Tommy Robinson being interviewed by Jordan Peterson presents me with pair of people I am not predisposed to like. But set aside Robinson’s thesis about Islam in the UK for a moment, which you can agree with or not, I contend what the state does to try and shut him down is actually the critical issue. Indeed, I would say if even a small fraction of what he says about security services is true, we have rocketed past the point where normal politics can be relied upon for redress and remedy. Watch and listen with an open mind. We are not heading towards a police state, we are well and truly in one.
|
|||||
|
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 |
It’s what the state does to Tommy Robinson that mattersPerry de Havilland (Wiltshire) · Civil liberty, Law & Regulation · Middle East & Islamic · Opinions on liberty · UK affairs September 1st, 2024 |
 33 comments to It’s what the state does to Tommy Robinson that mattersLeave a Reply |
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. |
|||||
For sure, it not about Tommy Robinson, they can do this to anyone. We’re so fucked. Time to kick off again.
You knew you were in a police state when they arrested the woman for silently praying outside of the abortion clinic.
Pure Wrongthink. No overt criminal act.
Any news about those blokes who fought with police in Manchester airport including breaking a policewoman’s nose?
Maybe there are more important cases to be tried first.
Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, “Tommy Robinson”, does have an abrasive “Working Class” Luton accent – but what is there to dislike about Jordan Peterson? His accent is Canadian. Dr Peterson used to be a moderate socialist, a member of the Canadian NDP (New Democratic Party) – but refused to accept Frankfurt School Marxism (now called “Woke” doctrine) on the use of language (such as pronouns) and so found himself driven from the public square in Canada.
These is also point that the law should be about what people do – not what they sound like. What real crimes, as opposed to “crimes” made up by authorities using laws they do NOT use against people who they approve of politically – such as the mortgage application absurdity, has Mr Yaxley-Lennon committed? The honest answer is NONE – no real crimes.
You are quite correct Perry – if the state can act against this person (smear him in the media, including the “right wing” newspapers, even send him to prison – which they have several times) then they can, and will, act against anyone who goes against them politically.
The modern (modern) British state rests on two basic principles – and neither originally comes from Marxism.
The first is a legal principle – Sir William Blackstone’s 18th century doctrine that Parliament can do anything (anything at all) – even, for example, declare having red hair or blue eyes a “crime” punishable by death. This insane doctrine led to the American Revolution of 1776 – although one would not know this by reading modern textbooks (which pretend that the American Founding Fathers admired Blackstone – when they, in fact, rejected his central doctrine).
In modern times, as Chief Justice Hewitt warned of as long ago as 1929 “The New Despotism” (so this is certainly not an invention of Tony Blair – historian Dr David Starkey please note, although Prime Minister Blair did complete the process) Parliament has handed over its (insanely unlimited) Thomas Hobbes style despotic powers to OFFICIALS (and yes, again, it is true that Prime Minister Blair put the final touches to this process – but it goes back to Victorian times) – this Sir William Blackstone (to be fair to him) never thought of – and I am sure would have been utterly horrified by.
Now officials, such as the Bank of England or the Security and Intelligence services can “legally” do anything they like – even remove Prime Ministers, as we witnessed with the Bank of England sabotage of Prime Minster Liz Truss.
They can “legally” smear or imprison (thanks to “Woke” judges) anyone they wish to imprison – under intentionally vague “laws” such as “incitement” to this or that opinion (yes opinion).
The other basic principle upon which the modern (modern) British state rests upon is the utilitarianism of the philosopher Jeremy Bentham.
According to Mr Bentham rights against the state are “nonsense” and natural rights against the state are “nonsense on stilts”.
This actually goes FURTHER than Thomas Hobbes – as Mr Hobbes admitted that a person has a right to resist if the state comes to kill them personally (although Mr Hobbes denied there was a moral duty to help OTHER PEOPLE against state tyranny – this failure to see the moral duty to help other people against state tyranny destroys his political philosophy), Jeremy Bentham will not even admit that.
To Mr Bentham, and to the modern British state (and other states in other countries – see later) all that matters is the “Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number”.
And who is to decide what is for the “Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number”? The state itself is to decide this.
So, for example, if the state decides that burning Mr Yaxley-Lennon (“Tommy Robinson”) alive for the crime of murdering Queen Victoria, will serve the “Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number” (i.e. most people would really enjoy watching the man being burned alive – and this pleasure is greater than his pain) then that is what they can, and SHOULD do.
