THIS is too much


David Davis

The citizens of Wootton Bassett ought not to be asked, any more, to do what they do, unless of course it is their will so to do.

Now, you and I both know that 199 soldiers killed in a minor regional war, far away, while assaulting some pre-capitalist-scumbags who do not represent even the mainstram of Islam, let alone the by-ways, is not a great number when you consider the figures for, say, the Battle of the Somme. Or even Alamein. But that’s not the point.

This government wants to pursue a war in Afghanistan, and even though it is composed of scumbag lefty liberalism-destroying Nazis, that does not detract from the premise that this war is a correct one. They could be the wrong people fighting the right war. The very fact that this “Taliban” chap does not come forward and surrender to us shows that we are right, since he keeps on fighting us, using whatever Ammonium Nitrate and diesel and aluminium powder that he can find in the local markets – for it shows that he means frankly and cheerfully to overwhelm us. He has the option to stop, and just go home and cultivate poppies or grain or cows or barley or alafalfa or jute or whatever, but he does not: he continues to fight us. We have to ask why.

We can test the premise by disengaging. If he come after us, then we were right. If he does not, then we were wrong.

So where does that leave the grand and noble people of Wootton Bassett? It is noble that they continue to turn out, but there is a limit to anyone’s store of pity and sorrow. You really can’t ask more of these great people than they have already given. If I was them, I would be rioting: for a change in Government such that if we are stuck in these blasted wars, because the other NATO buggers wearing hairnets won’t come out at night because they are sleeping after manning the photocopiers all day, then our poor chaps ought to have at least some of those South African mineproof thingies to go raiding in. (We raid, because we are right. Latin verbs…I raid: you take cover: he runs: we overcome: you surrender: they die. It is what you’d call an “Irregular Verb”…) Or even, at a push, the American humvee-dooberries that do the same thing. It is obnoxious to continue to protest that these chaps carry on dying becasue  their vehicles are made of rice-paper, and this Gramscoid outfit which says it pays them won’t give them something better, because it hates them and what they stand for.

Lots of Libertarians eschew force, in all contexts. That’s fine. I don’t think one ought to initiate it, but if there are dudes who openly state that their Nirvana is where you are dead and that whatever pre-liberal nastiness they like is the order of the day, then we ought to be eliminating them. The “Taliban” bloke is probably an Aunt Sally for the real enemy which is here at home. But the real one won’t take us seriously unless we have previously destroyed its sock-puppets for it, ideally on the Wireless Tele Vision, first.

Riddle: “Why won’t Gordon Brown go to Wootton Bassett?


David Davis

Because he’d get told what people really think of his attitude towards the Armed Forces (whom he hates and despises and fears and won’t give money to, all at once.) And so he’s quite afraid his appearance there might start a riot, quickly turning into a revolution.

Green custard would be nowhere: it would be something worse.

Don’t expect any members of the Government ZanuLieBorg gramscoFabiaNazi Enemy Class there any time soon.

Just bugger off, Gordon, just go....

Just bugger off, Gordon, just go....

Libertarians – at least some of us – are not against prosecuting foreign wars in the absence of a “vital national interest”. It’s just that we perhaps differ about what the boundaries of a vital national interest are.

I happen these days to believe that, under the threat of extinction by new Labour, the borders of a Libertarian Polity actually encompass the entire globe. Like the Saxons and Vikings saw the Sea as a Road and not a fence, and like our borders once ran along the coasts of all other nations at once, the destruction of extremely “serious” and cheerfully-frankly-unlibertarian chaps in the mountains of Northern Pakistan, who have sincerely vowed, on television, to destroy us and what we stand for, can be seen merely as the protection of an English national interest.

So Gordon won’t be going to Wiltshire quite yet, then. (People seeing the coffins, and him, in the same moment, will trip them over the edge.)

But if there was an election, he’d get to Swindon in about 9 minutes.

Surely, though, the Minister of Defence could go? Not even incognito? Nobody knows who he is anyway…He’d probably get egged – nothing worse, even if discovered…..

Afghanistan: If I was Gordon Brown and considering my policy of fostering a Taleban to take people’s eye off what I’m up to here, then I wonder how Wootton Bassett will vote in an election.


David Davis

[It seems that The Ranting Penguin already agrees with what I’m about to say.]

I don’t think I know what a “Taleban” is. Is it some kind of yoghurt? If so, why are we dying? Or is some “friendly power” secretly arming these buggers? We need to be told.

[In Lebanon, “Laban” is Greek yoghurt, and “Lebni” is a sort of slightly tart soft cheese (it’s very nice, on a hot day, on a cheese-biscuit or something. With a biggish glass of Chateau Musar from the Bek’aa Valley vineyards.)]

A “Taleban” ought to be easy to eliminate in theory, faced with the theoretically-sufficiently-armed and armoured specialists of a First-World military power…..

