We stand aghast, at the possibility of “military intervention by the USA” against – of all places – Mexico. We know that, since “drugs” are grown in Latin America, and since Mexico is in the way of their transfer to “Film Stars” and wannabes in British North America, where these things are officially illegal to have or trade, that therefore mexico will be on the road of transfer.

This is all very well and ought not to matter. Cars and lorries carrying cocaine and other stuff whose names I can’t remember ought to be able to cross Mexico as though it was anywhere. The problem arises because – and only because -  it is locally illegal to have, sell or use these substances, in the points of destination.

This has several effects:-

(1) It makes the substances themselves more desirable in the eyes of certain people. They will want it more because “The State” says they shouldn’t have any at all at all at all, for their own good at all at all at all .   Nsty useless Hollywood delinquents film stars will leak details of their use of it, and because they are pretty and shaggable (and that’s just the men) you will want to do it too, as you are sheeple because the liberals Stalinists have told you to become so.

(2) It makes it risky and unprofitable and demoralising, for legitimate businesses to supply the stuff. If you wozz an off-licence, would YOU want to supply cocaine to any willing buyer, if you got raided every week by the rozzers for doing it, and had your shop smashed up by them (rozzers) and were put in jug?

(3) It makes the risks of supplying it worthwhile, for shysters and hoods, who don’t mind having to shoulder the boring business of killing people including police and soldiers, in the course of securing their hold on the distribution of of their stuff, to you. The £5-a-day habit, if the stuff was legally sold through chemists even including the impost of State Taxation, becomes the £100-a-day habit if you have to buy it through hoods who have to insure themselves – at your cost -  for their own risk against both the State and against other hoods who want to compete, for what is really a rather small niche sector.

(4) it makes jobs for Police rozzers. Rozzers are inherently tormented people, who ought not to have got like that; they need psychiatric help, and quickly.  Just as you ought not to want to be a criminal, also you ought not to want to be a policeman in the 21st century: what does that desire say about you, and your morals, and world-view, as a person?

So the way forward is quite clear. ALL drugs have to be legalised, in all jurisdictions, preferably by yesterday. This will have a number of good effects:-

(1A) The “Police”, currently a pantomime collection of gamma-minus droids unfortunately increasingly supplied with real guns as opposed to things that shoot out a flag which says “bang”, and who are “employed” by their “states”  not in chasing real muggers, robbers, burglars and killers but in harrassing “drug dealers”, “motorists”, “paedophiles”, “racists”, “terrorists”, “non-payers of council tax”, “TV-license-evaders” and “climate-change-deniers”, will find that their workload is decreased alarmingly. We will “need” fewer of them. Good.

The main solution to civilisation’s ills is

fewer Laws,

and more and better people.

There may even be “calls for” “FEWER POLICE ON THE STREETS”. I think that in a civilised society, the police ought to be invisible: see poll below.

(2A) The use of “drugs”, which is to say substances currently classified as drugs”, by all people, will fall dramatically. or it may not: I do not know. But I think it will fall.

(3A) The legalisation of “drugs” will mean that Galxo-Smith-Klein, Schering-Plough, Ciba-Geigy, and all the others, will be abot to compete legally for whatever market they think they can get. Adverttisisng will be allowed. Advertising is the best way to garotte bad stuff fast. The purity and quality of products will thus rise, and the price will fall to the point where the “State” will come in.

(4A) The “State” will take a take. Where GSK wants to sell you your Ecstasy for 50p a go, via the chemist down the road in Shaky-street (PR8  . . . ) , the State will take £4 or so, making it about the price of 20 fags. What’s the point of going and doing crime, if it’s only that much? You can get it from your dosh you that get “on the sick”.

OK so the “State” wins, win-win in the short run. But it’s got to justify how it needs to spend so much less on policing, since there’s so much much less less petty crime going on down.

That in itself will be tremendous fun to watch.

Rant

This poor woman complains that children hang themselves when allowed Wireless Tele Visions in their bedrooms: they watch “inappropriate material”, and decide to die.

