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

It’s as if the Conservative Party no longer believes in itself. Or better still, it no longer knows what there is to believe in. No market-based economics; no law-and-order ideal; no sense of tradition. And it is this ideological lack and its accompaniment — complete political incoherence — that fuel the open, petty infighting we have witnessed over the past few months, with every over-promoted non-entity loyally lining up behind May, knife in hand. After all, who can blame them? In the modern Tory Party, there’s nothing – no idea, no principle – to be loyal to, apart from one’s own career. Hence the endless interventions from foreign secretary and leader-always-in-waiting Boris Johnson.

Tim Black

As the Stupid Party is all that stands between us and the Evil Party, the Tories desperately need to get rid of Theresa May, a woman who should not be a member of the party, let alone leading it. This needs to happen without delay.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on VKEmail this to someone

42 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • Fortunately, this realisation seems to be getting through – the conference was her last chance and she failed it. In my limited experience, when the idea of replacing the Tory leader becomes a news story from some Tories themselves, we’re in the last chapter. (There was a mid-70s ‘Panorama’ in which a bunch of Tories appeared to say they had great confidence in Ted Heath – and as soon as the cameras stopped rolling they agreed that of course he had to go.)

    My wish may be father to my thought of course. 🙂

  • Fred Z

    The Tories have a gift for incompetence, a nose for it, they can find it anywhere.

    That’s because competent people of conservative bent would rather do anything rather than politics.

  • Bruce

    It’s beginning to look like the “Conservative” Party died with Winston Churchill.

    What we see today, and globally in alleged “conservative” parties, is more like a Golem.

  • It’s far more important to get rid of the white-ant remainer Hammond, though I admit that can’t happen till May goes.

    I was at the Bruges Group event at Manchester this week and the hall was chockers with Party faithful spilled over from the conference. When the Mogg was introduced (long before he spoke, other than to the protesters) there was a full three minutes standing ovation and no sign of it abating till he quelled it himself.

    I don’t agree with the Mogg on everything by any means and I’m cautious about hero-worship in politics – but if you’re looking for belief, ideology, tradition, passion, it’s there in spades. Just that the follow-the-focus-groups leadership doggedly insulate themselves from it. Didn’t they learn anything from The Donald?

  • mickc

    The Conservative party believes in nothing except the advancement of its MPs. The sooner it is gone, the better. We may then get a party which is Thatcherite; it worked well for a long time.

  • Bruce, October 7, 2017 at 2:26 am: “It’s beginning to look like the “Conservative” Party died with Winston Churchill.”

    The Tories were not dead in Mrs Thatcher day. I have no doubt that if Gove had had realism enough to moderate his ambition last summer then Boris would have won the main-party vote and become PM, Gove would be chancellor, Leadsom would be home secretary (IIRC), and we on this blog would criticise much of what they did, but this unhappy alternative universe into which we have stumbled reminds us that things can always get worse – the stupid party can always act stupider, just as the evil party can always become more evil still.

  • We’re not living in the worst timeline (i.e. one in which the 2016 EU Referendum result went to the Remoaners by a landslide), but its still pretty shit.

    The Tories have lost all legitimacy to govern and indeed they should be sued for false advertising since there is very little “Conservatism” in appearance.

    The only problem is that the alternatives are worse (by which I mean Corbyn et al rather than the other Tory buffoons) and they are smelling blood. It would be all too easy to let Theresa May continue to fuck up and in so doing hand the government to Labour at the next election.

    The 1922 committee has a job to do and they will do it regardless, but they need to appreciate that it is not just the career of our “Poundland Maggie Thatcher” that is at stake, there is a distinct possibility of handing the country over to a bunch of lunatic Marxists.

    I can’t stand Theresa May, she is a dull-witted party plodder with a draconian streak a mile wide, but most of all she doesn’t agree with BRExit, the only reason she is providing even lukewarm support to BRExit is because it is required for party unity and the keys to number 10.

    Let the 1922 committee tell her she’s a caretaker until BRExit is completed and then she is out. Maybe then she will start acting like it, rather than a Poundland Maggie Thatcher.

