What’s more, a hit piece from a mainstream media outlet is rather a status symbol in my line of work. “You’ve arrived,” a friend helpfully explained. Indeed I have – following the viral speech at the Oxford Union, a second appearance on BBC Question Time and now this hit piece, I reflect on the last couple of weeks with tremendous satisfaction. And a lesson or two learned along the way – I will continue to engage with people from all over the political spectrum in good faith, but I’ll be recording the interviews myself going forward.
|
|||||
|
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 day – Congrats on the hit piece, Konstantin!January 30th, 2023 |
 12 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – Congrats on the hit piece, Konstantin! |
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. |
|||||
It’s fun watching a good person hit their stride.
He’s excellent.
He annoys the right people.
Konstantin Kisin hit his stride some time ago – lots of his past work on the Triggernometry podcast (with Francis Foster) are easily-found on the Intertubes, and it’s all 100-octane, full-fat stuff. No sacred cow escapes their cattle prod. But it’s nice to see him getting the wider exposure he deserves. Having listened to him for quite a while now, I get the sense that he has enough street smarts not to allow himself to trip over the more obvious hazards that his detractors will try and throw in his way. As a sometime stand-up comic, I suspect his verbal and mental judo skills are well-up to the task.
Look up his appearances on the seminal BBC show ‘Question Time’ to see what I mean. This panel-question show is famously a bear-pit of UK public opinion, with a strong lefty bias, and many a politician and commentator have gotten way over their skis when appearing on this show.
llater,
llamas
Great guy. A true genius. Do check out the Triggernometry channel on YouTube and if you want to support them check out their account on Locals. Or buy his book.
For Kisin on the war see here.
In a way the left, such as the New Statesman, have become consistent.
In the past the left rejected a free economy based on private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange and freedom for such owners to voluntarily trade with other people on mutually voluntary terms – BUT the left wanted to keep such things as Civil Liberties, Freedom of Speech, and-so-on.
That can not be done – one can not have a political economy, an economy controlled by the state and allied groups (such as the pet corporations – as with the Saint-Simon model of Collectivist Totalitarianism) and keep such things as Freedom of Speech and other Civil Liberties.
So the New Statesman, and so on, have decided to be consistent – and to help exterminate such things as Freedom of Speech in order to help establish the “scientifically planned society” (an idea of Saint Simon and even Francis Bacon – long before Karl Marx) that they crave.
Konstantin Kisin rejects their objective of Totalitarian Collectivism, a Progressive “Scientifically Planned” Society, so they must destroy him – and if it takes lies to do that (as they lied about Roger Scruton and so many others) that is what the New Statesman, and the rest of the left, will do. Their education (both at university and even at school) teaches them that such tactics are justified – if (if) they serve the Progressive cause.
Konstantin Kisin understands that the left are not well meaning people who happen to have another point of view, the left are foes – and will do anything, anything at all, to destroy us – in order to achieve their objective of international Totalitarian Collectivism (total control over the lives of ordinary people). This has to be kept in mind when interacting with them – and he does keep this in mind.
The mindset of the left is very alien, but it is NOT knew – for example Robespierre (and others) opposed the death penalty for murder, but supported the death penalty for political dissent – which included breaking price control regulations. Let us say you hacked some child to death – well that, to Robespierre and co, was perhaps unfortunate – but nothing to get too upset about. But let us say you sold a product for X price when the state (and allied groups) said the price should be something different to X – that was a serious crime, because it threatened the basic project of creating a new society, so you must be executed for that.
The left are being entirely consistent – private crimes, such as robbery and murder, do not bother them (they still do not – see the Progressive D.A.s in American cities today), but political dissent or breaking economic regulations (and they consider breaking economic regulations as political dissent) by voluntary trade (say breaking price controls or other regulations) threatens the project of the left to build a “Scientifically” Planned Society – of Totalitarian Collectivism.
We must also remember what the word “science” means to them – it does not mean open debate and being led by the evidence (the method of the physical sciences) – “science”, to the left, means “The Science” – it means a Planned Society, the sort of thing the World Economic Forum, the United Nations and virtually every other government and corporate organisation, is pushing for.
And if they have to lie, or to kill, to achieve their objective of total control over the lives of ordinary people – that is what they will do.
wise advice to record yourself, but there’s two approaches:
1) show your recording device and tell the b*st&rd you don’t trust them, which will alter their behaviour and make the interview confrontational
2) record secretly, then wait for them to go properly on the record with the misrepresentation and screw them over properly.
I would say 2) is the way to go. Make every journalist fear that they’re being recorded. Think “concealed carry”…
@The Pedant-General
Real journalists should be recording their interviews to ensure accuracy and (if necessary) to provide evidence their reports are accurate. Only a dishonest propagandist should fear being recorded.
The Pedant-General and Marius.
Quite correct.
Record all your interviews – and if interviewed on radio and television always insist on it being live (otherwise they will edit you – distorting what you say).
record secretly, then wait for them to go properly on the record with the misrepresentation and screw them over properly.
Having first checked that, in the relevant jurisdiction, it is legal so to do.
If not, do the interview elsewhere, where it is legal to record it “concealed carry” style.
PS the expectation of being able to “screw them over properly” if they misrepresent you is, sadly, a triumph of hope over experience. The initial lie whizzes around the world and is amplified by those who enjoy blackening your name, and when you produce the receipts nobody will publish them. It’s happened so many times. I remember a case from the 2008 election in which La Palin was being interviewed by Charlie Gibson – a lefty TV hack – who ambushed her with a quote of hers that she had said – in reference to the Gulf War – “God is on our side”. On air she said she doubted she had said that, but the TV hack said “those were your exact words.” BIG NEWS whizzing rounfd the world. She a religious nut who claimed God was on the US side in the Gulf War. And moreover tried to weasel out of what she had said when confronted with a direct quote. A couple of days later someone found a clip of what she had actually said – which was “I pray that God is on our side.” Totally different take, but completely ignored by the media. The lie had done its work. And the journo ? One of the “lions” of the profession.
“Having first checked that, in the relevant jurisdiction, it is legal so to do”
You can cover that easily by confirming that you are both ok with being recorded – the journalist will have its recording device so no need to clarify that you are referring to your own separate device.
That’s also a very very thin defence when they’re caught lying through their teeth. Especially when you play the bit that says yes, you both know the interview is being recorded….
“the expectation of being able to “screw them over properly” if they misrepresent you is, sadly, a triumph of hope over experience.”
But that’s definitely fair. I think different rules might apply if you are a politician, as in your Sarah Palin example, vs a “private” citizen, but you’d probably need to play quite smart to get them to do something that shows the misrepresentation was a) known and b) malicious.
Don’t wait for an elaborately edited hit piece to go to air- put the whole thing on line asap as your own exclusive chat with some media weasel. Let them squeal about it.