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

I have watched this play out on campus after campus. I have watched dissident student groups invite Milo Yiannopoulos to speak — not because they particularly agree with his views, but because he denounces censorship and undermines political correctness. I have watched students cheer his theatrics, his insulting behavior, and his narcissism solely because the enforcers of campus goodthink are outraged by it. It’s not about his ideas, or policies. It’s not even about him. It’s about vengeance for social oppression.

Trump has done to America what Yiannopoulos did to campus. This is a view Yiannopoulos shares. When I spoke with him about Trump’s success months ago, he told me, “Nobody votes for Trump or likes Trump on the basis of policy positions. That’s a misunderstanding of what the Trump phenomenon is.”

He described Trump as “an icon of irreverent resistance to political correctness.” Correctly, I might add.

Robby Soave

18 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • Runcie Balspune

    I was listening to a podcast about sending letters to the President, apparently the current POTUS has requested he reads 10 of them in addition to his daily evening briefing, as there are 10s of thousands of letters every day a small army of employees shifts through the multitude to find anything worthy of his attention (this is after the secret service has vetted them), ultimately there is a “director of communications” who gets the final say on what the President actually reads.

    Notwithstanding that the subject of most letters mean there is little the President can actually do about it, I kind of feel that this perpetual budget of little sorting squirrels is just there to make King Barry feel he is “in touch” with the common people, this is virtue signaling of the highest order.

    Trump does not have this problem, he could not give a sh*t, and you know it. Once he’s in power this letter industry will dry up, not only because it will save millions of dollars but reading several thousand letters that basically all say “you suck” is not worthwhile. Trump does not need to be “in touch” with ordinary Americans, he is a billionaire with global business investments, we all know it, he tells us this all the time, and we all know where we stand. Trump just knows he has job to do and he’s going to get about doing it, and any p*ssy moaners thinking of complaining may as well dump the letter in the bin and save on postage.

    There is also a ton of stuff from the archives showing Trumping making some controversial statement or opinion or whatever. Whereas the current administration either try and cover it up or just lie, Trump just says “yeah, back then I was a bit of a dick”. This attitude resonates more with ordinary humans as we’ve all done stupid things in the past, held opinions that we criticize now, and follow ideologies that we now think are a bit wacko. For some reason the likes of Obama and co want us to think they are perfect and infallable, and we know it’s a lie. With Trump he’s the straight dope, and remarkably, he gets away with it.

    The left have always adopted to “holier than thou” attitude to take to moral high ground and demand we change our ways, but they are flawed as we all are, but only the little people are being made to regret it. Perhaps it is time we had someone who is openly flawed and not afraid to say so, and boy, is Trump flawed – bigly.

  • CaptDMO

    Waaaaaaaaah, “We” lost!!!!!
    OK, HERE’S the non-sequitur, intellectual, justification for why it doesn’t count.
    Safe space, 5 cents: The Doctor is IN!(Peanuts)
    Now let’s go out, break some store windows, block the streets for emergency vehicles, and
    burn some stuff in the streets!
    Pajama Boys, and Julias RULE!!!!!

  • QET

    Soave is on the right track. The 2016 election was about one thing and only one thing: will. The only reason the Left would seek to push Hillary onto the nation and install her in the Oval Office was to demonstrate that they could, that they had the power, that the nation would have to bow to their will. This was clear to me 18 months ago. Remember that Nietzsche said that men would rather will nothingness than not will. In the face of that naked assertion of power and will, the Right produced an equal and opposite reaction: Trump also was a candidate pushed by the Right to demonstrate its will and its power. While I disagree with those who pontificate about his manifest “unfitness,” I do say that he is not exactly “fit” by political standards. It turned out that in the most full frontal election contest in a long while, where both sides committed all of their reserves to the battle, the Right’s will won, barely. But just as with the Supreme Court pas de deux of the last 25 years, the Right merely reacts to initiatives of the Left (it was the Left who made Bork’s name into a verb). So too here: when it was apparent that the Left was going to push Hillary through all resistance, even of her own party and its base, into the White House with the in-your-face superciliousness that has become its hallmark, the Right reasoned that an ordinary GOP milquetoast like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio was not the proper counterattack, and that the Right needed a candidate that could be the pure embodiment of its will to power. Trump happened to come along and was plucked out of the crowd and pushed as just that Newtonian counter-force.

    Of each side and its candidate, you could say that the famous statement of Juvenal applies: sic volo, sic iubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas.

