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 – the meltdowns are a wonder to behold The meltdown of the centrists is a wonder to behold. This is America’s ‘darkest dawn’, cried rhyming-slang-in-waiting, Ian Dunt. Emily Maitlis yelped on live TV that Trump is ‘batshit’, which is rich from someone who is essentially a Halloween version of Princess Diana. The Guardian put out a news notification that said, ‘Trump becomes the first convicted criminal to win the White House’. This really is all they have left, isn’t it? Sly asides to titillate depressed posh people on X? Smug jokes aimed at tempting suicidal liberals off the ledge? Utterly incapable of understanding Joe Public – both here and in the US – the Guardian opts to become the court jester of the cunterati instead.
– Brendan O’Neill is in rip-roaring form 😀
|
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.
|
One of the more thoughtful comments comes today from someone who isn’t a Trump fan, but definitely not a lefty, is Stephen Davies, involved with the Institute of Economic Affairs:
“Finally, what of classical liberals? They will welcome the defeat of a radical woke agenda, but be dismayed by the rest. Trump’s protectionism, economic nationalism and attempts to control migration (which inevitably means domestic authoritarianism) are contrary to their instincts. What is needed for them is serious thinking about what kind of international order they want to see, and the development and articulation of positive and substantive arguments for things like a cosmopolitan global economy and society. These need to go beyond arguments about economics to a fuller vision of individual and collective flourishing and what is needed to sustain it in the world.
“What they must not do at any cost is tie themselves to the sinking ship of technocratic liberal governance, with its denial of actual political debate and assertion of a cultural agenda that few share and which is enforced by curtailing free speech. However, they must also realise that the alliance with conservatives that marked the cold war era is over. This is a lonely position, but potentially invigorating.”
The tension between the more nationalist position of a Trump (and Farage in the UK ) and the classical liberal position has always been there. Back in the 1830s and 40s, for example, the Tories (who after 1834 became more known as Conservatives) were ripped apart over free trade (Sir Robert Peel’s repeal of the Corn Laws). The EU has had a similar impact; at times, imperialism was a fault-line, such as in the days of Joe Chamberlain in the late 19th Century. In the US, there are these different undercurrents of conservatism and liberal politics that can operate: the Jeffersonian, Jacksonian and Hamiltonian strains.
For what it is worth, I see Trump as part of both the Andrew Jackson tradition in politics of the period leading up to the Civil War, such as a focus on the domestic economy and dislike of foreign entanglement, with a dose of Teddy Roosevelt “strenuous life” masculine energy, dislike of Wall Street, etc. And throw in a bit of vaudeville camp for good measure. Mark Twain would have been fascinated by Trump.
The next four years are going to be fun if you like drama. Who needs to watch an HBO TV series when you have this?
Well, he follows a long line of unconvicted criminals!
At least he has his convictions.
George Washington was a traitor to the (then) state, but they never managed to get him into a courtroom.
Yes druid, they all managed to hang together, so they weren’t hanged separately.
The garnish…
Ellen,
Yes, a conviction politician.
Mark,
Nice point.
OK, the meat… “the sinking ship of technocratic liberal governance”. I’ll give ’em “governance” grudgingly… But “liberal”? Gimme a break! And “technocratic” is dubious… How many of these alleged “technocrats” can wire a plug, understand a logarithmic scale or do more with a computer than write spew emojis?
I seriously mean it. I have a huge problem with the social “sciences” because of what I put in quotes. Science has been so successful that the economists and sociologists waited unti they saw science bathing and stole the lab-coats. This is why “Chicks with Dicks” on the women’s basketball team are backing-up their ludicrous claims with “gender theory” and all the rest of the “theories”. I call it (with no apologies to the ghost of Dr Sigmund Fraud, “physics envy”.
I am not here suggesting an A-Level in Maths as a requirement for public office or anything like that. I am lamenting that ideas about government, politics, the very human soul or whatever has increasingly felt the need for pseudo-science. It’s like watching Scotty in drag. It is a root cause of a lot of problems. It of course goes further back than Dear Siggy. It goes back to Marx* with a “scientific” theory of economic history. It’s just wrong. It’s an attempt to describe a Beethoven symphony in terms of molecular vibrations of air molecules. It is trying to use a flathead when you need a posidrive.
