This was always the West’s problem in Afghanistan: it lacked faith in the very values it claimed to be delivering to that benighted country. We will liberate women from life under the burqa, Western officials said. But isn’t it ‘Islamophobic’ to criticise the burqa, or any other Islamic practice for that matter? Our elites have insisted for years that it is. We will replace your intolerant Islamist system with a civil society fashioned by clever professors, the West promised. But isn’t it judgemental and possibly a tad racist – certainly an offence against the ideology of multiculturalism – to imply that Western democracy is superior to Islamist theocracy? As one British think-tank says, in its definition of the term ‘Islamophobia’, it is wrong to suggest that Islam is in any way ‘inferior to the West’. The West’s post-9/11 bluster was continually undermined by the West’s broader descent into moral relativism. How can you assert the civilisational authority of Western values when your entire educational and university system is devoted to questioning and demeaning Western civilisation? You cannot partake in a clash of civilisations if you loathe your own civilisation.
|
|||||
|
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 dayPerry de Havilland (Wiltshire) · Afghanistan · Culture Wars · North American affairs · Slogans & Quotations August 16th, 2021 |
 29 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
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. |
|||||
George Herbert Walker Bush was a brave U.S. Navy man and was supposed to be a decent man – but he called beliefs (principles) “the vision thing” – he had no core. His son, George Walker Bush, wanted to be different – but really was not. He had no core set of political principles either.
As for John “we have spent more money than Labour even promised to spend” Major (he thought that was a good thing) – does anything more need to be said?
The political vision of the Progressives is evil – it is ever greater Collectivism. But the “conservatives” have been taught that being conservative means “change in a gradual and peaceful way” (or “Conservative men, liberal measures” – as both Disraeli and Richard Nixon put it, showing their understanding of both “liberal” and “conservative” was utterly worthless), the DIRECTION of change (ever greater collectivism) is never questioned.
Whether it is Bush 41 “read my lips no new taxes” (not “I will cut taxes” just I will not increase them – and even that was a LIE) and his Americans With Disabilities Act (“anti discrimination” stuff) and all the rest of it, or Bush 43 with his Medicare Part D. and “No Child Left Behind”.
Such men were not going to resist Agenda 21 or anything else – “but at least they believed in Freedom of Speech” NO THEY DID NOT.
They did not believe in Freedom of Speech or any other basic liberty (that would be the “vision thing”) – they would talk nonsense about a certain belief system (in the hopes of flattering its supporters) and punish anyone who dared tell the truth. After all Agenda 21 (those endless United Nations documents that suddenly become “just a conspiracy theory” if anyone is critical of them) also include a CULTURAL side – and there is no room for Freedom of Speech or real Freedom of Religion (or any other basic liberty) in the CULTURAL side.
The economic ignorance, political opportunism, and lack of any good principles among the Western establishment, do not need the religious and political system that must-not-be-opposed, to destroy the West – they are quite capable of doing it themselves.
The West has long been collapsing – internally.
Its refusal to debate other belief systems is indeed the result of its own “relativism” its lack of any moral or intellectual core.
Such men as Prime Minister Gladstone, or even Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan would be amazed – and DISGUSTED.
In the past I was angry with this or that mistake or lost opportunity of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan – but I was privileged to be alive when the last generation of Western leaders who really believed in Western Civilisation were in office.
We should all be proud of what was achieved – including the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Marxist rule in Eastern Europe. But the last 30 years, Agenda 21 (or whatever you want to call it), are just a mess.
And, yes, it is a mess that starts in the education system – which teaches a mixture of lies and relativist nonsense, and produces the leaders who dominate the West now.
I await with eager anticipation the first opinion piece in left-wing media lambasting the US and its allies for using aircraft to evacuate people from Kabul at a time of Climate Emergency, given that all these extra planet-destroying carbon emissions are being incurred merely in order to facilitate the escape of a bunch of Islamophobic racists from the joys of life under a devout Muslim administration.
There are still millions of Americans who both understand and believe in the principles of the West – but they are not in power, they control no institutions at all. Not government – and not corporate either.
Indeed the media (and the education system) call the only people who still believe in the basic principles of liberty “traitors”, “insurrectionists”, “racists” “white surpremacists” (even if they are BLACK) and-so-on.