“But Tommy Robinson did not murder Queen Victoria”.
Once one has understood the legal and philosophical principles (foundations) of the modern state one can see how the fact the man did NOT murder Queen Victoria would be utterly irrelevant to them.
He is a consequentialist utilitarian, and not good outside his core area of expertise.
I could not care less what they sound like.
How this, the legal doctrine that the state can do anything it likes (Sir William Blackstone) and the philosophical doctrine that all that matters is the Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number (Jeremy Bentham), applies to other states – not just Britain.
As we can see from the antics of judges and juries (yes juries as well) in some parts of the United States – it does not matter to “modern” people if a “law” is utterly unjust, such as the “law” that was used to send a man to prison in New York City (where he did not live – he was brought there because the authorities understood that the people of the city were so morally corrupted that they would convict a “conservative” of any crime) for passing on the “vote by text” joke meme (which was invented by the other side – one of the few memes they did invent).
Judges and juries will even convict a man of “murder” when they know (they know) that no murder has taken place – as long as this action pleases the mob (who will otherwise carry on rioting – looting, burning and killing) – by the philosophy of Mr Jeremy Bentham what the judge and jury did in the case of a police officer in the case of the “murder” of Mr George Floyd was entirely right – indeed the jury would also have been entirely correct to convict the Police Officer of the murder of Queen Victoria (even though the lady died before he was born) – IF by doing so they were supporting the “Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number.
The man convicted was then cut up with knives in prison – which added greatly to the “happiness” (the pleasure – Mr Bentham was very clear there was no distinction, in his philosophy, between happiness and pleasure – so, logically, sadism is to be indulged – if for example, the pleasure of the crowd watching people being tortured to death exceeds the pain of the people being tortured to death, and remember there can be a vast number of people in the audience – the pleasure/pain calculation is likely to go against the Christian being thrown to the wild beats in the Roman Games) of the mob, the judge (a Marxist Critical Race Theory Judge) and, presumably, the jury (unless they were just scared of being burned alive in their homes if they refused to go along with all this)
Some other police officers were also convicted at the same “trial” – although no one can explain what crime they are supposed to have committed, it certainly added to the “Happiness”
of the mob for them to be send to prison. “Minnesota Nice” indeed.
Remember to totalitarians, such as the State Attorney General of Minnesota (elected by the people) – the Bill of Rights, both the Federal Bill of Rights and the Bills of Rights in the Constitutions of most States (including Minnesota) is “Crime Think” – as such Rights-Against-the-Government should not exist – in this he agrees with Jeremy Bentham long before Karl Marx, and he also agrees with the legal doctrine of Sir William Blackstone – although Blackstone paid lip service to the idea of natural rights, natural law, he held that Parliament could override such things whenever it felt like it (these days in Britain it is no longer Parliament – it is OFFICIALS).
The antics in New York City, where Donald J. Trump is found liable in Civil Counts for things the, giggling, jury know very well he did NOT do, and is even found guilty in the Criminal Courts of “crimes” that are incomprehensible nonsense (again both the judge and the jury KNOW this – they whole “trial” being a sick joke) are the tip-of-the-iceberg.
Mr Trump is famous – that is why obvious injustice against him makes the news. But many other people are victims of it, in various courts, and they do not make the news.
And why not?
Why should not giggling juries and judges amuse themselves in this way? After all being unjust adds to their “happiness” – NOT to their happiness as Aristotle would have understood it, but he is old fashioned. It certainly adds to their sadistic “pleasure” – and pleasure is how Mr Bentham defined happiness.
And the security and intelligence services?
Why not them as well?
Why should they not add to their, sadistic, pleasure by following the path of injustice?
Why not make a victim-of-torment of Mr Yaxley-Lennon and anyone else the security and intelligence services feel is a political problem – a threat to the “greatest happiness of the greatest number”, or just someone they feel like tormenting.
Who is going to stop them?
Some people will have noticed that confusing good-as-in-pleasure and good-as-in-morally-right is a philosophical mistake.
For example, that to try and calculate the pleasure of a gang of rapists against the pain of their victim is NOT how we should decide whether the action (the gang rape) was morally good. And that the pleasure of the “wider community” (say an in coming population taking over a town from a native population group) over the gang rape is also NOT proof that the gang rape was morally good – because what is morally good is NOT about pleasure.
