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 – More disquieting tales from Police State Britain As a writer and broadcaster in 2020s Britain, one almost expects the police eventually to arrive and allege some sort of thought crime, particularly if one writes about anti-Jewish racism and violence, free speech, the Middle East, Islam or trans issues. I write about all of them.
I recognised the moment for what it was. A rite of passage, and an attempt to place a boundary around my speech. Informing her as I did so, I reached for my phone and began recording, as much for posterity as for evidence.
– Jonathan Sacerdoti
|
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 United Kingdom, and most other nations, lack protection for Freedom of Speech – or any other basic liberties.
If one looks carefully at such things as the European Convention on Human Rights, or the International (United Nations) Declaration on Human Rights, they are written to give the impression of protecting basic individual liberties – whilst NOT actually doing so. Partly this is the legacy of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (French Revolution period) which also, at first glance, seems to be about basic individual liberties, but when one reads carefully is NOT – it gives no protection to individual liberty against “the people”. But it is also about British lawyers – steeped in the tradition of Sir William Blackstone (Parliament can do anything it likes – for example make having blue eyes a crime punishable by death – the history books say the American Founding Fathers were influenced by Blackstone and, in a way, the history books are telling the truth – in that the Founders were horrified by Blackstone and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were written as a rejection of him and thinkers like him), and steeped in the philosophy of Hobbes, Hume and Bentham (and-so-on – philosophy that denies that humans are beings, that an individual is an “I” – a soul in the Aristotelian sense).
Covid, or rather the reaction to it, revealed that there was no protection for basic liberties at all (that the modern “Declarations” and “Conventions” were just a mist of words protecting nothing good) – but Covid was not really needed, as “racism” (or anything else) would work just as well as an excuse for tyranny.
Long before Marxism (in its various mutant forms – such as Critical Theory “Woke” Marxism which is the inspiration for so many modern Acts of Parliament in Britain – not that most Members of Parliament actually read the Bills they rubber stamp), the philosophical battle was already lost among the establishment elite – even if Marxism had-had no influence at all on the establishment elite in Britain and other Western nations, other writers, such as Hobbes in Britain or Rousseau (the “General Will” being defined by the Law Giver and being vastly more important than individual liberty) in France, would likely have lead us to where we are now.
Lastly to Americans – do not be smug about the First Amendment (or the Second Amendment – or any basic liberty), as Senator Cruz often (correctly) points out – a few appointments to the United States Supreme Court, and basic liberties would be just as defenseless in the United States as they are in Britain, France, Germany and other nations.
After all there is a right to keep and bear arms in, for example, the Constitution of Mexico – but judges in Mexico made it a dead-letter many years ago.
For me the greatest lesson of all this is to show how Nazism or any other Totalitarian ideology can take over a “liberal” country in 20 years.
I am not anymore surprised by Nazism getting on power in Germany or the Bolsheviks in Russia in 2-3 generations.
I remember here in Samizdata 20 years ago the claims how in Anglo Saxon civilization/culture was superior as opposed to Continental Europe that in UK,US Totalitarian ideas had no chance…and i somewhat agreed with that -albeit the eugenics acceptance in Anglo Saxon/Protestant culture rung a small bell in the back of my head.
Nevertheless i was overall wrong despite the small bell, the “liberal” culture of Great Britain was destroyed in 20 or so years by the Marxists teachers and professors of the educational complex. The British police is now in service of Totalitarian ideology, British police works now as like a mafia intimidation fixer for an ideology.
In USA too, also consequences of Marxist takeover of education complex and allied with Islamists are now starting the next step: taking over the so called “Democratic” Party, being anti-Semitic, anti-capitalism so anti-freedom, pro political violence. All of that coming from the “educated class”.
Corollary, also destroys the conventional thinking that education is always a positive.
Rousseau is especially apt for the modern establishment elite – as he does not depend on the, false, economic theories that Karl Marx depends on – such as the false Labour Theory of Value or David Ricardo’s false account of land.
