their grotesque schemes nearly fell to bits in the twentieth century, and it was only the marxists who saved them. Well, the marxists are gone now. Once people have lived a while under the new progressive puritanism, that’ll start collapsing too (it’s cracking in places already) and this time there are no marxists left. This time, it must be us who are waiting to take the opportunity.
We can win this thing.
Tickle Cock Bridge has got its proper name back, after “local people” objected en masse to the GramscoSoviet renaming it “Tittle Cott Bridge”….the excuse for the Gramsco bit was that…oh… “a Councillor spotted it and wrote it down like that”…
It shows that the GramscoFabiaNazis _can_ be browbeated in their own front yards – which are in any case ours – and so it shows how they will be made to go without our having to resort to war.
As to criticisms of my term “GramscoFabiaNazi”:-
(1) They apply Gramscian political conflict theory to how they go about undermining and replacing our value systems with theirs,
(2) They are Fabians, in that they know how to boil frogs, very very slowly, and this is what makes them, in the British context, especially dangerous, for we as a nation are inclined to laziness in maintaining defences, and this has always been a serious and potentially mortal failing on our part,
(3) They are Nazis in that Green-Leftist-State-Fascism is what they propose to impose.
David Davis says it’s a PR stunt designed to coincide with the Copenhagen religious celebration of pagan pre-capitalist neopastoralist Nazi barbarism.
3,500MWh (per year) sounds like a sexy big number. And the population of Westray is “600”. But let’s take it to bits. This is 3,500,000 Kwh. This is 1,26E13 Joules, which equates to a true duty-cycle-adjusted output of 399.6 Kw.
Let’s be generous and say 450 Kw. I can imagine Westray being fairly windy, by our standards here. (And it won’t be spinning all the time – I have taken the given figures as allowing for the wind-dependent duty-cycle.)
Then, also, it’s rather a big turbine. 220 feet tall. (What’s its service life? Anyone know? And what are the servicing costs which will apply throughout its life?)
That’s a mean year-round availability of 750 watts per inhabitant. On an island of 600-odd people, where I guess there are not that many single mothers or single male yuppies commuting by helicopter to Edinburgh or Aberdeen or Lerwick, and people live in settled conservative-type “households” of 3-5 people, this output is not ungenerous, unless everyone on Westray wants to take a powershower all at once on a windless Sunday evening in winter, when the Grid-connection (even if there is one) is not able to provide voltage in the right direction.
I do not see much wrong in providing stuff like this for people who live in such places, unless the funding is got by the means stated (the “Big Lottery”, whatever that is – it sounds like the Urban Poor of Bootle and Battley and Brighouse have paid for this turbine, which is bad.)
But to do this for a population of 70 millions, which is what the gramscoFabiaNazis want for this island, would require an installed capacity on this maths of 1.05E11 watts. 105 Gigawatts. That’s 117,000 of the same turbines, on the same duty cycle.
And before I’m ritually disembowelled (again) by some of our readers for dubbing greens Nazis, I re-apply that term to them here, as a renewal of my vows, as it were. Anna Bramwell, the contemporary high-priestess of GreeNazism, implicitly conflated the beliefs of the actual Nazis, of (not)fond memory with those of today’s Deep greens.
I didn’t mean really to write about this at all: I simply scanned the paper this evening, and this popped up. But the sub-heading about “sexual health policy” made me wet myself in hysterical laughter. If I did not think that what the British State is deliberately trying to do, to turn 70 million people into cretinoid uncritical enslaved barnyard animals, on purpose and via long-term strategic (and focussed) planning, I would think it was merely funny…….
If the Government owns our bodies, then it can dictate a “policy” about how our bodies go about interacting with other bodies. If it does not, then it can not. It has only to come clean about what it intends.
A “sexual Health policy” smells strongly of things that Baldur von Schirach, or Stalin, or Mao or the dead Kim Jong-Il, or one of those other Nazis whose names I can’t presently recall such as that funny woman here somewhere in the 1900s, would have instituted.
