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 – Covid inquiry actively suppressing evidence It is notable that the inquiry’s concentration on the work of the Government’s dis- and mis- information operation assumes that anyone questioning the safety and effectiveness of vaccines is spreading such information. In reality the main source of dis- and mis- information is the Government: the manifest failings of the MHRA have been concealed; the safe and effective narrative is a sham.
I have yet to see any news report of the meeting but hope one will appear somewhere. I also hope that transcripts of the speakers’ presentations will become available. I note that the Perseus Group has made several witness statements to the Hallett Inquiry; whether these have been put on the inquiry website is a little difficult to determine, as the ‘statements’ tab leads to a list which is 809 pages long. I got through the first five without finding anything sensible buried among the trivia. Maybe the submissions are there somewhere. Somehow I doubt it.
– Dr. Andrew Bamji
|
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.
|
Sadly the British “inquiry” is what we all expected – an establishment cover-up, indeed reversal of the truth, fest – run by modern lawyers (i.e. people who hate the principles of the Common Law – indeed hate the very concepts of objective truth and moral choice).
Just as the, insane, lockdowns were supported by the establishmentarians running the “inquiry” (indeed they thought the lockdowns should have been even more insane), and Early Treatments for Covid (which could have saved many lives) dismissed without consideration, so the dangerous injections (which were not vaccines) are accepted as good-by-definition – with anyone warning of the dangers dismissed as spreading “disinformation” – and the (despicable) government propaganda units, praised.
Imagine this festival of lies – this sham “inquiry”, instead run by, say, Sir John Holt, Lord Chief Justice from 1689 (yes Glorious Revolution and Bill of Rights period) to 1710.
Sir John Holt would called medical doctors and medical scientists, on both sides of the debate, to present their case – and he, and others, would have asked questions designed to get to the truth.
This is the opposite of what we have got.
“I also hope that transcripts of the speakers’ presentations will become available”
Me, I’m hoping for Molotov cocktails raining down where they are most needed.
Is your RSS feed stuck?
William, the RSS feed seems to be an intractable problem, nothing we do seems to fix it for long 🙁
If it is indeed the case that safe and effective treatments for this bug were suppressed so that pharmaceutical companies could have access to mountains of government money so that they could test an unproven and not particularly effective drug, then a whitewash is inevitable. The alternative is that people who have committed crimes against humanity that are some of the worst since World War Two will be brought to account by being properly prosecuted. They aren’t going to let that happen are they?
Stonyground – there may well be a lot of truth in what you say, but I believe the political agenda was more important that the commercial corruption.
They wanted to get people used to government, especially international “governance”, having total control over every aspect of their lives.
There was a good reason I mentioned Lord Chief Justice Sir John Holt – he understood that threats to liberty-and-property, to the person (body) and possessions of people can come from anywhere – from private criminals (such as, today, the vast criminal gangs of so many Latin American nations), from the Executive, from the Judiciary (yes from fellow judges – such as the leftist judge who has just wreaked Delaware), and from the Legislature – from Parliament.
The historian Dr David Starkey has often said that the House of Commons is the last non “Woke” (i.e. not Critical Theory Marxist) institution left in Britain – but he is mistaken, as it is “Woke”.
Even years ago it was passing (by vast majorities) such insane legislation as the Environment Act and the Equality Act – examples of legislation that violate the basic principles of the Common Law.
And today the House of Commons is more “Woke” than it has ever been in its history – the leftist majority there is vast, especially if one remembers that the Lib Dems are, if anything, worse than Labour.
“But Paul in private many “Woke” M.P.s do not really believe this stuff” – I know that, I know of the “WhatsApp” messages and so on – but it does not matter what they believe in private, what matters is what they are prepared to say in public, and how they vote.
In terms of what matters it is “Critical Theory rules”.
Although this could be dropped at any time and the international establishment would not bat an eyelid – as long as their real agenda, Henri Saint-Simon or Francis Bacon Technocracy – totalitarian rule, on an international basis, carried on.
