The sad bit about this is that 20 years ago this would be entirely uncontroversial

Our politicians are wrong about internet censorship

CapX

It took us many centuries, a lot of effort and much expended blood and gore to get to this place where we are free – at liberty and ruled by the law, not the whims of people nor the rage of the mob. That we have those who would snatch them from us worries me far less than what our rulers will do to us and our liberty in the name of protecting us from those bearded nutters.

68 comments on “The sad bit about this is that 20 years ago this would be entirely uncontroversial

  1. The problem is that once Islam has sufficient numbers defending civil liberties using reasoned argument will be irrelevant. We can only have an open society if we keep Islam out of it. This probably requires us to be illiberal in some ways.

  2. Our political classes are finally starting to seem not so much irrelevant, but part of the problem. I think before long they’re going to be swept away by a rising ‘populist’ tide.

    Meanwhile there are a lot of young leftists becoming increasingly radical. Let’s hope we can avoid civil war.

  3. We can’t afford to let perfection be the enemy of good enough. And since we already don’t have free speech and related liberties, giving them up a bit more to deal with a deadly problem isn’t such a big deal. We’ve done it before and we can do it again. We just have to make sure we actually deal with the deadly problem.

    We’ve already demonstrated an ability to overcome internal repression. I don’t anywhere has ever internally recovered from Islam.

    Besides, Twitter and Facebook are based in the US. Teresa can’t censor or block those.

  4. I wonder if the Jews in Medina said something similar – sadly they all got killed so we can’t find out.

  5. “This probably requires us to be illiberal in some ways.”

    Yes–to them. They are the source of the problem they can have the police state or go. There is no “equality before the law” for enemy aliens.

    PJF: You must be joking.

    The Global Elite scum want the Internet scuppered–they know it means fuck city for all their plans for us. And their Head Girl and Milk Monitor is already on the job.

    We should give up not one iota of freedom. Not fucking one.

    And work together in every way possible to protect the Net. Both technically–which is what will foil their schemes ultimately–and by political agitation.

    It is time to make the biggest pest of ourselves we ever have been. May is likely to win but she has screwed her own future. I have –for example–never seen such effort from the Tories. It must be costing them a fortune. TV, Netads, letters and leaflets thro the door. Dress Ups bungling must have them shitting bricks.

    Now is time for informing every Tory Grandee and local hack–MP or Councillor–of what a liability May will be to them. Her mistakes will come thick and fast from now on and neither the Tories–or the rest of us–can afford her bungling. Let alone her malice and that of her masters.

  6. “Yes–to them. They are the source of the problem they can have the police state or go. There is no “equality before the law” for enemy aliens.”

    Absolutely. The point is to preserve the UK and Europe as free places where it is nice to live, not 3rd world style shitholes with draconian laws and tribes of violent inhabitants that hate each other.

  7. But this doesn’t mean we have to bend over backwards to invite people who hate the very idea of freedom to come here, to make it easy for them to do so, or to have any qualms about revoking or not granting them any of our freedoms in the first place.

    Places are the people that live in them. I don’t want to live in a 3rd world failed state, therefore I don’t want to share this country with many people from 3rd world failed states who carry the poisonous culture of those places with them

  8. Somewhere along the line it’s going to require “to discriminate” becoming a reputable verb again.

  9. “This probably requires us to be illiberal in some ways.”

    Uh Huh.

    “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it”

    “The problem is that once Islam has sufficient numbers defending civil liberties using reasoned argument will be irrelevant. We can only have an open society if we keep Islam out of it.”

    In the long run, the only way to win is to *change* Islam, which means corrupting them with our cultural values through constant interaction. We need to be less accommodating and tolerant of intolerance, but we need to make sure every Muslim child grows up wearing T-shirts and jeans and listening to Western music, and thinking their parents are old fashioned and out of date losers. Cultural isolation is precisely what the Beards want (it was Bin Laden’s main demand to get the Americans out of Saudi), so we don’t corrupt them with our sinful Western values.

