The Unoriginal Muse

A comment I made on this post at Moonbattery, which has nothing to do with the actual post but seemed relevant at the time…

Archived for posterity. I think I’ll start researching an essay on christianity and libertarianism. Are they compatible? Tough question.

Ian has nailed it, I think. A “true” libertarian is for small government and strong property rights, as indeed would be any conservative, in my view. And here comes my multi-paragraph ramble…

What a man does on his own property, as long as it doesn’t conflict with the 10 big laws, is entirely up to him. That is a libertarian view. Of course that swings both ways, inasmuch as whatever someone does on their property is no business of mine, my opinions of what they do on their property are no concern of theirs either. If I put up a big fence so I don’t have to see a gay orgy and play loud music so I don’t have to hear it, then they cannot complain and call me a homophobe because it’s all on my property. They can go fuck themselves… as it were.

Now speaking specifically on this extreme porn law, if you read the actual text of the law, it’s worded so loosely that just about anything could be classified as “extreme porn” under it. Specifically wording on what constitutes extreme pornography includes the phrase “is perceived to be”. Perception can be a very odd thing. You can say “I perceived that to be” and under this law it suddenly is, without any other evidence than your own words. I think that’s a very dangerous thing. More to the point this law is unenforceable on its own, which means it’s been created for two reasons: headline grabbing and charge-pumping. The former is easy to grep. The latter… lets say I was arrested for some minor crime, like eyeballing a police officer or something, so they come over to my place with a warrant because they suspect I’m doing something nasty. In they come, look at my computer. There’s a picture of my wife and a friend making a ludicrous pose on a ranch in paraguay, completely innocent and silly, but the police officer “perceives” it to be “extreme porn”. There’s another charge to add to the list. Oh look, there’s a whole bunch of other pictures, look, some of them include animals and that whip again. Suddenly I’m up on one count of eyeballing, 200 counts of possessing extreme pornography, thirty counts of possessing materials of a racist nature (reading moonbattery [or GoV - ed] - not liking muslims is racism, dont’cha know) and so on… and that’s just the computer. Wait till they find the photo album with pictures of my little nephew in it.

The point is a lot of these laws are virtually unenforceable and are used to provide alternative reasons for arrest and alternative means to secure convictions. They criminalise something that is an entirely personal decision.

Now, as a christian, I would not like to see anyone possessing these sorts of materials but, as a libertarian, I am loathe to use the power of the state to enforce the morality of others. It always backfires. A strong state is dangerous to its citizens. The state should primarily be concerned with borders and defence, and what goes on inside those borders, as long as it doesn’t threaten the common weal or the defence of the realm, should not be the business of the state.

And, you see, this works both ways. Without the state to back it up there are no “gay rights”, no “gay marriage” argument, no sickos parading the streets with tacit government approval demanding I “respect” them and their “lifestyle” or any of that crap. These things wouldn’t happen with a small, unintrusive government. It’s big government, government that creates laws like that “extreme porn” law, that encourage the activities of these “activists” who want to redirect the power of the state to enforce their morality on everyone else. Without that power they can’t do it. Laws like this are a demonstration and extension of that power, which is why I oppose them.

Oh yes, also a bunch of loser socialist politicians lost some elections. Go the other side!

Circumstances. Lets just say that all the women in my life are ganging up on me, though they don’t know it. Just when everything seemed to be going so well for a change…

ETA: To which I add, never try to help people who haven’t asked for it, because you will always screw things up even more. The phrase “I was only trying to help” seems like a great justification at the time but it’s hollow. The assumption that someone needs your help in any circumstance where they’re having difficulty is the assumption of superiority, that you know better than they do, what they actually need, from which spawns all sorts of madness. Interfering in a situation where you only have half the picture will cause more problems than it solves, and isn’t guaranteed to solve any problems at all.

Perhaps I should add a new “deflating ego” category…

A while back there was a bit of a controversy over the suggestion that St George should be replaced with St Alban, who is seen as more “inclusive”.

