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 – the real Mandelson scandal is China and Russia; Epstein is the distraction. The media’s fixation on Epstein, sordid though the Epstein story indisputably is, has performed a remarkable public service for those who would prefer the harder questions to go unasked. We are so busy being appalled by the dead paedophile that we have forgotten to be appalled by what the living intelligence services were actually worried about: that Britain sent to its most sensitive diplomatic post a man with deep, documented, inadequately severed financial ties to both Peking and Moscow.
That is the scandal. Not the gossip. The geopolitics.
I note as I write this that some in the media are finally looking into this aspect.
But let’s focus on Nathan Gill and Epstein.
– Gawain Towler
|
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.
|
How does that make Trump look bad?
What does this have to do with Trump? It’s a UK political issue.
Perry – I think William O.B’Livion is referring to the Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons who are, absurdly, claiming that Prime Minister Starmer appointed Peter Mandelson to “pander to Donald Trump” – the Lib Dems are all saying this, and it is nonsense as President Trump did not really know Mr Mandelson and was not interested in his appointment – if Prime Minister Starmer wanted better relations with the American Administration he would have appointed NIGEL FARAGE (who offered) to be Ambassador to Washington.
I agree with Perry de Havilland that the links between Mr Mandelson with the Kremlin and with the People’s Republic of China are the real scandal (not Mr Mandelson’s friendship with a man who had an interest in teenage girls – an interest Mr Mandelson, a homosexual, did NOT share) – these links with the Kremlin and with the People’s Republic of China were well known (I knew of the links – sitting out here “out in the sticks” with no special sources of information) so it is absurd for Prime Minister Starmer to say he did not know – of course he knew, but Prime Minister Starmer DID NOT CARE that intelligence information of the highest classification would be passed on, by Mr Mandelson, to the Kremlin and to the People’s Republic of China.
It is incredibly depressing that no one (in all the questions put to the Prime Minister) is asking the simple question “why did you, Prime Minister, appoint someone to be Ambassador to Washington, who you knew (you knew) would pass on intelligence and national security information, of the highest possible classification, to the Kremlin and the the People’s Republic of China?”
Giving someone you know (you know) has links with the Kremlin and with the People’s Republic of China, access to the highest level of intelligence and national security information, is (essentially) the same as passing on the information yourself.
The defense of “I did not personally pass on the information to the Kremlin and to the People’s Republic of China – I gave the information to my friend, knowing he would pass it on” is not valid.
A Prime Minister can be stupid – for example when asked in the House of Commons (a century ago now) how he knew that the Soviet Union was organizing subversion in the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin replied that British intelligence had broken the Soviet codes – so that is how he knew, the Kremlin then (of course) changed the codes.
But the appointment of Peter Mandelson goes beyond stupidity – it was the appointment of a known enemy Agent-of-Influence to see the highest grade security and intelligence information.
Sadly the British establishment has form for this level of ….. (of whatever it is), for example “Kim” Philby was on good terms with his father – a known enemy (a socialist – a “Red”), going to see his father in Beirut (where his father was busy working on various anti British and general anti Western actions) – yet “Kim” was given high security clearance and put in charge of many intelligence operations.
I am told (I do NOT know if it is true) that “Kim” made a special point of seeing intelligence officers he was sending to their deaths (in Albania and elsewhere) – that he got a kick out of it.
But the question is – why was someone who was obviously a supporter of the enemy (who even went off to visit his father, another supporter of the enemy, in Beirut) given such a position – and why was he, when the public disquiet became too much, allowed to escape?
One of a whole series of enemy agents who were either allowed to escape or not prosecuted.
As extreme as it seems – the conclusion must be that the British establishment, even back then, was rotten to the core.
Note to people who still do not understand – if someone (from their university days onwards) accepts the enemy position that Western “capitalism” is “exploitation and oppression” (Labour Theory of Value, Ricardo’s theory on land – and so on) you do not give them a sensitive position.
The counter “argument” of “well yes he believes in XYZ – but he is a good person” is not valid, indeed it is Barking Mad.
This is not a theoretical matter – of someone not understanding the implications of certain economic theories.
Clause Four of the Labour Party Constitution, adopted in 1918 (and only changed in the 1990s) was, clearly, about the control of everything – the means of “production, distribution and exchange” (what does that NOT cover?) – and it was a not a secret, it was written on every Labour Party membership card. How can someone who wants to take over everything (every factory, every farm, every shop) be allowed into an important position? Haldane, the first Labour Lord Chancellor (head of the legal system) joined the Labour Party AFTER the adoption of Clause Four (it was not a matter of him being born into it, being from a “Labour family” or anything like that – Haldane joined the Labour Party out of ideological conviction) – and the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers (of which Sir Keir Starmer was a leading member) carries on this HATRED of the foundations of the Common Law – of private property based natural justice.
And on the “Conservative” side – Prime Minister Edward Heath was open in his admiration for Mao, the murderer of many millions of human beings.
I raised these matters as a child (many decades ago) and was told that the Labour Party did not really believe in Clause Four (in which case why was Labour Party leader Hugh Gaitskell defeated when he tried to change it?), and that Edward Heath was “a gallant soldier who had won the Military Cross”.
Even as a child I understood that the reply about Edward Heath was utterly irrelevant. Someone can be very brave – and still very bad.
In a healthy society both Harold Wilson and Edward Heath would have been in a public park making crazy speeches to no-one-in-particular – but in the United Kingdom both of these men were Prime Minister.
Their antics as Prime Minister (what they either did or went along with) should have been astonishing to no one – whether it was wage and price controls (Edward Heath following the policies of the Emperor Diocletian – and this was BEFORE the “oil shock” of 1973) or taxes on investment (under Harold Wilson) of over 90%.
To complain about “lack of investment in British industry” when such investment is being taxed at such a level, is either insincere, or an indication that the mind of the person making the complaint is no longer rational.
Such policies, if prolonged, will (of course) utterly undermine society – and it must (logically) be assumed that people, at least people of normal intelligence, who follow such policies know that – and that undermining society is their objective.
So Peter Mandelson and Sir Keir Starmer (both in their personal greed, their endless seeking after “gifts”, including the clothes the Prime Minister wears – and in their ideological assumption that Western society is fundamentally bad – based on “exploitation and oppression”) are, sadly, “par for the course”.
And YES – if someone regards Western society as fundamentally bad, they are likely to use this as an excuse (to themselves) for bad behaviour – the “everyone is doing it – this is how people get rich” excuse.