I have no knowlegde about that sort of thing. I have never decided to hang myself after watching anything (albeit rarely these days) on the Wire-Less Tele Vision Machine. However, I have decided that Libertarians should agree that Adults should be banned from having Wireless Tele Visions in their bedrooms. Here’s why:-

Mostly, when it is on in the bedroom (which I regret having allowed about two years ago, when I was forced to go and buy a “flat screen TV” for this purpose) my dear wife is watching some “reality” “TV” “programme” about cooking something where the “chef” has to manually handle the food – why is it always freshly-cooked fish? -  in close-up at all stages even after having cooked it: or fashion-shows for narcissistic lardbutts, or “home improvement”, whatever that concept means. (Homes are for being lived in and for keeping stuff in out of the rain, like books and scientific instruments, they are not for being “improved”.)

All I want to do in the bedroom these days, within the spectrum of pursuits allowed to me by my dear wife, is read a number of books all at the same time, and so to have many of them at hand on the floor. (The pile at my side of the bed keeps being “tidied up”, which means I then can’t find any of the right ones at all, as they are all in the wrong order and piled up (and up and up) by size and colour instead of subject.)

I cannot concentrate on a book’s text if some arsehole on the telly is spouting.

So, I think the BBC should send round its detector vans and immediately imprison (and afterwards fine heavily)  anybody caught watching the house’s Wireless Tele Vision Machine in the bedroom.

“More pressure on teenagers to have sex at Christmas.”

I would have thought it was the obvious time. Midwinter: priests are haranguing people: you’re cold and tired: there’s a party: there’s free alcohol provided by someone else: and of course it’s when Jesus Christ was born. So there. Go to it teenagers.

In 1966, at Christmas, I first cuddled my first proper girlfriend properly, in a big armchair, in a darkened room, while the softer slower record was put on at the party, by the parents of the host, in the other room. I was 14, she was 13. My friends in the same room were the same age or not much older. We were all in the “Lower Sixth”.

Now THAT was what we called “sex”! (But it was before sex was invented on the Wireless Tele Vision.)

I still wonder about her even today.

…but The Landed Underclass has the right idea here.

Harry Haddock at “A nation of Shopkeepers” is more hard-hitting. Wish I’d had the foresight this morning,  to say what he does.

David Davis

This morning the Quislingraph led early with news of proposals to “give Internet Sites Cinema-Style Ratings”, which is of course newspeak for the first steps in censoring the internet, probably via state pressure on ISPs.

Guuido Fawkes, always with a nose checking the wind, has already made plans to move his site out of vulnerable jurisdictions, such as the UK and USA.

This is coupled with earlier tentative threats from the EU and from someone called Hazel Blears, to “regulate” bloggers (which States do not like) – this basically means Classical liberal and libertarian-leaning ones I expect. Once this power and the one flagged above are in place, Gordon Brown and his new accolyte the Onebama will be able to trumpet that they’ve done it all “for the children”. The Quislingraph piece is a classic screed of socialist caring-nonsense, dripping with parental concern which gets the sheeple nodding vigorously in agreement (we all love children don’t we?) while yet shrouding a terrible threat in the subtext, which next to nobody will pick up.

Again, once in place, i wonder which political parties a State will force the ISPs to proscribe? Obviously the BNP will go down the road of invisibility first, it being the State’s main left-wing competitor and also fully-corporatist, for mass franchise support. I expect UKIP won’t fare much better, and it will take some time for the buggers to catch up with LPUK, but they will, they will.

If “major ISPs” cave in and refuse access to sites deemed “unsuitable for children”, then “Best Practice” will inevitably be followed. You won’t even be able to get Wikipedia or Google, since this is unavailable on the LANs of most British State schools – and I dread to think how we’ll get ot Youtube.

Does anybody know how people get round this sort of restriction in places like China, Iran and Pakistan?

Viagra for Afghan warlords. Well, I never! I guess it makes sense as the stuff comes from India as £2 a pill or less, and probably cheaper over there as India is down the garden path.

But perhaps the CIA ought to think of its friends first, instead – as always – of its enemies? Perhpas it ought to be offering lots and lots and lots of it to ageing British and American Libertarians, so that we can beget lots and lots of Classical liberal children? After all, that’s what the enemy is doing isn’t it? (They pretend not to need Viagra, but perhaps the Man-Woman-Meme involved is different…in the West, the sheer physical effort involved, to make the woman “willing”, takies it out of you a bit. Nature intended hominid f***s to be really quick as is right and good, or you would get eaten by a giant-short-arsed-bear while your back was turned, literally.)

If I was a serious Pope, such as Benedict XVI and John Paul II both are, and being either of those two gentlemen thus realising that uncertain trumpets are of little use, then I would view the current state of the Anglican Church with unease.

