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 If the Conservative Party really still believed in national sovereignty, a strong defence, smaller government, less regulation and helping people to improve their own circumstances, they would look at the rise of Jeremy Corbyn and the return of political ideology and see it as license to start espousing their own philosophy instead of continually apologising for their beliefs.
That so many conservatives are desperate to stick to the centre ground and view Jeremy Corbyn as a clear and present threat to Britain says a lot more about the soft Right than it does about the Labour leadership candidate.
– Samuel Hooper
|
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.
|
You know: The problem with cannibalism is that you eventually run out of other people to eat.
What on earth do you expect when the “Conservative” party’s leader has no discernible political beliefs? Cameron’s MPs accept his lead (if that is the right verb) and believe in little other than that they should be in office. Belief-free, the Government is a ready prey for those pressure groups that hound them – see how readily they caved in to demands from that ghastly KIDS COMPANY woman Batmanghelidjh, the one that wore carpet off-cuts, because Samantha Cameron thought she was ‘super’ and Oliver Letwin thought her racket was ‘worth a punt’. Aided and abetted by her fellow Iraqi-rooted BBC executive, Yentob, she descended on the government knowing that it was an unprincipled rabble easily manipulated by her blackmail.
And that’s our “Conservative” government for you – overwhelmingly place-men doing the only thing that Cameron wants them to do: not rock the boat (his much-loved phrase) and so ensure that he stays PM.
I’ll be open minded and say that I do hope that “Iraqi-rooted” isn’t a new way of putting an old and unfortunate observation.
Sean, I read it as code for ‘Red Sea Pedestrian’, ‘RSP’ however, I take, fwiw as an affectionate term.
Ouch!
There is a lot of truth in what Mr Hooper says.
The lack of a clear belief system is a problem when facing a group of people (Mr Corbyn and his Comrades) who do have a clear belief system – and an evil belief system.
Something beats nothing – even if the something is evil.
And yes Mr Bates – that is the logical end of socialism.
Rob “the rich” is only stage one.
Ear “the rich” is stage two.
Then the socialists eat each other.
If only it was “ear” the rich.
Rather than eat “the rich”.
Actually, I think JC is mistaking the origin of Miss B, I understand that she hailed from Iran, not Iraq. As far as I know, the other person hailed from England.
Mr Ed , I read it the same way. And I’m with you on RSP.
Is that really the essence; or should it be belief in the individual liberty of the English people within these territorial bounds?
Liberty of the people is what will secure their national sovereignty.
It is theirs; isn’t it?
Not much different in the US – We have many RINO (Republican In Name Only) candidates who are on record sounding like old Democrats. We have a charlatan man named Donald Trump who has contributed lots of money to Democrats his entire life along with his family and virtually zero monies to Republicans although he is a billionaire. Finally we have Ted Cruz who is the closest thing to Ronald Reagan in along, long time and the favorite of the Tea Party and right blogs fro the most part.
If any candidate other Cruz wins, he will be sounding like a manager of American decline and not a leader come January 20, 2017. This assumes the US electorate is not totally mad and somehow votes in a Democrat once more.
The whole Western World is on an apparent suicide mission and we seem to be rushing headlong into some very dark territory. The left and in some countries the center is for gay marriage and every sexual perversion Democrats from 50 years ago would denounce, while importing millions of disgusting Muslims who would kill the homosexuals among us and then finish off the rest of us. The left represents both these groups but will sacrifice one of those voting blocs eventually. Not to hard to figure out which one.
Our countries have a Sehnsucht mentality (read CS Lewis on that), wishing and longing for something that they know not and can’t describe even if we wanted to. There are sane people left but we are a minority. It may have to get very bad before some on the left wake up and realize that what is happening is not what they bargained for. Then a coalition can form of the right and the thinking center/left. Around 2024-2030 I am guessing.
The Conservative Party has been so successful at winning elections precisely because it is not an ideological conservative party. It is actually the party of conventional opinion, which instinctively moves to whatever position it currently perceives to be the centre ground. It was formed at a time when British society was generally conservative so it reflected those views. In 1945 it was caught out by a sudden demand for radical social change. The working class had paid a terrible price to win WWI and got nothing from the peace except a return to “Upstairs, Downstairs” so they had no intention of being fooled again. But once it became clear that nationalisation and central planning was the new conventional wisdom the Conservative Party happily went along with it.
In 1979 the public were again demanding radical change, but this time the Labour Party couldn’t provide it because it was dominated by vested interests opposed to any change. So the Conservatives became free market radicals for a few years and as soon as the public mood changed so did they. The transition was a little awkward because so many senior figures had made their names as Thatcherites but it was inevitable. Cameron’s social democrat Conservatives are continuing the same old tradition of adopting whatever they currently perceive as conventional opinion and calling it an ideology. If anything has changed it’s that the party’s membership has shrunk so much that the leaders no longer have a deep-rooted network of supporters to tell them where the critical mass of public opinion really lies. They may just be chasing the centre ground of the Westminster Bubble.
As the Spartans once said, “If.”
The public sector expanded under 13 years of Labour, even through the “recession”, they never had it so good, both in numbers, wages and benefits, bypassing a lot of the redundancies and pension degradations of the private sector. The previous coalition was a bit hamstrung in trying to undo it, I don’t think Cameron’s government is going to make much inroads this parliament and it’s not like they’ve been at it a while.
The public sector is already massive in terms of workforce employment, eventually you get to a tipping point and go full blown communism with 100% public, that is the wet dream of the union leaders, this is Labour’s prime voter estate, they are going to fight tooth and nail to stop it being eroded, and that is probably the main reason Corbyn got elected, this is not going to be an overnight battle like the early 80’s.
From the article: “The Labour Party and those on the left make absolutely no apology for their big government views. They will look you in the eye and tell you that massive wealth redistribution facilitated by a powerful, coercive welfare state is not only the best means of ensuring human happiness, but that such a system is a moral necessity – and that those who dare to think otherwise are callous, cruel or otherwise morally defective.”
I think we need some of this. Especially the “moral necessity” rhetoric.
I am disgusted with the so called conservative party, it is more like Camerons dictatorship. He most certainly is devoid of all principles and appears to have a particular dislike of England and the English. We no longer live in a free Country and I see no way out. I voted for the party but in the hope that it would drop Cameron immediately and put a genuine Conservative. Now there is no hope.
I was canvassed at home by some tory party members (even IDS, my MP was there), and when I said I vote UKIP, the only thing they could say was “vote ukip, get labour” (they were also quite surprised as it is a solid tory ward, and I have a large detached house!).
I remarked that it was a bit light as an argument.
If the Labour Party’s leaders believed that redistribution was so great, they would start with their own money.
If the global warming people believed that co2 threatens the planet, they would stay home and turn the heat down instead of flying to Paris.
If Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton believed that public schools and diversity are so great, they would have sent their daughters to the DC schools instead of Sidwell.
If Warren Buffet believed he doesn’t pay enough tax, he’d write a check.
If the Pope believed his religion, there would be a big auction in Rome.
None of them act like they really believe anything they preach.
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”