PRAVDA…rips face-mask off Lisbon, plus a USSR soldier-robot


I never thought I’d see this here.

Michael Winning

Either it’s a wind-upp and I’m being had or the USSR continus its strategic policy of being open and clear about its objectives and its helpers.

And I spotted this film while I was in Pravda:-

http://en.rian.ru/video/20091028/156623945.html

Sorry I cant work out how to directly embed the video like a U-tube whatsit, I’m not a geek. Sohere’s something else you might not have known, or else as I suspect, it’s been PhotoShopped cleverly:-

http://english.pravda.ru/photo/report/usaf-3118

This is thought to be funny in the USSR:-

http://cavemancircus.com/2009/10/26/a-rat-stuck-in-a-sidewalk-makes-for-funny-photoshopping/

And this is just a sawn-off-old-Bear, but with jet-engines stuck on:-

http://www.moscowtopnews.com/?area=postView&id=903

Good one too


These Indian sub-continent-wallahs clearly have the right idea. 83,000 rats….wow. Better get him to Westminster asap.

Michael Winning

This is a good one too which I saw on The Devils Kitchen I get the feeling he is a designer of some kind and I feel for him

Libertarian Alliance Health Scare of the Day, no-1: “Doctors” say lots of coca-cola “can” cause paralysis…


David Davis

And……eating 5 pounds of onions a day for a month “may” make you feel ill.

Someone please tell the buggers to f*** off and drink tasteless, low-Potassium drinks. Then, happily, there will be less of those left for the rest of us.

In the late 1960s, “scientists” fed rats 350+ beverages-equivalent-amounts of cyclamates per day, to try to prove that artificial sweeteners were bad for people. They succeeded in making the rats sick….but then rats don’t really weigh that much.

The libertarian issue at stake is the presence of an Enemy Class, which latches onto initially-harmless and boring mountebankianism of this kind, turning it into part of the Green ValitudinariaNazi Human-Restricticon.

Baby P: What’s this got to do with libertarianism? (Big-States, guns and children. Let’s smell some rats.)


I’ll tell you.

David Davis

When you beget (as you do, for one does) a child, and bring it into the world, then, whose property is it? Apart from the fundamental Human Rights aspect, which is that that (human) child belongs to itself, it is to all intents and purposes “yours”. While it is of an age when it can’t legally or informedly take certain kinds of decisions (all for obvious reasons) then you own it. It is yours. It is your child. I don’t think even the most absolutists Popes or Emperors, with the possible exception of sadly many failed civilisations and Papistic juntas authorities would have disagreed with this position.

This sad business of “Baby P” (the poor sad bugger MUST have had a _name_, for Christ’s sake, for he was Human!!!) is sadly illuminating. The “agencies” which were “involved”, and the “practitioners” who “lost opportunities” , are clearly not interested in the individual fates of individual children, at all. Firstly, we are never to know (officially) who this poor person was. Secondly, and worse, even, the organisational structure, which we have paid for (who else did?) will close ranks about itself and anodynely reassure us all that “lessons have been learned” (but I thought they said that earlier?)

This is part of what Theodore Dalrymple has just said:-

The first is that the work of child protection is very difficult, emotionally wearing and even dangerous. Staff turnover in the organisations that carry it out is often rapid. Most British paediatricians in training have experienced threats from parents or guardians, and 5 per cent have been assaulted sufficiently badly to need medical treatment. If this is true of doctors, who generally still retain a modicum of public respect, the situation of social workers is likely to be even worse. There is nothing like a constant fear of violence for undermining both the will to do anything and the judgment.

The second is that the fundamental purpose of the British public service is to provide a meal-and-mortgage-ticket for those who work in it, especially at management level. The ostensible purpose of an organisation is rarely its real purpose. I know this from my experience in the Health Service.

The State can’t assume ultimate control over the lives of all, until it can dictate not only the fate of children but also the begetting and ownership of them. People who will be designated as good “guardians” of children will be things such as “Lawyers”, “Administrators”, and the like. People who will not be so designated will be things like “Agricultural Workers”, “Retail Assistants”, ” PlasterĀ  Ers “, “Brick Layers”, “Wait Trons”, and the like.

I am beginning to think that there is an agenda going on down here, regarding who will and who will not be “authorised” to have children.

Mechanisms that make it look like ordinary people (sometimes carefully-chosen like in this case) can’t or oughtn’t to be allowed to have little children near them, are good for the advancement of this kind of State control. Here’s what we said yesterday, in the beginnings of our rat-smelling-operation.