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 – assault the surveillance state Two unanticipated events in 2016 completely shocked our ruling class: the election of Trump in the U.S. and the Brexit vote in the U.K. Our elites did not respond by examining the disconnect between their core assumptions and the will of the people. Instead they decided that, sure, democracy is all fine and well, but naturally, democracy must be protected from these unruly people.
After all, the people often don’t know what’s good for them. So those who know better must acquire the capacity to monitor and control the will of the people if we are to ‘defend democracy’. The means for doing this in the digital age, our ruling class divined, is by monitoring populations’ behaviors and shaping their thinking by controlling the flow of information online. The idea of censorship once again became chic.
– Aaron Kheriaty
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
There’s a few things to unpack, here.
One is the thought that the man who sets out to enslave others is making slaves of two parties: The slave himself, and the putative “master”, because once you make someone a slave, you’re now stuck caring for them. Forever. You can abuse them, certainly, but if you do that and go too far for too long? Yeah; guess who’s gonna re-enact the experience of the Haitian plantation owners…?
It’s like riding a tiger; you think you can get off, easily, there at the start. But, once you’re on, the reality sets in, and you realize that you’re now stuck in as a permanent tiger-rider.
So, the point here is that the Karl Schwabs of this generation think it’s a cool idea to be the only ones owning anything, while everyone else rents from them? LOL… Dude, wait until you find out just how well people take care of things they don’t own, which they only rent. You do that for long enough, and the children of the magnates are gonna re-invent “ownership” as a concept just to get out of the burden of maintaining all that crap that they “own”. Schwab and his ilk fail to recognize that they’re setting themselves up for permanent slavery to the property that they’re siphoning up, and it’s gonna cost them more to own it than they ever imagined. In oh-so-very-many-ways.
The other problem with this crap is that once you’ve effectively taken over, guess what? The people you’ve taken over from are gonna demand results, and hold you accountable for things well out of your power to influence. Wannabe rentiers who’re stuck living with the people they rent to, when things go seriously south? The track record for their survival and prosperity ain’t what I’d call “good”. Most of them have died in very ugly ways, notably the French aristos that didn’t make it out of France before they got lined up for a trip to meet Madame Guillotine…
The idiots like Schwab imagine they can manage things ever so much better than the filthy proles, but what they forget is that once they take that job on, they’d better do well at it or they’re going to be the ones going up “a la lantirne”, along with their nearest and dearest…
Frankly, I’ve zero personal interest in running anyone else’s life for them. Did that in the military for way too long, and what I learned from that experience is this: It’s a mug’s game. Idjits gonna idjit; you can’t fix “stupid”, and the entire effort just doesn’t pay well enough. You could not possibly pay me enough money to take on “ownership” of any other human beings, period.
I’d rather “own” (I question the premise of that term applied to that relationship; I pick up rather too much dog sh*t when walking the furry bastards at all hours for me to say that I own them; it’s quite the other direction, that deal…) dogs; they, at least, are capable of being trained, and demonstrate gratitude rather more consistently.
Twain’s comment about the difference between man and dog would be pertinent here.
This is an idiots view of tyranny. Might work for some people, for a while, but it will always end up in collapse, executions and reconstruction.
You’d think the likes of WEF would understand this after revolutions galore from 1640 onwards, but no, they still seem to think “This time will be different”.
It won’t.
When the butchers bill comes due those subject to Madame Guillotine will be the lucky ones. Most will simply starve to death when logistics chains collapse and all that paper “Money” becomes worthless.
Just like last time.
The international establishment were indeed horrified for the British vote for independence (the word “Brexit” causes endless confusion – let us avoid this silly made-up word) and the vote for President Trump in 2016 – the international establishment had already decided that censorship and opinion control would be part of the cultural aspect of Agenda 21 – Agenda 2030, but after the votes of 2016 they decided to bring forward their efforts and push censorship and opinion control as fast and as much as they could.
In the case of the United States it was also decided that honest elections should, if possible, be ended – at least in some key States (to prevent “Populists” being elected in future) – even blatantly rigged elections, such as the Governorship election in Arizona in 2022, are now declared by the Wall Street Journal to be straight – as the WSJ has been told, quite correctly, that the Wall Street banks and other Corporations depend on hidden support from the government and that “Populists” might possibly question that Credit Money support for the banks and other Corporations.