  10. I don’t want to share this country with many people from 3rd world failed states who carry the poisonous culture of those places with them

    This.

    I can understand why the buggers want to flee hell-holes various. And to here.

    What I can’t quite get is why they want to bring with them the attitudes and behaviours that made whereeverthef**k (too often -stan) a hell-hole in the first place.

    And I certainly don’t welcome them demanding that we adopt the same.

    But I certain that some of our more woke brethren on here can enlighten me. Or just shout ‘racist’.

  11. “In the long run, the only way to win is to *change* Islam, which means corrupting them with our cultural values through constant interaction. We need to be less accommodating and tolerant of intolerance, but we need to make sure every Muslim child grows up wearing T-shirts and jeans and listening to Western music, and thinking their parents are old fashioned and out of date losers.”

    We’ve been trying this. It isn’t working. A huge amount of second- and third-generation young Muslims are trying the Western lifestyle, rejecting and it and turning back to Islam.

    “I don’t want to share this country with many people from 3rd world failed states who carry the poisonous culture of those places with them”

    Agree with this.

  12. It is a necessary and sufficient condition for there to be an absence of Islamic terrorism in a country that there be no (or few) Mohammedans. Whether this is achieved by not letting them in, making life so unpleasant for them that they voluntarily decamp, or gassing them, is a policy decision. Those three choices are ranked in descending order of ease and political palatability, but sadly the first has already been precluded in almost all of Europe and North America.

  13. The simple reality, Tim, as you apparently only remember on alternate days (or is it that the recent outpouring of outright racist bile round here reminded you how far-right your commenters largely are?), is that we don’t need protecting from anything. More people die of hypothermia in summer in the UK than die from terrorist attacks. More people die by being trampled by cows*.

    [*Or other animals. But I assume cows or horses, being trampled to death by rabbits seems unlikely, there can’t be that many circus elephants around, etc etc.]

    If you subtract from the recent attacks the usual number of knifings by the kind of nutters who seize on whatever is the latest cause to hit the papers, you’re overwhelmingly more likely to be killed by a malfunctioning household appliance. If you’re actually worried about the chances of being randomly killed while walking down the street, become a road-safety campaigner – again, you’re vastly, overwhelmingly, orders of magnitude more likely to be killed by a shitty driver while minding your own business on the pavement.

  14. Surreptitious Evil:
    “Spain?”

    Spain was reconquered from without, via war and repopulation by Christians.

    I was talking about a people “converted” to Islam that rejected Islam internally. I’m not aware of it ever happening. I’m really not sure it is possible.

  15. Mr Ecks:

    “We should give up not one iota of freedom. Not fucking one.”

    And how are you going to square that with your famous purges of “CM scum”?

  16. “It is a necessary and sufficient condition for there to be an absence of Islamic terrorism in a country that there be no (or few) Mohammedans.”

    It is a necessary and sufficient condition for racist nonsense to be trotted out for there to be an absence of any connection to the real, fact-based world, however tenuous. There are several countries which have populations that almost entirely practice that religion and which have never had any domestic terrorist attacks whatsoever.

    While we’re dealing with tenuous connections to reality, terrorist attacks in this country are far more likely to have been carried out by those who follow Catholicism than those who follow Islam. Should we stop Tim at the border next time he visits? I understand he’s a Papist.

  17. “We’ve been trying this. It isn’t working. A huge amount of second- and third-generation young Muslims are trying the Western lifestyle, rejecting and it and turning back to Islam.”

    Most of them get Westernised. A few revert.

    “It is a necessary and sufficient condition for there to be an absence of Islamic terrorism in a country that there be no (or few) Mohammedans. Whether this is achieved by not letting them in, making life so unpleasant for them that they voluntarily decamp, or gassing them, is a policy decision.”

    Which is to say; in order to defeat the Beards, we have to become them.

    “More people die of hypothermia in summer in the UK than die from terrorist attacks. More people die by being trampled by cows”

    Yep.

    But what about the number who die trampled by the Authoritarian Jackboots of the State, who justified their rise to Absolute Power by appealing to the people’s fear of outsiders…?

