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 – intolerance for tolerance

Like so many things on the left, they went from asking us to tolerate something to demanding we celebrate it.

Roger Williams

7 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – intolerance for tolerance

  • Paul Marks

    Yes indeed.

    It goes back to Rousseau – as the modern left does in general (and, yes, Rousseau is long before Karl Marx).

    As Edmund Burke pointed out, the “Confessions” of Rousseau is not really a “confession” as a Christian (or indeed a traditional non Christian) would understand the term.

    Rousseau was not saying that he was sorry for the terrible things he had done, such as abandon his own children in a Foundling Home where they were likely to die, – he was really boasting (yes boasting) of the evil things he had done.

    And if the followers of Rousseau came to power in France, or anywhere else, they would practice evils on a vast scale.

    Steal? Of course – Rousseau had “shown” that private property was just a trick on society. Rape? Again of course – Rousseau had “shown” that chastity was silly, and that force was sometimes needed to liberate women from this silly idea (as that Jesuit friend of Pope Francis so strongly agrees – especially in the case of nuns). Murder? Mass killing is needed if people resist the “General Will”.

    Remember the “General Will” is NOT the opinions of most people, that is the despised “will of all”, the General Will is the position of the Law Giver (Rousseau or someone like him) who, like the “Guardians” of Plato or the “Sovereign” of Thomas Hobbes (remember the “Sovereign” of Mr Hobbes can be a ruling elite – it does not have to be one person), has total power.

    The forces which are taking more and more power in the United States use the language of Frankfurt School Marxism – for example in the oath ceremony of medical students (yes medical students) at the University of Minnesota (swearing death to the “structural violence” of Western civilisation – which is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and-so-on, and most be utterly exterminated) – if you, reactionary-running-dog ever come under the “care” of these newly qualified doctors, they will take great pleasure in removing you from this world – in the most sadistic way they can think of. But even though the language is modern Marxist – the spirit is much older, it is the spirit of Rousseau, and indeed goes back much further.

    Much further indeed – it goes back as long as their has been sentient life, evil has always been with us, and within us.

    Every human being (most certainly including me) has great evil within us, and has to struggle against that evil within ourselves every day. All these students in Minnesota, and elsewhere, have done (under the influence of their “education”) is to stop struggling – they have embraced evil, for it was already there within themselves.

  • Paul Marks

    In case anyone believes that evil in the universities is something new – Pierce Butler was fighting against evil, yes in the University of Minnesota, a century ago.

    This was the Pierce Butler who later (thanks to President Harding – the most libelled American President) became a Justice on the Supreme Court – the sole dissenter in Palko V Connecticut (where the Supreme Court, outrageously, violated Double Jeopardy, by allowing someone to be tried twice for the same offence), and the sole dissenter in the evil (and it was evil) “Buck V Bell” – where the Supreme Court allowed people to be sterilised by violence if they were considered inferior.

    “Justice” Oliver Wendell Holmes called the woman in the case “feeble minded” and an “imbecile” – she was neither, the “feeble minded” person was, if anyone, HIMSELF – after all he believed that someone who mocked the very idea of natural law (natural justice) and free will (himself) could sit in judgement on a Constitution which was based upon these doctrines – doctrines for which he (like his friend Harold Laski – the British totalitarian) had nothing but contempt and hatred.

    Evil is always with us – and always has been,

    But so is good.

    There are people who given up struggling against the evil we all have within ourselves – such as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

    But there are also people who carry on struggling against evil (in themselves and outside) all their lives – such as Pierce Butler.

    Merry Christmas and Happy New Year everyone.

  • Natalie Solent (Essex)

    A chain of links happened to take me to the Wikipedia article on Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire. It said how the Christian refusal to sacrifice to the Roman gods was seen as an act of defiance against the very nature of Rome itself. In other words it wasn’t enough to refrain from public dissent with the state religion; one had to publicly participate in its rituals. But another parallel with the modern state religion of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion was that there was no clear law to argue against:

    ‘Due to the informal and personality-driven nature of the Roman legal system, nothing “other than a prosecutor” (an accuser, including a member of the public, not only a holder of an official position), “a charge of Christianity, and a governor willing to punish on that charge was required to bring a legal case against a Christian.”


    In cognitio extra ordinem [special investigation], an accuser called a delator brought before the governor an individual to be charged with a certain offense—in this case, that of being a Christian. This delator was prepared to act as the prosecutor for the trial, and could be rewarded with some of the accused’s property if he made an adequate case or charged with calumnia (malicious prosecution) if his case was insufficient. If the governor agreed to hear the case—and he was free not to—he oversaw the trial from start to finish: he heard the arguments, decided on the verdict, and passed the sentence.’

  • Natalie Solent (Essex)

    Here is an example of the way it works today:

    Professor under fire for refusing to make land acknowledgement

    A professor at the University of Washington came under fire last week for refusing to acknowledge that the university stands on “indigenous land.”

    Professors at the UW Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering are allegedly required to include a “land acknowledgement” in their syllabi, meaning that professors must acknowledge that the university is on indigenous land belonging to the Coast Salish people.

    However, Professor Stuart Reges sparked a controversy when he decided to include an alternate viewpoint that didn’t sit well with the anti-free speech administration.

    In Reges’ course syllabus under the category “Indigenous Land Acknowledgment” the professor wrote, “I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.”

    I did admire Professor Reges’ ju-jitsu in using his opponents’ own belief in the Marxist theory of value against them.

  • Like so many things on the left, they went from asking us to tolerate something to demanding we celebrate it.

    And like so many of those things, the

    “shout your abortion”

    stuff that made Roger Williams

    “less sympathetic to the pro-choice side”

    is about demanding we all treat something that can at best be medicine as if it were food. That’s why the left choose them as litmus tests. Letting you just tolerate mothers eager to terminate their babies, as a lesser evil, might let you keep a moral code. Insisting you love the phenomenon for itself trains you in loyalty to the ideology.

  • After we attend the mandatory celebration, we will return home to find that active participation is now required.

  • Martin

    The old Frank Herbert quote about the weak asking for freedom as it is our principle, but then taking freedom away when they’re strong in accordance with their principles springs to mind. I was never exercised too much about gay marriage per se as an issue, but opposed it because even in such naive times had a feeling that it was very little to do with tolerance and more of a foot in the door for progressively more radical shit and increasing demonisation for what had been seen as normal even a decade or two ago