I could write a book on this but it would drive me to opiates because it shouldn’t even need to be said… I’d go the way of Jack in “The Shining”. I’d be found permanetly carbon-neutral in the garden and my laptop would be found with the line, “It’s all bollocks” repeated until the drive was full…
But, just one thing… Has anyone ever criticised Marxist “theory” on the basis that whilst it presents as mechanistic it is pure teleology?
*I am well aware that a certain gentleman scholar from Kettering is thinking Bacon and Plato right now.
They are not “centrists” – they are on board with the international agenda of tyranny, that is not a centrist position – it is one of radical change, change to tyranny, to international governance controlling the lives of ordinary people.
President Trump may be, unjustly, blamed for the economic crash of 2025 (which can not be avoided) – but it is still good to see the forces of evil, for that is what they are, so dismayed.
At least for now the international agenda of tyranny has suffered a major blow – the free (or semi free) people in the world are not enslaved yet.
As for the Guardian – remember its history, including covering up the murder of millions of people by the Marxists in the Soviet Union. This is not a “centrist” publication – it is a publication that has long supported tyranny.
One Lorenzo Warby has criticized Marx as Hegel warmed over, pretending to be scientific, which is basically what you mean.
Part 1, Part 2
This criticism of the Marxist view of history was covered in the first year historiography course I had to do studying history at university. Same critique was made to Whig theory of history.
NickM:
Just had to say how much I enjoyed this particular line.
The first thing they need to realize is one of the following (varying from person to person):
A. They ruined too many potential coalitions by trying to prove that they were better than those reactionary nativists, complaining about furriners takin’ their jerbs. Then, when the other members of their “better-than-nativist” coalition grabbed themselves some subsidies, or some cheap labor they could threaten to deport if it tried to negotiate better wages, the classical liberals were completely powerless to stop them, because they’d steadfastly refused to let anyone else who opposed them get any clout.
B. They never actually cared about economic freedoms; they only cared about increasing their own power.
C. They never actually cared about the decisions & policies made by those large organizations with guns we call “governments”; they just liked being able to scold people and look down on them for being wrong.
I was mostly a mix of A and C. Don’t get me wrong; scolding people is terrific fun, which is why I’m doing it right now. More seriously, preserving the knowledge about the problems with populist ideas is also a necessary part of getting better ideas into power. However, I’m sure I’m not the only one who fell into the trap of dismissing populist complaints about “unfairness” as being anti-freedom, only to acknowledge the existing coercion when socialists tried to claim real problems were the fault of free markets.
An article in the Guardian by one Emma Brockes contains the following extraordinary sentence in the final paragraph – “The only thing that came close to the feeling of unreality on Wednesday morning was how the world felt in the hours after 9/11”. I suppose this is where you end up if you come to believe, as many ‘liberals’ appear to, that events and speech that you find hurtful are just as bad as violence.
So having someone that you don’t like elected president of a foreign country is just as bad as being buried under a mountain of rubble and dying. Have I got that right?
Has anyone noticed what a shockingly high proportion of the female meltdown crazies have nose rings? I’m starting to think there’s a 1:1 relationship between disfiguring yourself that way and being a total whack job.
Advice to young men: Never put your dick into crazy. Noseringers are crazy.
Well said Patrick.
One man’s centrist is another man’s Marxist.
“At least he has his convictions.”
I love it. There is way too much seriousness on this humor blog.
Johnathan Pearce – Donald Trump is a traditional Republican (although he pretended to be a Democrat to get by in New York City business and politics – just as he pretended to drink at social gatherings – whilst, in reality, being teetotal).
Even when we might not agree with some of his policies they are firmly rooted in the Republican tradition – for example both the nationalism and the tariff policy is straight from Abraham Lincoln (not Jackson – Lincoln). Donald J. Trump went to Wharton Business School – and he went there back in the 1960s when it was NOT “Woke” as we say today – and Wharton was founded (as the name suggests) by Mr Wharton, 19th century Republican Protectionist – “liberty up to the water’s edge” was the unkind way of describing traditional Republicans (like President Taft or President Coolidge) who did not want America to be dependent on foreign trade or involved in foreign wars – that being dependent on goods from overseas would lead America into WAR after WAR was always, right or wrong, part of their argument.
It was pointed out to me (a couple of weeks ago) how similar the Republican Platform of 2024 was to the Republican Platform of 1924 (of Coolidge).
The great difference is the utterly vast (indeed insane) amount of money that the Federal Government now spends.