  18. “There are several countries which have populations that almost entirely practice [Islam] and which have never had any domestic terrorist attacks whatsoever.”

    Please list them.

  19. “Utter delusion.”

    My parent’s generation grew up as 1970s Socialists. Most of their kids rejected that mindset, and grew up with a more Thatcherite perspective. But a small proportion of kids today have reverted, and Corbyn is quite popular today with a lot of youngsters. (I think about 20,000 members?)

    Until you’re as eager to deport all the British children of 1970s Socialists as you are Muslims, because of that small number of the 2nd/3rd generation who support Corbyn, I’ll take that as the usual nationalist hypocrisy.

  20. PJF>

    But it’s not, it’s the reality, same as it has been throughout history. It takes three generations for immigrants to assimilate properly.

    Your protestations would have more merit if they weren’t precisely the same accusations that were thrown at Jewish immigrants a hundred-odd years ago. They were accused of being anarchist terrorists instead of Islamic ones. They were accused of not assimilating. Etc etc, ad nauseam. It never changes, you lot need a new tune to play.

  21. Most of the shithole countries were actually modernisng back in the 50s/60s/70s. It has not been a resounding success, has it?

    Be that as it may, at the very least, those fuckers have had free healthcare and education and that is how they repay the favour.

    As for NiV and Dave, you are too stupid for words.

  22. “Most of the shithole countries were actually modernisng back in the 50s/60s/70s. It has not been a resounding success, has it?”

    On the contrary. It’s been very successful. There’s still a long way to go, but progress is being made.

    “Be that as it may, at the very least, those fuckers have had free healthcare and education and that is how they repay the favour.”

    So has every British criminal. You want to deport all the British?

    “As for NiV and Dave, you are too stupid for words.”

    From you, I’ll take that as a compliment!

  23. Thomas>

    It’s hardly controversial. Pretty sure the list starts with the UAE. There are lots of Muslim countries out there, like Northern Cyprus or Oman, which you perhaps wouldn’t immediately think of. Most of them have never had a domestic religious terror incident. Some of them, admittedly, export terrorists, but the original contention was absurdly wrong.

  24. “Modernisation and Westernisation are quite different.”

    True. Not all Westerners are very modern. … “Whether this is achieved by not letting them in, making life so unpleasant for them that they voluntarily decamp, or gassing them, is a policy decision.”

  25. SE>

    “Except we have Islamist terrorist atrocities? Are we allowed to consider that they might make a difference?”

    And they didn’t? There were plenty of anarchist terrorist attacks, plenty of Jewish anarchists, it was no more or less absurd a link than the current one.

    And what about Oman? Have I forgotten something obvious there?

  26. ‘More people die of hypothermia in summer in the UK than die from terrorist attacks.’

    And your point is? Terrorism is okay? As long as it kills fewer people than hypothermia? When it kills more than pleurisy, will it then be a problem?

  27. “In the long run, the only way to win is to *change* Islam, which means corrupting them with our cultural values through constant interaction.”

    And what if that doesn’t work? We let in millions of Muslims, and they stay Muslim, and start voting for Muslim policies and parties? I have no desire to take that risk.

    “It is a necessary and sufficient condition for racist nonsense”

    Accusations of racism just don’t work any more. Don’t give a shit what assholes like you regard as racist now.

    “More people die by being trampled by cows”

    No, they don’t About 5 people a year get killed by cows. Less than were killed last Saturday. And anyway, cows aren’t publishing literature about taking over the world.

    “you’re overwhelmingly more likely to be killed by a malfunctioning household appliance.”

    Not true. And we fix faulty appliances, we don’t just leave them to continue to kill.

    And again, last time I looked toasters weren’t making bombs in the basement and plotting jihad. And toasters don’t vote. Toasters can’t get elected to councils.

    “Which is to say; in order to defeat the Beards, we have to become them.”

