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]
|
“Protester wears burqa to deny concealing identity”, reports the BBC:
A protester has appeared in court wearing a burqa to deny a charge of wearing the Islamic religious garment to conceal his identity during a Hampshire protest.
Timothy Miller, 76, of Sherwood Avenue in Hedge End, Southampton, was arrested in relation to the anti-migrant and anti-racism demonstrations in Portsmouth city centre on 12 September.
During the hearing at Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday, he lifted the veil while holding a black handbag as he confirmed his identity.
The handbag was a nice touch.
When asked how he pleaded, Miller replied: “As I am in every police camera, I am not guilty”.
A pleasing paradox. Agree or disagree with his politics, Mr Miller has given a masterclass in the application of Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals, numbers four, five and six:
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
Dominic Green of the Washington Examiner supplies more detail,
A female police officer confronted Miller about his clothing. “It’s because I’m converting to Islam and I’m gender-fluid,” Miller explained, waving a beefy and boldly exposed hand with feminine grace. “I’m not here to make trouble.”
Once you realise part of Patriot Platform’s operating model is that of a parapolitical soap opera, with feuds, beefs and big characters… it starts to make more sense. And, ofc, this type of politics turns on making a pound note, as Tommy Robinson’s many detractors have shown. And I’m hardly Nick Lowles, but evidence is evidence. There’s an entire ecosystem of influencers, “auditors” and YouTubers making a living peddling ragebait. The police? They’re extras in Danny Tommo’s ongoing structured reality TV show.
– Dominic Adler
The green transition was paid for in roubles, and the people who signed the cheques sat in the chancellery, not on the fringes. When Donald Trump warned the UN General Assembly in 2018 that Germany was making itself dependent on Russian energy, the German delegation was filmed smirking. Merz now tells a British Prime Minister that Russia’s friends sit on the AfD benches. Russia’s most useful friends in Germany wore SPD and CDU rosettes, and they were doing exactly what RT asked.
And look how it turned out. Labour went into the 2024 election promising to ban fracking for good. The Bowland shale stays where it is. Britain buys gas from Norway’s pipelines and from tankers out of Qatar and Texas, at whatever price the world sets that winter. Whether or not Moscow lifted a finger, it got exactly the British energy policy RT spent years asking for, and Burnham’s government is the one delivering it.
So here’s a question for the next time he walks into Number 10 asking what the Russians have been up to. Not the referendum. Ask about the shale.
– Gawain Towler
Tim Stanley is a historian by trade, and the author of Whatever Happened to Tradition? — a book subtitled History, Belonging and the Future of the West.
It was something of a surprise, then, to hear him tell attendees at a Conservative Party conference fringe event last week that “the country has changed”, and that “you are not going to reverse that”. Stanley went further still, declaring himself “pleased to see that the right accepts that change and has changed with it”; in his view, “it would be regressive and immoral to try to reverse what has happened.”
He was, of course, talking about the seismic demographic changes which have taken place in this country over the past few decades, against the express wishes of the British people. Indeed, the changes which have taken place over the past few decades represent the biggest demographic change in these islands since the migration of the Anglo-Saxons a millennium and a half ago.
– George Baker
Which in turn causes me to recall a remark made by Chesterton:
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.
– G.K. Chesterton
“Labour has also taken over as the party of the better off — people with university degrees, middle-class lifestyles and stable employment. In a poll by the British Election Survey last year, the ratio of Labour’s vote share among the richest voters (earning more than £70,000, or $93,000) to the poorest voters (earning less than £30,000) was larger than any other major party. All its talk about the working class and “miner’s lamps” is tribal hooey. If you want to meet real working-class people today (and most of them aren’t interested in politics) you are much better off going to a Reform UK gathering.
Rather than speaking for the marginalized — economically or otherwise — Labour has become the guardian of the status quo. It’s now the party of public-sector professionals, NGO functionaries, tenured academics, local-government employees, teachers, doctors and bat inspectors. Its voters and activists are more likely than those in other parties to enjoy stable incomes (and index-linked pensions), courtesy of the taxpayer. And they are more likely to brandish their university degrees as proof of their moral worth, just as old-fashioned Tories might have wielded their coats of arms.
