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 – national suicide pact edition Ending fossil-fuel consumption now would be a disaster. It would obliterate our already weak energy security, subjecting households and industry to exorbitant energy costs and unreliable supplies. Travel would be severely limited. The farming industry would be gutted by restrictions on fertiliser use and farm vehicles, threatening food security. Last year, we saw the devastating impact these kinds of green farming policies can have in Sri Lanka, where food production was devastated.
Regrettably, for all the antagonistic posturing of Tory politicians and eco-activists alike, the political class and XR already agree on many issues. Britain is already committed to Net Zero. There are legally binding targets to decarbonise the UK by 2050. And the dire impact of this policy can already be seen in the persistent threat of blackouts and the broader energy-supply crisis. A further acceleration of Net Zero, as demanded by XR, would only accelerate the damage that is already being done.
– Lauren Smith
|
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.
|
“There are legally binding targets”
No, that’s incorrect.
No parliament can bind a later parliament which can simply repeal the “legally binding targets” and order hung all those who voted for them.
Lauren Smith should have written “There are presently legally binding targets, which the Tories could easily repeal were they not stupid, insane crap weasels.”
No, she’s entirely correct.
Ha! Unless a future parliament actually does repeal, there are indeed legally binding targets. There’s nothing ‘simple’ about repealing the laws in question, or didn’t you notice how deeply entrenched the green lunacy is?
I believe we are living though the decline and fall of western civilization, and when the dust has settled and the history written it will show that western civilization was destroyed deliberately by its own governments.
The seeds sown by Marx and Stalin in the West have borne toxic fruit.
Perhaps this is all part of Gates’ and Soros’ plan to reduce the world’s population to a more manageable number for the elite to rule ove
Rather than concentration/death camps, more ‘natural’ methods, such as starvation through green agricultural policies, freezing to death due to green energy policies will occur, affecting everyone (except the elite). Mass riots will also help. What’s not to like (if your name is Gates, Soros, Clinton, Obama, Blair, et al).
Fred Z.
It is almost impossible for a elected politician, even at local level, to publicly speak against various things – the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion agenda is one of them, to speak (let alone vote) against that would mean that someone is a “racist”, which would “bring the authority into disrepute” and they would be removed (“but I was elected!” it-would-not-matter they would be removed), and the C02 is evil theory is another such thing.
Presently one is still allowed to be silent (although that may soon change) – but speaking and voting against such “Policy” is just impossible (someone who did that would be destroyed – not only would there be endless abuse, including from members of their political party who, privately, agree with them but have to pretend not to, but their home would be attacked and-so-on).
Policy is often international – for example the “Green” policy you oppose goes back (at least) to the “legally nonbinding” (of course it is, in practice, binding) Agenda 21 agreed (or rather rubber stamped) by Prime Minister John Major more than 30 years ago.
A Prime Minister may announce various policies (such as Mr Johnson announcing lockdown, or Mr Sunak announcing that everyone is to study mathematics till the age of 18 – why are so many people still in school at 18?), but who actually makes Policy (capital P) is another matter.
As far back as 1929 Chief Justice Hewart complained of “The New Despotism”, officials and “experts” making policy, but it is vastly worse now. If a minister even raises their voice in protest against officials and “experts” (let alone fails to rubber stamp their “advice”), there will be a complaint about “bullying” (raising your voice in protest is “bullying”) and the minister may have to resign – or (if they are “let off”) promise to always obey officials and “experts” in future.
“A Prime Minister can make a stand, change policy – it is for elected politicians to make policy!”
If you are thinking that Fred Z, and it would be a better world if you were correct, then perhaps you would like to explain it to LIZ TRUSS.
Modest (and they were modest) reductions in tax rates and the lady was removed – without any vote. And instead of lower taxes, we got higher taxes – the highest taxes in history (I assure you that no Conservative Member of Parliament went into politics to “achieve” that – but such things are not really decided by Parliament, the “experts” and vast corporate entities, Cantillon Effect, decide such things).
It was not just “the markets” (i.e. a handful of vast corporate entities that are maintained, Cantillon Effect, by the Credit Money of the Central Banks) that attacked Liz Truss (who “had not got the memo” that a Prime Minister is “in office, but NOT in power”), the lady was attacked by “free market” groups as well.
How the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) behaved shocked, and disgusted, even me – and I thought I was already at peak cynic level.
