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 Taliban is getting its message out on social media, too, giving live updates on its seizure of power. A man claiming to be an official representative has had an active account on Twitter since 2017 and has over 280,000 followers. He has had a lot to tweet about in recent days.

This might seem unusual, considering how censorious Twitter usually is. It has punished people for stepping out of line on numerous issues from transgenderism to Covid-19. Most infamously, it banned the sitting US president, Donald Trump, earlier this year. Even more extraordinarily, the ban largely related to Trump’s behaviour off the platform. Many months on, as the Taliban tweets freely about its progress, Trump is still banned.

Paddy Hannam

27 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • staghounds

    And your point is?

  • And your point is?

    Follow the damn link and look at the article’s title to figure that out, you indolent tool 😋

  • Flubber

    “Death to America” is Twitter’s corporate slogan.

  • staghounds

    MY point was that no one is surprised by this sort of thing. Of course our Masters want to silence their enemies and allow their allies to speak.

  • Ferox

    When the Taliban resume defenestrating people who are of the “other” 57 genders, and enslaving those of the “female” gender, will Twitter (a) ban them ’cause of the LBGTQIWXYZ-ophobia (and sexism), or (b) not ban them ’cause they don’t want to be Islamophobic?

    And what process will they use to decide? Will they poll their BIPOC staff and count votes by oppression-priority? Can’t wait to see how it all turns out …

  • James Strong

    President Trump is one of the few politicians vwho doesn’t despise his country’s voters.

    Most of the elite in the West despise the ordianry people of the West. The bosses of Twitter identify with the elite so therefore they stand against President Trump because he sides with, rather than against, the honest,law-abiding, hard-working and patriotic people.

    That’s why Twitter opposes Trump.

    As for their attitude to the Taliban – the atrocities of the Taliban don’t affect the Western elite. Yet.

  • James Strong

    Can anything good come from the Taliban takeover? Perhaps people will see the true nature of the Dark Ages Death Cult that the Taliban follws. The truth has been clouded and the people deceived by wholly dishonest reports about a Religion of Peace.


    A news report on BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ has just claimed that the G7 will have a virtual meeting and urge the Taliban to ‘respect human rights’.

    I do not expect the Taliban to heed that request for long.

  • bobby b

    “A news report on BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ has just claimed that the G7 will have a virtual meeting and urge the Taliban to ‘respect human rights’.”

    So long as they’re going through the effort, they should also urge the Covid virus to please leave us alone. They could use the same sternly worded letter with just a few edits.

  • Ferox

    A news report on BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ has just claimed that the G7 will have a virtual meeting and urge the Taliban to ‘respect human rights’.

    Shocking cultural imperialism and Islamophobia. Isn’t that illegal in the UK now? Someone should report the Beeb to the police for hate speech.

  • John Lewis


    Our breakfast-tv led nation of animal lovers now has another cause to fall behind following the case of Geronimo the infectious alpaca. Should we admit a further 71 people into the UK on this mans say-so?

    For me the answer has to be no even though the people in question are likely to be far more beneficial to our country and far more likely to assimilate than the hundreds of mainly young men who float across the channel each day.

    When the government inevitably decides to follow what they perceive as the popular route is it too much to ask that these 71 be included in the additional 5,000 or is it 20,000 Afghans to be given refugee status. In any case such numbers are likely to be a mere starting point.

  • Paul Marks

    My last comment on Twitter (for which they have, de facto, shut me out) was “The Democrats have ruined California” – in reply to the California Democrat Party anti recall propaganda.

    If only I had typed “Death to America!” then I would have got a blue check mark, rather than being kicked off the platform.

    The “Woke”, Frankfurt School, Corporations lie constantly (for example – we are not publishers, we are neutral public platforms – which is the basis of the section 230 Protections of the Social Media companies) – and the Big Business Corporations are fanatically trying to destroy the culture that created and sustains the Big Business Corporations (they are cutting the ground out from under their own feet).

    This did not start last week – the “Social Responsibility” totalitarian collectivists started to get into the teaching in the “Business Schools” as far back as the 1970s, and by Agenda 21 (early 1990s) most big international corporations were fully on board with collectivism – as long as it was gradual and peaceful.

    “Concede everything that is safe to concede” as Walter Bagehot (third editor of the Economist magazine) put it as far back as 1867 (“The English Constitution”) – with “is safe to concede” meaning – whatever still allows me and my associates to keep our comfortable lives.

