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]
|
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”.
Three years ago today, Gazan civilians – not themselves Hamas, just Palestinians taking advantage of an opportunity – abducted Shiri Bibas and her children Ariel aged four and Kfir aged nine months. They were held in captivity for an unknown amount of time before being murdered. The children were probably strangled. Hamas, wishing to be part of the Bibas story, eventually held an elaborate public ceremony, complete with jubilant children dancing on stage, before releasing coffins labelled as containing their dead bodies, along with a coffin containing the body of another murdered hostage, 84 year old Oded Lifshitz. The ceremony was arranged with much forethought. Somebody even took the time to make little plaques to put on the coffins of Shiri Bibas and Oded Lifshitz saying, “Date of arrest: October 7th 2023”.
Date of arrest. Their own words. That’s how they think.
*
Related posts:
Shani Louk was half German – some thoughts
Kemi Badenoch MP, one of the contenders to be the next leader of the Conservative party, recently and astonishly caused controversy by saying ‘Not all cultures are equally valid’. I agree with this statement. Some cultures are worse than others. Now that ISIS is gone, Hamas-ruled Gaza is probably the most horrible culture currently present on Earth. Please note that this makes absolutely no difference to the obligation of Israel to adhere to the laws of war, even against an enemy that does not. It just lets the Israelis know what to expect from Gaza if they do not defeat Hamas.
Should we conclude that the Palestinians, or the Gazans, are an accursed people by nature? No. There is a dark mirror to the past in the fact that Shani Louk was half German. In living memory Germany fell as low as any nation in human history. Let us not delude ourselves that the attempted extermination of the Jews was carried out by the Nazi party alone. A brave but tiny minority of Germans who were not Nazis sheltered Jews, a larger minority at least did not report their suspicions that their neighbours were doing so, and the majority obeyed the Nazis so long as they remained in power.
Who would have dreamed eighty years ago that one day the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin would be illuminated with an image of the Star of David to remember Jews murdered in a pogrom? Yes, a mere symbol, but a true symbol – Germany re-joined the family of nations decades ago. What brought about this change? The complete military defeat of the Nazi regime. Cynics observe that the change did not happen until after the defeat. Optimists observe that it did happen after the defeat.
How will you be celebrating International Women’s Day?
“Is Israel Weaponizing the Tragic Deaths of the Bibas Children?”
Especially for Jimi Hendrix Experience fans, Eric Barrett’s Experienced: On the Road with Jimi Hendrix and Beyond is an engrossing and entertaining read featuring new, first-hand information about rock music’s most acclaimed guitarist. With help from Lawrence Robinson, Mr. Barrett provides a well-written memoir of his years as Hendrix’s equipment roadie and rare friend who toured America and Europe with him to the very end.
But what could have been a completely compelling bird’s-eye account of a superstar’s tumultuous life at the height of his fame from 1968 through 1970 is marred by a distracting lack of focus. Instead of invaluable insights about a musical legend from his inner circle, Barrett offers intriguing anecdotes with few clear themes and far too little analysis.
Though the book is presented as being about the guitar great, Barrett continually interrupts the Hendrix narrative with jarring juxtapositions of his later adventures managing concert tours for James Taylor, David Bowie, Madonna, Lenny Kravitz, Billy Idol, and others that would have read much better after discussing Hendrix.
Experienced certainly confirms the consensus that Hendrix was a supremely gifted guitarist. As Barrett contends, “Jimi was easily the greatest musician I ever worked with,” noting that “he
could do things with an electric guitar that I’ve never seen anyone else do.” Enhancing Hendrix’s prodigious skills, the author asserts, was his unmatched showmanship and the fact that he was “the most charismatic person I’d ever met.”
Most endearing is how kind, generous, and “gracious” Hendrix was since Barrett’s boss was generally laid-back, witty (he dismissed the band Fat Mattress as “Thin Pillow”), and friendly to all. On the rare occasion he expressed anger at his roadie for faulty equipment during a show, afterwards he would “put his arm around my shoulders” and be “very apologetic.” Indeed, Barrett notes that, “Even when something made Jimi angry, he’d usually get over it very quickly; he was never one to hold a grudge.”