Want to censor someone as in France (or Britain) whilst saying you support Freedom of Speech? Easy – simply maintain that Freedom of Speech means supporting speech that is in accord with the General Will (which is defined by the educated elite) – and that “reactionary” speech is criminal “Hate Speech” (like saying “Long Live the King” during the 1790s – or now saying “the French Association Football Team contains many players who are not French – they are clearly sub-saharan Africans, whether they were born in France or not”). This is how, for example, France 24 television employees can denounce “Trump” (and many others) for “undermining Freedom of Speech” – by voicing opinions (on anything) that-they-do-not-like – whilst supporting the government of France fining or sending to prison people who express opinions they do not like (again – on all sorts of matters) – indeed describing fining or sending to prison people for their opinions, as a “defense” of freedom.
You can get to this (demented) position from Rousseau – you do not need Karl Marx to get there.
It is surprising just how far the influence of Rousseau (and others) has gone – for example, Allister Heath (a sincere free market thinker – who is sincere and has done fine work) was attacking Rupert Lowe, and, also, a very large proportion of the British people (because it was an attack on opinions – not just how people vote) just the other day – attacking on the basis of (whether he knew it or not) the doctrines of Rousseau – although taken to an extreme I suspect Rousseau would have been shocked by.
In his attack in the Daily Telegraph Mr Heath did not say that British people who wished their ethnicity to survive (who wished Britain, indeed England, to remain a nation-state with its historic population) were mistaken – he wrote that their views were unacceptable, that they should have no place in politics.
That is not the same thing as writing “I disagree with you – for the following reasons…” – “unacceptable”, “no place in British politics” because of RACISM you see – France 24 Television and the rest of the international establishment (including in the United States) would warmly agree – and add sexism, homophobia, climate denialism, and-so-on, to the list of unacceptable opinions that should have no place in politics.
By the way – I do NOT agree with Mr Lowe (for example he wants to ban kosher meat – which is, indeed, consistent with his desire to ban halal meat) — but disagreement was not what Mr Heath was doing – he was (again whether he knew it or not) using the tactics of Rousseau and modern “Critical Theory” Marxists – declaring that the opinions (the basic beliefs of many of his fellow countrymen – whether they vote for Restore, Reform, the Conservatives or whoever), were unacceptable and should have no place in British politics.
Indeed that opposition to the growth of Islam would lead to “Civil War” – as if doing nothing would, somehow, avoid “Civil War”, as if the demographic position would, somehow, just stay frozen as it is – with no natural increase in the Islamic population and other populations. Either the British would (perhaps by magic) not become a minority in various towns or cities – or that it was actually wrong (somehow wicked) to be concerned about this – even though Winston Churchill and others held the same basic opinion that Britain should be largely British (including England be largely English).
The two leading ANTI Nazis of the 20th century, Winston Churchill and Charles DeGaulle, held the same basic opinion, that Britain should be largely British and that France should be largely French, that France 24 television and Mr Heath holds to be “unacceptable” and should have “no place in politics”. There is a vast difference between welcoming a few people, and the prospect of being outnumbered in what were your own towns and cities – and that point has already been passed, but, somehow, even saying that is some-sort-of-crime.
So there you have the danger – “Civil War” (as if such things as the “grooming” jihad had not already started anyway, indeed has been going on for many years) – to justify crushing opinions held by very many British people (some of whom vote for the Restore party and some of whom do NOT vote for it).
Much the same in every other Western nation – nothing to do with opposing being nasty to a few people of a different ethnic group, NO – the modern position is that it is “unacceptable”, that it should “have no place in politics” to wish for an historic ethnic group (nation) to be the main ethnic group in its historic homeland.
I suspect that even Rousseau (let alone Winston Churchill or Charles DeGaulle) would have been astonished that such an opinion is now considered “unacceptable” and should have “no place in politics”.
Why bother to hold elections at all?
After all when the Freedom Party in the Netherlands won an election (which it did – some years ago) it is not be allowed to do anything, and when the Freedom Party in Austria won an election (which it did – it won the last election there) they were not be allowed to even come into office.
Why not tell the historic peoples, nations, of the various Western countries – “we are not going to hold elections any more – because you might object to the fundamental transformation of what were your countries”.