There’s an irony at the end of this particular farce, though.

Saint Alban was a pagan soldier in the Roman Army stationed in Britain. His exact background is unknown, but popular tradition declares him a native Briton. Bede says he lived during the religious persecutions of the Emperor Diocletian (c.AD 304), though modern historians have argued for similar circumstances which arose some years earlier, during the reigns of Decius (c.254) or Septimus Severus (c.209).

During these dangerous times, Alban received into his house and sheltered a Christian priest, supposedly named Amphibalus, and was so struck by the devotion to God and blameless life of this man whom he protected, that he placed himself under his instruction and became a Christian. A rumour having reached the governor of Verulamium (now St. Albans), that the priest was hiding in the house of Alban, he sent soldiers to search it. Alban, seeing them arrive, hastily threw the long cloak of the priest over his own head and shoulders and presented himself to the soldiers as the man whom they sought. He was immediately bound and brought before the governor who, at that moment, was standing at one of the civic altars, offering up a sacrifice. When the cloak, which had concealed Alban’s face, was removed, it was immediately revealed that he was not the priest whose arrest the governor had ordered. The latter’s anger flamed hot and he ordered Alban, immediately, to sacrifice to the gods or to suffer death.

St. Alban steadfastly refused to offer to idols. Then the magistrate asked, “Of what family and race are you?”

“How can it concern thee to know of what stock I am?” answered Alban. “If thou desirest to know what is my religion, I will tell thee - I am a Christian and am bound by Christian obligations.”

“I ask thy name, tell it me immediately.”

“I am called Albanus by my parents,” he replied, “and I worship and adore the true and living God who created all things.” Then the governor said,

“If thou wilt enjoy eternal life, delay not to sacrifice to the great gods.” Alban rejoined,

“These sacrifices which are offered to devils are to no avail. Hell is the reward of those who offer them.” The governor ordered St. Alban to be scourged, hoping to shake his constancy by pain. But the martyr bore the stripes patiently and even joyously, for our Lord’s sake.

When the judge saw that he could not prevail, he ordered Alban to be put to death. On his way to execution, on 20th June, the martyr had to cross a river. “There,” says Bede, “he saw a multitude of both sexes, and of every age and rank, assembled to attend the blessed confessor and martyr; and these so crowded the bridge, that he could not pass over that evening. Then St. Alban, urged by an ardent desire to accomplish his martyrdom, drew near to the stream, and the channel was dried up, making a way for him to pass over.”‘

Then the martyr and his escort, followed by an innumerable company of spectators, ascended the hill above Verulamium, now occupied by the abbey church bearing his name. It was then a green hill covered with flowers, sloping gently down into the pleasant plain. However, the executioner refused to perform his office and, throwing down his sword, confessed himself a Christian also. Another man was detailed to deal the blow and both Alban and the executioner, who had refused to strike, were decapitated together.

EBK: St Alban

These sacrifices which are offered to devils are to no avail.

Says it all, really.

compare and contrast. The comments in the second one are particularly enlightening of the mindset at LGF… no context, no urge to try and find out the full story. Just hate.

I thought we were fighting hate.

I left Robert Spencer a long note, not defending Dymphna as such - she’s a big girl, she can do it herself - but mostly urging him to consider the position he’s taking and the people he’s aligning with, and the circumstances surrounding this ordeal.

People who rubbished the first concerted effort to oppose our invaders. People who sided with the violent thugs of the AFA, the Antifa, what you might call the unofficial brownshirts of the anti-western multiculturalists. People who sit in their safe homes, decrying anyone who stands up for their national identity.

People who do demonstrate hate, as opposed to people who are merely accused of demonstrating hate.

There’s a direction I would love to see Mr Spencer take, however, whatever decision he does eventually reach, I know he will base it on as thorough investigation of the facts as he is capable of, and as complete an understanding as he can accomplish. Unlike Charles, Robert Spencer at least makes the effort to understand what he’s criticising, which is why he is so very insightful in his commentary. Which is why, whatever decision he makes, I won’t stop reading.