  • Laird

    Soave has a good point, but I think he overstates its importance in the grand scheme of things. Yes, a reaction to political correctness undoubtedly played a part in this election, but it was not the only factor nor even, I think, a major one. In fact, I don’t think you can point to one, or even two or three, principal causes; the motivations of Trump voters were as diverse as their demographics (and Trump appealed to a lot of different demographic groups). This election was the result of a confluence of factors, but at its core it was a repudiation of the elites who have rules us for so long that they thought it had become their absolute right to do so. That repudiation began with Trump securing the Republican nomination and reached its apotheosis on Tuesday night.

    Glenn Greenwald has written an interesting essay on the lessons of the Trump victory (and its relationship to the Brexit phenomenon). One portion particularly resonated with me:

    “[T]he president of the United States commands a vast nuclear arsenal that can destroy the planet many times over; the deadliest and most expensive military ever developed in human history; legal authorities that allow him to prosecute numerous secret wars at the same time, imprison people with no due process, and target people (including U.S. citizens) for assassination with no oversight; domestic law enforcement agencies that are constructed to appear and act as standing, para-militarized armies; a sprawling penal state that allows imprisonment far more easily than most Western countries; and a system of electronic surveillance purposely designed to be ubiquitous and limitless, including on U.S. soil.

    Those who have been warning of the grave dangers these powers pose have often been dismissed on the ground that the leaders who control this system are benevolent and well-intentioned. They have thus often resorted to the tactic of urging people to imagine what might happen if a president they regarded as less than benevolent one day gained control of it. That day has arrived. One hopes this will at least provide the impetus to unite across ideological and partisan lines to finally impose meaningful limits on these powers that should never have been vested in the first place. That commitment should start now.”

    I don’t see Trump leading the charge to rein in our out-of-control intelligence apparatus (although he has spoken often about limiting our involvement in foreign conflicts, which I find a hopeful sign). But perhaps it will encourage some in Congress to rethink just how pervasive (and invasive) the panopticon state has become. And a Trump presidency could, and I hope will, spark a renewed interest, in Congress and elsewhere, in the inherent dangers of an imperial presidency, and provide the impetus to rein it in. Enough with these Executive Orders and treaties-in-all-but-name masquerading as “Executive Agreements”. That needs to stop, and this is precisely to opportunity for Congress to re-assert its authority and do so. That would be extremely beneficial to the country as a whole, not merely during his administration but (even more importantly) in future ones.

    [Side note to QET: Your Juvenal reference was certainly apposite, but if you’re going to indulge in quoting foreign phrases it would be helpful to provide a translation. Not all of us are fluent in Latin!]

  • llamas

    Well, that’s because QET’s quote is misspelled. It should read

    Hoc volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas – I wish this, I insist on it (the same), let (my) wish replace reason.

    From the ‘naughty bits’ of Juvenal, which, being proscribed by the Latin master, were, of course, eagerly sought out by the students.

    llater,

    llamas

    who is not fluent, but can remember back 50 years.

  • Jacob

    No need to seek elaborate reasons for the Trump win. It is very simple: his rival was a more disastrous candidate than he.

  • QET

    So it is. Thanks for the correction, llamas!

  • llamas

    Don’t thank me. Thank the Latin master who pounded this stuff into our young skulls of mush, oh, so many years ago.

    I see where one of my schoolfellows was just elevated to the steerage. I’ll bet he can still name our Latin master, including all 3 initials, just as I can. That was teaching – to make it stick for a half-century.

    llater,

    llamas

  • Paul Marks

    True – but also terrible.

    What it means is that the election of Donald J. Trump is essentially a matter of “giving the finger” to the P.C. left. Not about electing someone who understands policy and reverse the growth of government.

    Economically Mr Trump will be no worse than Mrs Clinton – both would have been in office for the collapse of the Credit Bubble economy, and both are wild spending Keynesians.

    The difference is that, whether we like it or not, President Trump (as he will be) represents the non left – the “capitalist forces”. His failure will be OUR failure – and no amount of saying “but I did not support him” will alter that.

    So let us hope that, somehow Mr Trump does NOT fail – that somehow Mr Trump understands that the collapse of the Credit Bubble economy is NOT the time for yet another government “infrastructure” orgy of spending. And NOT a time for yet more “help” and “protection” for the people.

    That what is desperately needed is a fundamental roll back of government – of the sort that Warren Harding (the most libeled American President in history) did in response to the bust of 1921.

  • Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker!) Gray

    You know, if we banned the Latin language, we’d be better off! My school motto in Yowie Bay Primary school was ‘Justum Tene’, eliciting WTF (Why Talk Foreign?). Had me puzzled for years! And Latin has words like N-Gro in it! Ban Latin For A Better World!

  • Gareth

    Milo said:

    Nobody votes for Trump or likes Trump on the basis of policy positions. That’s a misunderstanding of what the Trump phenomenon is.

    The Reason article seems to be an attempt to make supporting Trump be an intellectual protest vote. But who was voting for a phenomenon?

