A second issue is the word "libertarian", which was the pool from which Orphans emerged long ago. To those who want zero restrictions on their behaviour, e.g. the Hamas and Climate activists, those throwing paint st old portraits in galleries etc., a classical liberal would say that that's not liberty, that's licentiousness. Care nothing for anyone but me-me-me.
Classical liberalism says maximum freedom to live life to the best of our capacity, in an atmosphere of encouragement for initiative. That WEF clown who said it's the end of "rugged individualism" and now is the time for diverse, all in this together compliance in finding a new world of peace, harmony blah blah blah was quoting from the marxist playbook ... a classical liberal will be dead against that guff.
But a WEFer would counter ... do you classical liberals not agree there must be constraints on human behaviour, e.g. the loud neighbour at night, those blocking roads etc? The answer is ... it depends what is being restricted. Murdering full term babies in the womb? Mutilated men in women's sport? Who decides what is "for our good"? The lovable WEF and EU politburos? Aunty Von Leyen? Aunty BBC?
You do see the issue. And the porn and other perversions taught in schools? That's ok, is it?
Lastly, there are two screenshots here ready to go ... one is Massie, Boebert, Luna, speaking of the names they saw on the "Epstein list" ... plus one lady writing of the NHS cancelled appointments. I used neither, mainly as I've run out of column space here now. That was an editing decision by me, Julia decides hers too.
Are we wicked censors? I mean, where is that middling position where clearly some things are vile, some things we have no time to do today? The potential for political confluct, even over this, is high.
On this subject in a tangential way, the media always selects a subject as a distraction, saturating the newspapers and the radio and TV with coverage to the exclusion of almost everything else.
ReplyDeleteFor example, two serious issues are currently being pursued and there is no questioning of them.
Consolidation of local government and
Consolidation of police forces.
Where's the national debate?
When were we asked if this is what we want?
Surely, local law enforcement should be as local to the area as possible, otherwise it becomes remote and impersonal.
Similarly, local government should be as local as possible. But what seems to be happening is the reintroduction of regional government such as the the fat thug, Prescott tried to force through during the days of the Blair gang's disastrous reign of terror.
So, why is no one concerned?
The ones deciding our fate are not the visible parliamentarians. The ones deciding our fate are the chosen few sitting off stage in the director’s box out of the public’s sight. For too long we have been distracted by the day to day fluff combed out by msm and latterly the alt media.
ReplyDeletehttps://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjf_U0PdthDF_ehVetXR_gdZviKBfr7eO7zd4cOabI46M2RAdGSETYEXrZZLlJ4gF6YfvDTeySo5SOm6gODYyJ4lnKYcaoJ1VHKhQ0qdDwU_G7D0uggdq-P2_WknfwJLRl0N0Phc9oShRys-nikg8TpBxh_JTRxJmRgHPBfYqgoChmen2s4-n0bn7bNqaBD/s764/1%20sdfsdfsdsfsdsdf.jpg
ReplyDeletewhat say the once mighty brits?
a non knee
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, both these comments are fine. With the url, it was not hyperlinked, it was easy enough to view for those who want ... but in a way which would not get us shut down.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking generally for Julia and I, we want the minimum restrictions possible to cover 90% of contingencies, but it's the 10% of hostile intent who wish to harm the site who are the issue and so we have the system we have. Julia is the keeper of the keys but I can also see what she lets through.
Thanks, 90%.