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 – Let’s not have a second world war Dr. Mackail, in one of his recent essays, has laid fresh stress on this point when he says there were not enough Romans left to carry on the work of Rome. There are fears among those who are responsible for Government to-day, fears not yet gripping us by the throat, but taking grisly shape in the twilight, that the Great War, by the destruction of our best lives in such numbers, has not left enough of the breed to carry on the work of the Empire. Our task is hard enough, but it will be accomplished ; yet who in Europe does not know that one more war in the West and the civilization of the ages will fall with as great a shock as that of Rome ? She has left danger signals along the road ; it is for us to read them.
– Stanley Baldwin (Prime Minister as was), 9 January 1926. Maybe fear of a repeat of the collapse of the Roman Empire is an ever-present feature of Western civilisation. I still fear it though.
|
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.
|
Sadly it’s not just up to the government of the UK
World War II could have been prevented.
War could have been prevented a stronger line in 1936 – the German army was under orders to retreat from the Rhineland if the French or British showed any sign of doing anything. Or even in 1938 when there would have been a German military coup if Chancellor Hitler insisted on attacking Czechoslovakia – had the British and French made it clear they would stand by Prague, the German army was NOT ready for war even in 1938.
The “we needed to delay war in order to rearm” argument does not work (indeed is the reverse of the truth) – because the Germans were rearming faster than the British and French were, so delaying helped them – not us.
A tougher line would have prevented World War Two.
And a tougher line, when war came (came in spite of, or rather BECAUSE OF, the policy of Appeasement), have led to a much quicker victory.
It is often forgotten that most of the German army and air force was committed in the east (in Poland and elsewhere) in 1939 – the British and French could have marched into the Rhineland (the industrial heartland of Germany) and won the war – yet they did NOTHING.
There is also the bizarre decision NOT to declare war on the Soviet Union in 1939 – in spite of its invasion of Poland. The Soviet Union invaded Poland and then invaded Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, part of Romania, and then Finland – but there was no Declaration of War – no rounding up of pro Soviet agents (mostly in the Labour Party and the Trade Unions) even though pro National Socialist German figures were rounded up.
It is utterly baffling – British government behaviour makes no sense, unless influence (in the bureaucracy and so on) by leftist forces goes back a lot further in time than is normally thought.
The opportunity to cripple the Labour Party and the political Trade Unions (the “Collective Bargaining” responsible for the mass unemployment of the 1930s) presented by the pact between National Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union’s invasions of Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Finland, was just thrown away.
Indeed the Labour Party was invited into the government and leftists were given control of such things as education and propaganda in the British armed forces – leading to the disaster (and it was a disaster – a terrible disaster) of the 1945 election – which ended the United Kingdom as a great power.
As for now….
I was watching people on GB News saying that we must increase taxes in order to build up the British armed forces – in order to take on Mr Putin.
Sadly, tragically, most people in political circles do not yet grasp just how weak the British economy (and British society) now is.
The United Kingdom not only imports more food than ever before, it also imports far more manufactured goods than it experts.
As late as the 1930s (and contrary to the lies of the media and the education system) British industry was actually quite strong compared to nearly all other countries (rather more efficient than National Socialist Germany – contrary to the propaganda) – sadly, tragically, that is no longer true.
As for “banking and financial services” – a lot of that is Credit Bubble, the idea that it can sustain a population of almost 70 million people (bloated by mass immigration and the natural increase of hostile population groups) is false – indeed the idea is utterly absurd.
Britain is no position to increase military spending to “take on Putin” or anyone else.
The United Kingdom is not the great power it once was – its economy no longer has a real foundation, and its society is torn apart (undermined) by “Diversity” and “Social Liberalism”.
Britain is no condition to go to war with anyone – I beg people to please understand that.
“Maybe fear of a repeat of the collapse of the Roman Empire is an ever-present feature of Western civilisation. I still fear it though.”
As it should be. All great civilizations have collapsed of their own weight eventually. It’s inevitable. Everything that has a beginning, also has an end.
And, I believe, it has a lot to do with that old maxim:
Strong men make good times
Good times make weak men
Weak men make bad times
Bad times make strong men
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Perhaps I should have explained that better.
Baldwin acted on his concerns about civilisation. He was wrong.
I am acting on MY concerns about civilisation. How do I know I am not wrong?
“Baldwin acted on his concerns about civilisation. He was wrong.
I am acting on MY concerns about civilisation. How do I know I am not wrong?”
You don’t *know*.
No one ever does for sure. People make their decisions and judgments based on the best information they have at the time, colored, of course, by their own opinions, experiences and biases.
The ones who turn out to be right are the ones that are the best at looking at the lessons of history and taking away the right messages and not letting their own desires or wishes interfere with an objective view of cause and effect.
That’s the left’s biggest failure, in my opinion: they cannot ignore their own utopian pipe dreams about how the world *should* be long enough to clearly determine the relationship between cause and effect. When everything goes to sh1t as a result of their policies, it *can’t possibly* be a result of their policies, because they had such good intentions. It must have been some outside force sabotaging them…or they just didn’t do leftism *hard* enough. Surely it’ll work next time.