Now, this town has the sad destiny, currently, to be where The Men Whose Names Live On These Walls and who have fallen in Afghanistan, pass through most days now, on their way to rest.

(That’s not in Wootton Bassett, it’s here.)

It is beginning to dawn on me, after years, that I am a curious sort of libertarian. I am in fact a Marxist-Leninist turned upside down. This is getting quite comfortable for me these days, and I will develop my ire further in this regard.

Thus for now: I do not object to foreign wars at all, if fought by a minimalist State based on Classical liberalism, which knows it has an obligated, indeed actually a divine, mission to supress wickednesses elsewhere, such as Statism, fabian-subverted-pre-capitalist-barbarian-survival-guide-warlordism-masquerading-as-religion, general slavery of all kinds (still going on in countries about 3,681 miles from you), “communism” (getting to be old hat now as Chè, Castro, that Sendero-Luminoso-droid, Kim-Jong-Il and Hugo Chavez, Jimmy Carter, and the fascist-pig Mitterand all died physically years ago) and the like.

Indeed, an emergent British – or more possibly English, “state”  having withdrawn from both the UK and the EU – libertarian government, may find itself with a variety of post-Bandung kleptocracies arrayed against it, with erstwhile “friends”, such as “France”, and perhaps even “Belgium”, eagerly selling modern armaments to our new potential enemies, speciifically to threaten us.

But in these wars which we now seem ot be fighting, I believe that we do //not// have to have what Sean Gabb calls a “vital national interest”, in my opinion. The very fact that terrible evils and unfathomable wickednesses are being done to humans in the name of “unity”, in the name of “progress”, and in the name of “people’s democracy”, is the justification to act to stop this nonsense and blood, if we have the power. We are in favour of Natural Rights, which human beings all possess by definition. If we do not have the power to act in these situations, then it is //our problem, and our failing//, and thus I am moving rapidly to the belief that it is [imho] our obligation to acquire the needed power – and to use it in such fashion. Sean knows quite well that he and I disagree in general terms although not necessarily specific ones on this matter and it is quite friendly: we argue about it from time to time in his sojourns up here, and thus reports of the death of the Libertarian Alliance are very premature.

The problem for GramscoFabiaNazis such as Gordon Brown, who like all socialists wants to be seen as “hard” and “warfighting” [it’s in their genes sadly] while also crooning pacifistically to the post-modern British neo-CND left, is that he can’t sit on two toilets at once, like John Prescott that unexpectedly clever fellow, can. He can’t both shit and get off the pot simultaneously in two places. He wants to be seen as an important chappie in three ways: “supressing the supply of heroine and cocaine”, fighting the “War On Terror” [a contradiction in terms] and also cosying up to people like ShootinPutin187 whose gas and oil he thinks he needs and who got bloodied in Afghanistan 20-odd years ago. And yet at the same time he has also to appease his Enemy-Class-Paymasters who hate all things British (especially English) and who especially hate the Armed Forces, who of course /won’t/ cosy up to the ZanuLieBorg “Project”, and consist mostly of people either disregarded or despised and hated by the “New Labour Project”.

So where does poor little Wootton Bassett come into this terrible story? You will already all know how very, very deeply I despise and excoriate synchronised public grieving. I have never failed to bore you, year after year, with my hatred of the emotional incontinence which overtook this strong and gripped nation, at the death of the horrible Diana.

But this is different. [If the lefties can say such things, so can I.] Nobody told these poor people, sad at what was happening, to turn out. Not like the mafia-instructions to close all our shops [or else] on the day of Diana’s funeral. They just turned out.

A casualty list of eight chaps in a day, in 2009, is a disaster in today’s terms. This is not 1916, when we were locked in an insoluble battle against an equally-technologically-advanced set of enemies – this is 2009 and we are again fighting what used to pass for [pre-1914] small colonial wars against people that we called “towelheads”, in which we expected to take small but ongoing casualties while yet assuring victory. But our priorities and our perception of the deaths of soldiers in wars today has changed, while our supposed ability to deal with modern battlefields has increased.

This sort of misfortune ought not to be happening to a First-World-Economy’s armed forces, against pre-medieval barbarians [OK they are individual humans, but they “chose poorly” , as the old mailed knight said in the end-scene of “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.]

Gordon Brown clearly wants and needs a war in Afghanistan. That’s why he has both flagged an increase in the number of our solders there (currently about four brigades) and also a decrease at the same time. He wants to please all his paymasters at once, and thinks we don’t listen. Either he wants “victory”, to destroy all the cocaine and heroin, please ShootinPutin187 and look hard, or else he does not, through not giving our chaps any kit at all that works, so that he puts them all off from joining the Army [a GramscoFabiaNazi medium-term-objective] and thus pleasing the neo-Harold-Pinters of this planet.

But the people of Wootton Bassett are trying to tell him something. I can’t think it will be to his advantage as a Prime-Mentalist.