    After all John Stuart Mill had already taught that there was no moral basis for large scale private land ownership, or for large scale private ownership of factories and mines – if that is the “liberal alternative” to Marxism, it is not worth a damn. No wonder the World Economic Forum (and all the other international government and corporate bodies) are such an ignorant mess – with Ricardian views of LAND (as if Frank Fetter had never written anything) and their hostility to real capitalism in production. Their desire for the end of real competition, the crushing of small business with regulations, and their support for Fascist Corporate State “Public Private Partnership” (“Stakeholder Capitalism” as the Corporate State Collectivist Klaus Schwab put it as far back as 1971).

    “We agree to everything – as long as it is gradual and peaceful, allows us to keep our comfortable lives”.

    That should be carved on their grave stones – if they deserve to be buried.

  • And your point is? … MY point was that no one is surprised by this sort of thing. (staghounds, August 17, 2021 at 7:28 pm and August 18, 2021 at 12:40 am)

    When Adolf moved from murdering some Jews to murdering all, doubtless someone said “no one is surprised by this sort of thing” but that was far from true of all, and some of those most unsurprised rightly felt it was nevertheless worth mentioning – and not just once.

    It is staghounds, not the OP, who should be asked, “And your point is?”

    – There are points worth making that could include, or reason from, the observation that this is no surprise to those who know the evil of Twitter’s managers.

    – There was no point at all in just saying that.

    Noting twitter’s particularly insolent descent into yet more obvious hypocrisy has a point; anyone who finds it boring should blame twitter, not the OP.

  • Expanding on the comment I wrote above, what would be a point that would include remarking that no-one (in Samizdata at least) is – or at least should be – surprised by this sort of thing?

    Well, here we see Twitter (and other social media) banning something not because even they themselves really thought it was misinformation but because it made their latest “Trump’s such an idiot” rhetoric look OTT. As the boss of Aytu complained:

    These days, politics seems to dictate that if one party says, “The sky is blue,” the other party is obligated to reply, “No, it’s not, and you’re a terrible human being for thinking that.”

    So, sure, one can argue for ‘no surprise Twitter ban Trump not the Taliban’.

    But one can also argue against that. Philosophically, it’s not just surprising, it’s absurd. Propagandistically, it’s a significantly more exposed position to occupy. Do Twitter still see themselves as mainly having to persuade people of their worldview or, like Biden campaigning from his basement last year, do they now feel their worldview can rule by ‘other means’ – means that mean they can worry still less about consistency in their arguments?

  • Paul Marks

    Remember what the Corporations (not just the Social Media companies – the BANKS and the other FINANCIAL SERCICES Corporations) are planning – indeed starting to carry out.

    The removal from the economy of people for political and cultural dissent. No bank account, no payment card, no access to financial clearing services.

    No job (for most Corporations will go along with this) and no way to run your own business – and all for either political or cultural dissent.

    And this “Woke” economic war on dissent is being pushed by the American government – codes of conduct first written under the Obama Administration are now being put into effect.

    Yes – dissenters will not be murdered by violence, as the Taliban do. But have a look at the fate that both international governmental and corporate bodies have in mind for dissenters.

    A life of SILENCE (unable to express your most basic beliefs – without fear of fines or being sent to prison) and a life on welfare – because you be shut out from employment and from the chance to run your own business.

    Agenda 21 – Agenda 2030 – “Sustainable Development”, “Stakeholder Capitalism” has its CULTURAL side (see the United Nations and others) and that Cultural side includes the crushing of political and cultural dissent.

    That is not good – that is not good at all.

    And to those who say “it will just be racists who are persecuted”, remember that the international establishment define just about any dissent as “racism”.

    For example, say you are a black man complaining about the blatantly rigged United States Presidential Election of 2020 – then you are a “racist”, a “white supremacist” – even though you are not talking about race, and your skin is black (you are still a “white supremacist”).

    Or say you are black woman talking about Early Treatment for Covid 19, or who has doubts about “Climate Change” (or “Climate Justice”), again you are a “racist”, a “white supremacist”. And most likely a “sexist”, “homophobe”, “Transphobe”, “Islamophobe” as well.

    These people, the Corporate types, will say ANYTHING to justify political and cultural persecution – they do-not-care how utterly absurd their claims are. And neither do the government entities that are pushing this – or the EDUCATION system that created this madness.

    In my lifetime we have come from Frankfurt School Marxists, such as Herbert Marcuse, being freaks listened to only by a few other freaks, to their ideas (“Woke”, Frankfurt School, Marxism – the “Diversity and Inclusion” agenda) dominating most Western governments and most major Corporations.

