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]
|
Looking for a rational explanation Wherever there’s an aggrieved terrorist or an undemocratic regime engaged in an existential struggle with the West, you can rely on Seumas Milne, Oxford-educated warrior for the Third World and former comment editor of The Guardian, to offer a full-throated, if slightly incoherent, defense. If your country’s constitution mandates the burning down of orphanages and the conscription of 6-year-olds in to the army, Milne will likely have your back, provided you also express a deep loathing for the United States and capitalism. So yesterday, in a signal to party moderates that he intends to burn Labour to the ground, Jeremy Corbyn appointed Milne his head of communications. It simply has to be a Tory plot.
– Michael Moynihan.
It is worth noting that among the many vile qualities of Milne was his extensive excuse-making for the people who murdered the Charlie Hebdo journalists. That is really going to go down great with those journalists who have to deal with this Stalinist fucker as part of their day jobs.
|
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.
|
It’s been how long since the bloody banner of death was hauled down from the roof of the Kremlin and these (bleeps) still don’t get it?
The Red Banner never left the universities Mr Bates.
Many people, including ME, got this wrong.
I thought that 1989 (and all that) was a massive defeat for the left – it was possibly the last time in my life when I was happy.
I soon discovered that while things had (good!) changed in Eastern Europe – in the West they remained the same, the left had kept its stranglehold on the education system and so on.
In fact things have got worse and worse.
It is not enough to “refute” something in practice – “hey look Communism has failed”.
It must be refuted in theory – “theory” is important, what people are taught is important.
While people are still taught “Social Justice” in the education system, and the entertainment media (reflecting this) continue to blame all problems on “the rich” and “big business” then the West will continue to decline.
Think about it.
Saying “the rich” and “big business” is to blame for everything is saying “the capitalists” are to blame for everything.
And teaching people that the primary problem is inequality to be fixed by government “distribution” is actually saying…..
“To each according to their needs”.
What we see presented in the “mainstream” news, and in the entertainment shows as well is Marxism.
It is Marxism with just a few words changed – to make it sound nice.
And to make people who point out that it is Marxism seem “paranoid”.
As for Mr Milne.
There is one good thing about him.
His hatred of the West is obvious, he hides it very poorly.
He is an open enemy of the West – a foe in the war.
Anyone who appoints him to a position must know this – it obvious in the writings of Milne.
That means that Mr Jeremy Corbyn is also an enemy of the West.
Not some “crazy uncle” who means well.
An enemy of the West.
Why should Marxist enemies of the West ally with Islamist enemies of the West?
The answer is in the words “enemies of the West”.
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
That is their thinking.
By the way……
They may be in error on that.
That is really going to go down great with those journalists who have the opportunity to assist this Stalinist fucker as part of their day jobs.
Rule 1: The likelihood that any Socialist lauds any real world example of Socialism is inverse to widespread knowledge about that country.
You don’t have to look far for a rational explanation. Milne thinks, as Corbyn thinks. That’s why Corbyn appointed Milne his ‘head of communicatuons’. Why in the world would you expect a political leader to appoint a press secretary whose views are different than his own?
It’s not a secret plot. Corbyn is telling you, in letters 12 feet high painted on the side of Brewer’s Green, exactly what his positions are. Why would you not take him at his word?
llater,
llamas
Meanwhile in Odessa, a statue of Lenin has become Darth Vader.
llamas has it. Mr Corbyn is not going to moderate his views – he is going to expect us (as the electorate) to change ours to fit. As ever with socialism, the preconception that they are right means everyone else is wrong and has to be educated about their wrongness. And in that light Mr Milne, who is actually a very good writer (when I am not staring blankly at the message he is trying to convey in shock at its wrongness, I have to admit he can write) is a good choice for Mr Corbyn. He will put across the message Mr Corbyn wants, and has the sort of views that will mean he does not commit Mr Corbyn to something he knows is not correct.
From the point of view of the unenlightened, Seamus Milne looks an odd choice; from the point of view of the socialists who believe we must be re-educated, he is a sensible choice indeed.
Why should Marxist enemies of the West ally with Islamist enemies of the West?
This.
As ever with socialism, the preconception that they are right means everyone else is wrong and has to be educated about their wrongness.
It is the basic desire to control people, it is what divides the free thinkers from the authoritarian, that the likes of Milne and Corbyn and Abū Bakr al-Baghdādi believe a better society comes from absolute control of people, how they behave, how they think, how they interact, and despite millennia of historic evidence it does not and will not make us greater, they still continue to parade their vile ideology to the untold masses of little useful idiots and true believers.
It is the single most overriding factor in their beliefs, and it trumps everything else, so even the “progressive” leftists can be all too eager to jump into bed with the most theocratic, misogynist, homophobic anti-Semitic fascists on the planet.
Hopefully it will be soon torn down and replaced with statue of Ukrainian Luke Skywalker.
completely unlike the libertarians, who with 1% of support know what is best for everyone.
That is the Marxist tactic since 100 years ago. Michael Moynihan seems to not notice that. He also seems to think this a is a bad thing for Corbyn and good for the Tories. It isn’t.
“completely unlike the libertarians, who with 1% of support know what is best for everyone.”
Another one that don’t know what Libertarian means.
