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 – ESG hypocrisy edition “Arms contractors get lumped in with tobacco, oil, alcohol and other so-called `sin stocks’ that are regarded as a threat to society. Yet, Ukraine’s predicament has shown that the biggest threat to Western freedom is Putin himself and without the West’s support for Kyiv, Russia may have been able to continue its imperial march beyond Ukrainian territory, further into Europe. City minister Andrew Griffith and defence procurement minister James Cartilidge have warned perfectly reasonably that the UK’s long-term security is being put at risk by the Square Mile’s growing aversion to defence stocks.”
– Ben Marlow, Daily Telegraph (£)
|
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.
|
The biggest threat to my freedom is the Conservative Party majority in the House of Commons. It’s no use having armed forces if they do things like give the Manchester Arena bomber a lift home.
Absolutely. I would like to have the freedom to choose a car and the heating for my house that best suits my requirements. Not have them chosen for me by imbeciles who are ignorant of basic physics.
It reminds me of this t shirt.
No Mr Ed – the Conservative majority in the House of Commons is not the biggest threat to liberty, the fact they have no power is the threat. For example, most of the opponents of ESG are Conservatives – but they are powerless in the face of the international Corporate State which is supported by Credit Money.
The Credit Money has been with us for a very long time – but up to the end of the 1980s we were living on the fumes of liberty, the Cultural Memory of Capitalism – free enterprise funded by Real Savings. That system died long ago – but the memory of it (the culture that went with it) existed till about 30 years ago (when it started to fall apart), now even the Cultural Memory of liberty is gone from Corporate Executives and so on.
They choose not to use it. One enabling Act cum updated Bill of Attainder (impeachment) could be passed and appropriate enforcement hired. It might be economically disruptive in the short term, but the current organs could in the main be usefully made redundant at low cost.
Mr Ed – the ex Deputy Prime Minister, Dominic Raab, allegedly raised his voice to officials (most likely he did not even do that) and he was forced to resign. And you are talking about passing a Bill of Attainder.
Politicians are not even allowed to pretend to have power – let alone actually have power.
Remember what happens to people just for a “Tweet” – now an X.
I know Members of Parliament who knew the Covid “vaccines” were toxic – and still had to accept injection (or lose their positions). As for me – I have the shadow in my right eye to remind me.
If you do not, in practice, have the power to say “no” to toxic stuff being injected into you, how much power do you have?
But true – in theory Parliament could abolish the Civil Service and the “independent agencies”.
Politicians lack the will to rule, they just want the office, the pay, the opportunities for sidelines, the job titles, the perks and the illusion of importance. May I remind you of the unpleasantness of the 1640s?
No one has to resign because of a Tweet, it is purely cowardice and group think. Give the right person a solid Parliamentary majority of 1 and this could be done.
Mr Ed – my colleague did NOT resign over a Tweet, he was suspended.
I did not resign over the Facebook stuff in 2019 – I was suspended.
Saying “I will not resign” does not save a person – not in our political system.
Even a Prime Minister has, in our system, no real position – they can be removed at any time.
As I have often pointed out – an American State Governor has more security than a British Prime Minister, for example an American State Governor could (and some did) say “no” to a Covid lockdown – a British Prime Minister who tried to say “no” to POLICY would be replaced.
The opposite danger to a system where the “political leadership” serves a largely ornamental function, is the Russian system where a politician, Mr Putin, has too much power, rather than too little power – no one was in a position to tell Mr Putin that his view of the Ukrainian situation was fatally flawed, and there is no way of peacefully overruling the President – the Russian Parliament being a largely rubber-stamp body.
President Trump is often attacked for going along with “Doctor” Fauci and the other traitors and destroyers – but it could have been a lot worse.
A “normal” President would have demanded that ALL States lockdown – and the courts would have upheld it (as the useless judges upheld everything – including systematic election fraud), President Trump allowed a few State Governors to say no – much to the rage of the traitor-establishment, whose loyalty is the international Corporate State that they are helping to create.
The loyalty of the British establishment (the “blob”) is also to the international Corporate State of “public-private partnership” that they are helping to create – the dream of the Club of Rome back in the 1960s, made reality by such things as the Rio Conference of 1992- “the environment” being a mask for the real objective, the real objective being international “governance” on the Corporate State, public-private partnership model.
From your political party, to which you and other politicians subordinate yourselves, but not from office. That is the problem, party loyalty and the tribal, ovine loyalty of the voters. We see it in a different way in The Death of Stalin, the loyalty and surprise of the purged. Perhaps we need a new breed of politicians?
Did Lenin sit around muttering that he would be replaced? His methods were wrong and evil, but his will to power is what needs to be studied.
Mr Ed – good point.
ESG “Environmental and Social Governance” has often been opposed by Jacob Rees-Mogg who has repeatedly pointed out that it violates the fundamental legal duty of a business manager to maximise financial returns for shareholders. But international ESG (or some other name for the same political agenda) just carries on.
This shows two things – firstly that even getting into the Cabinet does not give a person power, Jacob Rees-Mogg was in the Cabinet – but he could do little, and if anyone says “but if he had been Prime Minister…” well Liz Truss (Mary Elizabeth O’Leary) was Prime Minister – but was removed as soon as the lady tried to do things the international “Progressive” elite did not like.
The second thing this shows is that the Milton Friedman conception of a corporation as a profit maximiser for share holders, whilst legally correct, is NOT how these vast financial entities (mostly NOT owned by individuals – due to tax law and due to the endless flow of Credit Money) really behave.
The agenda of the vast international financial entities is political and cultural – not about maximising returns for shareholders. Henry Saint-Simon (two centuries ago) would have been delighted.
It is the above, not Mr Putin, that is the “biggest threat to Western freedom” – or rather what little is still left of Western freedom.