    Not letting Muslims into your country doesn’t make you a Jihadi equivalent. Japan, Poland, Hungary, they don’t let many Muslims in, are they evil? The UK doesn’t even let most Australians emigrate who want to come here, is that evil? Was Britain evil in the 1950s? Defending your borders is common sense. Rolling over and letting your country be taken over by foreigners is just idiotic.

    (You also need to learn how to use a semi-colon.)

    “Most of them get Westernised. A few revert.”

    No they don’t. Not all become radicals (or apparent radicals), but how many become atheists? Or Christians? Most stay Muslim. They’ll adopt some of the trappings of Westernization, for the time being, but most have more loyalty to Islam than the culture of their host country.

    “But what about the number who die trampled by the Authoritarian Jackboots of the State, who justified their rise to Absolute Power by appealing to the people’s fear of outsiders…?”

    That happens when those in power get too disconnected from the people. The surest way to create a British Mussolini is to ignore the people’s views on immigration.

    “Your protestations would have more merit if they weren’t precisely the same accusations that were thrown at Jewish immigrants a hundred-odd years ago. They were accused of being anarchist terrorists instead of Islamic ones.”

    Certainly. But Jews don’t come to Western countries and then go around waging religious war, and publish literature which explains exactly how they are planning to take over the world (hence such literature had to be faked), bombing planes and trains and concerts, and running around London knifing random people to death. Jews don’t persecute, kill and drive out the non-Jews from their culture.

    Nazis and Communists did, however, make it clear that they wanted to take over the world. And guess what? That’s just what they tried to do.

    “Pretty sure the list starts with the UAE. There are lots of Muslim countries out there, like Northern Cyprus or Oman”

    That’s because those countries are *already* Muslim. The Muslims don’t need to take over, do they?

    Northern Cypris is tiny, and made of of predominately Sunni Muslims. Oman: almost everyone, other than foreign workers, is Muslim, and they’ve already got Sharia law. UAE: mostly Muslim. Sharia law practised (and promoting other religions is restricted).

    So pointing out that these countries don’t have terrorists is beside the point. The issue is Islam immigration mixed into a modern Western country.

    ““Most of the shithole countries were actually modernisng back in the 50s/60s/70s. It has not been a resounding success, has it?”
    On the contrary. It’s been very successful. There’s still a long way to go, but progress is being made.”

    Are you kidding me? Iran, Eygpt, Libya, Jordan, Syria, Qatar? They’re going backwards, not forwards (while Saudi Arabia stands still).

  28. ‘There are several countries which have populations that almost entirely practice that religion and which have never had any domestic terrorist attacks whatsoever.’

    Ahhh, yes, the Religion of Peace™. When EVERYONE is Muslim, there will be peace.

  29. NiV is an SJW flake of epic proportions.

    His trannie ramblings are dopey enough .

    But his “friendly persuasion” will “corrupt Islam ” cockrot now goes beyond mere stupidity into terminal delusion. And it will of course be others who get terminated.

    Still waiting to hear how many Jihadis you have so far personally brought to the light of peace and love NiV.

    Non too fucking many as recent events show.

    Dave is scum even for an SJW. Where NiV is merely a prodigious fool, Dave is an actively malicious cunt. Who holds his SJW puke over the –unimportant to a Marxist tool like him–lives of those murdered. No big deal to Davey-boy who dies–so long as it isn’t him. They were probably waycists and anti-semites anyway –right Dave?

    PJF–You can’t even read. I have said countless time that the Purge consists of cutting socialist scum off the taxpayers tit. It is the twin death-cults in this nation and the West generally( of which socialism is by far the worst) who are using violence and death as a tool to try and get their way.

  30. Oman? Oman? Never had problems with an Islamist insurgency? Do you mean the Oman that had to call in the SAS to retake the Jebel Akhdar? That Oman? For fuck’s sake.

  31. NiV – “In the long run, the only way to win is to *change* Islam, which means corrupting them with our cultural values through constant interaction.”

    If only we could change cancer cells to normal ones by being nice to them. But we can’t. So we poison them and blast them with radiation instead.

    Still, I am sure that the doctors of the world would be interested in your approach.