    How did we come to this?

    Seriously – how? How did we come to this?

  • Mr Ed

    Aren’t the Taliban just the sort of thing that the Second Amendment had in mind?

    ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…’

    Or have I overlooked anything?

  • Paul Marks

    Look at the Californian election campaign going on right now.

    Governor Newsom is a white “cis gender” man – and rich, indeed he is part of the incredibly corrupt political and economic elite that have ruined California (and ruined so much of the world).

    Larry Elder is a black man – and not from a very wealthy background.

    Who are the “Woke” supporting? Who are the Corporations SMEARING as “racists” and kicking off Twitter (and on and on)?

    We all know the answer.

    The Collectivists are supporting Governor Newsom whose endless taxes, regulations and lockdowns have concentrated income and wealth in a few (corrupt) hands – at the expense of everyone else.

    And if you support Larry Elder (a black man) you are “racist” – a “white supremacist”.

    And this has only just starting.

    In a few years, if this continues, you will have no bank account, no way to run a business, and no job – and if you open your mouth, you will end up in prison for “Hate Speech” (1st Amendment – utterly destroyed).

    That is what they planning – that is what they are starting to put into effect.

  • AlfromChgo

    Dorsey: looks like Rasputin acts like Trotsky.

  • Fred Z

    It’s entirely possible that the Taliban has made credible death threats to Twitter’s senior people, who are well aware that America’s borders have been porous for a long time, that there are many Afghani Talibani already in the US and that they are heavily armed with the guns so easy to obtain.

    The Taliban is not subtle.

  • Paul Marks

    Fred Z – the Taliban do not have to threaten anyone, Twitter have been doing this for YEARS.

    They banned David Wood back in 2019 – and they LIED about why they did so. And they have lied about many other people. They banned the Apostate Prophet the other day – he is ex Muslim who no longer believes, they banned him because he said that Islam holds that men who turn against it must be killed, and he said that he thought that was wrong (look up Islamic law on that matter for yourself).

    The religion of the “Woke” (the Frankfurt School types who dominate the staff of Twitter – and many other things) is not Islam – but it does hold that the correct response to opposing opinions is FORCE. Frankfurt School Marxists (and non Frankfurt School Marxists) have never made a secret of the fact that them believe dissent should be exterminated.

    Twitter people (neither the staff nor the “Twitter mob” who demand that people be dismissed from their jobs or banned from attending thins) do not need threats from the Taliban or threats from anyone – this is what they are like themselves. They are “educated” to be this way – tolerance is “repressive” to them, and repression is “liberation”. They REVERSE everything – because they have been taught to do so.

    If you want to understand the establishment – watch their “comedy”.

    Someone like “Colbert” is not funny – but he is not trying to be funny. When he says, for example, that the United States armed forces should be used to wipe out people protesting against the rigged election – that is what he means. He wants people who believe that government should be limited and elections should not be rigged – DEAD. He wants to have them KILLED. Millions? Tens of millions? Does not matter – kill-them-all.

    That is why they are making the United States military “Woke” – that is what the Marxist ideological training is for. They want to reshape the armed forces in their own image. That is why they are forcing people who believe in the Bill of Rights (1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment – and so on) OUT of the armed forces.

    When the audience applaud – that is because they agree with him. The audience want non Collectivists (people outside the “Woke” cult) exterminated – they want their opponents to be killed.

    They do not need to learn anything from the Taliban – and they certainly do not need to be “threatened” by the Taliban. The “Woke” are evil.

    How come people have such difficulty understanding this?

    The FBI are NOT the nice “Mulder and Scully” from the bleeping X files – the FBI are vicious collectivists who think nothing of locking conservatives up for months without trial and having them beaten and abused.

    I remember conservatives saying proudly how they handed in evidence of the corruption and other crimes of the Bidens and other such to – “the FBI” or to “the Justice Department”.

    You poor sweet hearts – the FBI burst out laughing as soon as you left their office, and they count the days till they can start working on you – and have criminals work on you as well (and on your family).

    As Perry is fond of saying – the state is not your friend. And neither are the “Woke” Corporations – who depend on endless funny money from the Central Banking system, and who wish to use regulations to wipe out all competition (“public – private partnership”).

    And none of them (especially not the Twitter crowd) need the Taliban to teach them how to be evil – because they already are evil.

    Last point – beware of “anti government” organisations – the FBI influence most of them (indeed they may well have created them). Push people into violence (lead them to it – via your STOOGES) and then use that as an excuse for a general “crackdown” – a wave of terror.

