War and liberalism

David Davis

Statists and other varieties of socialist have more or less succeeded in making the planet as dangerous a place as the buggers can get away with. Liberal minimal-statism will never, ever be forgiven for causing useless pre-capitalist-barbarian intellectuals and poseurs to be fully redundant.

This article in the Torygraph caught my eye this morning, and filled me with forebodings concerning certain things that happened in Britain’s recent history. I regard event like WW2 as having happened “this morning”, sometimes, in the light of how I perceive the March Of Time.

It is in general not good to (as the late Osama-bin-Liner said about weak and strong horses) seem to be a weak horse. This is because that Man’s biological instincts and use of neo-English-social-rationality are not at all walking in step in the majority of populations, nations and races today, in contrast generally with how they are in populations inside the Anglosphere.

Modern “Democrat” US Presidents seem to be an exception, a sort of throwback to pre-settlement-primitivism, in which you go out occasionally to slaughter and eat the other tribe’s males and capture their animals and women and girls for breeding and perhaps eating later (that’s the women, perhaps aged as much as 17 or 18, and whose teeth have started to fall out or smell or who can’t seem to calf a live-male-baby more than once a year.)

Here’s what I said earlier on facebook about Sir Peter Wall’s rather good advice to the government. As is clear, on that platform I always try to adopt a much more viciously-populist, shrill and more strident tone of voice (I require some rather timely and soon election-wins by UKIP, anywhere where the British-LabourNazi party’s Writ-of-Praemunire over “postal voting forms” can be challenged):-

Our problem is that we have (sometimes) very very good kit. Then the ChIndo-Americans steal the plans and make it smaller, cheaper and faster.

 For example: we invented…The Rail-Way (both a war weapon and a general-goods-cost-reducer) hence state-imposed “standard-gauge”)…tracked tanks…breech-loading artillery…iron warships (some even steam-powered)…radar…the atom bomb (yes we did, we were ahead of the lot in 1942 and moving faster, but were also bust)…aircraft-carriers…revolving mines that bounced on water…Hobart’s Funnies (specialised engineering vehicles)…the jet-engine (such a banal thing that I almost forgot)…

 Then, as true all through our modern history we go into a war, sometimes the wrong one but sometimes the right one, but all-unprepared because we’re not the kind of civilisation that glorifies warlike behaviour. We then go bankrupt in the pursuit – always justified – of Mankind’s mortal enemy at that moment. Regarding WW1, I tend to side with King George V who said on record that, er, yes it was an unimaginable disaster for us, but that he couldn’t see what else we could have done.

 WW2 was the inevitable result of the very very unsatisfactory and very  bad USA/French-directed “peace of Versailles”, and again we had no moral alternative, even while being less able to land troops in Poland than we’d have been able to do on Mars.

 The planet would by now be an even shittier place than it it is if we’d not opposed Napoleon with utter resolution, and finally brought the bastard down. (For f***’s sake, he arranged Council Refuse Collections while in exile on Elba – why could nobody else see what was coming to torment us then?)

 Then to cap it all, we disown and dump and despise our returning soldiers, from the Armada onwards. we don’t really “know, as a civilisation, how to _do war_ : that’s our problem.