However, do not try and explain that to the authorities, including the intelligence and security services.
As for saying that injustice is against the principles of rights against the state – they will reply by laughing, saying that rights AGAINST the state are “nonsense on stilts”.
The problem is not that the officials are uneducated – the problem is that they are very “educated”.
“The English Defence League did this”
But the English Defence League does not exist and has not existed for nine years.
“Shut up you murderer of Queen Victoria! And we are charging you with burning Rome in 64 AD – sorry I meant 64 CE, I hope my superiors will not punish me for saying AD”.
If there is no objective truth and no objective justice – this is all totally fine. And that is the position of American “Pragmatists” in philosophy – just as it is for various philosophical traditions in Britain.
And Sky News journalists will gloat over “far right” protestors, or people who have shared “right wing” memes on social media, being handed over to Islamic Prison Gangs (the gangs they use to claim were a “Conspiracy Theory”) to be abused.
Do not hold your breath waiting for the mainstream media to investigate the “Woke” authorities – sadly most of the media are very much on the same page as the authorities. As we witnessed during the Covid lockdowns and the pushing of the “vaccines”.
Ah – thank you for explaining Perry.
Understood.
There is a shorter video on YouTube making the case that the authorities tried to blackmail this man into working for them – blackmail him with threats of more prison violence (he was beaten in prison – losing teeth) and with being sent to prison on false charges such as burglary. And they also used “legal” robbery to take large amounts of money from him – also as a form of blackmail to get him to work for them.
Of course, from their utilitarian (act utilitarian – not rule utilitarian) point of view, the authorities would see nothing wrong with such conduct.
And the media would act as cheerleaders for the censorship and persecution.
Peterson a consequentialist utilitarian? Hardly. He adheres strictly to the importance of meaning, responsibility, and individual morality rather than to utilitarian principle. If anything he rejects utilitarianism’s reductionist approach. He may engage with consequentialist ideas in some contexts, overall his philosophy diverges significantly from utilitarianism and focuses on meaning, personal responsibility, and the moral complexities of human existence.
“He is a consequentialist utilitarian, and not good outside his core area of expertise”.
That just doesn’t sound right, from a number of perspectives. Utilitarianism in its most egregious form (examples provided by Paul Marks in this thread) is not a doctrine that is actively held by many people, and I have seen nothing (at least in the two books I’ve read by JP or in some of his interviews) that would make him such an extreme – or authoritarian -utilitarian. Indeed, his insistence on the primacy of the individual over the group, and his exhortations to worry about what you can do before obsessing about the things you can’t do, has a certain Kantian feel to it. Of course, to argue that actions that have bad consequences are thereby (but not exclusively) to be considered bad is hardly to fall into the arms of crude Benthamism. Morality has to have something to do with what makes humans flourish (it has to be a morality for human beings), and I suppose you could call that consequentialist if you like, but it’s hardly an powerful objection. Just to say that he is not “good outside his core area of expertise” hardly counts as an explanation. Perhaps you have some specific objections in mind?
Jordan Peterson advocates for Christianity because it has beneficial social effects, not because he is a devout believer in the supernatural (he appears to be quite ‘pragmatic’ on that score). Now he may be correct (I think he is not, I might add) but that is a near perfect example of consequentialist utilitarianism. He is a psychologist & driven by what works psychologically, not a philosopher.
I think it’s a bit more complex than that. Advocating for Christianity (assuming this is an advocacy for the believing rather than for the truth of that believed) might be one example of consequentialism, but it’s hardly a damning indictment of Peterson tout court, and it is in any event unclear to what degree this example could or should be generalised (which is what utilitarianism attempts to do). Let’s distinguish the ground of a belief (what makes it true); the reasons for holding a belief (states of affairs or events which I would adduce as reasons for my belief); the cause of a belief (circumstances which were operative in my coming to have a belief (evidently I need to be aware of the reasons, but not of the causes); and the consequences of holding a belief.