“She is taking a hacksaw to the heads of the British people” and endless other vicious abuse, repeated over and over again (and about someone who had been their friend since university days) they betrayed Liz Truss – out of a desire to preserve their own Corporate funding, i.e. they betrayed her for MONEY. They had done the same thing over LOCKDOWN – more than a 400 Billion Pounds (“not much if you say it quick”) on a policy that was medically useless (and which everyone knew would be medically useless) – Mr Johnson has many faults, but he did NOT want this – but he found (although he will never admit it) that Prime Ministers are not in charge. He did what he was TOLD – and (irony of ironies) the powers-that-be then got rid of him anyway.
As for the IEA – no wonder these people have copies of the Corporate State Economist magazine in their reception area.
Am I claiming to be any better than the IEA – no I am not, I am also a shit (just like them).
Margaret Thatcher in 1989 and Liz Truss in 2022 – both removed without any vote. Admittedly so was Mr Johnson – and he did do what he was told (he made no stand). “Mr Johnson broke Covid rules” – so did Mr Sunak, he also socialised with his staff after work (which is what Mr Johnson did). The media raised a storm about Mr Johnson – because certain interests decided to get rid of Mr Johnson (why? well perhaps doing what you are told to do is not enough – perhaps these international interests felt “his heart is not in it – he is just pretending”).
Now do you see why we are “stupid, insane crap weasels” Fred Z?
The Wobbly Guy – not directly.
Neither Karl Marx or Joseph “Stalin” can really be blamed for Frankfurt School Marxism (“Stalin” hated that interpretation of Marxism) or Greenism – indeed the later is more Rousseau than Marx.
However, I know what you mean – Marxists, and others (many others), have worked for a very long time to corrupt all institutions, public and private – and they have succeeded.
We live in a world where vast (and not so vast) “business enterprises” hate and despise customers (reactionary-running-dogs – is how they see them). From Games Workshop denouncing its own customers as racists (and sexists and homophobes – and on and on) and saying “you will not be missed” in a public statement. All the way to the vast banks (and such entities as Black Rock, State Street and Vanguard – those three alone control investments worth 20 Trillion Dollars – yes “Trillion with a T”) who care only about the ESG and DEI agenda (culture and politics) – business is beneath modern “businessmen”.
Not of course, before he speaks up, Bulldog Drummond – but the good Gentleman would not be welcome on the board of Black Rock, or one of the vast international banks. No honourable man would be welcome on the board of such entities.
Rour le Jour – “we are living through the decline and fall of Western Civilisation”.
It may be so.
As for “governments” – I can think of few elected governments that have much autonomy.
For example, I am told that the Governor of Florida dissents (openly dissents) from various international policies – but Florida, Texas (and so on) are still part of the United States, and Washington D.C. is very much part of the “international community”.
This was found by President Trump – who found himself a prisoner in office, with the government he was supposed to be the head of, actively working AGAINST him.
In America even the Secret Police, the FBI, is held up as a wonderful morally upright organisation – presented as such by endless media reports and Hollywood films and television shows. In reality the FBI, and the rest of the government, is both corrupt and oppressive – it has nothing but hatred and contempt for the Constitution of the United States, and it wishes to crush Americans (reduce them to de facto serfdom).
No wonder that some Americans fall into a madness of despair – even thinking that Mr Putin might save them, they are like a drowning man clutching at a poisonous snake.
Either Mr Putin – or Space Aliens, Space Aliens who (Tucker Carlson please note) do not actually exist – and, therefore, can not save anyone.
I am NOT attacking Mr Carlson (or others) – indeed I understand the despair that has filled them, I feel it myself (every day).
Fred Z – I will give you a practical example of what I mean.
What do you think would happen if Members of Parliament stood up in the chamber of the House and told MPs, including the Prime Minister (a very nice man, who loves his wife and children) that the Covid injections are killing people?
We know what would happen, because this has been tried – NOTHING happens, the Prime Minister does not respond (if he did – he would be removed), and the international media praises the European Union for offering the “vaccines” to China (which has its own – but the E.U. gets praised by all the international television stations anyway).
You see Sir – what Christopher Chope and now Andrew Bridgen have said is NOT a shock, the Members of the House of Commons already knew that the Covid injections are killing people.
Parliament did not decide to push this stuff (Parliament does not make Policy) – in theory it could stop this Policy, but not really in practice.
Indeed Fred Z. many Members of Parliament have themselves been injected – KNOWING that the stuff was ineffective against Covid, and might injure or kill them.