The support for Collectivism by the banks and other Corporations is not just a matter of the ideology that executives were taught in their university days – it is also a matter of self interest, they know they can not survive without hidden government, Credit Money, support.
The system (economic and political) is corrupt – it is rotten to the core.
No, I’d prefer people to know what I’m talking about without extensive preamble each time, so Brexit serves just fine as the meaning “UK leaving EU” is well understood.
Paul:
All it took to fix the 2020 election was five counties in five states. Amazingly easy to do, if you have the support of the MSM.
The only question is will 2024 be any different?
Why should 2024 be any different? Nothing has changed. If anything election security has gone backwards.
Die Lösung
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni
Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands
In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen
Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk
Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Und es nur durch verdoppelte Arbeit
zurückerobern könne. Wäre es da
Nicht doch einfacher, die Regierung
Löste das Volk auf und
Wählte ein anderes?
– Bertolt Brecht
(The Solution
After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers’ Union
Had leaflets distributed on the Stalinallee
Which stated that the people
Had squandered the confidence of the government
And could only win it back
By redoubled work [quotas]. Would it not in that case
Be simpler for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?)
Am I too cynical in thinking that honest elections were never started in the first place?
Not by my standards of honesty, anyway.
Snorri – you have a point, parts of the United States do have a history of bent elections. Ironically it is the so called “Democratic” Party that has a history of showing contempt for democracy, in Chicago and elsewhere.
The way they, privately, justify their actions is by claiming that their rule is for the benefit of “the people” – so if most persons do not vote for them, it means that the people do not understand their best interests (books such as “What’s Wrong With Kansas?” claim that the people do not understand their true “class interests”) – so the elections have to be rigged for the good of the people.
Rousseau – the “General Will” is not the same as the “will of all” – what the silly people just think they want. The “General Will” is for the “Lawgiver” to decide – it is what the people really want, even though they do not know they want it.
@Snorri Godhi
Am I too cynical in thinking that honest elections were never started in the first place?
Not by my standards of honesty, anyway.
Your standards, admirable though they no doubt are, are probably unattainable, but elections certainly used to be much less subject to chicainary. But one of the most fundamental problems with elections to start with is that it is always a choice between dumb and dumber, the candidates that we have are always vastly distant from my viewpoints, just some are a bit more distant. We have had a libertarian party in the USA for a long time and they have no traction.
However, this 2024 election we actually have a candidate in the Republican primary who is, to all intents and purposes, an actual libertarian, and he is about number 3, I mean Ramaswamy. When was the last time you heard a politician saying that he has a carefully worked out plan to fire 75% of the federal workforce?
Do I think he has a shot of winning? Probably not. If the lefties get their way and disqualify Trump based on the 14th amendment (where those who have instigated insurrection against the government are disqualified to take public office) he might have a small chance of winning the Republican nomination. Though, even if Trump were disqualified there are a LOT of people who would vote for him anyway, and Trump’s ego is big enough that he is unlikely to say: “I can’t win, vote for this guy instead”. And I think given how left the country has become he would probably lose to Biden, or even Harris — “Shut down the Department of Education — why do you want to shut down the schools and throw all the kids on the street?” is likely the response. So would he win? Probably not. But I think he is the first libertarian since Calvin Coolidge to has a non zero chance of winning. FWIW, for the first time in my life I actually made a political donation to him.
Of course he is in favor of shutting down the war in Ukraine, so I am sure — given the strong pro Ukraine war views here — he is unlikely to find much support among this group. But his agenda is the closest I have ever seen from a politician that I can happily get on board with.
After the end of the Cold War, my standards are attained in every country in continental Europe afaik — with the exceptions of Russia, Belarus, and possibly Sweden, where i understand that votes are not quite secret. (Although the last election indicates that they are secret enough.)
I would be surprised if similar standards were not attained in the free countries of East Asia, and would certainly not be surprised if they are attained in India. Cannot comment on the rest of the world.
The fact is that native English speakers are becoming unable to learn from best practice.
@Snorri Godhi
The fact is that native English speakers are becoming unable to learn from best practice.
Do you think? Or is it that native English speaking politicians HAVE learned from best practice as to what produces the results they, the politicians, want?
Perhaps European politicians have something to learn from them.
🙂