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]

So how deeply held are predictions of doom if Trump wins?

How to tell if the people in Europe making predictions of doom if Trump wins actually believe what they have been saying:

Europeans defence expenditures go to 4%+ (i.e. Polish levels) within the next few months.

Otherwise it’s just so much verbal flatulence.

If Trump does indeed abandon Ukraine and tries to force a de facto surrender of occupied territories on them, and Europe still does not rapidly ramp up defence expenditure, then maybe Trump and the USA was never the problem.

23 years today

…and the surviving Samizdatistas are still staring blankly into the static hiss of the internet.

Samizdata quote of the day – Labour’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep

Starmer entered office with “the lowest vote-share that a majority Westminster government has received since the introduction of universal suffrage”.

Aris Roussinos

Samizdata quote of the day – the decline of the MSM is impossible to plausibly deny

In the annual public surveys about trust and reputation, journalists and the media have regularly fallen near the very bottom, often just above Congress. But in this year’s Gallup poll, we have managed to fall below Congress. Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.

Jeff Bezos, the owner of The Washington Post

Samizdata quote of the day – Slavery reparations is a grift, no ifs, no buts

Britain did not benefit from (slave) labour anyway. We did not then have a state controlled economy, we do not now have a state controlled economy. Britain didn’t own the slaves so it’s not Britain that – even if you can prove that there should be reparations – which should pay for owning the slaves it didn’t.

This does then rather leave the reparations argument being that Barbados – or whoever – needs to go around suing, individually, the estates of those who owned slaves. Good luck with that one.

Tim Worstall

With the small proviso that in more than a few ways, the UK does indeed now have a fairly state controlled economy, I agree with Tim as usual.

Samizdata quote of the day – …and that would be bad

‘We must not publish a study that says we’re harming children because people who say we’re harming children will use the study as evidence that we’re harming children, which might make it difficult for us to continue harming children.’

J.K. Rowling puts the boot in.

why does ‘diverse’ content spark backlash now when it didn’t before?

Several people have asked: why does ‘diverse’ content spark backlash now when it didn’t before?

I think it comes down to one thing: removal.

In the past, inclusionary moves didn’t try to clear out the previously enjoyed things. Kim Possible did not replace James Bond, she was just another secret agent you could watch alongside James Bond. In video games, serious action girls existed alongside miniskirted vixens, and everyone was fine with that. Avatar: The Last Airbender existed alongside Teen Titans. The Hunger Games existed alongside Harry Potter or Percy Jackson.

But now, the priority seems to be not addition, but subtraction.

It’s not enough to have a new Jedi; you have to remove the old ones. It’s not enough to have a female super-spy; you have to remove James Bond. It’s not enough to have serious action girls in your video game; you have to cover up or delete the vixens. It’s not enough to have new video games with modern sensibilities; you have to remove the old ones, or censor them in re-releases. It’s not enough to have new novels that fit modern ideological priorities; you have to censor the old ones.

Rawle Nyanzi, writing on TwitterX. I think he absolutely nails a key driver behind increasing radicalisation in the culture war.

Trafalgar

219 years ago today…

Samizdata quote of the day – two wrongs

Fuck off. I despise Google, but I’d trust them more than I trust Wes Streeting or any of the other narcissistic arseholes in government. I will do whatever I can to foil any attempts to drag me into their net. I, not they, am the owner of myself and my data. At every turn I will put down obstacles and refuse to comply. We’ve been here before – twenty years ago, in fact. Nothing changes. Different faces, but the same lurking evil.

Longrider quietly musing on the relationship between the state and its subjects.

Liberal Authoritarianism – the British State expands

The article titled Liberal Authoritarianism from Uncibal should serve as a foundational understanding of where not just the British state is but to a fair extent much of the Western World.

Starmer, it is plain, is one of those socialists for whom the appeal of socialism lies not so much in its amelioration of poverty, but rather in its provision of a rationale for the imposition of a perfect order on society – the construction of a ‘great social machine’, as Sydney Webb once put it, within which every individual must be made to fit. There is the touch of the Javert about him; he is one of those men who, all things considered, prefers the stars, who ‘know [their] place in the sky’, to people, who have an irritating tendency to exhibit free will. There is also in the air around him a quality that CS Lewis called ‘Saturnocentric’, which Michael Ward summarised as a combination of the ‘astringent, stern, tough, unmerry, uncomfortable, unconciliatory, and serious’. It is no surprise at all that Starmer should once have made his living as England & Wales’ Director of Public Prosecutions: this is a man who would take to the political task of steering public policy regarding criminal prosecutions like a duck to water.

It should also be no surprise that Starmer was once a human rights lawyer. Some have found it difficult to square these two aspects of his character. Silkie Carlo, the prominent civil liberties campaigner, for instance, remarked in a recent interview concerning the use of live facial recognition how strange she found it that Sir Keir, who purportedly is a human rights advocate, would embrace a technology that seems almost designed to usher a Chinese total surveillance system into the UK.

But this confusion is based on a complete misunderstanding of what human rights are all about.

David McGrogan.

I heartily recommend reading the entire linked article as it is penetrating indeed. But I do lament the loss of the term ‘liberal’ to now mean someone intolerant of all unlicenced opinions and behaviours, i.e. to mean someone who is profoundly illiberal.

This excellent article brings two other quotes to mind, one from a certain Italian leader and the other modestly from me.

Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state (Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato)

– Benito Mussolini (speech to Chamber of Deputies – 9 December 1928)

…and…

Socialism must be the most ironic use of language in the history of human linguistics: it is the advocacy of the complete replacement of social interaction with political interaction, the very negation of civil society itself.

Perry de Havilland

Samizdata quote of the day – IDF is taking out the garbage

We must be clear about things: A just world required this man to die, and ideally without dignity. I can put it in no blunter terms than that, nor even conceive of them. I am utterly relieved about his death, and more than a bit elated as well — not because I am bloodthirsty, but precisely because I despair over the implacable bloodthirstiness of Hamas, an organization that came to power in the Gaza Strip after it was literally handed to the Palestinians but that, instead of governing for the benefit of its people, harvested its resources and human capital to plot the slaughter, abduction, rape, and eventual genocide of its Jewish neighbors. Sinwar died with a shell through his skull and a roof collapsed upon his bomb-belted body, and I confess my grim satisfaction at the closure of it, if nothing else. He was given the opportunity to be an actual leader, and he invested all of it in hatred and terror. I celebrate, and couldn’t care less if you think differently.

Jeffrey Blehar

Samizdata quote of the day – peddling long disproven nonsense

Just to make the problem clearer. Economies do add up. If this happens here then that over there must also happen. If we don’t see that second then we’re mistaken in our assumption that the first has. If productivity has risen and wages haven’t then the labour share must have fallen. The labour share – up to when PK wrote in 1996 – had not fallen. Therefore that confident blue line from 1970 to 1996 is wrong.

We don’t even have to worry about why it’s wrong. It just is – so bollocks to the rest of it.

Chakrabortty’s getting on a bit to be an enfant terrible of course, his unwillingness to spend time and energy understanding the economics he’s attempting to write about is easier to explain for he’s at The Guardian. In fact, he writes the economic editorials for The Guardian and an actual knowledge of economics in that job – let alone time and effort spent gaining it – would be a positive hindrance.

No, really.

Tim Worstall putting the boot in 😀