Tag Archives: Sex

Very interesting about “Tiger” Woods

David Davis

Do you know what? I can’t figure out why a man would want, in the modern world, to be called “Tiger”. I could not give such a male man a job, if he came to me at interview, and if I had a “firm”, for I would not know really how serious he was about work and life. Perhaps he ought to have thought about his PR-presentation before getting so rich and vulnerable. Perhaps “Fred” or “Robert” or “John” would have been a better name: it would indicate solidity, and the ability to get up in the morning and come to work.

If I was called “Tiger”, I could not marry any woman in the 21st century. Why? Because the GramscoFabiaNazis have deconstructed what female children (as humans, so they think they are) see in male children as humans (as they think they are), and have turned it into Celeb-mag-fodder.

Obviously, if you are called “Tiger” and you are then a complete failure at everything you do, before the age of 18 or so, then it’s a no-no for you to be an international sports droid…this just won’t wash. “And here’s TIGER! the Spurs goalie, and he’s just let in the 421st against his own side!!!!…and it’s only the 41st minute!!!!”… no, it won’t wash. Sorry. “Tigers” can’t be faiilures, or they’re dead.

So, why are 35,124,896 tarts all ganging up on one very (very very) rich man, all at one moment? isn’t it suspicious?

Are they pissed off about the money? (The most lovely sex of all can be for money, it is said, if you have the resources to have anything you want (like “Tiger” Woods), because you can dictate what you want and you can get it: we all know it in our hearts. Christians and other religionistas shoot the entire world in the foot by pretending otherwise, and much serious misery results as a result of this result, specially where GramscoFabiaNazis inspire impressionable young intelligent women to be “femin” ists.)Why did the Ottoman Emperors (and Mohammed, pbuh) have harems? For the good of their souls? Nah. Sex with plenty of women, for one man, as often as possble, is lovely. It’s what it’s for. That’s what the Y chromosome is for. That’s why so many, many of us are all here, today: it’s the great success story of the paleobiology of man.

Didn’t “Tiger” pay then enough at the time? Was that the problem? I think not. I thought these things were pre-agreed? And there’s too many of them anyway – he could not have short-changed them all: that would be crass and careless. And that part of the deal with expensive “escorts” (I’m sure all these women were expensive – they look it) was that, as an escort, you didn’t talk afterwards? What’s the point of these girls otherwise? If you didn’t talk for the sake of the sake of the Bilderbergers who have shagged you, and whom you would not want to expose for the sake of your own life at Copenhagen and after, then why would you “talk” about “Tiger” Woods? Money?

Does it matter if he had any or all of them at all, except to him and his wife, and if so, what is the MSM doing, getting involved at all? Is it any of their effing business?

Or is it that the world-global-governance has had “enough” of “Tiger” Woods, for some other quite unrelated reason?

Perhaps we are no better than the Incas: we set up someone to be an idol, for a year or a few, and then we tire of him, and we pull him down, into the  blood and dust.

I don’t give a f*** for golf. I don’t even understand the point of it. It is my privilege to be able to be like that and yet stay alive in the 21st century, when everyone goes for it. I even hosted an international Golf tournament slightly opposite my house, a year or so ago, for a mate, to show my astonishing magnanimity on this matter.

But I hate what I think is going on here. I don’t think a libertarian society would do this to people, over something that goes on in their private lives. It’s not even clear to me that he’s actually shagged all these women. if he did, so what? Is it anybody’s concern except of them, him and his wife? At least, if he did, he’d have got some pleasure out of it, in return for the delf-righteous preachings of his supposedly-aggrieved “sponsors”.

Or….is “Tiger” Woods a global warming skeptic…or even a _/denier/_ ???


What is a government “sexual health policy”?

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…….

David Davis

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.

Yeh, that’ll stop the little buggers

David Davis

Telling them all about how lovely sex is, from the age of about 8, has not stopped them doing it as soon as the boys can get it up and the girls can slip it in, so that strategy has failed…so let’s just tell them even earlier, shall we!

I may be very obtuse, but I can’t see the logic in telling very very young children all about things to do with things which the same tellers ensure that they can’t consent to, for years and years. The difference between the ages of five and sixteen, seen from the viewpoint of an infant, is a stretch of geological time. I know, I remember.

These are things best left ot the families of the children, to sort out…ah, I forgot! The State now owns children, not families!

Whar goes around comes around, and we are now the Faraway Country of which the Czechs know little

David Davis

The Czechs have given in. (Who can blame them? Not I.)

BUT they have betrayed Britain!

Shame! We wuzz robbed! Klaus knuckles under! Munich! Death! War! But….