It’s one of those conclusion times again. Oh yes, ignore my previous post about commenting, I realised that my oh so valuable opinion was much needed.

Yeah.

Seriously though I realised withdrawing myself from the conversations was actually arrogance, assuming I was better than people simply because I didn’t agree with them. Then I spotted my quite up top and remembered myself again. So that’s that out of the way.

Recently I have noticed attempts to frame the current conflict in terms that make it “pro”. The naming of things is an important step in a man’s attempt to deal with those things. We name diseases because we want to know what we’re facing. We name foes. We find out the name of our enemies whenever possible. We even name the weather. Hurricane. Storm. We anthropomorphise it too, with gods and spirits and the like. Loki and Thor, Hurricane (again), Jove. The angel of death. We humans desire concrete enemies with names because a named enemy is easier to fight.

I’ve found, generally, that man stands a far better chance of fighting against something than for something. A minority will have the noble ideal of fighting for freedom, for justice but the vast majority couldn’t give a flying fig. They fight for money, and they fight against the bad guys. The current attempt to frame our fight in terms of “for civilisation” or “fir the west” might work for the noble few, but the majority want a baddie they can take pot-shots at. Why else would Bush Derangement Syndrome be so prevalent on the left if not for the fact that people need a bogey-man to blame their ills on? What did Bush do to them? Not much… but he’s symbolic.

Likewise we really need something to fight against. The ates of Vienna post I linked above contains an attempt (derailed, sadly) to discuss what we should collectively call ourselves. The most popular term up to now has been counterjihad. Against Jihad. We fight to counter it. It works, it creates a unifying common purpose. Unfortunately there are always people who try and frame the fight in terms of what are we fighting for? High ideals, of freedom, of western civilisation and the like are wheeled out. People start to argue over what, exactly, these things mean. What is freedom? What ios freedom in the United States, vs freedom in France, or England? What is western civilisation? Is it McDonalds? Is it Ikea, or Barcelona, or the louvre? Is it the highlands of Scotland or the walls of Byzantium?

Deciding what we’re fighting for is perhaps something best left for when we’ve beaten what we’re fighting against.

Nevertheless…

In Flanders field the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

– Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918) Canadian Army

This is our culture, our birthright and our duty; to honour those men who lie beneath the earth of this continent, who died to preserve its liberty, and who’s graves and memories will be trampled into the dust if we allow our civilisation to fall to the new tyrannies that besiege it.

I haven’t mentioned it much but we, as a family, are working into property development at the moment. After months of insanity trying to sort out the ownership of a piece of land and release the funds, we’ve finally broken ground on our first property development. The foundations are going in as we speak… incidentally trapping my car, since it’s parked behind the place where they’re digging. Whoops.

But this is good! In a few months we’ll have the apartments built and sold and we’ll be squillionaires. Or, at least, in a position to potentially become that since it’ll let us pay off the mortgage on the family residences. In the current economic climate, outright ownership of property is absolutely essential because the banks are starting to get twitchy about their incomes.

So. Yes, we’re off on the journey. Next year it’ll be property development overseas. Paraguay here we come!

It’s the post you don’t want to make. The “I’m leaving such and so” post, the one that makes you sound a wee bit superior and snobbish, holier than thou, or just plain arrogant. Yep. That sort of post.

Gates of Vienna, more than any other blog, got me into this whole blogging thing. The Baron and Dymphna, and many of their commenters, are fine, upstanding, intelligent, witty - all those lovely descriptions you want to give to people but never really have the time, or if you do have the time it doesn’t quite seem appropriate, or… well, I’m rambling again. The short version is: they’re great. Unfortunately I feel I have to withdraw from regular commenting on GoV.