  32. Dave – “It takes three generations for immigrants to assimilate properly.”

    We should be well down that path then. How is that assimilating thing going then?

    “Your protestations would have more merit if they weren’t precisely the same accusations that were thrown at Jewish immigrants a hundred-odd years ago. They were accused of being anarchist terrorists instead of Islamic ones.”

    And indeed British Jews disproportionately sided with the Soviet Union. They too hated us and wanted to do us harm. Probably still do although Palestinian terror makes that dumber. People like Eric Hobsbawm were also given asylum in this country and he repaid us by working to make sure the Soviet Union liberated Britain. Those accusations are not false.

    NiV – “On the contrary. It’s been very successful. There’s still a long way to go, but progress is being made.”

    Well Iran can make nuclear weapons now. That’s a plus.

    Dave – “It’s hardly controversial. Pretty sure the list starts with the UAE. There are lots of Muslim countries out there, like Northern Cyprus or Oman, which you perhaps wouldn’t immediately think of.”

    So you know nothing and you’re full of sh!t. The existence of Northern Cyprus – with its rapes, murders and ethnic cleansing – is an act of terrorism.

  33. It’s a process to reverse the pernicious trends started by Blair. First acknowledge tolerance for other faiths and cultures but insist that ours has primacy, not equivalence, which naturally leads to the fact that Sharia law has no status. Second, thanks to Brexit we can ‘control’ our borders by declaring that nobody immigrating to the UK will receive any benefits for 5 years, which will have a significant (dis)incentive effect. Indeed, 20 years after handover the HK system works well as a template for the UK post Brexit. You need a work visa which entitles you to residency – but no benefits – and a biometric ID card which is needed for all interaction with the state. After 7 years you can apply for permanent residency. Those who believe ‘god will provide’ will find that doesn’t work very well in the UK. Then there is simple good housekeeping. Fast track asylum seekers in or (mostly) out. No reference to ECHR right to family stuff (also no benefits as above). Deport all non national criminals to their home country, generously using the foreign aid budget to help pay for their prison. It doesn’t deal with the home grown terrorist, but it stops the inflow and most importantly stops the Islamisation of the country.

  34. The inflow of Muslims is the biggest threat. Everything else, internments, deportations, may ort may not be good ideas. But in terms of the long-term threat to the UK it is vital that we cut off Muslim immigration. Not just cutting off benefits to Muslim immigrants, but stopping them coming in. And stop the family reunion BS. Otherwise the UK will become a Muslim country in a few decades (or else we get civil war).

  35. Bloke in Costa Rica:
    “Oman? Oman? Never had problems with an Islamist insurgency? Do you mean the Oman that had to call in the SAS to retake the Jebel Akhdar? That Oman? For fuck’s sake.”

    That was a communist insurgency. An anti-Islamic communist insurgency at that. One of the hearts and minds techniques the SAS used was to present the fight against the communists as a defence of Islam.

  36. Mr Ecks:
    “I have said countless time that the Purge consists of cutting socialist scum off the taxpayers tit.”

    And how are you going to go about that, Mr Ecks?

  37. By sacking the already well known Marxist shite who infest the “teaching” staff Britains Uni’s ( to begin with) without compo and confiscating their pensions.

    Is that too complicated for you or something?

  38. PJF said: “And since we already don’t have free speech and related liberties, giving them up a bit more to deal with a deadly problem isn’t such a big deal. ”

    Free speech and related liberties would be good but it must also come with representatives prepared to defend them. Not representatives prepared to defend the speech of Muslims but unwilling to defend the speech of Gert Wilders but, across the board.

    As it is we don’t have free speech and our liberties are being salami sliced away, and for what? Time and again we are seeing attacks by people who have been allowed to remain in our midst despite already falling foul of existing laws and not being removed from our communities or removed from the country. We passed the point of needing more laws and less liberty long ago. What we need is the spine to enforce them. Stop handing out leave to remain and citizenship like sweets. Kick foreign troublemakers out of the country. Build more prisons and prevent muslim gangs from growing in them.