Today, if President Coolidge (or Senator Conkling from the 19th century) returned to this Earth – they would resign in despair.
Government spending at this level can not be fixed – the entire monetary and financial order is based on endless money-created-from-nothing to fund endless spending – both government and corporate (and government and the corporations are joined at the hip).
Of the Founding Fathers it was Roger Sherman who warned this might happen – that is why he was so strong on money only being physical gold and silver, and government spending being strictly limited (and funded by a tariff – not by an income tax, yes the tradition of President Grant or President Trump goes all the way back).
With the (important) exception of the tariff – 2025 will see the vindication of the “forgotten Founding Father” Roger Sherman – he was right about both the monetary and financial order.
The present system of endless spending financed by creating money from nothing – is going to, finally, fall apart.
Stonyground. I think it’s more that the anguish and distress Emma felt following the victory of the despised Donald was as bad or worse than the anguish and distress she felt after witnessing a terrorist attack that killed large numbers of people. Doesn’t say a great deal for either her sense of proportion or her humanity.
David Norman – yes indeed Sir.
And even when the “liberals” (who are really the opposite of liberals – they hate freedom even as they, like K. Harris, pretend to support freedom) claim to be upset by a terrorist attack – they are not really upset at all.
From the very first moment after a terrorist attack the primary concern of the “liberals” (who, again, are really the opposite of liberals – they are about as far from John Bright or Gladstone as it is possible to be) is to punish “Islamophobia”.
Paul: Donald Trump is a traditional Republican
The begs the question of what that term “traditional Republican” is. Is he, for example, cut from the same cloth as Calvin Coolidge or Barry Goldwater? Does he rail against Big Government, restrictions and controls? Up to a point, but with big caveats. Trump is a fan of tariffs, and that is why he, like some of the GOP presidents of the late 19th century whom I referred to, thinks these are okay because America has such a vast internal market. I don’t think, however, that Reagan would have fallen for this mistake – he knew that protectionism damages the countries that practice it. Goldwater would have been unimpressed, unless there was a clear national security angle. He would be quick to note how tariffs tend to be driven by vested interests.
I think there are some rough parallels but differences. Reagan was capable of using harsh language at times – such as about the former Soviet Union – but his general tone was more upbeat. “Good morning in America”, and all that. Reagan might denounce illegal immigrants, but he’d be sure to focus as much as on the great legal immigrant success stories, too, to balance this out and set the tone. For example, I can imagine Reagan noting that Elon Musk is from South Africa, and applaud his decision to make his fortune in the US, just as he would have done about those who left Vietnam, Cuba or Eastern Europe. I think this sort of matters.
Changing tack, some signs of a more general shift away from crazy leftism, in California (yes, you read that correctly):
From the Wall Street Journal:
Mr. Trump could become the first Republican since 2004 to break 40% in California. Voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 36, a measure to toughen penalties for shoplifting and fentanyl crimes, and ousted progressive San Francisco Mayor London Breed and Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón.
Yes, even in California, people have had enough.
I don’t know Goldwater’s views on tariffs or immigration but Coolidge was a big protectionist and signed a bill that strongly restricted immigration for 40 years.
The republican party began as the heirs to the tradition of Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay, and protectionism was a standard republican policy right up until the 1980s. Generally the republicans were always more nativist regarding immigration than democrats. In addition to what happened under Coolidge, Eisenhower deported one million people as part as Operation Wetback.
The association of free trade with the GOP is a more recent deviation from the norm. And Reagan was out of the norm by amnestying 3 million illegal immigrants. Trump is much more the Republican norm historically on immigration.
Conclusion: he may have started as a democrat (so did Reagan), he may be eccentric, but Trump’s views are almost entirely within the Republican party traditions.
Johnathan Pearce – actually yes.
Someone recently showed me the 1924 Republican Platform, the Calvin Coolidge platform, and compared it to that of 2024 (the Donald Trump platform) – they were not identical, but there were many common themes, just as there were between the platform of Coolidge in 1924 and that of Grant and other Republicans in the late 19th century (for example the preference for a tariff rather than Income Tax).
The great difference between now and 1924 is the vast size of GOVERNMENT SPENDING.
Donald J. Trump has no real plans to deal with that – other than say it is a terrible thing, but the same could be said of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. Reagan had no real plan to deal with it either – other than to say it was a terrible thing.