Two reasons. First, and probably foremost, my comments were getting long. We’re talking essays. I only did a few of that length but, each time, I was aware that they were pushing the limit of politeness. One or two transformed into posts here at the Muse, which is always nice. At some point it becomes impolite to keep using another’s blog for your own posting, so I’m setting a fairly strict word limit; anything over the top comes here as a post.

Second, and I have to be frank, the commentary has degenerated into a howling, vicious mob. GoV has always been about unity in the face of a common enemy and for a while that was understood, but it seems that the attack by LGF has had a profound psychological effect on everyone involved. We’re bickering. We’re arguing, picking each other apart and for what? To prove that America is the best, or that europe is the best; that some race or other is inferior; that x version of christianity is the truth faith and y is the spawn of satan. How in the hell are we meant to face our enemy when we make enemies of each other wityh such ease? The mullahs must be laughing their arses off at the sight of such disarray. It angers me up quite thoroughly. It’s another example of the ignorance I’ve ranted about here in the past; carrying on with a stupid idea or quest in the face of overwhelming evidence. Having knowledge and ignoring it. Ignorance.

Baron, Dymphna and the sane denizens of GoV, I thank you for everything, but it’s time I moved on for a while. Frankly if I stick around I’ll just make a complete tit of myself. I can only assume that this is a temporary thing, that the bickering will die down again when people reach an equilibrium, but until that happens I just can’t be involved, as I would only make things worse with my presence.

Whenever you see a rainbow, just remember that someone else is getting rained on.

Updated: Welp, after a careful watch of the news for the last week or so it seems this thing is definitely an urban legend, as Baron Bodissey was kind enough to point out in the comments. C’est la vie.

My mother, bless her, works for Manchester City council. I shall not say which department she works in because there are some crazy people out there who like to beat up council workers in certain departments for no reason. Anyway, now and then she forwards internally circulated documents to me, mostly safety alerts and the like. Most of it is stuff I can safely ignore but this one, well, this one caught my eye.

CORE TEAM BRIEF

June 2007

Briefing Team: Chief Executive/Corporate Directors/Clinical Directors/Directorate Managers

Security

Warning - We have received a warning from the London Ambulance Service of activities in their area. Whilst the below behaviour is not common place in our area I have spoken with Greater Manchester Police and their risk assessment of the action is to circulate it as a potential’

The London Ambulance service have units closely associated with the Police based in South London who are basically Fighting Gang Crimes. The ’street gangs’ in London (particularly South London at present, but it is sure to spread) have initiation tasks which new gang members have to carry out to be admitted to the ‘gang’. The latest craze is to drive around, deliberately with no lights on their cars. The first person who ‘flashes’ them, points at them or sounds their horn at them, has to be followed by that new gang member in their car, who then has to fire a shot into that vehicle with no regard as to who is inside.

Our official instruction is that if we see a vehicle with no lights on, we are NOT to ‘flash’ it etc. and the advice to friends and family is that you should ignore any vehicles you see without lights. I would ask that you pass this info on to all your family, friends and colleagues and who knows, it may save a life.

Trust Security Manager

An incident similar to the above was reported in the Tameside Advertiser not more than half a week ago, wherein a passenger in a car shot at another car for no apparent reason and then sped off.

I could try and make a series of tenuous connecting links but I think I’ll just let it rest here, for now.

This is a worrying trend. The biggest gangs in greater Manchester are dominated by asian muslims these days, closely followed by hindus and sikhs, with various other gang groupings trailing a long way behind, and if they start adopting this sort of behaviour it’ll get really ugly, very fast. There are already street wars in some areas, between muslim and hindu gangs, that simply don’t get reported because it would make the whole racial harmony thing look bad. The last thing we need is another excuse for them to start shooting at each other, yet this is exactly what will happen if this fad takes hold of them.

And where are the police? Holed up in some regional headquarters somewhere, attending racial sensitivity courses, when they should be out in force, cracking heads. Who gives a damn what colour they are?