Patrick Crozier – Stanley Baldwin may not have been “wrong”.
World War II, and perhaps (perhaps) even more the Atlee victory in 1945 destroyed Britain as a Great Power – and since the 1960s cultural decline, mass immigration, and now fertility collapse would indicate that Western Civilization may well fall.
Remember it takes time – Roman society was insane from at least the time of the Emperor Diocletian, but the Western Empire struggled on for another century or so.
It has barely been a century since Stanley Baldwin said what you have quoted – so NO he was NOT wrong.
There is no way that the United Kingdom with the size of the government as it now is and the growth of hostile populations within the United Kingdom, can survive – the question is not “whether” but WHEN will the United Kingdom collapse.
The cultural decline and fertility collapse is general in the Western world.
Partly this is due to traditional social customs, for example the traditional role of men and women, being denounced as “Fascist” or “Nazi”.
Even basic survival – protecting a nation from migration by hostile groups, is now denounced as “Nazi” – which would have baffled Winston Churchill.
So, no, Stanley Baldwin was not wrong – although the way to prevent war was a stronger (not weaker) line in 1936 or even in 1938.
But if you are going to declare war in 1939, you must declare war on BOTH powers who invaded Poland – not just one of them.
The Soviet Union gave National Socialist Germany all the help it could anyway – so declaring war on the Soviet Union in 1939 would have made no-military-difference.
But just as pro Nazi British people were rounded up after the Declaration of War – so, if war had been declared on the Soviet Union, could pro Soviet people have been rounded up.
This would have crippled the Labour Party, the Trade Unions and the entire leftist movement – it would, therefore, have been of great benefit to British society.
It might even have saved the United Kingdom from the collapse that the “post war economic and cultural consensus” (such as calling every traditional and rational attitude “racist!”, “sexist!”, “reactionary!” and so on) is leading to.
Either avoid war (by a stronger line in 1936 or even as late as 1938) – on declare war on BOTH.
As for war NOW – Britain would lose.
Some people just do not grasp how weak British society has become.
Winston Churchill had two basic principles – the British Empire, and the British people – what Churchill called “the British Race”.
If Sir Winston Churchill was around today I very much doubt he would say that Stanley Baldwin was “wrong” in the quote provided – far from it.
The British Empire had collapsed before Churchill himself died – and the British people (the nation) are now in clear and terrible decline, which may well lead to their utter destruction.
The question is – what policies could, possibly, have prevented the disaster we see unfolding around us?
My view is that a stronger (stronger – not weaker) line in 1936, or even as late as 1938, could have prevented war – but if war did come in 1939, the Declaration of War had to be against BOTH powers that had invaded Poland – so that, for example, pro Soviet elements in the United Kingdom could have been rounded up (which would have crippled the Labour Party, the Unions, and so on), just as pro Nazi Germany elements were rounded up.
Remember – in 1939 National Socialist Germany had NOT yet murdered millions of people – but the Soviet Union HAD already murdered millions of people.
The actual policy followed by the United Kingdom has been a disaster – the present situation is so bad, and going to get vastly worse, that the destruction of this nation is likely.
Indeed the destruction of Western Civilization is likely – as Stanley Baldwin feared. As the terrible economic and cultural policies followed in Britain are general – even as far north as Iceland (see, for example, the mass migration – the international elite seem as determined to destroy tiny Iceland as they are larger Western nations).
At this point it is hard to see how the destruction of Western Civilization can be avoided – but I do NOT believe it was inevitable, it could have been avoided – had wiser policies been followed.
Every sixteen hundred years (more or less), civilization seems to collapse. 400 CE, 1200 BCE, 2800 BCE. We are do.
It is possible SteveD – but it could have been avoided.
Population change also occurs – the “Great Replacement Conspiracy” is very much an historical fact if one looks at the genetic record = for example there was a 90% male line population replacement in the British Isles at the start of the Bronze Age.
There was also a massive population change in the eastern parts of what is now England with the coming of the Germanic tribes, the Angles and Saxons, this was denied in recent decades – but DNA shows it is the truth.
So John Enoch Powell’s warnings in the 1960s had the historical record behind them = and his warnings (savagely attacked by the establishment) are proving to be the grim truth.
As the French used to say, before they were sent to prison for saying it, “demography is destiny” – ethnic groups, nations, who do not defend their land, get wiped out. And calling self defense “racist” changes nothing.
This was the position of both Winston Churchill and Charles De Gaulle, the two leading ANTI Nazis – they would have been astonished to hear basic common sense described as “Fascist” or “Nazi”.
Another historical error that needs to be sorted out is the pretense that Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax were “right wing” – they were nothing of the kind.
Neville Chamberlain was an ardent Social Reformer (as his father had been) – endlessly pushing government benefits and services, in everything from health to housing.