That would be a more open and honest position – and would not require censorship of opinions.
You could say and write anything you wished to say and write – as it would make no difference.
lucklucky – yes Marxism (in its modern “Critical Theory” “Woke” form) is important, but the philosophical decay of the British establishment elite started long before Marxism was important.
And in the United States as well – for example one can not (can-not) get to the Bill of Rights from the psychology and philosophy fashionable at Harvard from the last years of the 19th onwards. Both the fashionable forms of psychology and philosophy seek to explain-away the human person (in effect deny the existence of the human person), and so such things as the Bill of Rights become without moral importance.
Remember Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr was one of the most cited American judges – and he had nothing but contempt for the idea of natural law limiting the power the state, and was a personal friend of the British totalitarian Harold Laski – with whose ideas he had quite some sympathy.
You get this with the British establishment as well – for example the reference books say that J.M. Keynes opposed socialism, but when one checks his words they are that as someone of his class background socialism would not be in his interests (that is conceding the socialist case – that is not an attack on socialism).
The so called “liberal” Bertrand Russell supported the state control of just about everything, farms, factories, whatever.
Still lucklucky is correct – censorship has got a lot worse in Britain.
For example, Rupert Lowe’s opinions (right or wrong – and I have already mentioned that I disagree with Mr Lowe on some matters) have not really changed – they have in some things, but not in the basics. For example, that the population of England should be mostly English people, the population of France mostly French people (and so on).
When he was at school, the Dragon School in Oxford, such opinions were debated – some people agreed, some people disagreed.
Today no one at the Dragon School, or most other schools, would be allowed to express such opinions – teachers would be sacked, pupils expelled.
That indicates that people who spend a lot of money sending their children to private school are WASTING that money.
What is the point of spending a lot of money sending your children to private school if they are going to be taught the same “Woke” doctrines as in the government schools, and will be punished if they dissent.
“You are toxic” is the message – and not just to Mr Lowe, to most Restore, Reform and Conservative (yes Conservative Party as well) voters. The sort of opinions I have heard “on the doorstep” (in a literal sense) when out canvassing over the years – and those ordinary people (including some Labour Party voters) get the following message from the establishment now.
“You are toxic – your country is going to be taken from you, your children will be strangers in their native land, and if you speak against any of this – you-will-be-punished”.
In the face of this, debating tax policy (and so on) is a bit pointless.
Lastly on the specific point of “Civil War”.
Why should “Civil War” now be worse than “Civil War” when the demographic situation is worse?
Muhammed was clear in his teachings (the later Medina versus abrogating the earlier Mecca versus – which were composed when he did not have his own army) and in his personal conduct.
The Gentleman taught that followers of Islam should adjust their tactics to meet the situation (which is fair enough) – when you are in a small minority, preach peace and tolerance – as, for example, the Democratic candidate for the United States Senate from the State of Michigan does (he also mixes Islam with socialism – Muhammed would not have been happy about that, but that is a discussion for another time) – and the Mayor of New York does as well.
When the demographic situation changes – tactics change, the peace and tolerance can be dropped – and the enemy broken (again logical thinking).
To end on a positive note racial (racial) mixing can work – an early example being what is now the Dominican Republic.
This was once a very divided society – between Spanish slave owners and black slaves (although the number of slaves was rather limited compared to other places), but the common struggle against (very oppressive) rule after the invasion by Haiti brought the communities closer together.
Today the Dominican Republic is about 60% European and about 40% African genetically (although people often look more African than they really are – due to genetic factors determining appearance) – and whilst there is still some colour prejudice, it is limited compared to the past.
The latest argument about Freedom of Speech is about “Charlie” Downes (of the Restore Party) implying that Mr Nigel Farage (of the Reform Party) has been bought by Jews.
Does Mr Downes have the right to make such false claims? Absolutely he does.
Do other people have the right to point out that Mr Downes has shown himself to be an idiot? Absolutely they do.
Maybe ‘Freedom of Speech” could be rebranded as ‘Freedom of Opinion’.
Nicolas Gray – freedom to express one’s opinions.
That would be ideal. Is there such a society on Earth?