Advocating Christianity can mean a lot or a little, depending on what you take to be the its core tenets – it might be nothing more than a general kind of attitude – for example, treating others not as means to ends but as intrinsically valuable (that this is not peculiar to Christianity is neither here nor there). Someone else might consider the essence of Christianity to lie in the supposed historical truth of events like the resurrection, and of other tough minded theological doctrines that we find in St Paul’s letters. It is not evidence of a generalised philosophical utilitarianism to argue that the holding of a belief may have useful consequences that are distinct from the grounds of that belief. Perhaps in our own case we always want to grasp the grounds (and only the grounds) to determine whether we should believe it or not; nevertheless, it might be true that someone might be happier in believing that p even when – perhaps particularly when – there is no evidence that p – i.e., where the grounds for the belief that p cannot be determined to hold or not. And it even be true that if the majority of people (of a community – however defined) believe something or other that they will flourish better than if they didn’t. There is always going to be a ceteris paribus clause in here somewhere to avoid the counter examples Paul Marks cites – i.e., providing (for example) that individual human rights of a certain sort are not infringed for some spurious “good of the community”.
It’s true that Peterson studied politics and psychology, and has no degree in philosophy. But you can learn quite a lot after university. I studied philosophy for 7 years and taught it for 5 but have not been active in the field for more than 40 years. Am I still a philosopher?
There is indeed a great difference between “Act Utilitarianism” (the philosophy of the British establishment – indeed of the international establishment) and “Rule Utilitarianism” – and I write as someone who is NEITHER sort of utilitarian
As for terrible political and legal doctrines – a good example would be the speech, in the House of Commons, by the Home Secretary, that I have just heard.
The Home Secretary (the person in charge of the police and so on) made a speech that assumed guilt of accused protestors (all assumed to be rioters), made various false claims about the origin of the riots and other disorders, and backed even more censorship of social media, and general persecution and oppression – directed at OPINIONS.
It reminded me of an old BBC television series broadcast in the late 1970s (and never repeated) and set in “1990”.
In this television series a totalitarian state exists – but there has been no invasion or Revolution, all the elements of the totalitarian state, including the Public Control Department (or Department of Public Control) have been voted through by a democratically elected Parliament dominated by the Labour Party.
Without the limited (if not half hearted) resistance of the Conservative Party government, this democratically elected new Labour Party dominated House of Commons is very much on the same page as the international establishment – Freedom of Speech, and other basic liberties, and national independence are not things they like.
The other element in “1990” was economic collapse – that will happen next year, 2025.
Some wealthy people are already leaving the United Kingdom.
I can add little to Perry’s original comment. Whatever I might think about Tommy Robinson, Dr Peterson, or whoever, is besides the point. Unless and until a prosecutor could show that their comments are likely to cause imminent danger to the life of named individuals, and be proven to do so, calls for restrictions on their speech are unacceptable. No ifs, no buts.
And look at what is happening in Brazil.
It must be stressed that to the Home Secretary, and the international establishment generally, it is not the violation of the bodies and goods of other people that is the true crime – the true crime, in their world view, is having and expressing certain opinions – specifically opinions they define as “Far Right”.
The international establishment do not really hide this any more, and what they consider “Far Right” includes, for example, “One America News” (described as “far right” by both Wikipedia which-anyone-can-edit-as-long-as-they-are-a-leftist and Microsoft – as well as the places Google will send people).
Everyone on Samizdata, without exception, regardless of our differences amongst ourselves would be considered “far right” and therefore, by-definition, a CRIMINAL by the Home Secretary and the rest of the international establishment.
We are not criminals because of what we do – we are criminals because of our OPINIONS.
We are indeed “Thought Criminals”.
Johnathan Pearce – sadly what you write is not in line with British law, or the law of the many other nations. I wish it was – but it is not.
“Hate Speech” (i.e. speech which goes against the establishment narrative) is not lawful according to the doctrines of the Home Secretary and the “Woke” judges (and it is also a rule of the European Union that such dissent is a CRIME – and this is indeed part of the cultural aspect of Agenda 2030, agreed by the United Nations, such dissent, they believe, is a crime – and it must be crushed).
Indeed you yourself would be considered, by the Home Secretary, to be “far right” and therefore, by definition, a CRIMINAL to be punished.
The judges in this land have made it very clear that they agree that “far right” OPINIONS should be crushed – which should come as no shock to people who know how the judges are selected and what cultural training they receive.
Meanwhile Mr Putin’s media outlets hypocritically wax lyrical about the crushing of dissent in Britain and other nations – hypocritically because Mr Putin does NOT tolerate dissent against his own regime.