And fiat money and Credit Bubble finance makes it easy for them – they can create “money” from nothing, and they can lend it out without anyone having to save it first.
This monetary and financial system is ideal for establishing tyranny. It is also ideal for getting human beings away from the principle of objective truth – as if one can create money from nothing (nothing at all) and lend out “money” that has never been saved (break the link between lending and Real Saving – the actual sacrifice of consumption), then objective reality dissolves.
At least objective reality SEEMS to dissolve – till everything comes crashing down.
See Kipling’s poem “The Gods of the Copybook Headings”.
Former President, and then Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, William Howard Taft, had a passionate faith in the “rule of law” – and he wanted a temple to this concept built, and got the conservative architect Cass Gilbert, to build it – the United States Supreme Court building (before then the Supreme Court Justices just met in a room in the Capitol building and did their research, and other such work, at home).
It is ironic that just as this building was finished the Supreme Court Justices started to betray the Constitution on a massive scale – in 1935 ruling, in effect, that it was fine for the government (Mr Franklin Roosevelt) to steal all monetary gold and to violate all contracts, public and private, and then in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s and so on not only ruling that the government could do anything it liked, but even ruling that it (Federal, State and local) had to do X,Y,Z – even if it did not want to.
The Constitution as written and the principles of the Common Law – ignored with utter contempt.
Sir John Holt was correct – threats to liberty-and-property can come from anywhere – including from the very judges entrusted to defend liberty-and-property.
It took a long time for American conservatives to understand that it was vital that conservatives be appointed as judges – and that they stay conservative (not be corrupted by “training” or by the social gatherings, networks, that surround them) – British conservatives are only just starting that journey of understanding.
And it is late – very late.
As far as I can see, there’s hardly been any mention by MPs in the U.K. about why Western taxpayers’ money has helped to fund gain-of-function research, or what it is for, and what restrictions there should be in place.
For all I know, there’s hardly are entirely legitimate reasons to do GOF analysis. If so, let’s hear them, and have those holding the purse strings explain them.
Unfortunately, my understanding is that the calibre of politician in the U.K. is so poor that few want to do this work and threaten their advancement. The way our politics works is to incentivise cowardice.
Johnathan Pearce.
The difference between what politicians in the United Kingdom say in public and what the same people say in public is indeed stark.
You are correct, our system does indeed incentivise cowardice – if a politician tells the truth and votes to oppose (rather than support) insane policies, then you are OUT and you will not get private employment either – you will be on the dole.
And, tragically, “Reform” is going down the same road – notice how quiet they are about the Covid “vaccines”, and how they have made clear that “Islamophobic” people (i.e. people with the point of view about Islam of, for example, Winston Churchill) will NOT be allowed to stand as Reform Party candidates.
This culture of deceit (of saying things one knows not to be true, and not saying things that are true, and voting for policies one knows to be insane) is not a matter of this or that political party – it is a matter of our society in general.
“Play along – or be destroyed”.
For all I know, there’s hardly are entirely legitimate reasons to do GOF analysis. If so, let’s hear them, and have those holding the purse strings explain them.
I seem to recall that during the Iraq war it was revealed that, as chemical weapons had already been used in previous wars, there was the possibility of biological weapons being deployed, significantly because the US had provided Iraq with samples long ago.
However, this was done under UN and WHO treatises to encourage common knowledge about biological warfare agents to lessen any instance they would be deployed against an unprepared enemy.
Or something like that …
So just guessing there might have been a similar WHO treatise, which is probably the real reason Trump has just pulled out.
Runcie Balspune – the reason that President Trump pulled out of the World Health Organisation is because this organisation, like all international corporate-state organisation, is openly working for world governance, not a “conspiracy theory” – a fact.
Both national independence (self government) and individual liberty depends on getting out of such world-be world totalitarian organisations.