  • Paul Marks

    Edmund Burke (the Old Whig) argued that unless a party had unifying PRINCIPLES it was just a mess – no good for the country or even (in the longer term) for its own leaders. Sadly from the 19th century onwards people have (deliberately or otherwise) misrepresented Burke, presenting him as arguing that “reform” should be gradual rather than revolutionary – whereas he was actually AGAINST bigger government (what people mean by “Social Reform”), Edmund Burke wanted government to be SMALLER, not bigger. The debate should NOT be about how fast “Social Reform” is pushed that misses the whole point and makes a Conservative Party just the slow motion version of a Socialist Party.

    Sadly many figures the party essentially believe what they were taught in school and university – i.e. that more government spending on “public services” is a Good Thing (TM) and that more regulations are also a Good Thing (TM). They are not interested in making government smaller – they are just interested (like Mrs May’s hero Joseph Chamberlain) in making government ever bigger in a civilised and gradual way – thus (in their minds) avoiding Revolution. In this they think they are following Edmund Burke – and they most certainly are NOT.

    Today leading figures in the party even ape the Frankfurt School of Marxism – talking about “racism” and “sexism” and other utter nonsense (in between the coughs the Prime Minister touched on this stuff in the Manchester Speech) – of course it slower than the Marxist Labour Party, but it has the same direction.

    For those of us who reject collectivism (regardless of the speech with which it is imposed) the situation is very depressing.

    Mrs May, at the very start of her leadership, reacted with horror to being compared with Mrs Thatcher. Why? Was it dislike of people from Lincolnshire? No – of course not. It was the simple fact that Mrs May (and so many others) do not share Mrs Thatcher’s PRINCIPLES. Mrs Thatcher was far from perfect – but the lady did want to roll back the “Progress” towards collectivism that Britain has made. That is not an objective that is shared by the current leadership – they are Social Reformers (i.e. believers in ever bigger and ever more interventionist government) to them “change” must mean more “Social Reform” never rolling back existing “Social Reform”.

    Again yes (a thousand times yes) they want to do this slower (much slower) than the Labour Party – but they still want to move in the same direction. Not so much because they have come to a considered intellectual position – but because their education means that “Social Reform” is their default position, they never question it.

    Even something like the European Union “Single Market” – which is really about the power of the European Union to impose regulations in our INTERNAL (domestic) affairs, people who still think (after 30 years of experience) that the “Single Market” is about “free trade” simply show how horribly misguided they are.

    Ruth Davidson (the leader of the “Scottish Conservatives”) supports the “Single Market” – i.e. she supports the power of the European Union to impose any regulations it likes on our internal (domestic affairs). Ruth Davidson also, and quite openly, has utter contempt for any form of Conservatism – economic or social. Did Mrs May condemn Ruth Davidson in her Manchester speech? No, in fact Ruth Davidson was singled out for special PRAISE in the speech.

    The “Times” newspaper (and the rest of the Progressive Establishment) also love Ruth Davidson. And perhaps that is the natural end point. After all Mrs May still seems (in the way the lady speaks and so on – even if not in what she actually says) to be conservative (small c) – if we ignore the picture of the bisexual Mexican Communist (and mistress of Trotsky) that Mrs May had on her wrist, perhaps because some “prankster” had given it to her and Mrs May did not know who it was.

    The new breed (such as Ruth Davidson) do not see the need to even pretend to be conservative (even with a small c – let alone Conservative) they are openly Progressive Social Reformers in all they do – just they do it more slowly than the openly socialist Labour Party.

    So there is the choice we are presented with – collectivism imposed at high speech (by Comrade Corbyn and Comrade McDonnell) or collectivism imposed more slowly.

    You do not want more collectivism? You actually would like LESS collectivism? A roll back of “Social Reform”?

    Well sorry people – you do not have a place in British politics at the moment.

  • John K

    Paul:

    What you say is true. And yet, if Miss Davidson, who seems to have a good level of popularity in Scotland, had not delivered Scottish MPs, then Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell could be in power right now. Britain, in 2017, could have seen its first Marxist-Leninist government. It beggars belief. We were just a few thousand votes from this calamity.