And Lord Halifax, although very mean with his own money, was “Lady Boutiful” (or rather Lord Boutiful) with the money of the taxpayers – even writing political philosophy pieces about the Social Gospel (his version of religion) – how the needs of the Community must replace the traditional rights of the individual.
As P.E. Moore (T.S. Eliot’s old tutor) found on his visit to Britain – this land did not really have a free market wing (with the exception of a handful of individuals) – even as far back as the 1930s. The debate here was not “for or against a bigger government” it was “how fast should government get bigger” with almost everyone in public life being a “Social Reformer” – i.e. a bigger and bigger government person. Indeed this seems to have been true since at least the 1870s. With ideas for bigger government being pushed, by Lord Russell and Lord Stanley (later the Earl of Derby) as far back as the 1830s – although government did continue to SHRINK, as a proportion of the economy, till the 1870s.
So, perhaps (perhaps) civilization would have declined even if World War II had been avoided – perhaps (perhaps) the decline and fall of Britain (and the rest of the West) was already “baked into the cake”.
But that is a bit grim.
I like to believe that the decline of the West could have been prevented.
Most Romans didn’t notice that Roman civilisation had fallen until around 250 years after the event. In retrospect we say the Roman Empire fell around 475AD, but people living then would not have agreed with you. Taxes were still being collected, civil servants were still employed, trade was still happening. The Senate still sat until around 650AD.
It could well be that we are at that point for modern civilisation the whole shebang is collapsing but people haven’t noticed.
jgh – good point.
Indeed the Emperor Constans visited Rome, as Emperor, in the 7th century – and he certainly collected taxes, in order to finance resistance against the advance of Islamic forces in North Africa and elsewhere. However, he was murdered before he could launch any major counter offensive – and, it should be said, his military record was poor (barely escaping with his life after one naval battle against the forces of Islam).
The great bronze doors of the Pantheon are there to this day, and the bronze roof tiles were there till the Renaissance (when they were stripped off to provide material for a statue), so even the city of Rome was not all decay – although its population collapsed.
If Stanley Baldwin was here now, he would be horrified.
Not just by the relative decline of manufacturing (he rightly believed that manufacturing was the heart of the British economy – if it failed the rest would die), but also by the collapse of the European Empires.
It is not just the British Empire that has collapsed – it is all the Empires of the Western European nations. And the populations of these nations themselves are being displaced by rising hostile population groups – mass immigration and the grim difference in fertility rates have seen to this. Such things have happened before – for example to the Romano Britons with the coming of the Germanic tribes to this island.
Western culture has also horribly declined – as is obvious just by looking around us, badly dressed people, often under the influence of drink or (increasingly) drugs, in streets where there is “rubbish everywhere – apart from in the bins”.
And the United States is not different – massive cultural decline, including the decline of the family itself (the bedrock of society), indeed in most American cities Americans (as Stanley Baldwin, or just about anyone else of the time, would have understood the term) are now a MINORITY – a shrinking minority.
New York, Chicago, Los Angeles (and on and on – basically every large city) are no longer American – and calling people “ists” and “phobes” for pointing out this fact, does not make the fact not a fact. And running away to small towns is not a long term solution – not in America, Britain, France, the Netherlands, or elsewhere.
And everything is crushed by debt – government debt and private debt.
No, sadly, Stanley Baldwin, a middle of the road person (in no way “right wing”), was not wrong.
I should have also have pointed out that Lord Halifax wanted members of the Labour Party to be in the government – even before the Second World War. Descriptions of him as “right wing” are laughably wrong. He was a social gospel “the interests of the community outweigh the rights of the individual” type – although personally very mean with his own money.
Remember this was the Clause Four Labour Party – that wanted state (“democratic”) control of all (all) the “means of production, distribution and exchange” (Clause Four of the Labour Party Constitution of 1918 – and clause four was printed on every Labour Party card, carried by all members of the group). From steel mills, to farms, to corner shops.
That this cult (and “cult” is the correct word – see above for why) was a major political force in the United Kingdom of the 1920s and 1930s shows that the decline of society was already well under way. In 1945 the election gave this group a big majority in the House of Commons (due to wartime control of “education” and “information” by leftists) – this was perhaps (perhaps) an even bigger disaster than the war itself.
But was the decline irreversible? Was it already inevitable that British society, and the other Western societies, would fall?
I do NOT believe it was.
But future historians, if there are any, will debate this matter.
I am NOT referring to the “National Government” when Ramsey MacDonald, Philip Snowden, and others, de facto broke with the Labour Party.
I am pointing to 1938 – that is when Lord Halifax urged the mainstream (Clause Four) Labour Party to be included in the government.
With “Conservatives” like Halifax socialists are not needed – as society will be undermined on the installment plan.
Can Western societies be saved now – in 2026?
Some people, such as President Trump, clearly believe that Western Civilization can be saved.
I do not see how, but let us hope I am wrong and people such as President Trump are correct.