    It is an old NKVD trick.

    Yes – NKVD, that is the sort of person who is now influential in the United States security bureaucracy.

  • Paul Marks

    As for the propaganda line of the left establishment from Mr Biden to the television “comedians” that “we just want to help the poor”.

    “We just want to help the poor” – they have controlled most of the Big Cities for more than 50 years, have a look at what the “help” has led to.

    Someone like Mr Biden may be senile – but many of the left are NOT. They know perfectly well that endless government spending and regulations makes things WORSE, vastly WORSE.

    Many of them are not stupid – they KNOW this.

    This is not about “let us help the poor” – this is about POWER.

    Please understand this.

    The left want total power over every aspect of human life – power for its own sake, not to “help the poor”, and they will do anything (anything at all) to gain that power – and to keep it.

  • J79

    “How did it come to this?”

    Short answer: various philosphers poisoned the root-structure of philosophy in different ways, most intending to protect religion from reason, some to protect collectivism from reason. The poisons are still working their way through the cultures of the world.

    Many such men claimed to be advocates of reason. Some will even have truly believed this of themselves, and did make genuinely good contributions to knowledge, but their guilt as poisoners remains.

    This is traceable back to Plato, as most of us here would know or rightly guess, but the current trends and sources of poison are mostly 500 years or fewer in the making. Descartes, for instance.

  • most intending to protect religion from reason (J79, August 19, 2021 at 12:42 am)

    The timeline of the old freedom-oriented US constitution post-dates any such ‘poison’. The timeline of its modern and rapid loss of freedoms reflects only your other cause:

    to protect collectivism from reason

    Paul is sometimes accused of mentioning the Frankfurt School of Marxism too often – but it is certainly much more relevant to our current problems than Plato or Descartes, with whom the old US constitution managed to co-exist.

  • Paul Marks

    Philosophically the denier of reason at the time the United States Constitution was written was David Hume. Indeed one knows when one is dealing with a worthless historian if they say “the Founders followed the Scottish enlightenment thinker David Hume” – David Hume was an anti Scottish Enlightenment thinker, he was their leading critic. The Scottish Enlightenment was about such thinkers as Thomas Reid – who, yes, most certainly did influence the Founding Fathers.

    One might as well say that the Founders followed Sir William Blackstone in constitutional law – i.e. “followed” the person who they OPPOSED. And, yes, I have found many laws books so bad that they claim that the Founders followed Blackstone (the thinker they were opposing – with his insane doctrine that there are no rights AGAINST the legislature, that there is some sort of Divine Right of Parliament).

    Much later on we have the Pragmatists – people such as William James or (worse) John Dewey, who undermined belief in reason and its ability to find objective truth.

    They undermined law and limited government (for they lead to the Progressive movement – although that also has roots in German philosophy – reaching back into the 1800s and even the 1700s) as well as philosophy.

    Only from the 1930s onwards is there a real influence of the Frankfurt School of Marxism in the United States – and it was not a big influence till the late 1960s.

  • Paul Marks

    “How do we know who the Founding Fathers followed and who they opposed?”

    You read their writings (their letters and so on) – what men such as Adams, Jefferson (and so on) said.

    It is called reading Primary Sources – and involves a lot of work. Most likely that (the lot of work) is why people do not tend to do it – and follow worthless secondary sources instead.

  • Paul Marks

    This includes lawyers and judges – who claim to not be sure what various parts of the Constitution mean. For example – the Federalist Papers (written by people who wrote and supported the Constitution – not the people who opposed it) say what it means.

    For the record – the man who put in the most words to the Constitution (and complied the later Bill of Rights – from proposals from the State) was James Madison – he wrote (and acted) extensively on these matters.

    So a legal academic or or judge who claims to think there is a “general welfare spending power” covering anything the Feds want to spend on, or that that the Tenth Amendment does not limit what the Federal Government can do, is not being honest.

    Of course I would like to take these words out anyway (and “regulate interstate commerce” – which meant make commerce regular, free, over state lines) – because of the wilful (dishonest) abuse of these words. But there is no honest reason to suppose that the people who wrote the words meant anything like the abuse these words have been put to since the 1930s.

    As for such things as voiding the gold clauses in private and government contracts (done by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933) there is Constitutional basis for that at all – not even a twisting of words.

    What the Supreme Court did in 1935 (in relation to the gold clauses) was on outrage. The five “Justices” who approved this outrage, broke their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

    Then we must turn to the Pragmatist philosophy they had been taught – to see why they rejected objective truth and personal honour.