It’s like the deck-fittings and masts of a tall ship in a storm, which have come loose: and now they threaten the survival of the rest of the boat if not jettisoned.

Perhaps he means to “widen the rift” inside Anglicanism. It could be seen as a strategic risk on one hand, but also as a way to do some much-needed tidying-up too. The Asse-Hat has consistently made an arse of himself and the Church he’s supposed to lead, for some years. The C of E has been allowed to carry on behaving like a minority sect, so perhaps the Pope thinks it’s time it was one.

Within the last hour of this post, the value of the Pound Slerling has gone below the value of the EURO!!

this is a terrifying prospect, but as of 23:11 GMT, £1 is worth 0.72 Euro cents (my keyboard cannot do euro signs, funny though, because it can do everything else though, even these: Ψ Φ ♦ ♣ ← ↑ → ↓↔ θ Ξ ¿)

I make no apologies to anybody here on this blog about the difference between right and wrong.

The Classical liberal West is truly, yes it is, the best way for people to live. ALL other systems or “philosphies” or even “religions”, except for some I may talk about in the Libertarian Alliance Christmas Post, are errors at best (and should be avoided), or else they are diabolic and deliberate conspiracies to destroy – at worst – and should be expunged. Socialism, personified by the US “Democratic” “party”, falls some way towards the second category.

The demolition job on Sarah Palin, frightened shiteless of her as the Nazis Democrats have been, since she was the nearest thing to a US President that the Republicans conservatives possessed this year, has started. Predictably, they are clearing up stuff about her family and its extensions first. they’ll start on her when they really get going.

You just watch them, while they prepare for 2012.

This is what I believe is called a “Face Book page” or “Face Book group”. I have no clue what these things are at all, but I have looked at it, and it sort of looks like a blog I suppose. Thanks to The Remittance Man (who lives and works sufficiently far away from all this sordid stuff to be able to comment disinterestedly) for flagging up the business to do with poor Rhys Jones, of whom I guess by now that the world has heard. Not the sort of posthumous fame he would have wished for… What the world thinks of the socialistically-trashed city down the road I can’t dare to guess.

The Army’s got the right idea though.

Libertarians have been banging on, mostly unheard or ridiculed, for decades, about the need for all free people to have, and to be trained to use (by their fathers, which mostly they will have) guns. This sort of rubbish, of gun-toting unsocialised teenage gansters, would be moonshine in such a civilisation. They would last about five seconds.

Mr Eugenides, here, lauds The Devil, who did it here, about some film review or other for some “picture” about Che Guevara (and no, you T-shirt still it not cool, you juvenile wannabe-murdering-scumbag.)

All we know about Ernesto “Chè” Guevara, on this blog here, is this. It’s a good picture for Christmas:-

That's better, that's more like it, see if you can pick up a St Hilda's chick while wearing that.

But the whole spat does raise an interesting point (interesting to me anyway…). The vast majority of the “film” “industry’s” stuff, described very seriously as “output”, seems to be what we on the liberal wing of politics would call “counter-cultural” – which is to say: it glorifies persons who either are authoritarian, or who would become so at the drop of a hat. We only rarely get something like “The Lord of the Rings” which even Gramsci himself would have difficulty politicising against his own culture. Here’s a list off the top of my head:-

Che Guevara

Lenin (a long time ago, in I think “Nicholas and Alexandra”)

Ghandi

William Wallace (a terrorist who got what he deserved, and no he was NOT the father of Edward III.)

Those journalists whose names I can’t remember who shafted poor Richard Nixon

Titanic (all that s*** about the poor thrid class Irish being locked in to drown….reprehensible, and if I was the legatees of the Shipping Line, I would have sued.

And many others.

The people who do this gear should try making the films in North Korea, or Cuba, about Kim or Fidel.

I guess the other point is that, well, we all want to be able in this cyber-age to be “up with it”, though what “it” is with which we have to be “with”, is ill-defined. We all want to flag useful and interetsing stuff to others, i guess.

Now I’m a big fan of games, obviously, I’m a 14 -year-old, and thanks tho the f****d-up school curriculum, I have learnt more about World War II from the games Call of Duty 2, Call of Duty 3, and Call of duty: World at War than I have from every history lesson I have sat through on the subject.

