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]

There’s a word for this

16 comments to There’s a word for this

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Sweet by name, but sour by nature.

  • Steven R

    I don’t know who either of these people are. Can someone give me a little context, please?

  • Martin

    Don’t worry Matthew, your tweets just prove your reputation is mud already.

  • Patrick Crozier

    Steven, Sweet is a media personality who appears to back the Establishment line on just about everything. Fox is an actor who effectively lost his job for speaking out against the narrative. He is now a presenter on GB News.

  • I have emulated Natalie’s humourous usage of the “Self ownership” category and used my Godlike editorial privileges to add it to this post 😉

  • Sigivald

    “FRee speech people go silent when it’s awkward for them!”

    “Please talk about this on my show, I’d love to discuss it in detail.”

    “Ewww, you have cooties and are bad lulz no talk for you.”

    Yeah, “facts”, very important, right? Doing God’s work by standing up for Facts, by … not talking about them in EXACTLY the place you’d think it was needed, by your own worldview, bub.

  • Patrick Crozier

    Thanks, Perry.

    I would bet serious money that Sweet – basking in the glory of likening GB News to a girlie magazine – still doesn’t get it.

  • george m weinberg

    Well, somebody goes strangely silent when challenged on the facts anyway.

  • Paul Marks

    Patrick Crozier gave the correct description of the two men.

    By the way Patrick – I have recently come upon something that would interest you concerning the First World War (no it is not anti Haig – if anything it is pro Haig), it would be going too far off topic to go into all here – but I will try and remember to inform you via Twitter.

    Dr Sweet pretends to want to debate – but if, for example, Dr Tyson or Dr Fareed turned up from California, Dr Sweet would not debate with them, or ANY Doctor who had saved lives with Early Treatment for Covid, whether they were male or female, white, black or brown, Dr Sweet would find some excuse for attacking them, rather than examining their medical success, most likely that they were “right wing”. They could come from South Africa, be non white and have suffered discrimination under Apartheid – and they would still be “right wing”.

    “Right wing” meaning anyone who opposes the international Corporate State agenda (yes, by this definition, even old fashioned socialists can be “right wing”).

    The establishment can do anything – mention the success of Early Treatment in the Dominican Republic and they will respond that the Dominican Republic is “right wing” because they are building a border wall.

    Any other nation you mention will get “right winged” in some way or other.

    This is why I actually agree (yes agree) with Dr Sweet on one point – when one comes upon a person such as himself it is a good idea to NOT to try and reason with them, trying to reason with them is pointless, they do not care how many lives could have been saved by Early Treatment, individual human life means nothing means nothing to these people, only “the cause” (“build9ing a better world”) matters to them. Talk to them and they will just sneer at you – you will not get that part of your life back and you will feel unclear after meeting them.

    It is very much like Mr Jones meeting Walter Duranty in Stalin’s Soviet Union – you can not reason with someone like Walter Duranty and they are shameless.

    Of course Dr Sweet could reply that Walter Duranty of the New York Times got every honour for his “noble” lies, whereas the truth teller Mr Jones died almost forgotten, tortured and abused.

    But this would show that Dr Sweet misses the point – misses the point totally.

  • Paul Marks

    As for the word.

    The word is hypocrite.

    Dr Matthew Sweet is a hypocrite – he pretends to support a thing, challenging debate, when that is really what he wants to destroy, utterly destroy.

    Liberalism was once very powerful – so powerful that the enemies of liberty knew they could not defeat liberalism openly, they would have to hijack the word, pretend to be liberals, and destroy it from within.

    Dr Sweet is an example of such a person – he would claim to be liberal, when liberalism (liberty) is what he works to destroy.

  • Stonyground

    This quote from Thomas Paine seems to relevant.

    “Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.”

  • mike

    Rhymes with “hat” and begins with “T”.

  • FrankS

    Some words not on the candidate list: character, consistency, conviction and courage.

  • J

    Fox’s response should have been: “Matthew Sweet goes strangely silent when challenged on facts, doesn’t he? I suspect he needs his safe space where nobody is vulgar enough to ask him to justify what he says.”

  • Zerren Yeoville

    Among the luminaries of the Left that have recently been guests on GB News shows are such big names as Kevin Maguire of the Daily Mirror, Aaron ‘Luxury Communism’ Bastani and St Polly Toynbee of Tuscany herself. In fact, one of the very first guests to appear on Nigel Farage’s show when it started was Vince Cable.

    May we take it that these prominent names have thereby forfeited any claim to be considered ‘serious people’ in the estimation of Dr Sweet? And if so, how much sleep have any of them lost over it?