Finally! A politician I have no hesitation endorsing and who, if I lived there, I would actually vote for!
– Perry de Havilland at a ruinous piss up get together of thoughtful political analysts.
|
|||||
|
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] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the daySamizdata Illuminatus (Arkham, Massachusetts) · How very odd! · Latin American Affairs · Slogans & Quotations June 19th, 2013 |
 15 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
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. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
They should run a slug in the UK. Vastly preferable to the currently available options.
Miaow! I particularly liked this bit:
Isn’t it delightful to see them show fear?
The election is on my birthday.
And, considering the alternatives (and if I was Mexican), I would indeed vote for the cat.
Cats are the ultimate atomized individuals.
Don’t know what the election laws are like in Mexico, but if someone want’s to run a cat here I’m sure I could get Mr. de Havilland on the voter rolls in at least one precinct and I assure him his vote(s) would be recorded for the cat.
I would be delighted to vote for the cat!
But I really must contradict Tedd. I have it on the authority of Animal Planet (I think) that, au contraire, the ultimate atomized individuals are badgers. 🙁
Paul, I don’t see why you have to be Mexican to vote in their election. After all, we have recently been informed that you don’t have to be a citizen here to vote in our (Federal, at least) elections, provided you register using the Federal form and not the Arizonan one. (Or, I suppose, those of the other states.) :>)))
Yes Julie – the twisted “reasoning” (based on “Case Law”) of the judges never fails to disgust.
After the 1935 judgements (de fact allowing the government to steal privately owned gold and rip up private contracts) anyone should have been able to see that the view that “The Supreme Court is the guardian of the Constitution” view is nonsense (drivel), yet even after Obamacare was upheld some people were able to convince themselves that this was clever Chief Justice R. safeguarding the independence of the court (by letting the government do whatever it liked……)
How can a government appointed Court (made up of people educated in establishment universities) be the “Guardian of the Constitution”? The whole idea is absurd.
Half a century ago the Supreme Court even destroyed the traditional version of State Senates (i.e. rural areas having the power to check the demands of the big city populations of the States) – “all votes must have the same weight in practice” (said the Supreme Court – plucking “law” from its backside) thus putting the urban mob in charge of State Senates and well as States Houses of Representatives.
And yet people still talk of the Supreme Court as if it could be of some good (rather than bad) function.
Want to kill babies, and can not get most people to agree with you? Have no fear – the Supremes will make up a “right” for you to do so. But actually come to them with bits of the Constitution that actually exist (such as the Tenth Amendment) and suddenly “Case Law” trumps the text of the Constitution and the written intentions of the authors.
“But they upheld the Second Amendment Paul”.
And they then ordered the U.S. Marshalls to arrest people such as Mayor Bloomberg who ignore this judgement? Errr no.
And the judgement will be reversed anyway – Comrade Barack only has to appoint one more “Justice” (perhaps another “wise latina woman” – nothing racist and sexist about those qualifications…..).
And on and on…..
Turning back to illegal immigration….
Of course if I actually turned up in the United States I would NOT be allowed to vote and I WOULD be deported (very fast).
This is what many people (including some libertarians) do not understand – the establishment are not really in favour of “free migration” that is NOT what the 1965 Immigration Act (and all the mess since then) is really about. It is about getting in certain types of immigrant (legal and illegal) – people who can be relied upon to demand FREE STUFF (“Emergency” health care, government schools for their children and……) and VOTE (legally or illegally) for the politicians who will promise them the most FREE STUFF.
“They just want to do the jobs other people will not do – they are not after political benefits” – which is why they are so desperate to vote (illegally) that the case goes up the Supreme Court…..
“Amnesty will convert them” – like the 1986 amnesty did?
I repeat let people who do not want FREE STUFF and do not want to vote for the Democrats turn up in the United States – then the “free migration” policy gets ditched.
For example, the German families who are going to be sent back to Germany – for the “crime” of wanting to Home School their children, no “free migration” for them.
The establishment is rotten to core and has been for a very long time (remember the 1982 judgement that even children in the United States illegally have to be given free education and……).
This is not a problem of a few evil individuals (not “get rid of Obama and all will be well”) this is a failure of political culture – the educated elite are actively working to destroy everything the United States is based upon (and have been for a very long time).
I make no apology for pointing out (yet again) that a century ago the Harvard Law School was already teaching AGAINST the Constitution.
And that Richard Ely and co were already taking over the universities – again a century ago.
Why do people think that culture does not matter – that it does not matter who teaches their children?
Given enough time even the strongest nations (and traditions) can be undermined.
And the termites have had enough time.
That business about sending the German homeschoolers home to face the possibility of prison and of losing their children is disgusting. Almost as bad as sending Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba.
Meanwhile, we have Somali Muslims and Saudi rabble-rousers, troublemakers, and take-over artists planting the seeds of their foul “religious commands, demands, and Law–Shari’ah”–all over the place. By invitation of the Incumbent and his acolytes and, no doubt, “advisors”–i.e. handlers.
As long as I’m grumbling about undesirable furriners, I was recently reminded that Yasser Arafat, Noble Nobel Peace Prize winner, *gag*, was the favorite guest of Mr. Clinton.
White trash and no mistake. (Arafat too, actually, being probably Semitic and at least Arabic.)
Mr Arafat was born in Cairo, I understand, which made his Palestinian status one of heritage rather than birth. He was really a child of the Soviet Union’s sponsorship, having brought hijacking into the modern world.
Julie – yes on the German homeschoolers and yes on the Islamic schools. Sadly even “moderate” Islamic schools tend to be rather bad when one looks at them closely (an article in last week’s Spectator magazine cited one of the leading Islamic schools in Britain as showing its “tolerance” by a little story on its website about even how an evil sadistic, dirty Jew was converted to Islam by the example of the noble Muslim living next to him – they really did think this story showed how tolerant they were, after all it showed even a Jew could be reformed…..).
Mr Ed – yes.
Julie:
I defer to your clearly superior knowledge of mustelidaelogy.
Tedd, Dog-gonnit, don’t you know I don’t have the entire day to spend with the dictionary? how the heck am I supposed to know what “mustelidaelogy” is? And now, Rats! I find that the on-line dictionaries never seem to have heard of it!
Even the Foot of All Knowledge lets me down….
But wait! Could that smart-aleck Tedd be showing me up with an arcane and esoteric reference to a certain species of ill-tempered mammal? Well, by golly, it seems said Foot HAS heard of the Badger! Now, might the U of Wisc. football team the subject of “mustelidaelogy”? –No, I think not. It’s those Weasels the Mustelidae to which the term must refer.
Or, in other words, that atomistic individualist (or nasty-tempered weasel, as you prefer), the Badger.
Taught me something, you did. Thanks! LOL :>)))!!!
In the interests of correcting a probable dissemination of false information, Wikipedia’s article states that some types of badgers are loners, but others form groups, often called “clans.”
I don’t want to get blamed for Animal Planet‘s misinformation. 🙁 🙂
Julie:
Okay, okay — no need to badger me. We atomized individuals need to stick together.
LOL!! Coffee out the nose. Very GOOD!! :>)))!!!