  • Mr Ecks

    The Fish Faced Cow is well-off, middle class, arrogant, cultural Marxist (yes she is–spewing the Viet Girls nonsense – pure Marxist feminist bullshite– in the HoC proves that beyond all doubt), thick, London Bubble (or more like London Bungle), BluLabour Tin Clodess, and a vile,ugly rancid treasonous hag to boot. If only the P45 nutter had handed the bitch hers.

    Breathe-Smogg for King–now.

  • Korblimee

    As it stands unfortunately, I think there is a real possibility that Jeremy Corbyn could well be our next Prime Minister. God help us all. 👿

  • Patrick Crozier

    Clearly in the form of Dan Hannan, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Steve Baker, Conor Burns, Owen Patterson etc, the Conservative Party does have some people who believe in freedom.

    Sadly, it is very difficult to change course while in office.

  • Clearly in the form of Dan Hannan, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Steve Baker, Conor Burns, Owen Patterson etc, the Conservative Party does have some people who believe in freedom.

    While not irrelevant, their presence is not making much of a difference while Theresa May is PM because her Marxist-Lite/Draconian views and opinions are what is shaping the policy of the government at the present time, not theirs.

    May is certainly not going to provide a platform for Johnson or Rees-Mogg as they are clearly very serious rivals for her role as PM.

  • terence patrick hewett

    If the Conservative Party is not for Queen and Country then it is nothing: and at the moment it is nothing.

  • Laird

    It would be quite entertaining were you to have The Mogg and us the have The Donald!

  • JS

    I’ve never voted Tory in my life but even I could have crafted a more convincingly energising Tory speech (and manifesto) solely using policies of which I do approve.

    I just don’t get why May even wants to be PM. She doesn’t particularly seem to relish the usuals like power, fame, wealth… She certainly isn’t in it for the public good or even for the sake of her own party. She clearly has no political vision at all.
    I asked this elsewhere and someone suggested that it’s an extension of her head girl days and she likes to be in charge. Maybe, but she doesn’t even seem to have much relish for that. Most bossy types love devising new things to be bossy about and clearly enjoy it, but she is too inert even to bother doing that (small mercies).

  • John K (October 7, 2017 at 9:32 am), what you say is true, but it may be noted that any Scottish Tory with the wit to play the anti-natz card and otherwise avoid controversy could have delivered those Scottish seats in last May’s election and could have “a good level of popularity in Scotland” at this moment. When you hit bottom, and then the natz rocket begins its descent, retaking seats is hard to avoid.

    Ruth Davidson was put in place by Cameron. Over Brexit, she was a standard Scottish establishment idiot, telling people to vote NO to avoid an IndyRef2, when anyone with political sense could have foreseen (what we all saw afterwards) that using the fear of IndyRef2 to build up a Scottish-English vote-ratio difference was the way to make IndyRef2 more likely, not less. The exact same effect as diminished the Scottish Brexit vote in 2016 got the Scottish Tories seats a year later.

    In short, I agree with you that what Paul says is also very true.

  • Paul Marks

    John.

    “If Ruth Davidson had not…..”

    Only a handful of the 70 or so seats in Scotland are occupied by Conservatives, if a majority of the House of Commons is the objective – then the conclusion in relation to Scotland is obvious. And why assume that the handful of seats have anything to do with Ruth Davidson? I suspect this person is a lot more popular with London Progressives (the sort of people who write for the Times newspaper) than she is in Council Estates in Glasgow, or out in rural Scotland. Still let us let that be – the person is not even a Member of the House of Commons (I have not checked that, she may be).

    Patrick is correct – there are many Conservative Party members who believe in a smaller and less interventionist state. The problem is that the Prime Minister, “First Secretary” (Mr Green – no one seems to no what his job is exactly, but he supposed to be very important) and Chancellor Hammond, are not among them.

    One can not beat something with nothing.

    One can beat socialism by accepting all its collectivist assumptions – but arguing that it should be introduced more slowly.

    And one can not beat Islam by censorship – especially as I suspect that the real target of Mrs May’s censorship plans is not Islan at all. Note the lady never says she is going to censor “Islam” it is always “radicalism” or “extremism” – who wants to make a bet (and I am quite serious – I am willing to put money where my mouth is) that the real target of the censorship will include OPPONENTS of Islam?