The inversion is complete – the enemies of the West control all the institutions, the schools, the universities, even Federal law enforcement (witness the corrupt scum who make up the FBI and the “Justice” Department), and those loyal to the West are being driven out of everything (including the Armed Forces) and made outlaws.
As for other Western nations – little point in discussing them, as if America falls other Western nations can not stand.
I remind people that in terms of industrial might China is already stronger (much stronger) than the decayed United States – and other Western nations are much weaker.
In China someone who declared that “mathematics is racist” would not be given a position of power – they would be lucky to escape being vivisected.
Zerren Yeoville.
As John O’Sullivan pointed out on Twitter today (I read it before I was kicked off Twitter – “put in this code” which can not be put in), a young Senator in 1975 mocked the people who were desperately trying to escape being murdered by the Marxists in Vietnam.
The name of that young piece of excrement in 1975?
Joseph Biden.
Mr Biden does not believe in Frankfurt School “Woke” Marxism – because he does not have a sincere belief in anything at all. Apart from POWER – ever-bigger-government.
Does he really believe that this will “help the poor” – no, not even his senile brain believes that. He has not been asleep as big government places such as Chicago have fallen apart.
They want ever bigger government not as a way of “helping the poor” (they know it makes poverty WORSE – much WORSE) – but because they-want-it. They want ever bigger and more controlling government for-its-own-sake.
Once you grasp that, everything they do makes sense.
And, no, it has nothing really to do with Covid 19 or Global Warming – they wanted ever bigger and more controlling government long before all that.
They will fail – they will fall. Because their sickening Credit Bubble system violates Economic Law – 1+1=2 (objective truth) will destroy them all. Government and “Woke” Corporate alike.
The question is will there be enough people who believe in private property (especially in land) and the basic liberties, to rebuild from the ruins?
It is wrong to suggest that the culture that most vehemently resisted the abolition of slavery is in any way inferior to the culture that abolished slavery round the world.
– Well obviously; how can you pursue slavery reparations if you allow a suggestion like that.
It is wrong to suggest that the culture that practised FGM is in any way inferior to the culture that did not.
– Well, obviously; many a militant feminist group would be inconvenienced in its rhetoric if asked to address such a suggestion.
It is wrong to suggest that veneration of a man who practised assassination, enslavement and conquest is in any way inferior to veneration of a man who never killed, enslaved or conquered anyone.
– Well, obviously; preaching forgiveness is no way to accelerate the revolution, comrade.
It is wrong to suggest that a movement that thinks adulterers should be stoned to death is in any way inferior to western sexual mores of today.
– Uh, can we get back to you on that?
Three questions please:
1. How has Afghanistan been run for most of the past 3,000 years? Was there a period of time that it resembled Switzerland or perhaps Sweden?
2. Can anyone point to any evidence that the majority of Afghan people do NOT largely support the Taliban as rulers of their country?
3. Can anyone point to any evidence that the majority of Afghan people do NOT largely support the Taliban’s policies as the policies of their government?
There are obviously tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of Afghans who are terrified of being slaughtered by the Taliban for having helped the Americans over the last 20 years. They are right to worry and there will probably be a lot of violence and lots of death, too.
But besides that whole “oh shit, I was was working with the Americans” thing that applies to some doomed Afghans… I have no real reason to think that most Afghan people have any real problem at all with the Taliban running their country.
There are some good lines in Brendan O’Neill’s piece, but mostly he is trying to shoe-horn in an anti-woke narrative to the unfolding tragedy in Afghanistan. Much as I am also anti-woke this feels a bit off – too much like something a Guardian writer might do.
Well, if you look at who the Taliban want to eliminate, then they would likely get the vote of the majority of the people in the west.
https://voxday.net/2021/08/16/can-we-vote-for-them/
As for other Western nations – little point in discussing them, as if America falls other Western nations can not stand.
At this point, I’d not dismiss any islands of sanity that might spring up. We might need these places, and can use any rebellion we can get. Poland seems sane, Switzerland seems sane, Hungary must be doing something right because they’re pissing off all the right people.
Perhaps there is hope in smaller nations remaining in the control of their own people than vast and unaccountable empires.