I am a former Anglican through parental force-majeure when younger [“Does the school offer confirmation? Let him be confirmed!”], and in 2001 I decided simply to Walk To Rome one sunny Sunday in a Catholic Church (no “instruction” was needed here. I just walked.
You see, our problem- and our Burden – is that Libertarianism Means Never Having To Say You’ve Lost Your Moral Compass (because you haven’t)…you ALWAYS know where you are going, and it enrages “ordinary people” with an intensity not to be contemplated – which is why most libertarians will be murdered one day… Being moreover a molecular biophysicist, I am not sure I approve of abortions for convenience’s sake. They smack to me strongly of a Feminazi way of undermining “men”, as one tactic for reverse-engineering the fragile threads that hold Western Civilisation together.
The potential arrival of a small child, together with crying, sleepless nights, pooey nappies, the necessity of strange and hard-to-prepare-foods, the lack of intellectual/epistemological-conversation with it for at least six or more years, and the like, seems to me to be the potential cost of all this “free” sex which was invented by Kenneth Tynan in 1963. (Sex in this age and time is never free! Think about it…) Like crime, for which the only motivation is an individual decision to commit it, the most important motivation for the occurrence of sex is the decision of two people to have it now.
Stalinist governments interfering in individual human sexual relations simply project onto populations whatever the “government” thinks people should be doing in bed. If governments pay teachers of 6-year-olds in primary “schools” to tell the said 6-yr-olds how to “have safe sex”, and how “mutually-pleasurable” that is, then that is what they will try to do as soon as the boy can “get it up”. As the Wireless Tele Vision is so riveting, and cannot be missed, then abortions of human foetuses will therefore occur.
Andy “the Gau-leiter” Burnham has spoken. So you do what he says, all right?
By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent
Published: 12:15PM GMT 25 Nov 2009
His comments came as a series of reports suggested that tens of thousands of lives a year could be saved in Britain alone by cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The warning comes less than a fortnight before international leaders are due to meet in Copenhagen for crunch climate change talks.
Cutting animal farming by a third could significantly reduce emissions and save around 18,000 lives a year in Britain because of the resultant drop in cases of heart disease if people eat less red meat, scientists estimate.
Another 5,000 early deaths from lung problems and other conditions could be prevented by better home insulation and reducing the use of carbon based fuels.
Reducing our dependence on cars could improve also health, as well as lower emissions, the studies found.
Switching to walking instead of driving for many journeys could also cut deaths from heart disease by up to 4,200 cases a year.
The move could also save around 200 deaths a year each from dementia and breast cancer.
The series, produced by the Lancet medical journal, calls on health ministers around the world to recognise the danger that global warming poses.
Scientists also called for a reduction in other greenhouse gases as well as carbon dioxide, such as ozone, which has been shown to cause lung problems. (I thought ozone was good? ed.)
Reducing emissions would also cut air pollution across the world, reducing deaths from heart problems, lung conditions and other acute illnesses, especially in large parts of the developing world which still suffer from high levels of pollution.
Mr Burnham said: “Climate change can seem a distant, impersonal threat – in fact the associated costs to health are a very real and present danger.
“Health ministers across the globe must act now to highlight the risk global warming poses to our communities. We need well-designed climate change policies that drive health benefits.”
Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said an ambitious deal to cut climate emissions had to be reached in Copenhagen.
“To protect the world’s health we must stop dangerous climate change happening and limit temperature increases to no more than 2C.
“An ambitious and fair deal in Copenhagen will not only have major benefits in terms of reducing the climate change-related spread of infectious diseases and risks to food supply, but will also result in immediate green benefits in terms of a healthier environment and lifestyle (Baldur von Schirach) [he didn’t say that, I did, and I also muttered “Walter Darré” under my breath] for a low carbon Britain – and a low carbon world.
“This is why we are going to Copenhagen to secure an ambitious, effective and fair deal for everyone,” he said.
Margaret Chan, of the World Health Organisation, warned that “no mercy” would be shown for humans’ mistakes over climate change.