    Make a calm and reasoned argument against Islam – against the life and teachings of Mohammed? Mrs May will never do that – no more than she will make a reasoned argument for less regulation and lower government spending.

    As for British independence from the European Union – that was voted for more than a year ago, and we are still paying the European Union money and obeying its laws in our internal (domestic) affairs.

    Now I must be fair – in the Manchester speech Mrs May said we would be regain independence in March 2019 (a vote in 2016 – and we have to wait three years for independence?).

    But in the speech in Florence Mrs May said that we still be paying the European Union money and obeying its laws in 2021 – and the lady was not clear that we would stop even in 2021.

    So which is the truth? The speech in Manchester or the speech in Florence? They can not BOTH be true – they are in flat contradiction.

    I do not want to hear “Brexit means Brexit” (which is as meaningful as saying “oughyuz means oughyuz” – and I want to hear no more about “strong and stable government” or “calm leadership”, we need a fixed DATE. Upon what date will no longer pay money to the European Union and no longer obey their regulations?

    When? On what date?

    Either give a date upon which we stop paying the European Union money and stop obeying their regulations, or admit that British democracy is a LIE – a hollow sham.

  • Paul Marks

    I just wrote a long comment – but it did not appear.

  • I am sure you think I do nothing else but spend my days hitting ‘refresh’ and watching for comments that smite-bot has taken a dislike to, but let me give you a hint: I respond MUCH faster to a private email than to a comment on the blog 😆

  • Paul Marks

    Try again.

    John.

    There are a handful of seats (our of 70 or so) that are occupied by Conservative Party members, if one was just concerned with a majority in the House of Commons – the implications for policy in relation to Scotland are obvious. And why assume that the handful of seats were “delivered” by Ruth Davidson – I suspect the lady is more popular with London Progressives (such as the people who write for the Times newspaper – or the BBC types who would never vote Conservative no matter who was leader) than she is in either urban or rural Scotland. But leave that aside.

    Patrick is correct – there are many Conservative Party members who do want a smaller and less interventionist state, but the problem is (as he knows well) that the Prime Minister, the “First Secretary” (Mr Green – no one seems to know exactly what his job is, but he is supposed to be very important) and Chancellor Hammond, are not among their number.

    These people will never make a clear and logical argument for less regulation, lower taxation and less government spending – because that is not what they believe in.

    And there is also the censorship agenda. One can not defeat Islam via internet censorship – and I suspect the real target is not Islam anyway. Note that Mrs May never says that the target of the censorship agenda is Islam, the lady uses such words as “radicalism” and “extremism” – I suspect the real target of the censorship includes OPPONENTS of Islam (and indeed conservative and libertarian on the internet who do not even discuss Islam). Because people who engage in basic debate over PRINCIPLES make the British establishment (indeed the Western establishment in general) very uncomfortable. “Do not upset the apple cart”, let us be “reasonable” and fudge everything.

    Establishment figures will not make a calm and rational argument against the life and teachings of Mohammed. Any more than establishment figures will make a calm and rational argument against socialism. It is always “let us endorse a moderate version – in order to stave off radicals”.

    Walter Bagehot (third editor of the Economist magazine) in the “English Constitution” (1867 – or whenever), talking about “conceding everything that it safe to concede” in terms of more spending and regulations – in order to appease the radicals (such as Mrs May’s hero – Radical Joe Chamberlain).

    It is a plan for certain defeat – just defeat by the instalment plan.

    As for British independence.

    We voted for independence from the European Union in the early summer of 2016 – and we are still paying the European Union money and we are still obeying its laws in our internal (domestic) affairs.

    When are we going to stop doing that? On what date?

    In Manchester Mrs May said we would regain our independence in March 2019 (almost three years after we voted for independence – what the bleep?).

    But in her speech in Florence the Prime Minister said that we would still be paying money to the European Union and obeying its regulations till at least 2021.

    Which speech is the truth? The statement in Manchester or the statement in Florence? They can not both be true – they are in flat contradiction.