So I was on this website looking through the index of free full games to download, and I saw:

Eco Warriors: Invasion of the Necrobots

Acording to the descrition, it is set in southern Italy ”In a not so far future away…” At first, it had the makings of a normal game:-

Robots appearring in towns, woods and countrysides.
A dark enemy is conspirating to destroy us all blah, blah, blah………

But then, this popped up in the description:-

But there’s a new hope!

A team of warriors has been raised to defend Nature: The Eco Warriors!

A huge battle is getting closer…

and that’s the description…..but its basically about saving the environment, and the game is absolutely S***: here are some screenshots for your enjoyment:

(if the pictures did not load up, here is the link)

If you want to try this game, (that is to say, if you are delusional), here is the link to download it:

http://www.gamershell.com/download_36282.shtml

I and the Libertarian Alliance and the blog, are NOT responsible for any damages to the mind or your PC or Mac or whatever you have, I did download it and try it, and my PC was undamaged. !DOWNLOAD AT YOUR OWN RISK!

not sure how to end this, so  here is a poll:

You may pick multiple answers.

The English translation of this recently published novel, “Conspiracies of Rome” – written by Richard Blake, a dear friend of ours of course (else why would it be on here?) – is a good read.

Buy it now....sequel also nearly available

It may very well be all right for everyone who feels like joining a pub-drinking-group to be free to attack, main and kill, without recourse to any audit, anybody who (may have been, or was, or was said to have been, somewhere, sometime, who cares when?) involved in child abuse. Or it may not. I do not know. People of course need outlaws, otherwise how can the rest of us know if we are “in”, eh?

In the coming endarkenment, it will be hard for an ordinary TV-watcher to distinguish between an average normal state-socialised-child-abuser and a Doctor who treats children’s diseases. This confusion will be deliberately enhanced, by the Wireless Tele Vision Channels, for the purpose of maximising readership I guess that’s what it’s called?) even though almost none of the poor buggers watching it can read…..

Personally speaking, I would not, being an English Mother (let me pretend to be one for a bit) dress 10- and 11-y-o English Girls in half-naked sleb-clothes, and then send them out to shop, in pairs or groups. A seriously stupid idea whic will only lead to more trouble.

And  all you indolent bastards  out there might find this even a bit funny too:-

…oh, and good for the Okkers. Sod the veggies:-

And this is probably too comfortable to be an Udenopticon….

The forces of tyranny and endarkening are, yet again, going to drape a veil of “democracy” over their command that a certain answer be given – when deep questions about a people’s sovereignty, and who they will allow to govern their affairs – or not – are posed.

If it was not so serious and threatening, it would be hugely funny, and great harmless political theatre for all to relax to over a G-&-T in the evenings.

Imagine something like “the X Factor” or “Pop Idol” (is it called that?) refusing the result of a telephone poll about who’s become the latest sacrificial victim celebrity, until the programme makers got what they asserted was the “right” winner”?

For all I know, that’s exactly what they do anyway, but at least in this theatre the harm done is nugatory….and it sells papers for Rupert Murdoch (harmless act) or whever the outfit is that owns the “Daily Star” (also harmless.)

What’s the betting that poor young James Purnell won’t succeed, and he’s just become a a Brownian Sacrificial Swipe at the New Left, for Brownelectoral reasons?

The socialists can’t afford to abolish their clientariat.

They can’t. Just can’t.

It does not matter what their name is. James Purnell. Frank Field. Gordon Brown. Clem Attlee, Ted Heath (huh?)

If they do, they will never get their hands on the levers of power again, for “the people” will have abolished these, if truly liberated.

I have been going on about it for years, privately.  Everybody (nearly) to whom I mention this thinks I am a deranged cretin. Never mind: that’s life, and then you die after it.

The risk of an asteroid collision is of course, in National Lottery terms, astonishingly small, but integrated over many centuries and millennia, it is uncomfortably large. If Liberty of the human individual means anything  significant, then it means that there have to be human individuals around to enjoy the sort of liberty, informed and also protected by the twin pillars of Science and Christianity (Gramsco-Marxianism, being an enemy of both, can go hang and take advice about foreign travel and procreation simultaneously) in which we – Gramsco-Marxians notwithstanding – live now.

The info that the UN is involved is very very very bad news. This outift has morphed, from loftily-moral and essentially good beginings, into an evil, wicked and anti-human organisation, peopled by dictators, and paid for by classical liberals: its only purposes are to keep Robert Mugabe in power, to promote slavery in the teeth of the Navy who try eternally to abolish it, to deify “Al” “Gore”, who makes disinformation-movies about “climate” “change”, and to authorise the slaughter of the South Sudanese by others. there may be other crimes that I will lay at its door later tonight, when I have devilled a bit more.

