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

Putin cracked jokes and the audience roared and applauded when an old lady asked him whether Russia would be taking Alaska back from America.  Just imagine, though, how Russians would react if German Chancellor Angela Merkel did the same at during a German broadcast when asked about taking back the former German enclave of Kaliningrad from Russia, and then you’ll get a sense of how horrifying the exchange with Putin really was.

- Kim Zigfeld.

18 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • Mr Ecks

    While Russian socialism has indeed murdered many millions of human beings, as far as I know none of them were Alaskans. So I really can’t see the parallel here.
    I don’t think much of Putin in general but are we now to believe that some daft (or slyly humourous) old woman asking a question and Putin making a joke is evidence of Russian plans for world conquest?.

  • Paul Marks

    The audience were not applauding a joke – they were applauding the idea of taking Alaska. Actually the idea that NATO must not allowed “on the borders of Russia” is often expressed on RT (Russia Today – Putin’s television station), are they just “joking”?

    Now let us see what this means – it means taking Norway, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland….. do I have to go on?

    More broadly this (and the expansion of China – which carries on endlessly, I would not be surprised to find out tomorrow that Wicksteed Park “has always been part of China” after all places many hundreds of miles of China, with whom China has no historical connection at all, have been recently declared “always part of China”) shows the problem the West has.

    The American Federal government, led by Barack Obama and his Comrades, is a vomit-fest they really are scum (total vermin). Indeed B.O. is more of a Marxist than Putin is (Putin is basically just a vicious gangster – he will use Marxists but in the same way as a man uses toilet paper). Comrade Barack is careful, he is not trying for traditional Revolution – he just wants to Cloward-and-Piven the United States into socialism by increasing the number of people dependent on the government till they form the MAJORITY (after that, he reasons, socialists in America can have socialism without much fighting). That is not proper Marxism – but Barack is a Frankfurt School man and they play fast and loose with Classical Marxism (and have been since the 1920s).

    So, in theory, we should WELCOME the collapse of the American government into bankruptcy – and the American military is already falling apart (its vast spending is on things like pensions and medical bills – the actual fighting forces are in terrible decline).

    However, things are not so simple as that…..

    Firstly the Feds are not going away just that (they will not go gently into that good night – they will “rage rage”) for example they are now trying to steal land from Texas along the Red River (they may have a declining capability in relation to Russia and China – but they can still bully and oppress American people).

    But also – let us say that the Federal government actually did collapse, all the way……

    “Then the world should celebrate Paul”.

    Really?

    A world where Russia, China and the Islamic powers could do anything they wanted to do?

    And YES – one (of many) example of that would be the fall of Alaska.

    After all what are the people in Alaska going to against Russia or China? Throw snowballs at them?

    A United States government is needed for the “common defence” although it is incredibly HARMFUL for the “general welfare”.

    Time to start again?

    A Constitutional Convention – two thirds of the States may call one (without Congress – let alone B.O.).

    To create a government that represented the STATES (NOT “the people”) – with Senators sent by State governments (and subject to recall – as with the German upper house). No directly elected President (let the new Senate decide who is in charge of the executive branch military – and let such a manager only serve at their discretion).

    And…. well that is about it (there is no need for anything else).

    And such a loose Confederation (with a full right to leave – of secession) could include other places outside the existing United States.

    It would be a military defence alliance – ONLY.

  • China is a Good Old Fashioned Threat that could actually yield a Good Old Fashioned War of the kind that suggests buying a few shares in Lockheed and stashing them for a few years might not be a bad idea.

    Russia is a threat in the sense a drunk holding a broken bottle is a threat if you forget to lock your front door. Russia is an eminently containable threat that can be kept out of the Baltics by diverting a bit of that money currently being spent on transgender rights awareness seminars in local government in England and Wales… and Vlaardingen and Veneto and Breman. But Russia about as likely to ‘retake’ Alaska as Rome is to reassert Roman dominion over Gaul.

    Islam is a threat in the sense that bubonic plague is a threat.

    Only the first really needs a whole lot spent on a military. The second and third just require ‘a bit’ to be spent on a military.

  • Paul Marks

    It is what the money is spent on that matters Perry.

    The American military is heading for a crises not really because of lack of money – very large sums of money are still spent, but what the money is spent on (and what it is not spent on).

    Basic military equipment (ships, aircraft and so on) is in decline (terrible decline) – but the amount of P.C. stuff (and so on) is not under threat (and should be).

    A basic change in the political high command is needed.

    And I believe that means more than a different President (although that would be a help) it needs a different political structure.

    An end to a the President as some sort of God-King (with special songs and children brought up to admire him – and on and on) and the establishment of a manager directly responsible to those who raise the money (the States) and subject to removal if his (or her) performance as a manager is not good enough.

    The U.S. government must also specialise – specialise on defence and defence ALONE.

    This duplication (indeed take-over) of the role of State and local government is demented – and incredibly harmful.

    “Paul it will all be O.K. when Rand Paul is President” – well I hope so, but I doubt it.

    I think there is a systematic (a system) failure at work in this.

    As for high tech……

    The Chinese have access to all (repeat all) American high technology – American security has been a joke. Chinese intelligence has run rings round them – basically because the Americans failed to understand (at least for some years) that the Chinese regime (like the Russian regime) is entirely hostile – and dedicated to the utter destruction of the West.

    Relying on American technological superiority is relying on something that is coming to an end.

    Last points – on Islam.

    Do not underestimate them, they already have nuclear weapons (Pakistan and soon Iran).

    And, contrary to the delusions of Mr Blair, Mr Putin is very happy to Iran.