It is POLICY and there are terrible consequences for a politician who opposes POLICY – so, for example, they may have to sit down and have stuff injected their arm, knowing (yes knowing) that it may (may) kill them.
It may be different in the United States (I do not know) – but this is the way things are here in the United Kingdom.
There are also a few Members of Parliament who denounce the “Green” agenda (in public – not just in private) – God help them, for they will suffer much in this world.
It is harder to be removed from the House of Commons than it is to be removed from a local authority – but there are many other ways to make Members of Parliament (and those connected with them – such as their families) suffer.
Politicians will gas rhapsodically until the end of time. A more useful focus might be just what is the plan to replace petrochemicals? Plastics for example. Let’s go ahead and bypass the Greta stand in sobbing incoherently and proceed to an ER or cancer ward. If you can’t take watching a friend or loved one go through it all try and notice just how much single use plastic is involved. Of course there is always the Civil War ‘wash those bandages, again’ methodology as a fall back. How about bleach? Laundry will have to adjust! Splendid, what is the expectation for all it’s utility in food production and storage. What is it that happens again when grain storage gets moldy? Equally natural gas.
I’m not here to say there aren’t solutions to these questions, solutions that may even be superior. But the thing that is so very hard to ignore is the premise of all our climate saviors that things must get worse for most populations in order for any life to continue. I have no quarrel with Swampy of ‘Sod Off’ fame should he desire to get cozy in a bog, as long as the bog in question is not mine. But neither will I essentially commit suicide to placate his and his associates fad of the moment.
Point of order: if all the people who support NetZero initiatives committed to personally emitting no carbon (that is, using no fossil fuels, no electricity unless generated from “green” sources, no air travel except by electric zeppelin, no foods grown with modern fertilizers, absolutely no plastics, etc) those emission benchmarks could be met far more easily.
If they are NOT willing to make such commitments, why should those of us who don’t believe in such nonsense bother with it at all?
Dont know where I found the link to this, but it’s an excellent background to the net zero policies.
https://climatedebate.co.uk/where-do-net-zero-policies-come-from/
@Bulldog Drummond – I am quite sure that Smith used “legally binding” with the intended implication, that a lay person might expect, of permanent and unchangeable.
@Paul Marks – we are of similar views despite some minor differences. I know that repeal would not be simple other than procedurally and that is why I should like to prepend “cowardly, unprincipled, ” to “stupid, insane crap weasels”.
Fred Z – understood Sir.
However, can Members of Parliament (and other politicians) who, for example, have had the Covid injections knowing they were of little use against Covid and could kill them, correctly be described as “cowardly”? It is rather like the British soldiers who walked slowly (in near rows) for the Germans to shoot them – “cowardly” is not quite the correct word. It is a sort of terrible fatalism (of which I am myself guilty) – certainly in politics.
“There is nothing anyone can do – it is policy” is a statement that, in private, one often hears from politicians (both councillors and Members of Parliament) in relation to Net Zero and many other matters.
As a final example, consider the our leaving the European Union.
It is increasingly clear that we really have not left – and not just in relation to Northern Ireland, in basic regulations (such as health, “workers rights” and the “environment”) it turns out that the British government agreed NOT to repeal various regulations – and to keep TAX RATES in line with the international tax cartel (although the latter was more of a hidden agreement).
I was just listening to Ben Habib (a man I rather like) on G.B. news – saying how the government “can not” do XYZ because that would diverge from the E.U. line.
Fred Z – is Ben Habib “cowardly, unprincipled” and a “stupid, insane crap weasel”.
Of course, legally Parliament could tear up all these agreements that Mr Alexander “Boris” Johnson accepted – but how long do you think a Prime Minister would last who did that?
How long did even Liz Truss last after the lady announced she wanted to reduce tax rates – thus violating the international tax cartel?
Do you remember the Economist magazine – gloating, like the Corporate State swine that they are, about how Liz Truss had “the shelf life of a lettuce”.
How long would you last Fred Z?
Still at least you would go down fighting – and I admire that.
It would be wonderful to have a free market Prime Minister who went told to resign said “no I will not resign – do your worst!”
Alan Clark suggested that to Margaret Thatcher in 1989.
Do not resign – make the bastards vote you out, and show what utter scum they are.
The question is at what point do sufficiently large numbers of voters begin to cause serious political consequences for the advocates of this?
Johnathan Pearce – in America, to some extent, the voters can influence things – at least at the State level.