So perhaps economic breakdown is inevitable – you know that I think so.
When Barry Goldwater was defeated in 1964, and the Great Society Entitlement schemes became established – the breakdown of 2025 became unavoidable. The schemes have grown like cancers over the last 60 years – indeed they were designed to do so (by Cloward and Piven – and others).
President Trump may (unjustly) get the blame – but, at this stage, there is nothing he could do that would prevent economic crises.
I continue to believe it will happen in 2025 – but I could be mistaken about the year. However, it will happen.
By the way Johnathan Pearce – it is now known that Trump family supported Barry Goldwater in 1964.
Donald Trump was technically telling the truth when he denied “voting” for Barry Goldwater – as Donald Trump was born in 1946 and thus was only 18 years of age in 1964, at that time (which journalists forgot) the minimum voting age was 21.
I’m trying to believe that Trump will be able to do most of what he wants, that they won’t kill him, and I’m hoping that what he wants to do will be smart in the end.
That’s not always obvious to me about Trump, e.g., trade tariffs seem dumb economically (but I suspect Trump knows this and is going to use the threat of tariffs to get concessions), not enough focus on reducing spending, not reducing our reliance on models (I had to throw that one in since Trump “knows a few things about models”), etc.
I think it would be good to also figure out how to counter what the internet has become: a mob. Samizdata.net is one place that provides a wonderful answer to that but what fraction of the worldwide electorate is present in this forum or any other like it? 0.000001%? How do we expand the Samizdata culture?
The internet has become the worst sort of democracy; un-filtered and un-hinged, with most tribes contributing. It’s a great illustration of the reason the US Founders wanted a Republic and not a Democracy. But we can’t shut it off and I don’t want to cancel anyone (well, I do, but it’s just not a good idea in the long run). Instead, I think the only way to push back against this mob is to talk to each other, in person. And trust what you hear that way, not what you “hear” online [except the posts here of course! 🙂 ]
Such public conversations, like we used to have in the ancient times, before screens consumed us, are probably not possible now. We don’t have the gathering spaces, and more importantly most people don’t have the desire. But if Trump can get rid of the Dept of Ed, if we can take back local control of K-12 education, get rid of even 2 or 3 Federal Depts, after 10-20 years, we might have a public with a stronger civic sense, receptive to exchanges of ideas and a new trust in each other over the mob. Break down the tribes! But there has to be action by us, in parallel with whatever Trump can do.
Most people have no time for such gatherings, even many (most?) retirees won’t want to take the time. So maybe my idea is dumb, impractical, but should be an individual’s contribution to bringing the Country back? To match what Trump ’47 will hopefully achieve in reversing the worst parts of what the US Government has become?
Part of the answer is “action” such as taking back school boards, city councils, and county government. Who knows maybe someday Oregon or Washington (my corner of the US) will be red again?
And maybe I’m the only one of us who spends too much time online rather than talking to my friends, my neighbors, the guys at the barber shop, etc.? Whatcha’ think?
These are centrists? The Guardian? Puhlease!
Ellen: 🤣🤣🤣Marvelous!
GregWA – as you know the Federal Government debt alone is over 36 Trillion (“Trillion with a T”) Dollars – and that does not count State, local, Corporate and personal debt, or unfunded Entitlements such as pensions (called “Social Security” in the United States). The United States of America is not legally “bankrupt” – but it is functionally bankrupt, and even if President Trump was the Archangel Michael there would still be nothing much he could do about that. Indeed the left (at least the sly people among the left – and there are some intelligent leftists) may be, privately, pleased that President Trump will be in office to, unjustly, take the blame for the, inevitable, economic collapse.
dmm – yes the Stalin supporting Guardian is no more “centrist” than the Stalin supporting New York Times is. And this is why I am glad that President Trump will be in office in 2025, even though he will, unjustly, get the blame for the economic collapse in the Western world.
Had the left, the New York Times types, been in office in 2025-2026 they would have used the economic crises as an excuse to utterly crush dissent – totalitarianism would have been imposed, on an international scale. World “governance”.
The Trump/Vance Administration may only be a temporary reprieve – but it is still a reprieve.
Yes they are, because the “left” looks like Jeremy Corbyn.
Perry – as you know the Marxists (the “exploitation and oppression” crowd) have many factions, but as all these factions would wipe us out, does really make any important difference?