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]
|
They employ some lovely people at Cambridge University The blogger, David Thompson, who seems to have the knack of unearthing all matter of weird and wonderful stuff for his Friday postings, also has a posting about a far less amusing subject: the cringeing of certain Western, post-modernist types when confronted with a direct, brutal example of violence by the Taliban.
This is what I meant in my previous post about the fact while radical Islam poses a threat that should not be underestimated, there is nothing inevitable about that threat succeeding. What is necessary is for the heirs of our great institutions to start growing a pair, so to speak.
|
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.
|
Reminiscent of supposedly left wing Ken Livingstone’s embrace of the homophobic, misogynistic, fundamentalist, extreme right wing, Muslim cleric Dr Yousef Al-Qaradhawi.
It is not inevitable because civil war, demography will define who has the upper hand.
lucklucky: always a ray of sunshine!
“Dear British Establishment,
Please grow a pair.
Your Sincerely
Thaddeus Tremayne”.
There. Done and done.
Nope. Are people born with certain immutable ideas and factional allegiances?
The very reason the likes of Al Qaeda hate Western Civilisation is that it can take a future generation of Middle Eastern muslims and turn them into… us. It matters less who is having more babies than who has the most seductive ideas, and we win that hands down.
Now all we have to do it get rid of the pro-multicultural enemy within in own societies (people who overwhelmingly are not Muslims) and free up the assimilating social processes…and let them take their course.
“What is necessary is for the heirs of our great institutions to start growing a pair, so to speak. ”
there is a good body of comments tearing this nonsense to bits – there’s hope for us yet.
Pedant General, get stuffed. I am saying what ought to happen. What have you got to offer by way of constructive advice or ideas? (drums fingers on table, looks into distance……)
What you guys are all doing, with varying levels of hysteria, is running around, tearing your hair out, saying “We’re all doomed, we need to ban the Muzzies, they’re under my bed”.
Yep, that’s really going to help.
“lucklucky: always a ray of sunshine!”
Well it will be what will be. Perry has a point, i forgot to say the only factor we appear to have is seduction.
But it is not typical that a decadent society can have sustainable appeal, and next decade will see western society loosing much of it being in hands of socialists of various stripes.
I am also expecting that much more noises for “clever” dictatorships of “wise people” being made at that time trying to turn Bruxelles or Washington into Beijing II .
Meanwhile:
“A soldier who had just arrived home from a tour of Afghanistan was refused service at a supermarket after being told they did not serve people in Army uniform.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7930346/Soldier-in-uniform-refused-service-in-supermarket.html
lucklucky: that link seems to have vanished – or is it just me?
And as an addendum to luckylucky: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10884787
the left growing a pair vis a vis pushy agressive islamofascists? Surely you are joking. You cannot belong to the left unless you hand over your balls to the commissariat. It’s in the rule book.
Alisa, i just tried and it is working.
Btw there is also another point to be made. We are not only fighting end of the world messianic Islamic types, we are also fighting islamic socialists/aristocrats . For muslim socialists, i mean those that want privileges and rights above freedoms of others, that want an hyper regulated society. That is why most of moderates don’t fight against extremists, they expect to get a part of the pie that extremists are trying to get.
Oxford is no better than Cambridge – at Oxford there is (for example) the vile Timothy Garton-Ash the model of a modern “liberal”, i.e. shameless apologist for Islam who actually looks forward to they day when Europe is overwhemed and wiped out (of course these are not the words he would choose, but his support for an ever greater Islamic presense in Europe and some sort of union with the Middle East and North Africa is well documented and long standing).
What is the source of these academics siding with the enemies of the West?
With some it is far leftism (Marxism or other creeds) – they see the Islamists in terms of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and do not bother their heads about what happens AFTER the people of the West are exterminated or enslaved (i.e. do not see that their allies the Islamists would not stay their allies).
However, this is a minority – most of the apologists for Islam are “liberals” like Garton-Ash. People addicted to the docrtrine of Political Correctness without even knowing that P.C. was the invention of the Marxist Frankfurt School back in the 1920’s (the working class had “failed” in its revolutionary role – so new “oppressed” groups had to be sort on whatever basis, P.C. idenity politics comes from this).
However, before we start supporting Time magazine (a publication of the mainstream left) please remember on what weak ground the Afghan campaign is based.
Is the objective of the campaign to convert Muslims (to Christianity, to Randian athiest Objectivism – to whatever)? No it is not.
The campaign has moved from being an effort to find Osama Bin Laden and his Taliban ally Mullah Omar (Bush soon forget about that) to an effort to save “true Islam” from the naughty “distortions” of the Taliban.
The trouble with that is that this “true Islam” is a fiction.
The government side (“President” or whatever the Kahzi calls himself) does have beliefs (they do not just spend their entire lives rigging elections and selling drugs) and one of those beliefs is that people who leave Islam should be punished – so no freedom of religion (“what are we fighting for” is the line that springs to mind).
“But the K would not cut the nose and ears off a women” – no, that would leave her alive to be seen by the Western press.
But if a family (or local elders) quietly killed a women who had violated Islamic principles in some way – the K. and company would not have a problem with that.
I repeat the Afghan war seems to have no basis.
We are not after OBL and Mullah Omar, the elections are rigged (so the war is not for democracy), and we are not challenging Islam (on the contrary we claim to be defending a “true Islam” against the Taliban – a “true Islam” that has as much basis in reality as Mr Spock and the Vulcans).
“You have just insulted our troops” – no I have not.
Being sent to fight (and die) without any logical aim – that is the insult.
I am not Murry Rothbard, I am not an isolationist – but I demand a clear aim, and there is none. For we fight on the side of a regime that does not have a radically different view of Islam (how can there be a radically different view of Islam – see the works of Robert Spencer on the life of Mohammed and the doctrines he left behine), and anyway British commanders keep talking about “making deals with the Taliban”.
So people are fighting and dying in order that at some point we will make a “deal with the Taliban”.
If the aim is a “political settlement with the Taliban” then I spit upon the whole enterprise – and that is NOT “insulting the troops” it is acting as if their lives had some value.
lucklucky: yes, it works fine now, I don’t know what was it before… – thanks:-)