Say a Republican State Governor turns statist and imposes Covid lockdowns (or Climate lockdowns) and higher taxes – at the next Republican Primary the voters can deny him the nomination and choose someone better. If the election system is straight (and in many, although certainly not all, States the voting system is straight) then the voters can have want they want. Many States of America are NOT like Arizona or Pennsylvania – the voting system is NOT bent in every State.
But I am not sure what could happen in the United Kingdom – if a lot of people say “I am not voting Tory, they are just blue socialists, I am voting Reform” (or some other party), then they wind up with a Labour M.P. and the same policies of higher government spending and more regulations.
Remember even Nigel Farage could never win a seat in Parliament – let alone a majority of seats in Parliament.
Contra Mr Farage, Proportional Representation would not help – it would just mean endless coalition government by various statist parties.
Essentially, in relation to the United Kingdom, “I would not start from here”.
A nice way of saying “we are f@cked”.
Nigel Farage talks of “Broken Britain” – he may be more correct than he realises, as he thinks things can be repaired (perhaps, perhaps, things have gone beyond that).
Paul Marks – so: if politicians cannot affect policy, those of us wishing for better policies need to forget them and approach elsewhere. Do we know where and how policy is actually being delivered for rubber-stamping? More precisely, is there some point along the conveyor belt where a bit of pressure might make a difference? If not, the next step is presumably to find out.
And yet he was one of the most effective politicians of the last decade, in no small part responsible for a constitutional revolution. Back when the Tory Party has a sense of self-preservation, all Farage had to do was pose a meaningful credible threat to split the conservative vote to have enormous influence on the government’s actions.
I doubt it somehow. I agree we’re living through the decline and fall of our civilization, but I seriously doubt that the history books will be accurate. If written at all, they will show that Western Civilization was a victim of its own hubris, that the white man brought down the anger of the gods “Gaia”/”mother nature” or whatever such deity is known by then and will be a cautionary tale to tell children around the camp fire. The actual salient information that the present decline of our civilization is almost entirely self-inflicted by bad policy, people doing stupid things and winning stupid prizes will be lost.
Barbarus.
Politicians can sometimes decide policy – for example some American State Governors refused the advice of officials and “experts” to have Covid lockdowns.
One advantage the American State system (not the Federal Government – Donald John Trump was correct than he realised when he said it was swamp, it as a swamp that drowned him) has – is that a State Governor is not easy to remove. In the United Kingdom a Prime Minister (let alone a local councillor) is very easy to remove – a Prime Minister can be removed for no crime at all and without any election, as Margaret Thatcher found in 1989, and “Liz Truss” (or Prime Minister Elizabeth O’Leary if we want to correct) found in 2022 – the offense of the latter seems to have been to break the informal “understanding” that taxes in London will not be lower than taxes in New York, Frankfurt and other major Western financial centres.
Where is policy made?
I think it starts with the education system – which produces the officials, corporate managers and “scientific experts” (who presently regard political and cultural objectives as what determines “science”).
I am told that pro liberty thinking is welcome in the University of Buckingham – but not really anywhere else in the British education system.
Perhaps that is too gloomy a view. I hope things are not as bad as that.
Perry – yes Nigel Farage got us the independence vote, and we voted for independence.
And then we were betrayed. The “deal” means we can not deregulate the economy (on such matters as “workers rights” and “the environment”) in the ways we must deregulate the economy, if this country is to have any chance of surviving the harsh times that are coming.
However, no Parliament can bind their successors – and the “deal” agreed by Mr Johnson is no exception to that.
Still the next election is a couple of years – and then there, so the bookmakers tells us, oing to be a Labour government with a landslide majority.
So the first chance of serious rolling back of the state is likely to occur seven years from now.
That is 2030 – the very date the other side have set for the completion of their totalitarian project.
The next seven years are not going to be good – even if 2030 does not turn out as the other side plan.
Alex – yes I see what you mean.
And there are indeed many history books who hold up such Emperors as Diocletian, he of the crippling levels of taxation and regulations, as a good Emperor who “saved Rome from the crises of the Third Century” (not so – the barbarians had been pushed out and the Empire reunited years BEFORE Diocletian became Emperor).
There will be history books in the future filled with lies and distortions (and just misunderstandings) – just as there are now about the Roman Empire (and so on).
However, some people in the future will know the truth – just as some people know the truth about the fall of the Roman Empire (and so on) now.