    Dave said: “… we don’t need protecting from anything. More people die of hypothermia in summer in the UK than die from terrorist attacks. More people die by being trampled by cows*.”

    Hypothermia and being trampled are accidents which the public can avoid by being sensible. Being murdered by terrorists is not. We rely heavily on the state for that. The same state that let in loads of people who follow an illiberal and violently political ideology, the same state that turned them into a protected class as a way of securing support and the same state that allowed more than a few to leave for jihadi training and then return.

  39. Dave said: “… we don’t need protecting from anything. More people die of hypothermia in summer in the UK than die from terrorist attacks. More people die by being trampled by cows*.”

    What a specious argument. I’m sure the victims’ families of the recent terrorist atrocities wI’ll be comforted by Dave’s words.

  40. — “… we don’t need protecting from anything. More people die of hypothermia in summer in the UK than die from terrorist attacks. More people die by being trampled by cows.”

    That argument seems suspiciously fallacious, since we are currently protected.

    The police and MI5 spooks assure us they are continually thwarting murderous Islamic attacks.

    Yet your argument is based on the apparent assumption that the current rate of murder and maiming is the unprotected rate.

  41. There are lots of Muslim countries out there, like Northern Cyprus or Oman

    You mean the part of Cyprus that was invaded by Turkey in 1974 and illegally occupied by them since then…? And recognised by nobody but Turkey?

    The bit where they massacred or forced out all of the Christian Greek Cypriots who have not been able to reclaim their property or land since…?

    The bit that is still occupied by an estimated 40,000 Turkish troops…?

    That Northern Cyprus?

  42. your argument is based on the apparent assumption that the current rate of murder and maiming is the unprotected rate

    This.

    The likes of Dave and NiV seek any means to distract attention away from the openly declared objectives of the jihadists. They – as well as their views – are contemptible.

  43. Mark Steyn has commented:
    “You don’t have to worry about your fridge getting hold of an automatic weapon, or a dirty nuke. The Islamic supremacists want to kill as many infidels by whatever means are to hand.”

    Whereas my fridge isn’t going to do that.

  44. Mr Ecks:
    “By sacking the already well known Marxist shite who infest the “teaching” staff Britains Uni’s ( to begin with) without compo and confiscating their pensions.

    Is that too complicated for you or something?”

    Quite understandable. Wouldn’t necessarily disagree with it. I just wouldn’t call it freedom.

    The freedom you claim we should give up not one iota of (“not fucking one”) seems to consist of freedom for you (and anyone you deem likeminded), but not for those you disagree with.

  45. @PJF There’s a difference between freedom to speak your mind, and being paid by the state to speak your mind. But it may be too complex for you to grasp.

  46. “…not the whims of people nor the rage of the mob.”

    What does Parliament do then?

  47. I feel reasonably sure that the ‘unprotected rate’ of deaths from terrorism would still be fairly low compared to road deaths etc.

    Somebody said (on another thread) that a key difference is that the harm from terrorism is different because the outliers are big (e.g. nuclear terrorism). Statistically this means that the mean harm is greater than the median. Road deaths and similar might reasonably be considered to have a normal distribution (mean and median the same.) Whilst this is true I doubt that the mean harm from terrorism is but a fraction of the mean harm from road deaths. The reason I mention this is that this is the only good counter argument I have heard against the ‘likely harm’ argument.

    Regardless, I feel the above is slightly moot, as, as Ecks suggests, there is plenty that we can do with the current powers that the government has, and probably with many fewer.

    Everybody knows exactly who is in the pool of potential terrorist candidates. Muslim, 20-40 years old, 99% male, losers who didn’t do well in school and might have been kicked out of their mainstream mosque, where they were probably known as being loudmouthed and having crazy eyes.

    If general warrants are to be issued (for internet surveillance etc) then do so for this group, and not the entire population of the country on the basis of some idiotic “have to treat everyone the same” grounds. Anybody with half a brain should be able to draft a reasonable looking application for such a warrant.

