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 World Economic Forum in Davos is precisely where one would expect to find the kind of people that want to overturn the EU referendum result. Davos types wouldn’t just cancel referendum results they don’t approve of. If they could if they would cancel the people.”

Douglas Carswell

6 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • Sam Duncan

    “I suspect in the coming years more elected leaders will decide to cancel going to Davos instead.”

    And that’s when we’ll really have to keep an eye on it. Because they won’t cancel it. It’ll become even more of a transnationalist beanfeast, batty ideas for inconveniencing the public will still be dreamed up, only in future it will be by bureaucrats, NGOs, and has-beens like Tony Bleedin’ Blair. Or never-weres, like Hillary Goddamn Clinton.

    Look at the EU: the real damage didn’t come from the theatrical “summits” of the various Councils; it came from the faceless Commission and its giant lobbying machine. And all the multifarious UN boondoggles that most people have never heard of. These people prefer to be out of the limelight. Having elected representatives around only risks exposure. I expect they’re actually looking forward to Davos becoming less famous.

  • Julie near Chicago

    There’s Big Brother’s Party and there’s the proles. Which would you rather be?

    …Can’t we just cancel Big Brother?

  • Julie near Chicago

    There’s Big Brother’s Party and there’s the proles. Which would you rather be?

    ……Can’t we just cancel Big Brother?

    * * *

    Thanks for indulging me. It needed the edit. By the way: Yes, it should be “there are the proles.” Style demands the error. 🙂

  • Paul Marks

    Douglas Carswell is correct about the present – we are in the weird position of political leaders from democracies, who do NOT believe that the people have a right to change basic policies, and private business leaders who do NOT believe in private business.

    As has been pointed out many times in the past, these Big Business leaders may be “ruthless capitalists” in their personal dealings (much as the late Robert Maxwell was), but they do NOT believe in capitalism.

    Again like the late Robert Maxwell, as corrupt as he may have been in his business life, the collectivist beliefs of many of the leaders of Big Business are SINCERE – they are not pretending, they really do believe that the world (the public of the world) should be “planned” for-our-own-good, that society would be far better if it was CONTROLLED rather than left to a lot of “anarchic” voluntary interactions.

    “But they see themselves as the planners Paul” – of course they do, but that does NOT mean they are insincere. They sincerely believe that the world would be a better place for all of us (the people) if they, politicians and business leaders, did not have to pander to the absurd whims of the population – they need to “educate” us, and “guide” us for-our-own-good.

    I repeat – they are totally sincere (they are even willing to make personal sacrifices to achieve their collectivist aims), indeed it is their sincerity that makes them so dangerous.

    “But it is mad Paul – a society like “Star Trek: Discovery” WILL NOT WORK” – of course it will not work, I did not say it would work. What I said was that the politicians and Big Business leaders (or at least MANY OF THEM) are quite sincere in their believe that they can “plan society” control all of us – for-our-good.

    Someone can be very intelligent (indeed a genius) in their business dealings – and still have totally false political ideas. There is no contradiction.

    Nor is this personal eccentricity – such as Henry Ford believing that the First world War was a Jewish conspiracy. Henry Ford was a genius (he really was) – but his political ideas were totally wrong, it was the GERMAN GOVERNMENT that forced other countries into war (as the German Ambassador to Britain, Karl Max – Prince Lichnowsky, confirmed the GERMANS forced Britain into war in 1914 – Professor Niall Ferguson please note the GERMAN ruling elite had been bent on expansion for decades BEFORE 1914, it was the policy of the people around Kaiser Wilhelm II that led to the general European war). But this is much more general.

    This is not an eccentric individual with the delusion that Prime Minister Asquith in 1914 and President Woodrow Wilson in 1917 were warmongers or were controlled by “the Jews”. This is an international political and business elite who have been educated (by their expensive schools and universities) to believe that the word (the people) need to be “planned” need to be CONTROLLED – for-our-own-good.

    In their political opinions they are much like Frederick the Great (a collectivist tyrant – and, oddly, a hero of Professor Ferguson), BUT they do NOT believe in war to achieve their aims. They believe in world “governance” via “international institutions” not invading armies.

    They, the international political and business elite, would say that this makes their collectivism much more civilised than the collectivism of Frederick the Great in the 18th century, or Kaiser Wilhelm II in the early 20th century – and they are CORRECT it does.

    Their collectivism is very civilised – but it sill will-not-work.

    Such people as President Macron of France and Chancellor Merkel of Germany with their “Treaty of Aachen”. They chose this city deliberatly, because they both admire the Emperor Charlemagne. They do not see that the Emperor Charlemagne was actually a COLLECTIVIST TYRANT, a mass murderer who invaded such lands as Bavaria unjustly, and someone whose political ideas, such as laws to enforce “just prices”, just CAN NOT work.

    The “Treaty of Aachen” is the sort of thing that the international elite, political, ACADEMIC, and business, would like to see generally applied all over the world.

    Regulations (laws) and taxes, “harmonised” or “aligned” under a system of “world governance” for-our-own-good. It would be an utter disaster – but they do not see that, they SINCERELY do not see that.

  • Johnathan Pearce (London)

    As Paul Marks knows, I used to attend these gab-fests in the 1990s (mercifully, that ended when I changed jobs; since 9/11 the security there became very tight and burdonesome).

    There are always good reasons for governments, business leaders and opinion formers to gather and this will always go on. Part of me actually likes how the WEF puts all this stuff out there in the open; it is better than an entirely closed-doors approach that will only fuel paranoia, and there’s far too much of that right now. We cannot be surprised that people who think that global free trade and interaction are good things should want to get together in a swanky place now and again.

    Sure, the mindsets of those attending these events can be often very similar, and there is groupthink. There are alternatives to this, of course. As someone who has been in the classical liberal movement for 30-plus years, I know what it is to be accused of being in shady groups, think tanks controlled by obscure businessmen, Jews, etc.

  • Runcie Balspune

    The latest hot topic at Davos is “fake news”, it’s no longer fashionable to declare that people don’t know how to vote correctly, instead you just say people were too influenced by “fake news” and voted the wrong way.