Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Of Comedy, @Whaleoil @KimDotcom Freedom of Speech & Bounded Liberty.

Like nothing else, comedy - and for me, stand-up comedy - can light a fire that warms the coldest, darkest nights of the mind – but should there be boundaries placed on it?

Kim Dotcom, of whom I'm no acolyte, because I support IP, tweeted Saturday night to the effect of 'what would his political enemies try next, perhaps besmirching him with a rape claim?’ (I’m assuming, referencing Assange). In truth, it wasn't funny, and I'm not even sure he meant it as a joke: but that's beside the point, being the reaction to that tweet which has overtaken it.

On this Saturday night, all I wanted to do was watch a movie, not lose my play-time, and a good bottle of wine, to defending Kim Dotcom, but as he doesn't follow anyone else on Twitter, other than Obama, and he probably doesn’t know he’s upset anyone until the MSM, or his lawyer, tell him so - I've stopped following people (self-styled celebrities) that do this, for all they must want to do is shout at me: I’m interested in dialogue – and despite, when the PC brigade, of all people led by Whaleoil, instantly fell upon his pate, I originally held out by saying:

Stopped myself making a tweet that would've brought on me unjustified grief owing to how context-less stupid people can be. #BeProudOfMeMum

I was within fourteen minutes, of course, stupidly embroiled in it anyway.

Whaleoil’s tweets were of the following oeuvre:

Not cool making rape jokes Kim...very poor taste...what next gas bill jokes?

Yeah; really funny subject rape, eh Kim. Not! Sometimes it's just better to keep your mouth shut..

Bullshit...there is no parallel and jokes about rape NEVER have context

What next jokes about gas bills and ovens? He is already making Jewish jokes too #toofar

Intuitively - that is, without thinking - he’s right isn’t he? It is bad taste, and perhaps something else … well, for us decent folk. Regardless, I really wanted to stop my mind for a night so I ignored it; ignored it; ignored it: then couldn’t. My following three insomniac tweets in the early hours of Sunday morning give my thinking on this (some clarified now I’m not restricted to Twitter’s 140 characters):

Actually, I'm getting fidgety on this. Would I make a rape joke: no! But ...

Whale says no Jewish jokes (so there goes Seinfeld’s stock in trade); so what of disabled jokes (there goes Ricky Gervais's routine); is there a list someone would like to give of forbidden topics for comedy?

Jimmy Carr says there can be no topic outside comedy, that is the point of it ... Give me a reasoned argument against?

And I mean it: give me an argument against?

Because where do we stop nannying other people’s judgement for them? Regarding jokes about the disabled, I remember a Gervais DVD that starts with him sparring lines with a man in a wheelchair that had me in stitches, and then there’s poor Frankie Boyle who, due to the preciousness surrounding the Paralympics, is, I suspect, guilty only of bad comedic timing, but could lose his job anyway, though he's holding his ground bravely.Who is willing to show me the line at which we stop other’s offending us, or not? Irish jokes in Christchurch are apparently wearing a bit thin, so do we pronounce all who do Irish jokes as bad blokes? Are blond jokes okay, Whaleoil? Baby jokes: I don't think I've seen one of those that doesn't offend me. What about cartoons about God, which I know would deeply, deeply offend all of my family, other than just two of us who somehow fell out of the familial mind and became atheists. And for the record, enjoining my last tweet to his, I've heard Jimmy Carr do a Holocaust joke, deliberately, to test this very point, and his audience laughed, as I did, because it was funny. Didn’t mean he, or I, ever thought the Holocaust wasn’t anything other than pure, inhuman evil: indeed, that was the point of his joke (and much of the point of this blog against statism, for that matter).

Perhaps I’ve lost my judgement, of a sudden. Though what I know for certain is I'd rather live in a world where there was freewheeling, albeit risqué, anarchic, comedy, and people weren't scared to write their minds, or out their prejudices, rather than a dour Old Testament world where good taste is shouted down at me from on high, by decree, tweet, or blog, by the self-anointed, whether that be God or Whaleoil, with the concomitant threat always implied in that (by which I mean the tone of Whaleoil’s tweets). Especially when these decrees are judged against the man, or the other Big Guy - see, testing comedic limits again - and might thereby be seen as sanctimonious hypocrisy. And respectful of what Whaleoil has done with his blog, trying as much to play the issue, here, as the man, as is this blog's raison d'être, just a question for you Whale; when you tweeted up this storm of outrage last night - and I know part of your problem is you just don't like Dotcom; got it - but when tweeting, were you wearing your y-fronts or, a term you use often on your own blog, your panty-waisters on this one?

So, returning to my question. I'm prepared to keep a slightly open, if sceptical, mind; at least until it closes in on the truth again. Notwithstanding at this stage my mind warms only to a sodality of comedians, whom I hope never feel forced to 'shut their mouths', as some would have them, rather than the morose, piously preached sanctions of those who would seek to capture me mid-laugh, and tear my tongue out. The fires of freedom must not be extinguished to the darkness, again: no to the humourless, humour Taliban.


  1. Replies
    1. Um, if I'm not mistaken, I'm following you on Twitter, muddle man ;)

  2. Replies
    1. Not esoteric. Economical.

      I made a 9-11 joke, and it was not well received.

      I was told that it was a "fucking sick" joke and that I was a "sick fuck" for making it.

    2. I see the point now. I'll note I wasn't on that thread, though I've clearly stated above there is bad taste.

    3. and I got into trouble on solo for making a joke about music and beheaded Afghans!

      Mind you I am always getting into trouble on Solo.

    4. And mostly deserve to. Hasn't your firm been in the news over the last couple of weeks?

    5. i am often in the news and before the courts, insolvency is not a game for the timid!

  3. I hope everyone has watched The Aristocrats. Nothing is or should be taboo in the realm of humour. That said, there's intent. If you intend to hurt or offend, then you're probably not a nice person. If you DON'T intend to hurt or offend, people will still get all worked up on behalf of those whom they perceive might be offended or hurt. They think they are helping. They are the same people who demand laws be passed to help others instead of just helping others themselves. Ignore them.

    1. Agree with your points Greig, other than the last one. Better to get a good blog post out of them, rather than ignore :)

  4. Having a family member who has been raped gives me a slightly different perspective Mark. She certainly doesn't find it a cause for great mirth at all.

    1. Look at my first tweet:

      Would I make a rape joke? No!

      Read my post: it's about a bigger principle, Keeping Stock. Sorry for your family member, obviously, but my support of uncensored comedy, is just that: clearly rape, like the Holocaust, is utterly, utterly, abhorrent. But the list I give above goes on: murder, a heinous crime - so are we allowed jokes about that? Incest - think of the jokes on that! Does joking about something mean you're advocating it? No. In fact, humour can be the best weapon against evil.

      Why are Kiwi's never able to see a principle?

    2. Why are Kiwi's never able to see a principle?

      Because we have sticky beaks and poor eyesight

    3. No. Antonio Gramsci at the head of too many school rooms. Time for another wine in the Mahau ;)

  5. Late to the party but I just found you Mark. I am so sick of PC bullshit. Then I got to Damien's Kiwi/principles...and peed myself.

    1. Cheers :)

      Clicked on your name through to your blog: looks interesting. Bookmarked for the weekend.