→ Continue reading: A room full of tragic distractions: Eric Barrett’s “Experienced: On the Road with Jimi Hendrix and Beyond”
Once investors begin to doubt the real return available on sovereign liabilities, the speed with which they can respond becomes important. Modern financial wealth can be reallocated almost instantaneously. An investor dissatisfied with cash or government bonds can move into foreign equities, commodities, gold, property funds or another currency without waiting for wages, consumer prices or conventional money velocity to adjust. Monetary distrust can therefore appear first as a portfolio movement rather than as an immediate surge in spending on goods. This makes attempts to suppress sovereign yields potentially less stable. The wider the gap between the return investors believe they require and the return governments are willing to permit, the stronger the incentive to move elsewhere. In earlier periods, geographical, institutional and technological frictions slowed that process. Today, capital can react to a deterioration in expected real returns within seconds.
– Harry Yew
“Green party votes to adopt policy that equates Zionism with racism”, reports the Guardian.
Members voted at the party’s annual conference in Brighton to back a motion that calls for Zionism, the movement for a Jewish state, to be “treated as any other form of racism”. It passed by 1,022 votes to 813.
It has been publicly opposed by four of the party’s five MPs, although Zack Polanski, the leader of the Greens in England and Wales, has said he does believe Zionism is a racist idea.
The motion, which is now formal policy, calls for a single Palestinian state in place of Israel, “with equal rights for all”.
Adrian Ramsay, one of the MPs and a former party co-leader, said after the vote that he was “deeply saddened” by the decision, and that the idea of endorsing a single Palestinian state did not match Green commitments to self-determination.
In earlier voting, an amendment ensuring other parts of Green policy were updated to take account of the motion was backed. Three other amendments, including one that said the motion should not be used to “pressure, proscribe or discipline members based on affiliation with Jewish community institutions”, were voted down.
The text of the motion includes this passage:
4. The Green Party affirms the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self
determination, including the right of the Palestinian people to resistance and
liberation from Israeli occupation, domination and subjugation, and acknowledges
that the struggle to achieve that liberation by all available means under
international law is legitimate.
The Guardian article also says,
While the proposers of the motion argue it will not be used to discipline Jewish members who support Zionism, it is understood that some members are consulting lawyers over whether the policy could be challenged.
Adam Wagner KC, the barrister who led a case which concluded that Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour broke equalities laws over antisemitism, said that such a case would have a good chance of success.
“I think there is a strong risk that the motion as passed contravenes the Equality Act 2010, which applies to political parties, as it will discriminate against and harass people who hold Zionist beliefs and Jewish people more generally,” he said.
“Zionism, defined in the broad sense of supporting the establishment, development and protection of a Jewish nation state in its ancestral homeland, the land of Israel, is likely to be a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010.”
There should be no “protected beliefs”. Though I would strongly advise Jewish Greens, and decent people of any religion or no religion to get out, I support the right of any political party to be whatever it chooses to be. What the Green Party of England and Wales has now chosen to be is a Muslim sectarian party.
The triumph of the various “Gaza Independents” in the 2024 election demonstrates that in the modern UK, a Muslim sectarian party whose main interests lie outside the UK can win seats in Parliament. Nonetheless the victory of this motion at the Green Party conference has made a hitherto quite successful strategy of entryism into a previously existing British party too obvious.
EDIT: In this short video clip, Lubna Speitan, the proposer of the “Zionism is Racism” motion, says
“We will continue until we dismantle Zionism from the world – from every country, from every place. They will be shunned. And, inshallah, that time will come when they are opposed, when they are hunted in the same way as the Nazi oppressors were. This is justice. We will obtain freedom. It won’t happen without force.”
That is where the primary danger lies. The market may require a yield high enough to compensate the private holder for inflation and fiscal risk at precisely the moment the sovereign cannot comfortably afford to pay it. Yet if policymakers prevent yields from rising to the level required to clear the market voluntarily, they have not eliminated that required return. They have merely created an incentive for private capital to leave government debt for foreign assets, commodities, property, gold or anything else expected to preserve purchasing power more effectively. The monetary danger examined later in this article begins when there is no politically tolerable yield at which both the government’s financing needs and the private investor’s required real return can comfortably be satisfied.