PS: Is this an English-derived disease? A WWII victor disease? Is this a NATO disease, this transnational aristocracy torpedoing western civilization? Apparently there are military in the streets of New South Wales of all places, and internment camps being constructed in Australia and Canada.
Any links with evidence?
Any links with evidence?
Tim Pool discussing the Australian military and the NSW house arrest:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/gXtyieRkVYo/
I’ll look for the reference to the internment camps for COVID troublemakers.
The rot in Western civilization is indeed the collectivist urge. The selfish desire that others make the sacrifices and pay the price that ‘I’ may live comfortably appears to be endemic to any human society that rises above subsistence level. (Tragedy of the Commons). It takes a cultural shift to choose freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility over safety and predictability. Apparently Democracy isn’t the correct tool for this, as democracies seem to last 200 or so years before collapsing. When anyone can vote, and politicians promise free everything and get the power to deliver on those promises, collapse is inevitable.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
– John Adams.
Without that moral and religious underpinning, the culture has no faith in itself, and sees no reason to defend it.
It is always worth getting a non western perspective on these things. Here, for example, is the utterly chilling take of the news media in Russia, from the English language Moscow Times. Their take? “The Taliban are restoring public order”:
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/08/16/russia-sees-kabul-stabilizing-taliban-restoring-order-a74812
Or here is the CCP’s take on this, with characteristic Chinese reservedness, though one can surely hear the underlying glee and opportunism.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202108/17/WS611af64fa310efa1bd669245.html
They make this statement: The facts on the ground have proved once again that a regime cannot stand without the support of the people, and that attempting to solve problems with military power will only add up to the problems.
I wonder if they will apply this way of thinking to their invasion of Taiwan? An invasion that is surely much more likely today than it was last week.
Monarchy.
Absolute divine-right hereditary monarchy.
If you can get God to tell me, personally and specifically, that John Doe is to be king, I’m all in.
But if you want to define “divine right” with hearsay – “God told me to tell you that John Doe is to be king” – sorry, no. Too much room for self-dealing.
Only if there is also a separate sworn assassin’s guild entrusted with ensuring the monarchs stay on track. Basically a Bureau of Sabotage that deals with the nobles and bureaucracy as well. Too greedy, too profligate, disrespectful of enumerated rights and freedoms = DEATH. No warnings or cautions.
Events in France and Germany reply ‘no’ and ‘no’. Clearly it is very much also an English-derived disease but one that relates less to winning in WWII than to forgetting how one did.
As to the ultimate source, well Paul reminds us that it is called the Frankfurt school of Marxism. English-speaking intellectuals may love hating English culture but they typically have to import the theories to justify it from abroad even if they then develop them greatly.
Every systems needs checks and balances 🤣👍🏻
S.M.
Afghanistan was better off under the monarchy in the 1960s – I have never denied it. But it was not an “absolute divine right monarchy” – it was monarchy limited by the power of the various elders of clans and other groups. If the King of Afghanistan in the 1960s had said “my power is absolute – I can pass any law I like, and you must all obey me!” he would have been assumed to have gone insane.
As for the West – anyone who thinks Western monarchies were traditionally “absolute” or that “absolute” monarchy is a good idea, is wrong – wrong about history and wrong about political wisdom.
Even as early as 877 the King of France (Charles the Bald) was forced to formally admit that is power was limited (not absolute) – he was NOT a Roman ruler from the days of the Empire. Or any other sort of DESPOT.
For example, the King was forced to admit that he had no legal power to take land from one family and give it another family. The monarchy was limited – not absolute.
The effort to create ABSOLUTE monarchy was many centuries later – Louis XIV (the Sun King) and all that, and it was madness.
By the way – you asked how Ron Paul was used to “discredit” libertarians. The following is how…..
Ron Paul would make a speech falsely blaming Islamic terrorist attacks on “our meddling in the Middle East” – and this speech would then be replayed with the comment “this is what libertarians believe – they blame the victim”. Of course, Ron Paul was only repeating the Rothbardian poison that had, for many years, been poured into his ear (by Lew Rockwell and others), but he did say such things – in his old age (I am NOT claiming that Ron Paul said such false things when he was a young man – and I am NOT claiming that it was fault that Rothbardian poison was poured into his ear).
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
But there was something of that sort in the Republic of Venice, i believe. That must be why it survived for so long.