    No more silly scripted cliches – “calm leadership”, “strong and stable government” (and so on). Just give a clear date as to when exactly we stop paying money to the European Union and stop obeying their regulations.

    Or admit that British democracy is a LIE – a hollow sham.

  • Julie near Chicago

    “…[Mrs May] never says she is going to censor “Islam” it is always “radicalism” or “extremism” – who wants to make a bet … that the real target of the censorship will include OPPONENTS of Islam?”

    Indeed, Paul. Example: The Canadian experiment with “hate-speech laws” put into place at the behest, I understand, of Canadian Jews who were tired of being the target of “hate speech.” Now the only group apparently immune to actions against their own hateful speech is the Mohammedans. Viz. Levant, Steyn, and others.

  • bobby b

    Just a bit of devil’s advocacy from a distance . . .

    May seems to be getting savaged far more from the right than from the left. The left seems quite content to sit back and watch the right tear into faction and destroy itself.

    At what point, if ever, does it become prudent to unite behind a less-than-stellar May and try to keep government from the hands of an opposition that lies far more to the left than she? From afar, it’s looking more and more likely that GB will be turning Socialist as a result of the rights’s anger at May.

    At the moment, it doesn’t appear that May is keeping some popular shining light of true conservatism from leadership – the situation looks closer to what we had in the USA, with a pile of also-rans and mediocrities waiting in the wings. She appears to be your best shot out of several bad choices. Do you at some point decide that “Not Corbyn” is worth supporting May? Or do you empower Corbyn to show your anger at the establishment right? Seems a high price . . .

  • Mr Ed

    bobby b

    At what point, if ever, does it become prudent to unite behind a less-than-stellar May

    The point when you think she isn’t our Kerensky, paving the way for Lenin, or in a roundabout and not exact way, when you think that she isn’t signing a Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, not with the Kaiser, but the EU, and from a position of strength, not expediency.

  • Alisa

    Bobby seems to have gotten the impression that May is the UK version of Trump. FWIW, my impression is quite different.

  • bobby b

    No, she’s Jeb Bush. But if Jeb had won the presidency, he’d still be making better choices than Hillary.

  • Paul Marks

    Quite so Julie.

    bobby b.

    You are making the same argument that the Conservative “Whips” are making. I think Perry would reply (if I may put words into his mouth – I have already irritated him without meaning to) that Mrs May is not really part of “the right” and has, unintentionally, helped Mr Corbyn and his Comrades.

    For example when someone is asked a simple question, say “when are we going to stop paying money to the European Union and when are we going to stop obeying the laws of the European Union?”, and they reply “strong and stable government”. or “Brexit means Brexit”, or “calm leadership” it drives voters (even ones not interested in politics) up-the-wall.

    What is the capital of Japan? “Strong and stable government”.

    What is 37+6? “Calm leadership”.

    Now imagine what it is like dealing with someone like that – day-after-day month-after-month, do you think that such an approach is keeping out Comrade Corbyn? I think it is helping Comrade Corbyn.

    Perhaps it is not too late – but the government of the United Kingdom, for a start, must admit (honestly and openly) that the talks with the European Union are a sick farce. We must stop paying the European Union money and we must stop obeying their regulations – and we must do this now.

  • Paul Marks

    To turn from the European Union to a simple matter of economic and social policy.

    The government keeps increasing the amount of taxpayer money it is pushing at the “first time buyers” of houses in a weird subsidy scheme. Even newspapers sneered at by the “intellectual classes” (such as “The Sun”) have noted that this scheme is horribly corrupt and that even if it was 100% honestly administered would just PUSH UP HOUSE PRICES.

    That is what government subsidy schemes (in housing, or university tuition, or health care – or anything….) do – they inflate the costs of whatever they are subsidising. Even David Ricardo, centuries ago, understood this.

    “But Chancellor Philip Hammond is a self made millionaire – so he must understand economics”.

    Such a reply would show all that is wrong with modern life – modern life appears to be allergic to rational thought. Business and economics are not the same subject. And, no, a government can NOT be “run like a business”.