Gascoyne-Cecil once said that `hostility to radicalism, incessant, implacable hostility, is the essence of Conservatism.’ That could just as easily describe the current Labour Party’s attitude toward any novel ideas that challenge its core base, the public sector.”
– Adrian Wooldridge, Bloomberg ($)
He’s making the point that Labour is now the main “establishment” party. My main reservation about his thesis, which is pungently expressed, is that the LP only secured 34 per cent of the popular vote in the “loveless landslide” of 2024, so the complacency that might seem to come out of Labour could be less entrenched than in the late 19th Century Tory Party of Lord Salisbury’s time.
Wooldridge makes a few errors in his article, however. This sentence jars: “Hence the recurrence of the same family names in the party’s annals (Peel, Salisbury, Chamberlain), and hence the ruthlessness with which its operatives dispatched ailing prime ministers.” As far as I know, while Robert Peel’s father was an MP, the Peels were not a great dynasty. Apart from that sort of detail, though, it is a good read. What he is describing is how a party once defined by standing up for the “working man” has become very different. To an extent, it resembles how a scrappy Silicon Valley start-up ends up as a clunky behemoth and ends up, eventually, being taken apart by private equity buyout folk, or just goes into slow decline.
Ostensibly, modern states have an unassailable advantage against the mass of the population. Where once the mob could reasonably threaten to tear the king from his castle, today the state has overwhelming military superiority against the disarmed population. Speaking in terms of leverage, the state seemingly has the winning hand: it is the sole provider of security, public goods, infrastructure, and the enforcement of contracts — and every member of the public is dependent upon it for these services. A truly praetorian modern state, therefore, should possess a kind of escalation dominance which guarantees its victory in any standoff.
The state’s position, however, is weaker than it might first seem. The sheer size of modern states precludes the possibility of true praetorianism, which requires not only that the state, as an organisation, be technically independent from the population, but also that the people who make it up have a coherent and separate identity which preserves that independence at every level of its operation. An organisation consisting of millions of people cannot achieve this kind of unity, and indeed the vast majority of people who deliver the state’s capabilities at the ground level do not see themselves as parts of a defined organisation, but simply as people like any other who collect a paycheck that happens to come from the government. Such de-corporatised agents of the state cannot always be relied upon to favour the interests of the institution over those of dissenting factions within the population, with whom they may share certain identities or even personal connections.
– Pimlico Journal
A story from this morning drives home that Donald Trump’s foreign policy (perhaps ‘policy’ is too optimistic a word) has descended into farce:
Russia attacks Ukrainian power plant hours after Trump ‘ceasefire’
Moscow strikes with drones and glide bombs despite US president’s surprise claim of an energy truce
Is there any evidence either Ukraine or Russia actually agreed to any cessation of strikes against energy targets?
When I started using ChatGPT, I encountered answers that were phrased with great certainty but were in fact ‘hallucinations’ with no basis in reality whatsoever. And by that I mean the AI invented an ice-cream parlour, with a technical description of how its ice-cream was made and a street address… which proved to have never existed and address was a parking lot in Prague.
Welcome to TrumpGPT
The first was the Church of England, which tore its liturgical and theological inheritance in tatters and now presides over a moral irrelevance in the life of the nation. The grandest was the Bank of England. In May 1997 a Labour government handed control of interest rates to unelected officials, and Paul Tucker, later the Bank’s deputy governor, has noted the irony that it took a government of the left to do what the right had long talked about.⁵² The courts followed. In his 2019 Reith Lectures Jonathan Sumption, recently retired from the Supreme Court, described foreign policy, military operations and the prerogative powers of the Crown having “one by one yielded to the power of judges”.⁵³ His critics say he exaggerates, and Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project has spent a decade arguing about where the line should sit, but nobody disputes the direction of travel.
