We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day The journalist who is determined to give proof of his objectivity often succumbs to the temptation of maintaining silence with regard to concrete facts, because these facts are in themselves so crude that he is afraid of appearing biased.
– Arthur Koestler
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
No off-topic comments tolerated (several deleted).
Not a very democratic policy is it? Or an imaginative one, given the rather gnomic nature of the intitial post.
There is nothing democratic about this blog or any other for that matter: it is our private property and people post comments here at the sufference of the editors much like a ‘letter to the editor’ of a newspaper. Comments are moderated according to our arbitary but fairly consistent standards of what is or is not acceptable. Moreover, as an aside, don’t assume that ‘democratic’ is always a ‘good thing’ because it often is not.
Utterly off-topic comments are not acceptable, nor is blogroaching or trolling. We tolerate some bad language and the occasional angry outburst but tend to ban if people make a habit of it. We accept reasoned disagreement with the ‘Samizdata party line’ (not that we really have one) but we are soooo past that point with the so called ‘race realists’ that we now usually ban them on sight.
We are equal opportunity offenders to left and right and our regular readers seem to have a pretty good feel for what is and is not acceptable here and newcomers either adapt to our bar room rules or decide they don’t like it and sod off.
Phil, please succumb to the temptation of maintaining silence.
At the risk of being banned 😛
Would the quote of the day have anything to do with The Met chiefs assertion that ‘Islamic’ and ‘terrorist’ do not belong in a sentence together ? and its wide reporting as such when it is plain that it is the case.
Or with the Beebs’ editing of their online news to remove terrorists, for some possibly less pejorative words ? just in case someone was offended.
Or is a general comment on the lack of will, fear of condemnation by peers and not geting invited to the right press conferences because the journalist may not report ‘properly’ with the correct, PC, on-message spin ?
Or have I missed the point entirely ?
Later
When you mention ‘race realists’ are you talking about folks like Steve Sailer, Futurepundit, and gnxp.com? Or David Duke, Stormfront neo-Nazis, etc?
I understand kicking out the bigots, but the analyses of the former are often important in at least two areas that seem relevant to Samizdata:
1. Debunking the idea that all disparities between ethnic groups, sexes, etc are a result of discrimination and must be countered by state tax-and-transfer schemes or positive discrimination. (Of course one can argue directly (normatively) against the state interventions, but this is far more persuasive if one can also show the programs are based on flawed factual premises.
2. The role of ethnic differences in human capital in support for free markets (see Amy Chua’s book “World on Fire”) and private property. In particular, where minority groups are ‘market-dominant’ (the Chinese in Indonesia and Malaysia, Jews in Europe, upper castes in India, the whiter elites in Peru or Venezuela, etc) the majority is more likely to embrace socialism as a way to expropriate the minority.
Given Koestler’s age and time of writing, it is of interest that even in teh nineteen-thirties, when the mass media was becoming established, there was a recognition that the objectivity of journalists could be compromised by a fear of bias.
Any comparisons with today’s MSM are purely intentional.
A journalist may be unbiased; however, he may subjectively choose which facts he’ll be unbiased with.
And talking of journalistic bias, I notice that when it comes to talking about “Islamic Terrorism” that the BBC do not have a problem using that phrase when making unsubtle suggestions that Britain is at risk of attack, by allying itself with the USA.
CS: I am refering to a number of pseudo-scientific racist commenters who we booted off Samizdata.net’s comment system for turning ever.single.topic. into a discussion on racial IQs.
In theory intelligent rational conversations on the subject should be possible but in reality we have discovered that is simply not the case.
Gengee: that is not off-topic at all but out-of-the-blue remarks about Ted Heath popping his clogs certainly are.
Julian,
True. The BBC use “Islamic terrorists” when its politically useful for the agenda. While all other situations call for “religious militants” as a descriptor.
Why does the British public tolerate the mandatory annual licence fee that pays for such bias?
John J. Coupal writes:
” Why does the British public tolerate the mandatory annual licence fee that pays for such bias?”
Primarily because there seems no way of stopping it.
Whichever party gets elected, the Biased Broadcasting Corporation seems to roll on, its place as the mouthpiece of Left/liberal propaganda assured.
The simple answer is to NOT pay the license fee.
If you’re paying then you’re making the problem bigger.
That achieves nothing. By refusing to pay the licence fee you cross from dissent to a new territory – non-payment of the fee is dealt with by a magistrate’s court and attracts a further sizable fine on top of the fee itself. Further refusal to pay attracts a 3-6 month sentence of imprisonment, a pointless and ridiculous exercise for the sake of a £116 charge.
The government’s stock response, while admitting that all the funds go to the BBC (after suitable deduction by the Treasury of expenses), is that the licence fee is for the permission to own a television or radio set. and not necessarily for the “right” to view the BBC’s output.
Given Koestler’s time frame, he may be describing the reluctance of a great many journalists to adequately report, or report at all, on the repressions and brutalities engaged in by the German, Italian, and Soviet regimes. Much of this duplicity has been exposed over the decades.
It resembles the situation admitted by CNN concerning Iraq, when they hid some very nasty stories about the Saddam/Baathist government’s behavior out of fear that they would be denied further access.
It was common, especially when the story involved anything negative about the Soviets, for the apologists to criticize the reporter for being prejudiced against the glories of socialism and a stooge of the ruling class.
As the collectivist tide was rising, no one wanted to be cast out as “unsympathetic”.
Similarly today, the reigning leftism of the media and academic elites makes it very dangerous to depict the Islamofascists and their deeds too clearly, as it could be interpreted as a violation of the multi-culti ethic which casts the terrorists as victims of the evil West.
Telling too much about what is going on could lead to the dead ending of a promising career.