But something has to be done about a strategic asteroid defence shield. We can’t leave the matter to chance, such that the Universe could be, after all…..ending its life…..empty of life. Corporeal death cannot be the End of All Things, if we work at it.

UPDATE 1: Philip Johnston in the DT has opinions about what the Stalinists government will now decide to do.

David Davis (not that one, no, I’m just the duty-bumpkin )

The Police are going to be “asked” (I guess that’s what it will be) by the European Court of Human Rights to “wipe” the DNA records and perhaps other info on “about one million people”. Knowing today’s British-State-Policing-Strategy-Directors, whoever they may be, as we suspect that we do, we wonder how soon this landmark event will take place – think what it is…..the absolute destruction of pinpointing information on about a million British males.

Of course 99% of them are males: what did you expect? And a higher-than-average percentage of them are “black” too, and “young”. This is also wrong and should be addressed, but there may be other socialist-based reasons for this apparent crime-apartheid, such as the education system being designed to fail young males in particular as this is deliberate, and the multicultis deliberately separating the socialisation of “young black males” from the culture they live in, via media-music, “rap” (whatever that may be) State schools, Maxo-Gramscian teachers, and ministers who “groom” the said teachers to be lefties, and the like.

Do you think for one minute that the feminazis would have kept so quiet about such a terror-tool, as they have done – their silence is deafening – if even a slightly appreciable percentage of wimmin (of any sort whatever) were on it?

Nay: it is good that there is a “ruling”. I can’t say, personally, what notice the “Police” “Forces” of this state will take, yet, or at all. They may, they may not. They may make a show of “destroying” “records”, of a sort. This will be for Sir Paul Dacre’s benefit.

But it is good that the EU Soviet is at least pretending to look out for people’s interests, in some things, sometimes. Sean gabb and I both agree that the EU is “a” problem for liberty, but ultimately it is not “the” problem – which is our home-grown (sadly) bureauNazis.

I have recently been criticed on here for bandying about the word “Nazis” too freely. I have therefore decided, that, in the manner of Margaret Thatcher, who read the Guardian each morning and then decided to do the opposite of what it recommended, that I do not use it freely enough. Stalinists of even more kinds than before will now be dubbed what they are: Nazis.

The essence of freedom and individual liberty lies in the free use of language, its ability to adapt to changing threats (threats change all the time: Nazis are no more stupid than we are: just wrong and thus bad becuase they have freely decided to forcibly promote socialism.)

They, the leftie Database-promoting-bastards, such as the Home Office, and some Police chiefs here I expect, must live and be and bear it, to thank the German language and its colloquial orthography, for the spoken grammar that gave rise to the single most sound-bitey word I can find, which describes best all that socialists stand for and do. Remember that Stalin was always Hitler’s ally: his only mistake in the war, which was I guess fortunate for him and for the USSR (sadly) was that he had not properly read “Mein Kampf”, and what it said about which brand of socialists Russia was going to be for.

The “Home” “Secretary”, who is described as a “Jacqui” “Smith”, has proposed that the ordinary and normal kind of prostitution, which is to say that men pay women for

(1) sex

and

(2) other (possibly related conditions, such as fetishism and wearing rubber suits or football shirts and things)

(3) or what must be totally non-sexual things in my view – such as what I believe is called “oral”, “golden shower”, “anal”, “69″, all that strange stuff in the Karma Sutra, and suchlike,

is to be discontinued. It is proposed by this droid and its people that it will be an offence for the man to offer reward for this sort of stuff. Now, as is the case with all “serious” crimes today, it is proposed and factored in that the following will happen, charge or no: the man will be of course named, shamed, hung, drawn, quartered, and then fined, so that his house can be torched, his wife can leave him, the local mob who read the News of the Screws can come round and throw bricks, and generally indulge in the sort of behaviour that Peter Ballz-a-Gotte can film for reality TV.

The idea is to make it an offence for a man to pay for sex with a woman “who is controlled by another for gain”. Well, there are some ways round this one, which will of course nullify the desired effect of the new legislation:-

(1) He could use an “independent escort”. Legally, the onus would be on the State to prove that the girl in question was not indepedent” – hard I would have thought, but they can threaten and push him about and get his DNA while they are about it, and probably manage to ruin his life I guess, which will create another single mother out of his wife/girlfriend, which will please the state-clientariat.