  • Julie near Chicago, October 7, 2017 at 6:23 pm, if it is indeed the case that some Canadian Jewish organisation(s) supported the introduction of hate speech laws there then one can only hope the outcome has proved a learning experience for them. However I feel quite sure that the current Prime Minister of that country – a figure to make one see May’s virtues by contrast 🙂 – did not need any such support to embody the will of the PC.

    Occasionally, someone who might initially imagine PC would favour them learns their lesser place in the PC pecking order but others learn to love the contradictions – and never to think about them. It would be interesting to know whether any members of whatever Canadian Jewish organisation it was have wised up and left it. Fortunately, even in Canada, the hate speech laws have not yet quite so closed the circle to make it an offence to criticise them.

  • Paul Marks

    Agreed Niall.

    Now first a warning to Perry – the following may give you a heart attack or stroke, so it might be best to STOP READING THIS COMMENT NOW.

    Sir John Major – former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

    Well this “Conservative” – famous for selling out to the European Union and to Sinn Fein IRA, has some advice for us…..

    The government should spend even more money – on welfare, on education, on “infrastructure”, on housing, essentially on everything.

    John “I have spent more money that Labour promised to spend” Major shows us that the problem is a bit bigger than Mrs May.

    John Major seriously thinks that the way to stop the Marxist Labour Party is to increase government spending even more – in order to “show heart”. A “Social Reformer” to the bottom of his rotten-and-corrupt soul.

    These ideas were not invented by John Major – the idea of ever-bigger-government (“Social Reform”) as an alternative to socialism goes back to the 19th century. And it is completely demented – someone like John Major (or Mrs May) does not understand that bigger and more intrusive government makes things worse – not better.

    Their goal is to stave-off-socialism – put it off a few years so they can have a comfortable life before the horror arrives. They do not roll back the state – because they DO NOT WANT TO roll back the state.

    Principles? They would not know a principle of they fell over one.

    No wonder they inspire no one.

  • Derek Buxton

    I despair of the not-the-conservative Party, and agree fully with Mr. Marks there are no principles visible in it. I see no signs of any in the future either. Just socialism lite!

  • Julie near Chicago

    Indeed, Niall. But I’m afraid that Canada has moved even farther toward repressive, oppressive, anti-liberty “Progressivism” than we have.

    As to the history of Jewish support for Canadian “hate speech laws,” the article “Hate Propaganda,” written by analyst Philip Rosen for the Parliamentary Research Branch (PRB) of the Library of Parliament, at

    https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/856-e.htm ,

    lists a few examples in the section entitled “Chronology”:

    3 March 1953 – In an appearance before the Special House of Commons Committee studying the Criminal Code amendment bill, the Canadian Jewish Congress urged that a specific criminal offence relating to hate propaganda be adopted by Parliament.

    The final two items in the Chronology:

    15 June 1998 – B’nai Brith Canada, at its annual meeting held in Ottawa, unanimously adopted a resolution urging that Holocaust denial be made a criminal offence.

    March 1999 – Participants in an international symposium on hate on the Internet, held in Toronto and organized by B’nai Brith Canada, recommended that the Criminal Code be amended to make the downloading and possession of hate propaganda with intent to promote hatred a criminal offence.

    .

    Here’s the Table of Contents for the entire article.

    :::

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    ISSUE DEFINITION

    BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

    A. Overview

    B. Federal Legislation

    1. Criminal Code
    a. Present Law
    b. Reform Proposals

    2. Canadian Human Rights Act
    a. Present Law
    b. Reform Proposal

    C. Arguments For and Against Hate Propaganda Legislation

    PARLIAMENTARY ACTION

    CHRONOLOGY

    SELECTED REFERENCES

  • Nicholas (Unlicenced Joker) Gray

    Doesn’t LIE stand for London Is England? Didn’t London vote remain, in most areas? Perhaps May was following the LIE of the land?

  • Thanks for the (depressing) info, Julie near Chicago (October 9, 2017 at 12:33 am).

    * 15 June 1998 – B’nai Brith Canada, at its annual meeting held in Ottawa, unanimously adopted a resolution urging that Holocaust denial be made a criminal offence.