  48. How many lives are saved every day by our ability to travel significant distances at greater than walking pace? Road deaths are the price we pay (and go to great lengths to minimise), but I’m confident the net effect on mortality is highly positive. A very similar argument can be made for refrigerators.

    What’s the upside of some twat blowing themselves to bits in the midst of a crowd of kiddies?

  49. Chris Miller, I’m well aware of what the “CM scum” are up to on the tax payer dime, I’m just not referencing it in this discussion. Remember, the context of this thread (see Tim’s original post) is about the dangers of “us” (English, British, Westerners) losing our freedoms in order to face a threat.

    I suggested that losing some rights is better than succumbing to the threat. Ecks vehemently disagreed, and so I invited him to explain once again how he would deal with what he regards as a bigger threat (socialists). Apparently he believes that the state dismissing and excluding people from state employment (including breaking contractual compensation) simply on the basis of their political beliefs, costs us not an iota of freedom (“not fucking one”).

    Ecks clearly has a cognitive dissonance, and so – keyboard bashing.

  50. We could run the argument the other way – what freedoms would we like back from the State, even if we were told that the risk of terrorism increased?
    -freedom of speech
    -freedom to discriminate on taste grounds
    -freedom to pay wages at a mutually agreed rate
    -freedom to bear arms
    That sort of thing. I suspect risk of terrorism would not increase at all, and many would like to take that chance.

  51. “The likes of Dave and NiV seek any means to distract attention away from the openly declared objectives of the jihadists. They – as well as their views – are contemptible.”

    I’m fine with pointing out the objectives of the jihadists. I’ve often done so myself.

    My objection is to *us* having exactly the *same* angry, vengeful, violent, stupid, illiberal attitudes as the jihadists, and thinking the results of us doing so will somehow be any more successful at persuading the opposition to give up and go away than those of the jihadists’ are.

    You want to fight a holy war against Islam, and use the same sort of indiscriminate hurt-em-all-till-they-surrender tactics they do. The problem you have with me is that I don’t distinguish between varieties of illiberal – I’ll condemn you for it as readily as I condemn the jihadists, and you don’t like me pointing it out.

    We’re supposed to be better than them.

    “What’s the upside of some twat blowing themselves to bits in the midst of a crowd of kiddies?”

    That *we* get freedom as well.

  52. Aren’t we cheering that ‘probable Sunni’ terrorists are striking the heart of Iran?

    I’m trying to use my bronze age brain to calculate how many ‘non muslamic’ countries have been hit so emotionally by Iran backed terrorist networks?

    But those lovable Sunnis, eh, diamonds. May be Mr Ecks can do us another one of his insightful sneezes.

  53. With a holy kiss first, surely, you old queen.

    Jesus was a celebrated activist terrorist, you statist cunt-shunner.

  54. “Ecks vehemently disagreed, and so I invited him to explain once again how he would deal with what he regards as a bigger threat (socialists). Apparently he believes that the state dismissing and excluding people from state employment (including breaking contractual compensation) simply on the basis of their political beliefs, costs us not an iota of freedom (“not fucking one”).”

    PJF: By your logic cops arresting murderers is a blow against freedom.

    Money forced out of our pockets goes to pay Marxian scum who have come very close to indoctrinating a large percentage of our youth. And using that as a base to infiltrate CM bullshit very nearly everywhere.

    If these fucks win you can forget your talk of freedom for good.

    You–PJF–may be daft enough stand and watch someone loading a pistol (with which he intends to blow your brains out) and do nothing to stop him on the grounds that would interfere with his freedom–his “right” to kill you or at least try. I support self defence. The freedom I value will be extinguished–perhaps forever –should the scum of the left triumph. If I see someone loading a shooter I will hit the bastard with everything I’ve got.

  55. “Money forced out of our pockets”

    Mr Ecks, do you have a meaningful job, or may be a state pension you rely on?

    Should I get someone to knock their table over?

  56. “If I see someone loading a shooter I will hit the bastard with everything I’ve got.”

    I’ll agree with that.

    But if someone merely expresses a similar opinion to such a shooter, and *you* load a shooter to blow *his* brains out, and I see you doing it, what should I do?