Poor guy, what can he do? We are not ultimately his problem. Like they were not ours, in 1938.

We will have to look to ourselves. AND I don’t care what Cameron says or pretends to say or not say, about “referenda” and on whay terms, or means or does not mean, for it is quite irrelevant. Nothing will change unless individual Tory politicians in power are forced at gunpoint to do so and to yield to majority opinion and gracefully accede.

We have all known this, for many many years, which is why all the thousands and thousands and thousands of  liberal blogs exist: we all pretend it is otherwise, but it is not.

In the early 1990s in the warm wet afterglow of Soviet-Imperialist dégringolade, I used to, while over there, tell my Czech and Slovak friends about the deceptive and only partially-visible undercurrents embedded in “the End of History”, and that “The Germans are Not Your Friends”. Happily I guess, they did not believe me for a moment about the Germans, for there are many German car factories in the Czech republic, employing thousands of Czech and Slovak workers, and turning out not Trabants but rather snazzy VWs rebadged as Skodas, and also a lot of Skodas. Rovers and MGs are now of course Chinese. This is probably for the best, and probably a good thing for us all, if all factors are taken into account. I also warned them about the post-Gorbachev-USSR, but that will be another future story, the end of which cannot yet be perceived.

In the meantime, a new threat to individual liberty and small-nation-self-determination has emerged. If you are here, you know all about it. It is called the EU. Now you must be told, if you are new here and also perhaps not a Subject of The Queen or even a citizen of the wider Anglosphere, that “the EU” was not what was originally being sold to us here. What was initially aggressively, and very, very, very submissively sold, as an “honest, Guv, this is a really really great train, you ought to be on it” thingy,  to the British was a “Free trade Area” or “Common Market” – we should have got our hackles up at that already but didn’t. We already could have had free trade but it was supressed by the GramscoStalnists in power in the UK  from 1945 to 1979. The Schumanno-Monnetia-Nazis thought we’d bite on “Market” and fail to notice the barbed tarantula-sting in the “Common” bit, and they were quite right. We were had.

It did help them of course, that in the decades involved we did have more or less perverted-GramscoFabiaNazi-collectivophile administrations: these saw the way things were blowing in Europe and the world, saw the nice food with olive oil and garlic and the lovely sexy girls and the warmer and drier and more predictable weather and the vineyards and the cheap sex, and jumped in, on our behalf but for them and not us. (Why else did upper-class women throw wine over Sit Ternece Conran at parties, as a punishment for selling glass Tuscan pasta-jars in Habitat for £3.99 so “everyone” could buy them?)

To the British Enemy-Class, the EU is about power, money, unaccountability for expenses, junkets to Bamberg (twinned with Bedford!), sex with expensive “escort girls” (and you can pass it through as “entertainment”, which it of course is) and “calling for harmonisation”. To British people who can afford it, the EU is about lovely, lovely, sexy food at “bistros” that we were “just passing”, not having to “change money”, sex with expensive British chavettas in Ibiza so you can chat them up while pissed, getting English beer in Benidorm, garlic to make everything taste of something, and being able to fly to Prague for “stag” “dos” for 99p return. Oh and “buying that really great farmhouse, to live off the land”….

All this of course is not what Europe was really about.  Not even Jean Monnet, the Great buroNazi, envisaged that it would be that easy to defeat the Real Enemy. We did that ourselves. Europe, as in the “EU” is about recreating a Reich.

That’s why you have to keep voting until you give the right answer….until the Terror-Police are here which means you are relieved of having to vote, for the choice is the right answer or else to be killed. They are a little late with the Terror-Police, but I am sure this is being worked on even today.

Poor Vaclav Klaus, noble and intelligent chap that he is, cannot help us now. It is even the fate of his people’s principal politicians who mattered to be like that. How ironic and sad can you get? So. Either our history as a nation, and as the foundry-crucible of libertarianism, comes to and end here, or else something is done. There is no long-term strategic problem, as the history of Russia and the USSR has shown, in denouncing and repudiating things laughingly called “treaties”. We should look as a nation to our own interests. If we are a libertarian nation, then we ought to look out for our own interests even more fiercely, since we shall find ourselves under open threat even from those whom we once called our friends – as I have always warned and will continue so to do. There is no founding libertarian doctrine that says a nation state, once it has discovered itself either again or anew, ought to observe treaties that are inimical to its survival and which have been made by its predecessors.

Even Westminster says that no Parliament can irrevocably bind its successors.

So, well, there you are.

Shall we just go, now?

« Older Entries Recent Entries »