    March 1999 – Participants in an international symposium on hate on the Internet, held in Toronto and organized by B’nai Brith Canada, recommended that the Criminal Code be amended to make the downloading and possession of hate propaganda with intent to promote hatred a criminal offence.

    Because similar laws in the Weimar republic worked out so well – as I could illustrate with a link if I could locate the article “Anti-Semitism and the Law in pre-Nazi Germany” by Ambrose Doscow and Sidney B. Jacoby (4_Anti-Semitism_September-October_1940.pdf) but it seems bizarrely difficult to find on the web via the usual search engines – from which I downloaded it less than two years ago. Having a day job, I must quit searching for now. If anyone can find the actual downloadable article easily, and show me I’m just being an incompetent searcher, that will be good – because if an article so relevant to the discussion of ‘hate speech’ laws has been semi-disappeared from the web, that’s not so good. (The 12-page article originally appeared ‘The Contemporary Jewish Record’; 9th January 2016 is the date of my downloaded copy, so might have some relation to when it was PDFed and put on the web and/or when it was noticed in some chain of links I stumbled across.)

    Annoyingly, in my own earlier post about it, I did not think to include the link.

  • Alisa

    Still holding my breath for well-meaning busy bodies to learn from actual (and quite recent) history.

  • Thanks, Alisa. Please don’t hold your breath – I fear you might not be able to hold it long enough. 🙂 (or do I mean 😡 ?)

  • Alisa

    Indeed 😐

  • Bloke on M4

    I joined the Conservatives just over a year ago. I recently quit. OK, not exactly quit. My membership lapsed. No email reminder (and no joining email either). I mean, UKIP managed that level of competence.

    I thought there was an opportunity to ditch the Cameronballs. That Brexit was a wake up call to the Conservatives that all this “detox” stuff hadn’t worked. That maybe the public wanted a bit more “toxic politics”.

    I spent a year with them, including working in the local party and they nearly all love Ruth Davidson. They want to tax Amazon more. They want more state interference. Maybe individual members are different, but councillors, MPs and activists are all like that where I was.

    The only way to sort out the Conservatives is standing against them in marginal seats. The lesson from UKIP is blackmailing them is the only solution. Find marginals, put candidates up with libertarian policies and see them lose a few seats with you splitting the votes. That’s how we got a referendum. Not by tactical voting, but by threatening people with unemployment.

  • Paul Marks

    Yes Julie and Niall – the thinking is awful, based upon false principles.

    Bloke on M4 – you certainly did not join the Kettering Association, there are not many people in love with Ruth Davidson round here.

    As for the national leadership – Mrs May says she does not know if she would vote for the independence of the country (so not an ideal person to be Prime Minister in charge of securing independence), and the Home Secretary (“Amber Rudd” – a real name for someone who is, alas, not a fictional character) wants to send people who repeatedly view “right wing propaganda” on the internet, to prison for 15 years.

    As “Amber Rudd” gives no definition what she means by “right wing propaganda” – one can assume that reading Samizdata counts.

    So there we have it people – read this site and the “Conservative” government wants to send you to prison. And the press? The Sun and so on are all saying that “ordinary people” (by which they mean the brain-dead – anyone who actually uses their brain not being considered “ordinary” by the Sun) will not have their rights destroyed by “Amber Rudd”. Actually I agree – people who just watch cat videos (but not my esteemed associate the Invisible Cat of course) on the internet will not be sent to prison by “Amber Rudd”.

    “But Paul at least the government will destroy Islam” – not at all, after all Islam is not bad (ask the Prime Minister – the lady will tell you Islam is a religion of peace), Islam is not the real target of “Amber Rudd” – “right wing propaganda” is. Not “left wing propaganda” – no one will be sent to prison for watching Jeremy Corbyn or John McDonnell supporting Mao (the murderer of tens of millions of people).

    But be not of sad heart! When we are in prison we will be safe from bombings – which are “nothing to do with Islam”.

    Oh, of course, Amber Rudd is a “Remainer” – but then so is the Prime Minister and the Chancellor.

    The idea that these people, who do not support independence, will deliver independence……. well that does not seem likely.

  • It’s beginning to look like the “Conservative” Party died with Winston Churchill.

    Indeed.