  • Mr Ed

    Russia is an eminently containable threat that can be kept out of the Baltics by diverting a bit of that money currently being spent on transgender rights awareness seminars in local government in England and Wales

    The ruling classes in the UK would rather us die than divert money from such vital causes.

    As for joking about taking back Alaska, that is obviously a joke, but were Russia to regain its former chunk of California (along with the voters therein) things might start looking up.

  • Paul Marks

    Nancy Pelosi a citizen of Putin’s Russia? Well…..

    As for the P.C. stuff – sadly you are correct Mr Ed.

    Indeed the real reason they dislike Mr Putin is that he does not pretend to be in love with all this stuff.

    Which is also the reason that some elements of the right (very stupidly) like him.

    I say “very stupidly” because the average street gang leader is not P.C. either – does not mean that street gang leaders are not bad.

  • That’s as good a plan as any, Paul.

  • PersonFromPorlock

    Been here before, on other websites. The fact is that Russia already has more Siberia than it knows what to do with; why would it want Alaska? Looking at this as anything except a joke is foolish.

  • Julie near Chicago


    I am not greedy. I only want the land that borders mine.”

  • Fraser Orr

    @Paul, I think it’d be great if your plan would work, but it wouldn’t, and I think the reason why is something that is just too little recognized among libertarians.

    The problem with our oppressive (US) government is not Barak Obama, or our wussy congress critters. The problem can be summed up in three words “America reelected Obama.”

    See every country has its share of socialists, meglomaniacs and wanna-be emperors. The problem is a people who allow them to take power. Don’t get me wrong, there is plenty wrong with the system of choosing them, in fact, if you designed a system to choose the worst candidates, you couldn’t do much better. As the old saying goes, we’d be better off with a pin, a blindfold and the phone book.

    The problem is that the people, for whatever reason, actually want this kind of government. They might argue about the details on the margin, but most people just plain want public schools, public pensions, public poverty programs, food stamps, federal highway funds, FEMA for hurricane victims, NASA, college grants and loans and so forth.

    Were we to have our constitutional convention the likelihood of our people coming up with a libertarian paradise document is about as likely as Barak Obama becoming an objectivist.

    Our constitution is not perfect, even if it were actually enforced as is, but it does place some constraints on power, and it is way better than most. So I think we should let sleeping dogs lie. Let us rather convince people of the superiority of liberty and let the law and the politicians follow the people’s will. If enough people, that is a super majority, demand liberty, our politicians will provide it for us, even if they do everything to argue against it.

    Can you imagine the second amendment or the tenth after a “national consensus” was reached. I shudder to think.

  • Old Hoya

    Take Alaska? Hah! The tone of the Administration’s statements condemning that would be ever so harsh and Putin knows it. And tangling with the intellect of John Kerry? Not even Putin is that reckless.

    That Putin is building a popular consensus for imperial restoration would be scary but for the fact that the smartest who ever lived is currently the Leader of the Free World. What could possibly go wrong?

  • I’ll go with Fraser Orr.

    There is talk in Australia of implementing some sort of Bill of Rights, and I know just what sort of hellish amplification of state responsibility and suppression of real rights any such modern document would be.

  • Bruce

    Oddly enough, Australia used to have a “Bill of Rights”.

    It was the one signed as a condition of assumption by William and Mary of Orange (Holland) to the British throne. It is the SAME document on which the American Founding Fathers based their “Bill of Rights”. When the “colonies” were established in “New Holland” / New South Wales, they adopted the full canon of “British Law”; ditto when the “colonies” became “States” and formed a “Commonwealth”; i.e. The Commonwealth of Australia. There are several parallels to the formation of the USA, but without quite as much bloodshed, so far. (Once a penal colony, always a penal colony???) There was NO unitary “nation’ that was divided up into tidy “administrative” blocks, the colonies were SEPARATE, (own government, defence forces, the works), until “federated” into a commonwealth in 1901.

    However, as a document such as a REAL bill of rights threatens the galloping bloat and over-reach of “legislators”, and the legalists, it has been studiously ignored and “worked around” until it is “non-effective”.

    So much for “inalienable rights”.

  • Fraser, a question from someone who lives too far away to have a fully informed opinion: what do you make of the fact that only about half of all registered voters even bothered to vote in the last two presidential elections (granted that this is not significantly different from the previous ones), and then only about half of those actually voted for Obama? What am I missing?

  • Mr Ed

    Bruce,

    A useful reminder, a shame that the narrative about Australia seems to be about States joining or being formed rather than secession or loosening the Federation. This Wikipedia article is quite interesting.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_Australian_States

  • A Cowardly Citizen

    I don’t find a joke about Alaska terribly worrying.

    I’m not convinced that Germany buying the Kaliningrad enclave (Koenigsberg, the capital of East Prussia) would be a threat to world peace either. I’m not even sure if President Putin would be offended if a proposal was made to him along those lines. Especially if it annoyed some of Germany’s other neighbours.

  • Pardone

    “that suggests buying a few shares in Lockheed and stashing them for a few years might not be a bad idea.”

    So you are fine with profiting off of the taxpayer,, hmmm? Nice orals you got there, Perry.

    Lockheed were a failed company (with sinister links to Japanese Yakuza) who decided to sponge off the tax-payer by going into “defence”, and have made a mint by stealing from the taxpayer, making their hardware as expensive as possible, and committing fraud. Lockheed are avowed statists who desire the expansion of government because it means more taxpayer’s money for them to steal.

  • R7 Rocket

    Paul Marks said:

    After all what are the people in Alaska going to against Russia or China? Throw snowballs at them?

    The Alaskans will just shoot the Russian or Chinese troops.