You are free to live in Communism in a Libertarian system. With those that agree with you.
Instead in your Socialist world a Libertarian can’t live like a Libertarian.
The powerful do not want Libertarian system. The current system made them powerful, why change it?
The rich do not want Libertarian system. The current system made them rich, why change it?
The soldiers and police do not want Libertarian system either. Neither do the 99% of people.
Therefore, there will not be a Libertarian system. QED.
Sure you can, just become a homeless living of dumpsters. No property=no property tax. No income=no income tax. No purchases=no sales tax. Absolute FREEDOM.
Darin, you claiming that rich people dislike capitalism?
You are saying that current system is not capitalism. I’m saying that rich people are satisfied with system that made them rich and do not want to overthrow him for some vision of bright future.
So Darin’s point is that libertarianism does not enjoy nearly as much public support as…whatever. How interesting, I had no idea.
Actually I agree with most of Darin’s analysis. Neither the rich nor the presently powerful, nor those whose livelihoods are derived from the aforesaid (police and other “civil servants”, etc.) like the idea of libertarianism. They’ve grown fat and happy, or at least relatively prosperous, under the current system (which, as he says, is not “capitalism” by any rational definition of that term), so why rock the boat? Where we disagree is about the other “99% of the people”. Most people I talk to actually agree with libertarian principles, at least in large measure if not totally. They basically agree that government has gotten too large and powerful, and they want to keep more of their own money rather than seeing it wasted on [fill in your own preference here, depending upon whether you consider yourself a conservative or a liberal]. It’s just that they’re locked into the current system and can’t envision anything truly different, so they continue along in the same rut. And of course some of them don’t want to give up the government “freebies” they’re currently receiving (even if they’d be happy to see other people lose their freebies). But a lot of Americans are basically libertarians at heart, even if they don’t know it.
Only a libertarian forum can put up with spiteful little trolls in such a way, engage and even agree with.
Well…Peter Thiel and John Mackey might count as “rich,” though I think both sit below the salt when dining with Mr. Gates, probably Mr. Buffet, and undoubtedly Carlos Slim; but they’re the only ones I can think of who are full-throated “libertarians,” and I have my doubts about even them.
The Social Safety Net in the current lingo is not a part of any libertarian worldview I ever heard of — by definition. (We did have a Social Safety Net sometime prior to to FDR at latest, in the sense that the needy were helped by various persons and private, i.e. non-governmental AND non-QUANGO, “societies” of various sorts.) But I believe Mr. Mackey at least still has dreams of some such, although I confess that I can’t prove it. Heck, same thing with Orson Scott Card.
Now Richard Branson and Elon Musk and even Jeff Bezos, you guys will have to fight about among yourselves. (Has the WaPo really changed its spots?)
But Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffet and, so he claimeth, Mr. Soros, and certainly Mr. Strong, are definitely not in favor of anything vaguely approaching libertarianism. Although much as Mr. Gates is not my Favorite Person, it’s possible that at least he’s not much of a Crony. (Maybe he gets by on charm?) Let’s see, then there’s Mr. Immelt. AND, of course, the infamous Trumpster, who as far as I know has never said in so many words that he buys political influence, but he surely has bragged to that effect.
Then there are the Evil Koch Brothers. Per the latest figures I could find, from 2009: David’s Foundation contributed $-0- in grant money to anybody, left right or center, Charles’s Foundation contributed $ 15,551,465 to “right-wing” concerns, these figures from Matt Bauer at Discover The Networks; and Koch Industries contributed $1,695,324 to left-wing organizations, or 6% of its total contributions and $26,966,422 to “right”-wing organizations: 94% of its total contributions. This from OpenSecrets.org*, “based on data released by FEC, 3/9/15.”
(I expect that $26 million is enough to turn the tide of any election and enough to buy any politician in the entire U.S. 🙂 )
*I retain some wariness as to opensecrets.org, though I certainly do not assert that their figures are in any way cooked.
Pretty much Runcie Balspune
The post Darin answered to me was an dishonest answer to below echange an it seems some fell for it.
Runcie Balspune:It is the basic desire to control people, it is what divides the free thinkers from the authoritarian.
Him: Completely unlike the libertarians, who with 1% of support know what is best for everyone.
Me: You are free to live in Communism in a Libertarian system. With those that agree with you.
So he deflects with “powerful”, “rich” don’t want it. After implying that 1% Libertarians are authoritarian because they don’t agree with 99%.
Darin doesn’t understand that a person can think everyone else is wrong and at same time be a Libertarian. If that person don’t asks for laws and the state to force to pressure others to be like him.
Darin a free market is like that, you judge the products that are good, less good, bad. And you choose.
A Communist can be a Libertarian if accepts that those are part of the Commune in freewill. For example an Israeli Kibbutz respects the Libertarian principle.
A Communist country forces anyone to be Communist, a Social Democracy like England forces anyone to be Social Democrats.
Corbyn is the gift that keeps on giving.
Libertarian is a general direction away from any centralist system, not a specific program, so we probably have more support for parts of libertarian systems (less taxes? YES!!) than for specific party platforms.
I have long thought that we should adopt the slogan “Share Power”, as an antidote to the centralising ‘Share money’ policies that our opponents come up with.