(2) All women who want to go “on the game” can set up as independents. Yep, that will really help to look after them, won’t it. I offer the idea of http://www.punterpoint.com to anyone brave enough or brazen enough to set it up. Perhaps the Russians would be interested, which will do a lot for the government’s statistics about “organised crime”, taking a chunk of it totally offshore, so that JS can say that “it has decreased”.

http://www.punterpoint.com , or http://www.punterpoint.ru if that’s what it is, can help “punters” get in touch with independent women, in the obvious way. Either a woman can put up her pic etc, giving contact details, or else a punter could put up a “want it now!” like on ebay, specifying his particular requirements (there could be a menu even) and his rough location.

This would have two beneficial effects:-

(A) It would fall within the legal area of the legislation, in that the woman undertakes that she is not “trafficked” or “being controlled”. Hard to do if all done in cash……..ah……………THAT’S what they want all our banking and mobile phone and internet records…..!!!!! Ho Ho Ho HO Ho ……..

(B) It would cut out the middlemen of what I believe are called “Parlours” (or, in Blackpool, “Houses” – it sounds much cosier!) and also the blokes called “Pimps”, whatever those chaps do. The real price of the various “services” would quickly settle at what the Market thinks they are worth. Stuff may become cheaper, or not – I have no idea but it’s worth a try.

(C) It would be a defence for the man, when his computer is seized, to show that he was looking for uncontrolled, untrafficked women!

The disadvantage is possibly for the women who would no longer be able to work in “Houses”: I would guess that a “House” offers some measure of protection and security against crazed, drugged, violent or obsessive “punters” (who could be barred and certainly kept out) in return probably for a cut of the dosh.

Let’s see what the reaction is to this one: if the “Jaqcqui” “Smith” (wish I could spell its name) comes out against this too, then we’ll know that the whole gamut is nowt to do with “protecting women” and everything to do with CRIMINALISING HETEROSEXUAL SEX ASKED FOR BY MEN IN PARTICULAR , and moving along the road to where the State authorises sex for procreation of “resources” only, on its terms – regulating in all respects when and with whom it takes place.

We shall truly have become their Farm Animals. Forget about banning or regulating cigarettes, alcohol, and driving: forget about being able to fantasy-act your fetishes (animals don’t have them so far as we can tell) – this one here, the human thing, sex with whom you want, when you want, providing yours around you allow it, is the really big stuff of Fabianazi control….you’ve really got people by the balls….(sorry.)

So, now, I think that people who might be actually interested in making the whole game safer for everyone involved, seeing as it will go on regardless (unlike drugs which are mmuch less natural and less intuitive as forms of behaviour) might like to tell the “Jaxcqui” “Smith” (I can spell “Smith” !!!! ) to go and see these people here and talk to them, about these issues here. I guess they know what they are going on about.

And, here’s what Iain Dale said, nearly three days ago now. I read it then – wish I’d said something earlier – l’ésprit de l’escalier….

Thought it was quite droll. Used-Fast-Car-dealer Bernie Ecclestone’s current troubles merit a mention, as does the Home Secretary, “Jacqui” “Smith”‘s views on how and why men will be criminalised for paying for sex with women, but no other combination of sexes is apparently to be so victimised (see Julia Roberts pic.)

BBC “admits serious lapse” (of sanity or judgement I presume?) over Ross/Brand affair.

Perhaps the BBC is just another socialist-sausage-machine: it takes money from the terrified bourgeoisie, who are afraid of being prosecuted and destroyed as a result, uses it to fund pornography, such as people saying “f***” on live television, and then gives the product to the socialist-state-clientariat, for nothing (as it will not prosecute them for “watching without paying”.) If they do…. They probably do (watch without paying, a lot of them.

Who cares?

In a libertarian society, I fully expect that there’d be TV channels where you oculd say “f***” on live television. But you’d have to pay for them. I expect. They would not be especially mass-market. This is just not what Anglosphere people want to do or see. We are moral and liberal. (I DID say “liberal” yes.)

In return, nobody would force you to do so. No “detector vans” would come round, to pretend to see if your telly was saying “f***” without having paid the channel that transmits “f***”. All that the State would have to do (and not even that really) was to supply Courts which would discover if your telly had said “f***” without your having paid for it to do so.