One plausible macroeconomic consequence of such a divergence is stagflation, in which both inflation and weak growth coexist. Persistent supply shortages and increasingly expensive capital would weigh on real growth, while the fiscal and monetary response required to prevent financial liquidation would make it difficult to extinguish inflation completely. This is the central problem examined in this article.
– Harry Yew
“Many on the right like to pretend that Britain is a nation of frustrated Thatcherites straining against a socialist establishment. And sure, if you poll the British people in the abstract, support for higher taxes and spending has actually fallen — it’s at its lowest since 2013. But ask about anything specific and the picture inverts. 72% want higher taxes on the top 5%. 61% will pay more themselves for the NHS. 82% want water nationalised, 76% the railways — including 78% and 66% of Reform voters respectively. The British public is against tax and spend in general and in favour of it in every particular, which is the single most useful fact in British politics if you happen to be Andy Burnham. He is simply the first politician with the emotional range to leverage this without sounding like he’s reading a spreadsheet.
So he will get his way. And it will not work.”
– Konstantin Kisin
This week it was announced that Manchester City FC – which has dominated English football in recent years – has been found guilty by an independent panel of 114 charges relating to the breaking of the Premier League’s financial rules.
- The essential charge is that the owners of the club – in essence the Government of Abu Dhabi – spent more than they were allowed to. Money was funnelled through various off-balance sheet means.
- I am not sure I am using “balance sheet” correctly.
- The judgement leaves little room for doubt. There were only ever 115 charges. The Premier League’s language is not diplomatic.
I doubt that the “appeal” will amount to much.
- I am in two minds about the rules themselves. On the one hand, I think people should be allowed to waste their money in any way they choose. On the other, I don’t like seeing clubs go bust.
- Everybody knew. This always stank.
- The investigation only came about because emails were hacked and published in – of all things – Der Spiegel. Before that the Premier League in traditional British style had turned a blind eye.
- Manchester City seem to think that denial and obstruction is the way to go. They have to know that is not the case. This may be a cultural thing.
- And a political thing. The Prime Minister has thought it a good idea to wade in. It is even beginning to look as if British politicians can be bought. Well, to those who didn’t already think that British politicians could be bought.
- Such machinations do not bode well for the integrity of the government’s recently-formed “independent” football regulator.
- Politics and sport don’t mix. The whole point about sport is that it takes you away from politics.
- This is about sporting integrity: the idea that everyone is playing by the same rules, on and off the pitch. And it is not just the principle of the thing. Sporting integrity sells.
- The Premier League must understand it will take a hit from this. A huge hit. The only real question is how big and for how long. A few years ago I took to watching the Indian Premier League (that’s cricket). It turned out that the team I had been supporting had been bribed to throw games. I haven’t watched cricket since and I doubt I ever will.
- The punishment must be severe. It is the only way that sporting integrity can be rebuilt and shown to be being rebuilt.
- There could be all sorts of claims for compensation: “…We would have had this player. We would have won this. We wouldn’t have been relegated” etc. This could take years to settle.
- Punishment must also be swift. The fans will have their say. There is going to be a very unpleasant atmosphere every time Manchester City take the field. If they take the field… What would happen, I wonder, if clubs refused to play them?
- None of the above has anything to do with the fact I am a Watford supporter and am looking forward to the day when my team wins the FA Cup despite suffering the biggest-ever defeat in a final.
Here’s a topical joke from The Ministry of Wit:
In case the link disappears, it says “Co-pilots must not stab the pilot. This is called assault.” It is parodying a Home Office leaflet called “Understanding behaviours and expectations in the UK: a guide for asylum seekers” (non-illustrated version here), which helpfully explains on page 5 that “In the UK, both people must say ‘yes’ to sex. This is called consent.”