    Just watch you do it on the grounds that I can’t interfere with *your* freedom to kill people for expressing the wrong opinions? Because why?

  57. Jesus–Losing your cool O Divine One?

    Forgive me. That’s what you do isn’t it..

    NiV–Indoctrination is not expressing an opinion. If the classes covered all the range of political/economic thought–with free debate–then let the best arguments win

    Do you really think that is what is happening in the West NiV? Socialist authoritarian tyranny is winning the “debate”. Punch those who don’t agree with you cos their NAZIS!!!–has been achieved by reason and debate?

  58. “If the classes covered all the range of political/economic thought–with free debate–then let the best arguments win”

    So, should *we* cover all the range of political/economic thought here? Isn’t that what you’re complaining about?

    “Do you really think that is what is happening in the West NiV? Socialist authoritarian tyranny is winning the “debate”. Punch those who don’t agree with you cos their NAZIS!!!–has been achieved by reason and debate?”

    No, I think it’s been achieved by them pointing to the *previous* bunch’s tendency to punch people they don’t agree with as a justification.

    “Punch those who don’t agree with you cos they’re heretics / gays / jews / blacks / whites / sluts / infidels / muslims / pakis / arabs / Cossacks / gypsies / trannies / druggies / mental / poor / rich / foreign / commies / capitalists / bankers / feminists / sexists / racists / homophobes / smokers / drinkers / Arsenal fans / whatever.” It’s all the same mentality.

    If they’re trying to do you physical harm, then you can stop them by whatever means necessary. If you just don’t *like* what they’re saying or doing on their own time, but it’s not doing you any harm, you don’t get to punch them out for it. Making the rule universal is how we justify the rules forbidding them punching *us* out, for saying things *they* don’t like.

    If you start by saying you can do it because they do, they can say the same to you, and you lose the argument. Nobody is going to accept “Because it’s *me* doing it!” as a reason for treating them differently.

  59. Bongo has it, I think. As does Tim’s original post – well done sir, it definitely wasn’t​ the sort of thing I was expecting at CapX.

    If there’s a long run thread through western history, it’s wrapped about the origins of and limits to power; us Brits appear to have been tugging on it pretty consistently for the last thousand years, with varying degrees of success.

    One thing that marks the last decade plus out, is the massive explosion in bandwidth consumption, and the 180° shift in who has been consuming it. The network effects of social media arise from freedom of association.

    Interesting times, indeed. I wonder if I can read James Gleick’s The Information again before Sunderland declares tomorrow night…

  60. “If they’re trying to do you physical harm, then you can stop them by whatever means necessary.”

    Agreed

    ” If you just don’t *like* what they’re saying or doing on their own time, but it’s not doing you any harm, you don’t get to punch them out for it.”

    As much as I would–emotionally speaking–like to beat the shit out of active and willing agents and supporters of tyranny and evil–I have nowhere advocated so doing in connection with the Purge. I proposed that our money should not be paid to have youth–generally naïve and lacking experience of reality esp in these relatively prosperous and insulated days –brainwashed by those who already have produced almost literal Hells on Earth and who will do so again if they get half a chance.

    In as much as the entire state system needs to go eventually the Purge would be an immediate stop gap measure designed to destroy a particularly fast-growing and dangerous infestation whose known consequences are shockingly bad and indeed horrific.

    The rest of the “education” system must be dismantled a piece at a time like the rest of the welfare state over a considerable period of time to avoid mass disruption to all the millions now forced to rely on it.

    “Making the rule universal is how we justify the rules forbidding them punching *us* out, for saying things *they* don’t like.”

    Irrelevant since I didn’t advocate battering them for talking or even teaching their shite. As far as I am concerned they are perfectly free to teach but no longer in taxpayer supported institutions at our expense. They can put their bullshit out in the marketplace and see how it does. Without access to a state run brainwashing and control system (that does a bit of real educating mostly on the side) I don’t think they will prosper and the mad freak show we are now subject to will fail away into ultimate silence of the scams.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.