The whole thing, as Auberon Waugh would have discovered long ago, is just an intellectual-property problem. If the monies collected by the BBC were regarded as collected by force, whether you used the service or not, then it was just stealing and doing robbery. If not, and it was regarded as consensual, just to fund sort of journalists and machines and stuff, then it could transmit, but could not also then charge you as well for receiving. Also it could not legally know who was receiving.

The corollary of this is the death penalty exacted by the Nazis for “receiving foreign broadcasts” or “having prohibited receivers”.

I think we all ought to start cutting off our BBC direct debits. Let’s see what happens.

Let’s call their bluff. I’m going to cancel our DD now, and see what happens.

So here’s Keeley Hazell to cheer you up:- (sorry about the pretentiously-twaddlistic music. I can do nowt about it.)

That’s all I could get without “signing up” to YOOTOOBE and saying how old (very old) I am etc etc etc so I could talk to you. So I could print topless stuff etc, although I would not as this is a family bolg (as you all no.)

And here’s a bit of stuff about power stations, to remind you of what you have lost. This stuff is endorsed by the anti-human-life guy James Hansen of NASA. He wants you all dead:-

I think that “daughters” ought to know what war is – they ought to be told quite early on, so as to know who to go to bed with, and not to. This is because they might, then, as mothers, tell young men (whom they have brought forth) not to go off in a drug-crazed huff and “fight for” socialist causes …… such as Nazism, Communism, Gramsco-Marxianism, and also the wilder wings of certain pre-capitalist-desert-survival-guides (that I could mention.)

This would make life much easier for liberalism, for we would not then have to buy soldiers. Liberals don’t really want to kill people.

David Davis

Guys dressed like that don'.....

‘t get to f*** sexy girls. if you’re a murdere with the face of a skull, they won’t want you even to wear a condom, they will pay for you to be removed.

Just look at the buggers. There’s a spat I hear, about one of them phoning some old guy about his grand-daughter. I’m sure it was “good broadcasting”. Now, I know jack-shit about slebs, not finding the Wireless Tele Vision News very helpful in my estimation of what’s happening to the planet – so I don’t watch it – at all at all at all. But these two have got to have been smoking or snorting something.

He

Which one of the buggers is which? I do not know. Pray tell.

How are we going to re-encompass the regrowth of liberalism, if we have to contend with buggers like this, who contrive to upset people, for money, paid for by our taxation-take? What useful work could they do in a Libertarian nation, holding the beliefs they clearly do? I do not know.

What is to become of the BBC? What goes on these days is embarrassing to an old and civilised culture which thought it had given birth to it.

I am not suggesting that we ought to shoot all its directors, programme-controllers and major-presenters out-of-hand, against a wall in White City (a bit drastic I admit.) But ought a way to be found to curtail these Enemy Class excesses, while also removing the prohibition on ordinary British mortals from receiving RF signals?

David Davis

I am beginning to warm to Gerald Warner in the Quisling-rightygraph. He asks, not unreasonably given the evidence in other areas, whether this government would “fight gun crime by issuing pistols to children”.

Indeed, it is quite interesting, that one particular problem – the rise in violent crime involving use of knives and guns by “young people” – is deemed to be dealt with by massive public demos headed by slebs (knives) and the complete erazure (of the very idea of guns) of the existential presence of guns from play or social scenarios. In my wife’s workplace, no “war toys” are permitted, and the very word “guns” is greeted (when uttered by a child) with a firestorm of ultra-honeyed and deeply big-brotherish brainwashing from the “practitioners”. Yet….when it comes to sex and all that….

….school-children are actively sexualised from day one. One really wants to wonder who the pornographers really are – who exactly is the Enemy Class?

Here’s a poll…you may vote for more than one answer:- (apologies for the question being so long: it is supposed to say:

Is the British Enemy Class compulsorily sexualising other people’s children merely in order to have a supply of them for itself to shag, or is this a deliberately hurtful way to do a demolition job in a civilised nation and its culture?

One recalls that, under the tutelage of Baldur von Schirach, there was an epedemic of pregnancies in the Bund Deutsche Mädel, thought to have been caused by the Hitler-Jugend. But if NSDAP policy tacitly allowed this, then arguably it had a point – only the master-race would be allowed to shag and mate and multiply freely, leading to political advantage for the Party. But if the British-State-Enemy-Class is trying to create an elite cadre, then its strategy has got to be the wrong one.