Category Archives: Britain

Liberal Vs. Libertarian Response To Ferguson (Rand’s Just An Opportunist)

Britain, Intellectualism, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Racism

“Liberal outrage over what some see as racial injustice” vs. libertarian anger “that connects the perceived overreaction by a militarised local law enforcement to [a libertarian] critique of the heavy-handed power of government”: As expected, BBC News adopts a more analytical angle on the “unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, following the shooting death of Michael Brown by a police officer.”

Expected too is BBC’s take on the libertarian scene. As its libertarian stand-bearers, BBC News has chosen from the ranks of Beltway libertarians, conservatives and Republican congressmen and senators.

“The state is big and powerful and violent and can hurt you, whether it’s the FDA, the state prosecutor or the local police force,” writes Hot Air blog’s Mary Katharine Ham, concisely summarising the gist of this libertarian argument.
Breitbart’s John Nolte puts it a bit more sharply: “The media hate police but without them, who will ultimately force us to buy ObamaCare and confiscate our guns?”
On Wednesday night Congressman Justin Amash, a libertarian-leaning Republican embraced by the grass-roots Tea Party movement, tweeted that the news from Ferguson was “frightening”, asking: “Is this a war zone or a US city? Gov’t escalates tensions w/military equipment & tactics.”
One of the leading figures in today’s libertarian movement, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul …

In his response to Ferguson, as is his wont, Sen. Rand Paul managed to straddle liberal and libertarian narratives, vaporizing idiotically as follows:

“Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention.”

Rand is the very embodiment of political opportunism.

British Libertarian Vows To Unite Behind UKIP

Britain, Classical Liberalism, Elections, EU, Europe, libertarianism, Nationalism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Correctness

In an interview with the German weekly Junge Freiheit, I ventured that,”Step one in reclaiming [European] national and individual sovereignty (the ultimate goal) is secession from the European union. Judging from their voting patterns, Europeans seem to grasp that adding an overarching tier of tyrants—the EU—to their national governments has benefited them as a second hangman enhances the health of a condemned man.”

Of course, there is something fundamentally perverse about the idea of the British partaking in “European elections.” Come to think of it, the notion that each ostensibly sovereign European country belongs to this overarching suprastate and must obey it is equally abhorrent.

My comment about “voting patterns” has, nevertheless, been borne out.

“The overall result,” writes Sean Gabb of The Libertarian Alliance, “is a big increase in numbers for parties which are hostile to the EU goal of ‘ever closer union,’ and even to the existence of the EU in its present form or in any form at all. In Holland, the Party for Freedom, led by Geert Wilders, came second. In France, the National Front, led by Marine le Pen, came first. The Danish People’s Party also came first, as did the Flemish separatist party in Belgium. In Hungary, the conservative party, Fidesz, came first, followed by Jobbik, which is describes as a national socialist party. In Greece, the leftists party Syriza (Euro-sceptic) came first, and the nationalist party Golden Dawn came third. In Finland and in Austria, Euro-sceptic parties did well, as they also did in Germany.”

Commentators and politicians are suspended between a rock and a hard-place, to use that cliche of in-betweeness. Do they diss the voter or do they revise their rejected positions? Some have just settled for the well-worn battle cry of “racism, homophobia, sexism, xenophobia, bigotry.”

Back to Gabb: “The big winner of the [British] elections was the UK Independence Party, led by Nigel Farage.”

UKIP topped the poll, winning 27.5 per cent of the vote. The Conservatives, who are currently in a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, came third—though this is largely because of a strong Labour performance in London, where native British are now a minority.[ Labour doubles its MEPs in London, BBC, May 28, 2014]. Significantly, the Liberal Democrats, the most pro-European of the main parties, were almost wiped out, losing all but one of their seats in the European Parliament.

UKIP must now be regarded as one of Britain’s major parties. This a huge achievement—and a useful reminder to depressed American patriots that new parties can succeed.

UKIP’s key policies: to leave the European Union, to end mass immigration, and to strip Political Correctness out of law and administration. … Whatever some people may think of UKIP, it is our best hope for pulling down the current order of things. I with enthusiasm, others with reluctance, have a duty to unite behind it. …

MORE.

Kate’s Keister

Britain, Etiquette, Feminism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Political Correctness

Unlike Kim and Khloé Kardashian’s “ass elephantiasis,” Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge, has a very nice keister. That’s not in question. On American TV, however, no questions are permitted about the propriety of a woman’s attire.

Watch Brook Baldwin, of the PC brigade at CNN, terrify London correspondent Max Foster, who questions Kate’s choice of wearing “the skimpiest knickers in her drawer.” To me it looks as though Kate has no underwear on. “As a woman I get frustrated,” Baldwin hissed at Foster. “Keep it out of the headlines,” she threatened.

(Via Bild)

Redcoat Pillock, Piers Morgan, Axed

Britain, Constitution, GUNS, Individual Rights, Natural Law

I sincerely hope the smug mug of Don Lemon, one of CNN’s many stupid and sanctimonious activists-anchors, will follow Piers Morgan into oblivion.

Morgan has finally been axed. For three years this pillock preached treason from his perch at CNN. I say treason not because he was undermining the dead-letter US Constitution, as some have claimed, but for the following reasons spelled out in “The Peerless Malevolence of Redcoat Piers Morgan”:

Most people would define treason as a betrayal of one’s country or sovereign. In my book, the book of natural law, treason is properly defined as a betrayal of one’s countrymen—and, in particular, the betrayal of the individual’s right to life, liberty and property. (To your question, yes, this renders almost all politicians traitors by definition.)

A right that can’t be defended is a right in name only. If you cannot by law defend your life, you have no right to life. If you cannot defend your property, you have no right of private property. And if you cannot defend your liberty, you are not a free man.

It follows that inherent in the idea of an inalienable right is the right to mount a vigorous defense of the same rights.

Knowing full well that a mere ban on assault rifles would not give him the result he craved, our redcoat turncoat has structured his monocausal appeals against the individual’s right to bear arms as follows:

1) The UK once experienced Sandy-Hook like massacres.
2) We Brits banned all guns, pistols too.
3) There were no more such massacres.

Were Morgan agitating for the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution—I’d call him a patriot, although he’d be preaching against the Constitution. My Amendment bias, why? The Constitution itself, in places, undermines individual rights. Therefore, to the extent that the document comports with the natural law, to that extent the Constitution is a good thing; to the extent that it flouts natural justice, it is bad. Inescapably—and more often than not—natural justice therein has been buried under the rubble of legislation and statute.

Thus, it is not Piers’ “attack on the 2nd Amendment” per se that makes him a traitor; it is that the 2nd Amendment is natural law, namely, it is based on a universally accepted, timeless moral principle. Because he is undermining this immutable principle, Morgan is suborning treason against his countrymen.

MORE.

Even Piers’ friends at the “New York Slimes” had to concede that,

Mr. Morgan’s approach to gun regulation was more akin to King George III, peering down his nose at the unruly colonies and wondering how to bring the savages to heel. He might have wanted to recall that part of the reason the right to bear arms is codified in the Constitution is that Britain was trying to disarm the citizenry at the time.