One can talk about Argentina or other places – but the last hope for Freedom of Speech, or any other basic liberty, in a powerful Western nations is with a 78 year old property developer and ex Democrat – Donald J. Trump.
A couple of Harris appointments to the Supreme Court and the First Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, is dead.
As dead as the British Bill of Rights.
Soon we will know if there is any hope for the United States or whether it will go down the same road to tyranny that BRAZIL (which Johnathan Peace rightly reminds us of) has gone down.
We share some enemies, but he also has some views I regard as fairly idiotic. I don’t find Peterson interesting enough to go much deeper. He is not what this post is really about.
Very interesting philosophical remarks by Paul Makrs and Mark Helme. But, in order to establish a basis for discussion, i find it necessary to nitpick on Perry’s comment about J. Peterson:
I think of utilitarianism as a subset of consequentialism, and therefore saying “consequentialist utilitarian” is, to me, a waste of syllables.
Specifically, consequentialism is the theory that actions must be judged by their consequences; and pay attention to the fact that i leave unspecified HOW the consequences are to be evaluated. I do not specify a measure of utility, in fact i am inclined to Isaiah Berlin’s “value pluralism”.
Utilitarianism, otoh, is the (consequentialist) theory that, not only we can agree on a measure of utility, but we can also perform inter-personal utility comparisons. I reject these ideas as blatantly opposed to my skeptical foundations, and blame them on Bentham’s apparent autistic tendencies.
— Having said that, i reluctantly have to agree with J. Peterson (and many others) that Judeo-Christian values are foundational in West Civ, and that it is dubious whether such values can survive in society at large, without the fear of rotting in Hell. (Although i myself have no such fear.)
The ignorant-of-philosophy question this all raises for me is, if I am agnostic with respect to a deity but believe that religion has been a calming and civilizing and, overall, beneficial influence on humanity, does that make me a consequentialist utilitarian?
Europe’s Religious Wars during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries? Islam?
Ah, Perry is cherry-picking, something that i recently warned against!
🙂
The answer to bobby’s question is: it does make you a consequentialist, not necessarily utilitarian.
Inter-religion battles are not pretty. But I will maintain that, within each religion’s area of influence, outside of the “which god is best?” fight, the influences have been mostly beneficial.
If Islam controlled the entire world, I have no doubt that it would be a more peaceful place. It’s the idea of bringing the heathen into the fold that causes the problems.
And that’s where I get confused. (Well, one of the many places.) I was thinking, as you set out, that one was a subset of the other, with some variables more tightly defined. Wouldn’t a consequentialist necessarily also be a utilitarian?
(P.S. Or am I confusing which is the set and which is the subset?)
I should think, bobby, that the (based-on-my-definitions) answer would be obvious to a legal mind!
Just as, based on the prosecution’s definition, it is obvious that Bill Clinton did not have sex with Monica.
bobby b
All the world going Islamic would make for more peace? Which Islam — Sunni or Shiite? Or one of the other Islamic sects? As witness Iran vs. Iraq, the entire world of Islam seems to insist on killing other Muslims who Aren’t Doing It Right.
It’s a common dream, but most religions come down harder on the heretic and apostate than they do on the unbeliever. “Woke” is the new-style ‘politeness’ warring against the old manners. In the computer world there are OS wars; and let’s not even think of the pronoun wars.
Ladies and Gentlemen of Samizdata, I don’t wish to add anything constructive to this discussion – philosophy being one of my (many) intellectual blind spots – but I would like to praise you all for the nature of this debate.
It seems, to me, that a discussion of this complexity, and with a clear difference of opinion, would have descended into name-calling, denouncements of Nazism, and, perhaps, the dropping of the odd c-bomb were it taking place anywhere else on the Wibbly-Wobbly-Way. Maybe that’s indicative of the other sites I frequent, but it isn’t indicative of Samizdata.
This seems as good a time as any to say thank you all for the many thought-provoking posts and comments over the years.
Cheers WindyPants.
The life (the deeds – choices and actions) of Jesus and Muhammed were very different, and their teachings are very different.
It may be illegal to say that in the United Kingdom, or other such “Woke” (anti “Hate Speech”) countries, but it is the truth.
One of the tragedies of the modern world is that Christian leaders (such as the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope) refuse to tell the truth about such matters – indeed they support the falsehoods of the secular establishment.