    Trump was a candidate who has policies distinct from his Republican and Democrat competitors. He could speak normally and openly about subjects others have avoided, whether it’s about wanting to reduce illegal immigration, stop military meddling in other countries, get the USA economic might working in the interests of the working classes Americans or whatever.

    Pundits and Trump’s competitors laughed at building a wall, and then they shut up when the public showed support for it. The crimes by illegal immigrants in the southern border states of the USA and the operation of so-called sanctuary cities is a massive scandal along the lines of the 15+ years of councils ignoring Muslim rape gangs in Yorkshire.

    Likewise pundits and Trump’s competitors slated him for his views on race and crime yet, magically, he was able to bring attention to the fact that the black population commits a disproportionate amount of crime and that the people responsible for the murder of black people is overwhemlingly other black people. And then things went quiet because the media and other politicians dare not talk about it. This isn’t a backlash against political correctness, it’s having an honest approach to actual problems. It’s the approach that I guess has served him reasonably well in business. You can’t be in a world of your own and believing your own propaganda when real money, real buildings, real jobs and the like are on the line.

    Trump loves America and Americans* and that came across in his campaign.

    I had to laugh at the idea that Democrat progressivism has simply happened too quickly under Obama. It’s been going on since President Clinton and before. It’s a way of dividing populations and playing them against each other so you have the power.

    * Rosie O’Donnell excepted.

  • David

    Nicholas Gray, I seem to recall through the fog of time from my days at yowie bay school, that it meams “hold fast”.
    Dunno what that has to do with school but hey ho. At least it’s not some politically correct lefty crap.

  • Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker!) Gray (November 10, 2016 at 11:22 pm), my school song was in Latin. Some of the younger Edinburgh school songs were in English. Trust me, when pupils are singing about how much they love the old grey stones, both pupils and teachers are happier if the words are in Latin.

    🙂

  • Paul Marks

    There is going to be a bust.

    What matters is whether the government reacts as Warren Harding did in 1921 – by massively CUTTING government spending. Or as Herbert Hoover did after 1929 – by massively increasing taxes, government spending and government interventionism (for example preventing real wages being cut in response to the bust).

    Which is it Mr Trump – are you going to be like President Harding in 1921 or President Hoover after 1929?

  • Fraser Orr

    @Paul Marks
    > Which is it Mr Trump – are you going to be like President Harding in 1921 or President Hoover after 1929?

    I don’t think it is unclear at all. It seems plainly obvious that Trump will not be cutting spending much (though there are indications that he might cut a little here and there.) Of course it is hard to outspend Obama, and I don’t expect to see a big increase in spending.

    Of course there is talk of “infrastructure spending” with is troubling, as is “rebuilding our military” but I do wonder what will happen when someone who is familiar with trying to get value for money takes over the federal purse strings.

    What is also clear though is that he is committed to things that will grow the economy such as tax cuts (especially the business tax cut and a reduced repatriation tax) and getting rid of the loathesome Obamacare.

    I think the other big question is about what he will do with trade. That one is pretty hard to predict as to what he will do and what will happen. He might well trade tariffs for jobs, which isn’t a good economic trade, but is probably a good political trade for him.

    If his rhetoric succeeds in changing Ford’s mind about sending their small car division to Mexico you can well believe that Trump will own the state of Michigan. Unfortunately, it’ll also mean your car will cost more. On balance though it’ll mean the tax and spenders are less likely to get in, so your taxes (and Ford’s taxes) will be lower. And maybe your car won’t cost more if Ford pays 15% federal taxes rather than 35%. What is the net result? Damned if I know.

  • Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker!) Gray

    I went to YBIS from 1967 to 1970- the biggest event was some Russian scientists dropping by to extol the Soviet Space Program. I wonder what they made of us screaming youngsters?
    When I attended Gymea High, we had more Latin ‘Veritas, Humanitas, Industrious’. They never offered latin as a course, and I never felt like learning Latin, either. Ordinary schooling was hard enough.

  • Alisa

    Fraser, if he actually cuts taxes without cutting spending (which, I agree with you, seems likely), then we are in big trouble – that was after all the worst thing about Reagan’s presidency, IMO.

  • David

    I was a couple of years later at Yowie Bay, I finished there in 72. My strongest memory was of watching the moon landing in the library on a tiny little b&w telly high on the bookshelves. Even then I was in awe of the achievement.
    I went on to the decidedly English speaking Endeavour High with the motto “Honour Bound”. Not really sure if that’s any great improvement. We were offered Latin, I think noone took it though, classical subjects like that were completely out of fashion.
    Now 40 something years later living in Europe, I kind of wish I hadn’t ignored such classics.
    Hey ho, I couldn’t have known i’d end up here back then.