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 – servants or masters? The British State did not want Birmingham to be portrayed as a “no go zone” for Jews. Instead they submitted fabricated evidence to the Birmingham Safety Advisory Group to secure the ban. For example, they falsely attributed to Tel Aviv fans actions taken against them by Muslims in the Netherlands at a previous match. They said Israelis had thrown Muslims into canals, when the truth (as subsequently confirmed by Dutch police) was the precise opposite. Dutch Muslims on an organised “Jew Hunt” (their words not mine) had actually committed the violent acts that English Muslims were threatening.
West Midlands Police offered no evidence to the authorities about the actual threats. With the usual excuse of potential damage to “community relations”, they falsely portrayed the visitors as the danger. “Community relations” with Britain’s Jews or (still less) Britain’s relations with Israel were not a concern, apparently.
Essentially his force was guilty of cowardice. They bowed before a threat of violence. They were too gutless to be honest about it.
– Tom Paine
|
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.
|
“They said Israelis had thrown Muslims into canals, when the truth (as subsequently confirmed by Dutch police) was the precise opposite.”
Birmingham has more canals than Venice.
If Reform comes to power and does not pursue these issues as a criminal matter, they will quickly lose credibility.
Which reminds me to update one of my Steynisms from Her Majesty’s Keystone Konstabulary to His Majesty’s Keystone Konstabulary.
Were the police always this cowardly?
A few dates:
1968 the RUC gives up on policing the Bogside.
1969 the RUC fights a riot on the Bogside and loses.
1981 Brixton riots. Police condemned in official report. According to an ex-policeman acquaintance of mine the police’s actions leading up to the riot had widespread local support.
c.1997 McPherson Report. According to a commie friend of mine an utter disaster. But then public enquiries always are.
2002 Oldham riots.
So we’ve gone from a time when the police would confront rioters to a time when they won’t. I can’t help thinking that the lack of political support for robust action especially against those whose Britishness is in doubt is an important factor.
Clovis Sangrail – if a Reform Party government did not clear out the entire system, then it would be “in office, but NOT in power” – just as the Conservatives were.
Patrick – sadly so, Sir, sadly so.
Sorry to be off topic, but I have a question for this community. I just read about Rupert Lowe this morning.
Is his “Restore Britain” party just a distraction from real reform or is it a useful new entity?
Will he push Farage in some good directions, even if Lowe doesn’t achieve his own electoral victories?
Will he dilute the conservative vote and enable a Labor victory?
I’m hoping real reform comes to the UK so I can once again visit without worrying that my online activity will get me jailed when I land at Heathrow!
Again this claim. The Tories acted in office like a bunch of wet social democrats because that is what the party was, not because of “the system”. Every single Tory PM from Cameron to Sunak was in favour of mass immigration and so that is what we had.
Marius – if you think that Jacob Rees-Mogg and so on were social democrats, then you are mistaken. Even Prime Minister Sunak (much thought I disliked some of his ideas) did NOT want mass immigration – but what he wanted made little difference.
Do you know any Members of Parliament? Have you even been elected to a local council?
Why do you think that Reform Party controlled local authorities increase Council Tax – are they “wet social democrats”?
You continue to think that in the British political system the elected politicians are in charge – and, to a sad extent, they-are-not.
GregWA – partly it is a personal matter.
Rupert Lowe is angry because Mr Yusuf lied about him (Mr Yusuf pretended that Mr Lowe had threatened to murder him) and, with the support of Mr Farage, got armed police to go to his farm and confiscate his legally owned firearms – and threaten him (Mr Lowe) with arrest.
But it is also political – Mr Lowe does not believe that Mr Farage will engage in the mass deportations that are needed if the changing demographic situation of Britain is even to be stabilised – let alone reversed. Mr Lowe believes, rightly or wrongly, that Mr Farage wants to join the establishment – rather than destroy it.
Marius thinks that elected politicians are in charge – Mr Lowe understands that they are NOT, but he wants them to be in charge – as does Prime Minister Liz Truss (who, when she was Prime Minister, found that she had NO POWER).
For elected politicians to actually be in power (not just in office) the present system would have to be smashed – perhaps Mr Farage wants to do that (I do not know) – but Mr Lowe does not believe he does.
Again – I do not know whether Mr Farage wants to smash the present system or not. But under the present system – a politician, even a Prime Minister, who wants to go against the establishment (on immigration, on taxation, on just about anything) finds they can NOT.
Thank you, Paul. Do you, or anyone here, have a preference for who should be the next PM? Assume the choice for (true) conservatives is Lowe or Farage. Maybe that’s a naive restriction on the question?
GregWA
I follow the rule of the late William F. Buckley – vote for the most conservative (read “reactionary”) candidate who-has-a-chance-of-winning.
Who has-a-chance-of-winning is important.
Mr Lowe is already being denounced as a “racist” and members of the establishment are making threats against him and anyone who supports him – Perry has kindly retweeted one of these threats on X. So it is unlikely that Mr Lowe has a chance of winning – assuming they just do not kill him.
Mr Farage has put Muslims in key positions in the Reform Party – in order to guard against charges of “Islamophobia” or “racism” (even though Islam is not a race – indeed Mohammed was a pale man).
So what Mr Farage has done is smart politics – although it is not a good sign as regards to what he would do if he became Prime Minister.
The establishment are powerful in all countries, as the Supreme Court of the United States showed us a few minutes ago (in ruling on behalf of the large Corporations that it serves – who wish to import XYZ), so how much elected politicians can do is limited.
But, as Mr Farage would point out, you can do nothing at all if you are not elected.
My own opinion?
My opinion is that Mr Farage is sincere when he says he will stop mass immigration – I also think Kemi Badenoch is sincere on this matter.
That would not stop the demographic transformation of this island (especially England) – as it is TOO LATE to prevent displacement just by ending mass immigration – however, the process would be slower under Mr Farage than it would be under the present Labour Party government. Those of us who are old might get to live out what remains of our lives in an England that is still sort-of England.
Should Labour-LibDems-Greens be office, working with the unelected establishment, England will cease to exist (in any meaningful sense) within only a few years.
A nation that does NOT have to undertake mass deportations in order to survive (as a nation – as a people) is Hungary – and it does not have to engage in mass deportations because it has not allowed in hostile populations in the first place (so their natural increase, births, is NOT happening there) – it is almost unbearably tragic that looks likely to be thrown away in the election of April this year.
The opposition are promising lower taxes and higher government spending (they pretend there is no contradiction there) – but the real agenda is to obey the Open Borders command of the International Community and put Hungary in the position that such countries as Austria (see what is happening in Vienna – where the victories of 1519 and 1683 are being reversed in the maternity wards – hence the turning down of the Polish offer of a statue of the Polish King who saved Vienna in 1683), Germany, the Netherlands, France, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Spain, and-so-on are already in.
Treason – the deliberate, although gradual, destruction of your own nation – but treason is highly profitable, it leads to a wealthy and comfortable life for people in public life who go along with it.
To oppose treason can bring harsh punishment for those people who oppose it – indeed the threats to such people (and to anyone who supports them) are made quite openly.
On the post – was it cowardice, or was it ideological assumptions drilled into the training and environment of every institution – including the police.
I believe the latter – which is why I believe the situation of this country is without real long term hope.