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 never been a great Trump fan, but I am in awe of how he drives his enemies insane. And I am not speaking figuratively, I mean literally insane, batshit moonbat loonytoons crazy. Trump Derangement Syndrome is to Bush Derangement Syndrome as Pneumonic Plague is to a Common Cold.

– Perry de Havilland, as part of an on-line discussion elsewhere about ‘Out‘, a homosexual advocacy publication slamming Trump for pressuring Iran to decriminalise homosexuality. Yes, seriously.

16 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • Myno

    The argument is a perverse inversion of the old Means and Ends conflict. For the Out author, Ends are not justified unless the Means meets an irrational criterion, i.e., that the person suggesting the action is utterly within the LGBTQ+ Camp. For someone wrong to say something right, is utterly irredeamably wrong. They are wrong and cannot be made right by righteous acts. The righteous acts become tainted, fruit of the poison tree, and so must be rejected. Apparently they are willing for the poor souls in Iran to await an LGBTQ+ revolution in the EU and America, so that an identical righteous act can be set forth by the anointed. Of course, the anointed would never dare pressure their Iranian comrades…

  • bobby b

    “Perry de Havilland, as part of an on-line discussion elsewhere . . . “

    He used to run one of the libertarian blogs, didn’t he?

  • CaptDMO

    Yes, well, There’s nout so queer as folk.

  • I quite see where Out is coming from (but suspect they do not consciously see it). There’s more of the narrative to lose here than “Maybe Orange Man not planning to put homosexuals in death camps after all.”

    Firstly, any third-worlder wanting to say ‘No” would be a poor debater indeed if they did not say they’d love to, only the recent history of the west warns them of the ‘everything not forbidden is compulsory’ effect. “If only your example had not shown us that abolition means losing free speech on the subject three decades hence or earlier, we’d have been so happy to agree.” (A while back I submitted a post whose final point relates to that.)

    Suppose Trump’s ambassador goes back to ‘Out’ and friends and says, “Can you help me out here? Can we improve our own culture to reassure them that a gain in freedom now will not be a loss in freedom later? Can we make america the shining city on a hill again? (Please wear this MATSCOAHA hat for me.)”

    I don’t think Out would like that discussion.

    And of course the US would have to start pressuring those UK and European allies who came to the meeting, whose current hate speech laws yet more hurt the cause. That would greatly diminish the appearance of its being a purely west-v-3rd-world effect. Both sides would be negotiating a mutual cultural improvement. In the interests of diplomacy, the treaty would doubtless avoid prejudiced language suggesting their faults were gross and ours petty, and speak of mutual faults equally renounced.

    Despite what they say today, I don’t think Out would like that either.

    Secondly, slavery is rare today because the west made it so, overriding the will of all the other cultures of the world. I’ve posted on how the narrative rewrites that history. The last thing Out and friends want is some modern attempt to spread a western freedom reminding anyone of old history.

  • pete

    Trump says what he likes when he likes, and ‘liberals’ thought they’d stamped out that kind of behaviour years ago.

    Hence their fury.

  • As a card carrying member of The Puddle Jumper and Good with Colours Society, I thought Trump’s intervention is a work of, if not genius, then certainly of someone who has a good awareness of what irritates his enemies.

    So well done Team Trump.


  • rosenquist

    from the ‘lock her up’ and ‘build the wall’ chants at his rallies, to the Q anon and ‘deep state’conspiracy theorists, I would say that Trumps detractors have some way to go before they match the derangement of his most fervent acolytes.

  • Bell Curve

    Nah, those pale compared to a fag-mag crying “racism” when the Trumpster decries the fact Iran criminalizes (& hangs) homosexuals. 😆

  • SteveD

    Trump drives them even more crazy when he agrees with them. (which is often)

  • Phil B

    I saw a meme on the internet which said “Please God, don’t let Donald Trump say he likes coffee otherwise the Democrats will try to ban it”.

    It summarises their attitude towards him in a nutshell. He can’t do right for doing wrong in their eyes.

  • Henry Cybulski

    According to rosenquist, wanting to lock up a criminal or build a wall to fend off an invasion or believe entrenched bureaucracies are looking out for their own interests somehow displays derangement. More proof that Trump drives his enemies insane (more likely, probably insane to begin with).

  • Paul Marks

    Donald Trump has never believed that homosexual acts should be illegal – and nor do I.

    However, Islamic Law is quite clear on this point – homosexual acts are crimes. In Christianity one can make the case that Jesus was not legislator – that his moral advice (and that of Saint Paul and so on) is not a LEGAL COMMAND. But with Muhammed it is quite different – Muhammed was a legislator, and an military and political leader It is very hard to see how Islamic countries can legalise homosexual acts – as this goes the specific legal command of Muhammed that when men engage in sodomy then both the sodomised and the sodomiser must be put to death (the perceptive will not that like English Common Law there is nothing about lesbianism here – there was a 19th century suggestion to make lesbianism illegal, but Queen Victoria simply pointed out it did-not-exist so that was the end of that).

    Still it is good that President Trump is making the attempt to suggest to Islamic countries (and it is mainly Islamic countries where homosexual acts are crimes under the criminal law) that they should legalise homosexual acts – even though I do not think he will succeed.

    It will not get President Trump any votes any other advantage – it is just something he should do and so is doing. Which is fair enough.

    As for the Frankfurt School Marxists (the “mainstream media” and so on) who attack President Trump – I try not to think about them too much.

    By the way President Trump has totally failed to control GOVERNMENT SPENDING – but then no one seems to care about what he is actually bad (very bad) on, they make up absurd (and utterly false) attacks instead.

  • Paul Marks

    Why do the Frankfurt School Marxists (the “Identity Politics” people such as “Out”) side with the Islamic Republic of Iran against Capitalist President Donald Trump?

    Not hard to explain – the Marxists see Islam (especially pro “Social Justice” Shia Islam) as an ally against “Western Capitalism”.

    The “activists” could not give a damn about ordinary homosexuals (Iran can torture them all to death – the Frankfurt School Marxists could not care less), any more than “Third Wave” (i.e. Marxist) feminists actually care women, or “Black Lives Matter” Marxist activists care about ordinary black people – it is just a question of CANNON FODDER.

    Homosexuals, women, black people, Hispanics – who-ever, it does not matter. All CANNON FODDER to be used by the Marxists (the education system, the “mainstream” media, and so on) against “Capitalism”.

  • the other rob

    … the Marxists see Islam (especially pro “Social Justice” Shia Islam) as an ally against “Western Capitalism”.

    And vice versa. The alliance between the Marxists and the Islamists seems to me to be a modern version of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Each group believes that it is using the other to help destroy “Western Capitalism”, each fully intends to stab the other in the back at an opportune moment and each is utterly, utterly certain that it will be the stabber and not the stabee.

  • Paul Marks

    the other rob.

    Quite correct Sir.

  • Julie near Chicago

    other rob,

    Excellent point.