To be fair to the Home Office, given that the top ten countries from which asylum seekers come are, in order, Eritrea, Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran, Ethiopia, Iraq, Syria, Turkey* and Vietnam, there is a need to educate many men from the first eight of these countries that in the UK women have the legal right to refuse sex. In those eight countries marital rape is not a crime. The furore about the leaflets was because they reveal that the government knows damn well that education on sexual consent is particularly necessary for men from Muslim countries. It just doesn’t want to say so because the official ideology is that all cultures are equal. There is an ongoing legal case concerning the government’s reluctance to reveal crime figures analysed by nationality of offender.
It came after the Centre for Migration Control (CMC), a think tank, asked the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to reveal the total number of convictions broken down by nationality and offences for the seven years under freedom of information laws.
The MoJ initially refused, saying that to gather the data would be too expensive and that publishing the information could lead to the identification of individuals in breach of their rights to privacy.
Both arguments were rejected by the information watchdog. However, The Telegraph revealed last month that David Lammy, then justice secretary, sanctioned legal action seeking to overturn this ruling.
Opposition parties claimed the MoJ’s actions amounted to a “cover-up”.
One of the first political demonstrations I ever attended, over forty years ago, was in defence of refugees and asylum seekers. I still have great sympathy for those who seek freedom from oppression, such as Iranian Christians fleeing the Islamic Republic, and for the genuinely moderate Muslims – the almost comical over-use of that phrase does not mean they do not exist. But the current UK asylum regime is an illustration of the old medical saying that “the dose makes the poison.”
*My auto-correct tried to change “Turkey” to “Türkiye”. No.
“In a way, these Palestine enthusiasts resemble medieval Crusaders, who dreamt of recapturing Jerusalem because it was the place where Jesus died and rose again. Muslims, of course, detest the word `crusade’, partly because they deny the crucifixion of Jesus and regard the symbol of the cross as idolatrous, but their mentality is similar, from the other side of the religious fence. The equivalent of a crusader is a jihadi. Some of them assert a sacred right for Muslims to control the third holiest place in Islam, Jerusalem – by force if necessary.
Even those mainly white pro-Palestinian activists, presumably including Mr Polanski, who have no interest in religious questions, regard the place as holy in their political world-view. To them, it is the crucible of the `colonial’ oppression of the `wretched of the earth’ by Americans and British and `Zionists’, with their vast powers conjured up in their fevered imaginations. If I were a voter in Holborn and St Pancras, I would feel angry with any candidate playing this game. And if I were a Jewish voter, I would be afraid.”
– Charles Moore, Daily Telegraph (£)
Moore is writing about next week’s by-election for the parliamentary seat of Holborn and St Pancras. A leaflet image from the Green Party leader, Zack Polanski, a candidate, features a flag in the background that is unidentified but not the flag of his party. It is red, white and green. The unnamed flag is that of Palestine. So a candidate in an election to the House of Commons chooses, as his main flag emblem, that of a disputed geographic area, for as Moore says, Palestine isn’t and has never been a country with its own laws and government.
The late Rod Liddle, who knew how to be rude in his articles with tremendous enthusiasm, once dubbed Mr Polanski a “snaggle-toothed halfwit”. The danger is that it is too easy to dismiss this man as a fool. He is undoubtedly a very foolish man in some ways but he has a certain scruffy cunning.
Ethnicity is not an opinion, but a fact of history, intermarriage and statistics of known populations: Romano-British, Anglo-Saxon, a few Scandinavian and, later, Normans. If you care to look up ethnogenesis, pedigree collapse and “identical ancestry” you can learn that, over several hundred years and assuming intermarriage, these groups have by now mixed almost entirely.
The population statistics of England are particularly favourable to this analysis because there wasn’t much immigration, from anywhere, from the 11th up to the mid-20th century. If your family were all here in 1900, it’s reasonably probable, with the exception of a relatively small influx of Huguenots and Irish, that they were all here in 1100 and that most of them were here much earlier than that.
English ethnicity, at the end of those several centuries, is more clearly defined than most. To deny an English ethnicity is to say ethnicity does not exist, which would pose quite the shock to parts of our current political establishment.
– Isabel Paterson
|
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