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 The logic of socialism is to look at someone in a wheelchair and punish the able-bodied by breaking their legs.
– The Academic Agent, talking about The Problem with the BBC. The whole thing lasts just under ten minutes, and that little nugget comes about a minute before the end.
Thank you Instapundit.
|
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.
|
It might be also on Instapundit that i found out that some SJWs are discouraging parents from talking too much to their children, because children grow up more intelligent when parents talk to them a lot; and you don’t want to give your children an unfair advantage, do you?
Can’t people get blogs any more?
It would be good if SJW parents didn’t talk much to their kids, because that would mean less brainwashing going on. But they do. They fill their kids’ heads heads with propaganda. What they really mean is non-leftist parents should talk less to their kids, and they should stop making their kids cleverer than the SJW’s kids, who aren’t so good at hard subjects like grammar and maths.
Personally, after I’ve talked to my children I hit them over the head with a crowbar to balance out the unfair advantage I’ve just given them.
Correct Snorri – leftists (since the time of Plato) have wanted an end to the traditional family, have wanted to break the link between parents and children. From their egalitarian point of view – this is a quite logical move.
As for the BBC – I hate to plug one of their programmes, but their new series on what went wrong with Brazil is informative, but NOT for the reasons the BBC think it is.
The BBC correctly tells its viewers that former President Lula (the person who gave sanctuary to various Communist murderers from Italy and other countries) gave out lots of welfare payments and “public services” to the people.
Then, for some strange reason, the economy went wrong (no doubt Ming the Merciless from the Planet Mongo directed an “break the economy” ray at Brazil).
It never occurs to the BBC that the wild government spending WAS THE REASON the economy went wrong.
Then there is some reference to the disorder in Brazil over the last few years.
This “disorder” includes some SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND MURDERS A YEAR.
The people. at least the people in Brazil who listen to the left (including much of the Roman Catholic Church – with its “Liberation Theology”) have been taught that if someone has stuff that you want (and do not have) you should TAKE it (“Social Justice”) and KILL THEM if they resist, murder them – after all so many of former President Lula’s closest personal friends are murderers, so murder must be O.K.
Bizarrely quite a lot of people in Brazil do NOT like this and have voted for Boo Hiss a “far right” person (i.e. a person whose political opinions the BBC does not like). How can people in Brazil not enjoy being robbed and murdered? It must be baffling for the Guardian-BBC.
As for “Lula” – he is in prison for taking bribes, clearly the man is a Saint (I expect Pope Francis to canonise him any day now).
And the “free market” “liberal” Economist magazine? It backed the left in the Brazilian election – including the candidate for Vice President (a lady who is a life long member of the Communist Party). Which exposes the Economist magazine pose of being so hostile to the regime in Venezuela as being rather hollow.
If anyone believes that the Economist magazine is really opposed to “Social Justice” (i.e. government benefits and “public services” that must eventually lead to economic and societal, cultural, breakdown) then I have a nice bridge to sell you. Economist magazine staff actually go to the same centres of “education”, and have the same leftist beliefs, as BBC people.
I don’t know what to tell you. A short, discouraging, accurate, infuriating SQOTD by Brian, followed by comments with which one cannot help but agree.
I must say, I think Hector’s method exceptionally good. ;>) If I were younger and stronger and the Young Miss younger and weaker, I might apply it.
Snorri, the adjectives I applied to the OP also apply to your comment. Well said. 😡
Paul. On the Marks as usual. And well said indeed. I have to point out that as the family is in many respects a Secret Society (like the Catholics and the Shriners), it is justly judged probably to be subversive.
I am in favor of the family, in the sense of parents-cum-children plus possible grands, great-grands, etc., with the odd aunt or cousin or even uncle thrown in. Provided they are not too odd. :>))
Hm. I didn’t put in the /sarc , but the first para addressed to Paul, above, is intended as sarcasm. I’m pretty sure that’s how the Marxists and many SJWs and their collectivist and statist brethren see it, however.
Procrustes was the first socialist.
Julie – yes indeed.
Niall – agreed, as Antony Flew was fond of pointing out.
I thought that the Economist was opposed to sane economists. Worth reading only to cure insomnia on a long flight (where it is provided free).
Brazil – you can measure the success of one constitutional order (mainly disorder since 1889) after another by the recurrent currency adjustments.