Then came the quangos. The number of central government public bodies rose from 474 in January 2015 to 603 in January 2025.⁵⁴ Last month a Cabinet Office minister told the Commons there were 306 arm’s-length bodies, a third of them due for reform, while a Conservative MP put the true figure at over 400, spending more than £390 billion a year, one pound in every three the government spends.⁵⁵ The definitions are as slippery as the numbers. What none of these bodies has to do is face an election. Cobbett would have recognised the arrangement at once, and so would Wade. In 2023–24 at least 343 quango staff were paid more than £200,000.⁵⁶ We’ve just stopped calling them sinecures.
Its enemies have a name for this world. The Blob.
– Gawain Towler demonstrating once again that Reform really do understand the shape and nature of the enemy. A long read that is well worth your time.
Why are such “small” sites not viable for the large developers? More pertinently perhaps, why are there not small developers who choose to build on sites of such scale? Because the bureaucracy – that interminable fight through the local council to gain planning, the demands for most of the profit to arrive as social housing and on and on – means that no small scale builder can survive. It’s necessary to be operating at a large scale to pay for all of that. You simply have to be a large organisation, building at scale, to be able to afford the army of your own bureaucrats necessary to fight the state.
So, abolish that bureaucracy and small scale builders will reappear and those 850,000 homes will be built.
850,000 houses missing in London alone. That’s what the current planning system denies us all. Probably a good idea to fire the bureaucrats and have the houses instead.
– Tim Worstall
Wales deserves a closer look. Turnout was 50.1 per cent. Yes won by 559,419 to 552,698, a margin of 6,721 votes, settled only when Carmarthen declared last. Barely a quarter of the Welsh electorate voted for the body that now sits in Cardiff Bay as the Senedd. In 2011 a further referendum gave it primary lawmaking powers on a turnout of 35.6 per cent.
Nobody now argues that a 0.6 per cent margin on half a turnout denied the Assembly its legitimacy. Devolution’s supporters treat that September night as the founding act of modern Welsh democracy, and they are entitled to. But the principle has to run both ways. If one in four Welsh electors can found a legislature, then 17.4 million votes on a 72.2 per cent turnout, the largest vote for anything in British history, cannot be treated as provisional.
– Gawain Towler
About a year ago Konstantin Kisin of Triggernometry stirred up controversy by suggesting that Rishi Sunak, former British Prime Minister, was “not English”. At the time, I tried to write something and failed miserably. The other week the controversy flared up again as Sunak, himself, belatedly commented on the affair. Once again, I tried to write something and once again I failed. I kept tying myself up in knots before coming to the conclusion that it was all a bit futile. The real question – the important question – is whether someone is pro-British or anti-British. Having said that there has to be something to be pro or anti, which implies the existence of Britishness. So what is this Britishness? It is largely ethnic but not entirely. People can join and they can leave.
So, going back to the original question, where does Rishi Sunak fit on this British/pro-British/anti-British spectrum? Well, he’s not British and given his actions in office it is difficult to tell whether he is pro or anti. Next question: what about Keir Starmer?
P.S. I wrote this before watching Kisin’s most recent monologue. Which was a mistake because he does a much better job of explaining the situation before suggesting the obvious solution: re-establish the British Empire.
“Miliband appears determined to maintain his antagonistic approach towards Israel, despite the recent revelation that the Israelis tipped off their British counterparts about the recent terror plot aimed at RAF Fairford, which has so far resulted in the arrest of seven suspects. While Miliband’s anti-Israel stance might appeal to Labour’s vocal pro-Palestinian lobby, his preference for puerile gesture politics will be counter-productive in so far as the UK’s broader national security interests are concerned.”
– Con Coughlin, Daily Telegraph (£). The headline of the article is “Ed Miliband won’t admit that Israel is doing the UK’s dirty work.”
The word “contempt” is too mild to really capture the range of thoughts and emotions that I have about the current UK foreign secretary and former energy minister. His conduct in office (including at energy given his championing of Net Zero, regardless of changed circumstances) has increased the vulnerability of the UK, and he has taken such actions largely out of a blinkered ideological worldview and disregard for national security. As such, he illustrates the dangers of what Gad Saad has dubbed “suicidal empathy”.
|
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.
|
Recent Comments