John Adams – on a “moral and religious people” and Constitutions.
Roger Sherman was a lot more of a religious Puritan than John Adams was – but he was also more realistic.
A moral and religious people need no Constitution (Angels do not need Constitutions), and an utterly evil people would obey no Constitution (Devils are treacherous). What is needed is a Constitution that is written for people as they are (neither Angels or Devils) – not people as they should be in some ideal (and imaginary) world.
For example, if you want to make sure that only physical gold and silver are used as money – that is WHAT YOU WRITE. You leave no “wriggle room” for “emergency situations” – for such “emergencies” never end.
“We do not need to write this Mr Sherman, not in Article One, Section Eight – because we have said it in Article One, Section 10” – NO – people in government are NOT trust worthy. If you just say that no State can have anything other than gold or silver coin as legal tender – then some scumbag is going to say “that does not formally say the FEDERAL government – so the FEDERAL government CAN issue non gold or silver money”. Everyone must be assumed to be a bit-of-a-scumbag – and a Constitution must be written accordingly (any legal contract must be written with the assumption that anyone can be a bit of a scumbag).
Most people are neither Angels or Devils – they will seek loopholes for their own corrupt advantage, but if there are none, they will (most people) obey a Constitution.
A Constitution that is written in tight legal language can do good – witness the 1968 Constitution of Florida which has limited taxation and borrowing.
A Constitution that depends on people being NICE (on people not seeking loopholes and wriggle room) is of little use.
As for “absolute” monarchy – that is the Roman Empire of Diocletian or Constantine (one Pagan the other Christian – both despotic) and co. The correct response to such a doctrine, is a bullet to the face.
Snorri – I believe Mr Ed took a photograph of me in the Street of the Assassins in Venice.
As every school boy used to know – the Commandment does not say “thou shall not kill” it says “thou shall do no murder”. Under-the-correct-conditions killing is not murder – indeed it is an honourable profession.
Killing any man who takes “absolute” (unlimited) power is an honourable act – and is most certainly not murder.
However, it is the job of a correctly written Constitution (written in tight legal language – no loopholes and wriggle room, no absurd reliance on people being “moral and religious”) to PREVENT the government growing out of control in the first place – thus making killing unnecessary.
@ Shlomo Maistre
Presumably you are also content to believe that the majority of Cambodians were content with the policies of the Khmer Rouge?
Paul:
Just last night i re-watched Jon Snow killing Daenerys Targaryen. Very well acted, and i am impressed that, faced with Drogon, Jon did not chicken out and run away, as i probably would have.
And btw i am very much in agreement with what you wrote above, at 11:02 am, about absolute monarchy.
Very few dynasties, anywhere in the world, survived as long as the Republic of Venice.
Sometimes the fall of a dynasty was not achieved by civil war; but too often, it was.
One slight disagreement, however, that i do have with what Paul wrote at 11:02:
The problem are the first few words: Even as early as…
That seems to imply that one would expect the power of the State to be more absolute in its early stages. With some exceptions, such as the Soviet Union, the opposite is the case.
You make good points Snorri – and yes I was clumsy with the words. I write whatever comes into mind – without carefully sorting out the language, as-I-should.
I was sad at the way Game of Thrones ended – indeed the entire last series did not make sense to me (although the decline started in the previous season – season seven), but YES if D.T. ended up that way then she needed to be killed.
asiaseen,
Presumably you are unaware that the Khmer Rouge has far more in common with democracy than hereditary monarchy.
I’m not going to waste my breath on intellectual juveniles who wouldn’t be able to compose a written rebuttal to Louis de Bonald, Juan Donoso Cortes, or Joseph de Maistre that anyone considered well educated by the standards of the 17th century would find both comprehensible and persuasive if they had their entire lives to try to write such a thing.
Go read Ayn Rand.
Imperial Russia had a ‘Ministry Veto’ of sorts. If the resyif the government didn’t like a policy, security for the ‘reform Minister would be lax, resulting in his assassination by “terrorists”.
Shlomo Maistre
Really? I haven’t heard anything about internment camps but the military on the streets of Sydney is widely reported. See Sky News Australia on Youtube. My sister lives in Sydney and she says the navy is involved as well. As far as I know they are “supporting” the police but the optics are awful.