« Profiles in Countermoonbattery: Gina Elise | Main | Heidi Cullen Openly Advocates Using Weather Channel for Propaganda »

It would be better news had the BNP gotten a large share of the votes.

It's a sad fact that the main three political parties here in the UK (Labour / Conservative / Liberal Democrat) are all much the same.

I just keep my fingers crossed that such a dramatic swing in the votes will give these political parties the kick in the backside they need. Were sick of stealth taxes, PC nonsense and vocal "minority" groups getting what ever they want.

The British people have spoken. The government had better listen!

@Mandy.

There is already talk of ballot box tampering and election officials writing on ballot papers and thereby spoiling them.

It would not surprise me one bit if a lot of the BNP votes were counted early and subsequently disappeared.

Any Labour losses are good news in my book.

Losing political candidates in England are subject to being eaten by Mr. Gay U.K..

(I note that the eHarmony post from the other day was being discussed in the comments at GayPatriot because some felt its tone was antigay as well as anti-moonbat.)

essemess
When newspaper's refuse to run BNP ads and they are vilified by the EU adherents as "racist" despite not dealing with racial issues, it is only logical to conclude that the powers that be would resort to such methods. They are , so far, the only potentially serious threat to the PC hegemony, EU totalitarianism and Islamofication of the UK. Do you sense the BNP is gaining support?

The recent Italian election is also heartwarming
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3221 "The Right conquers Rome." Silvio Berlusconi has his shortcomings but he has publicly called out the feminist emasculation of Spain among other things. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3758376.ece

After the nomination of McCain, I pretty much gave up any hope concerning the Republican party.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

I completely agree with mandy, too. Of course, the BNP getting a significant number of votes (and that's if their votes weren't thrown out) would have all of the leftists and useful-idiot Tories whining about how horrible it is that the "anti-Semitic" and "fascist" BNP is gaining more influence. Meanwhile, Islamofascists still want to destroy Israel, but it's the BNP who are supposedly more evil.

Great blog, by the way. It's much better than Little Green Footballs, which I think is overrated. While Charles Johnson recognizes the Islamic threat (and the moonbat dupes who don't), he is still an agnostic with liberal/libertarian views who opposes the aforementioned for the wrong reasons as well as the right ones. Does anyone really give a damn that Muslim countries execute sodomites and reject feminazi dogma? If LGF didn't have a comments section, it wouldn't be pissing off so many leftists.
Granted, he's nowhere near as wretched as, say, Christopher Hitchens (conservatives should be kicking themselves for siding with this commie drunk over Iraq), but he still hasn't completely left the dark side if you ask me.

Mandy, you're preaching to the converted ;)

I just hope that Richard Barnbrook gets onto the GLA. Radio 4 were broadcasting from the results station and hinted that, with around 60% of the votes counted, it would be the case.

It's about time this country cut out the corruption that is rife within the political structure. With our leaders as corrupt as Bob Mugabe and our election process as open to fraud (cardboard ballot boxes FFS) as his "mock" election, Britain is becoming as much a banana republic as Zimbabwe.

But whither of Red Ken?

chsw

But whither of Red Ken?

Apparently, having a very bad day...

I almost forgot that the Parliament is set to ban violent pornography, so perhaps there's hope for England after all.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7364475.stm

All of the liberaltarian sites are hopping about it, unsurprisingly.

Anti-PC Man- you don't seem to be quite up with what's going on. The anti "violent porn" ban has been engineered by the left, is the creature of radical feminists and their moonbat long tail, and is designed to increase government incursions into freedom of speech on the net.

Libertarians are quite reasonable hopping about it because without free speech you've got fuck all. This law doesn't provide "hope" for anybody except jackbooted moonbats. What it is is badly written, intrusive, bound to convict harmless non-criminals, and guaranteed not to prevent one violent crime.

And if you really can't tell the difference between what americans call a "liberal" and a libertarian, I feel sorry for you. You want the government to decide what you can look at, what you can read, what you can think, there's this nice place called North Korea you may want to live in.

And feminazis like Andrea Dworkin hated porn, too, so what? Just because leftist moonbats are also opposed to something that decent people happen to be against, it doesn't make it okay. Was the Video Recordings Act passed by the Thatcher government also leftist? And leftists can't take advantage of this law if you vote them out of office.

And libertarians ARE liberals. They support legalizing drugs, open borders, obscenity and the "right" of faggots to eat each others' feces.

So I suppose you don't think the government should have the right to crack down on sedition during wartime, then. I don't see how that's automatically the same as North Korea's regime. Freedom of speech is not absolute.

I've typed and scrubbed several answers, Anti-PC Man, as they all were in danger of rambling for many paragraphs.

To get one thing out of the way; yes, many libertarians (wrongly, in my view) attempt to apply libertarianism, a view on the relationship between citizen and state, to non-citizens and thus get drawn into open borders and pacifism. I disagree with, and argue fervently against, them on that.

But regarding the other freedoms mentioned, well I think the fundamental difference between a "liberal"** and a libertarian is that libertarians support freedoms simply on the basis of freedom. "Liberals" appear to support some freedoms (e.g. gay rights) but for entirely selfish political reasons, as a means of attacking their opponents. They don't actually believe in freedom for its own sake at all, and really quite abhor it.

And of course "liberals" loathe the free market; nobody loves it more than a libertarian :)

--
**terminology is difficult here, as liberal has many meanings. I use it to mean a post-marxist leftist in the general americanised sense.

"Now if only we could count on British conservatives to actually be conservative, in contrast to our own increasingly moonbatty Republican Party."

you hit the nail on the head about the Republican party.

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 - 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.

Archonix, I think your post above nails it far better than I ever have :)

"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. "

Exactly!

I guess the 'youth' did'nt get out the vote in the UK.