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 – When you scratch a member of the liberal intelligentsia, an authoritarian will bleed We’ve all heard the prevailing narrative in recent weeks. The riots that hit our towns and cities were the consequence of a mix of ‘inflammatory rhetoric’ and ‘disinformation’ from malicious actors. Elon Musk, Tommy Robinson, Andrew Tate, Nigel Farage – all these individuals have been depicted as the James-Bond-style villain responsible for the mayhem.
This misguided theory has repeatedly been advanced by various liberal sophisticates on social media – people who always appear so desperate to flaunt their ‘progressive’, high-status opinions (the better to win kudos from their peers, of course).
[…]
What it all shows is that if you scratch a member of the liberal intelligentsia, an anti-democratic authoritarian will bleed. We see time and again that, when it comes to the crunch, the liberal ‘good guys’ are as illiberal as the worst despots.
– Paul Embery
|
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.
|
Yes indeed.
Perhaps it is a sign that their liberalism is a mile wide (no client minority shall be left behind) but an inch deep (no rational depth). The Enlightenment was obviously too demanding for some people, and unfortunately the neo-Romantics hold the reins of power.
We’ve all heard the prevailing narrative in recent weeks.
Indeed and it reads “on no account are you to mention the actual murders precipitating the widespread displays of indignation and dissatisfaction let alone the perpetrator. Instead focus on Musk, Farage, Robinson and Tate, mobilise the socialist worker regulars and leave the rest up to the media flying monkeys”.
Nor is there any background to the ill feeling and dissatisfaction expressed. Just today, one of the Scotish local rags printed this story.
“Man” who has been on a thirty year spree of assault and rape, gets [only] five years. One longs for the ‘good ol’ days’ of the cat.
Looking at the image in that article, I can’t help thinking there is a reason he had to coerce his sexual encounters.
They’re the ones who label people with different views as fascist, racist and far right. No respect.
Pretty much in line with the gist of RFKjr’s speech yesterday. Paraphrased: “They have weaponized government and the courts against their opponents . . .”
I was reading a dear friend’s fb feed yesterday, and she had some leftie comment about Kamala. A commentor in there gushed about how the DNC Convention was just a celebration of democracy. You know like how the candidate who the primaries voted in overwhelmingly was pushed over a cliff and the party bosses got together in a smoke free (unless it is 420) room to push forward some empty suit to replace him, while a press corps seems to not mind at all that she hasn’t answered a single press question never mind having done a sit down interview with even an adoring journalist never mind someone who would ask her tough questions (you know like, why have you changed literally every single one of your policies, beliefs, views and core values in the last two weeks.)
So, that is a kind of democracy I guess as long as you aren’t using some colonialist, racist, bigoted, transphobic definition of the word.
The Western establishment are not liberals – not economically, as they want a bigger (indeed a total) state, and not in terms of Civil Liberties either.
This has been true for a very long time – for example as far back as the 1930s the Manchester Guardian (now just the Guardian) and the New York Times covered up the deaths of millions of human beings in the Soviet Union.
To the Western establishment, for example the people who push Harris/Walz in the United States, economic “freedom” is ever bigger and more interventionist government controlling every aspect of life (K. Harris is the child of two Marxists and received a Marxist education – and those members of the establishment who are NOT Marxists still believe in one form or totalitarianism, total statism, or other – as for Tim Walz – connections with the People’s Republic of China regime over DECADES and his own record as Governor of Minnesota).
The Western establishment also believe that dissent is “Hate Speech” or “Repressive Tolerance” (Herbert Marcuse) and must be utterly crushed – with dissenters being driven from their jobs, and even sent to prison (a couple of appointments the Supreme Court and the American Bill of Rights is dead).
The Western establishment are becoming rather open about all this.
“Democracy” – in the United States this means rigging elections (for example, in some States, by automatically enrolling people, including illegal migrants, as voters when they get driver’s licences – and then voting for them) for the good of the people – as Rousseau taught, the people may not understand the “General Will” so the elite (the Lawgiver) has to vote for them – in their own best interests (hence the rigged elections of the French Revolutionary period and so on).
In the United Kingdom “democracy” has fairly straight elections – but with the tacit understanding that if “Reactionaries” are elected, “Progressive” policies remain in place. For example, “Pride Flags” flying over council buildings supposedly under Conservative control – and mass immigration even under Conservative Party governments (“because Conservative ministers did not really oppose it” – WRONG as some Conservative ministers did oppose it, but found themselves to be powerless). Should any Conservative councillor or minister object to this too strongly – they soon find themselves PUNISHED by the system.
I am not sure which is worse – rigging elections (the American Progressive model) or having straight elections, but on the understanding that such things as the Equality Act and the Environment Act – and all the Quangos (including the Quango that now selects JUDGES) will be kept – and will determine policy (which is the British Progressive model).
The American Democrats justify rigging elections on the basis that their policies “help the poor” so they must be office – for the good of the poor – even if they have to rig elections to be in office.
But Progressive policies make poverty WORSE – as California (the most prosperous society the world had ever seen – before the left gained control of the place) and many other examples show.
So the “moral” justification for rigging elections in the United States falls apart.
False information that incites violence….
Such as saying that Muslim women have suffered acid attacks from “far right” English men, this false story inspired the Muslim Defence League to violence – they mentioned the story, as justification, as they waved their swords and other weapons (and as they beat people in the streets).
Yet the officials of “Hope not Hate”, who spread the false story which incited violence, have NOT been arrested by the police.