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 quickest way to fuel an English ethnonationalist movement is to deny that English ethnicity exists Ethnicity is not an opinion, but a fact of history, intermarriage and statistics of known populations: Romano-British, Anglo-Saxon, a few Scandinavian and, later, Normans. If you care to look up ethnogenesis, pedigree collapse and “identical ancestry” you can learn that, over several hundred years and assuming intermarriage, these groups have by now mixed almost entirely.
The population statistics of England are particularly favourable to this analysis because there wasn’t much immigration, from anywhere, from the 11th up to the mid-20th century. If your family were all here in 1900, it’s reasonably probable, with the exception of a relatively small influx of Huguenots and Irish, that they were all here in 1100 and that most of them were here much earlier than that.
English ethnicity, at the end of those several centuries, is more clearly defined than most. To deny an English ethnicity is to say ethnicity does not exist, which would pose quite the shock to parts of our current political establishment.
– Isabel Paterson
|
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 argument by Isabel Paterson is correct – and thank you to Thomas Fairfax for posting it here.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, and others, make a terrible mistake by denying that the English exist as an ethnic group – “British” is indeed entirely a political and cultural idenity, “English” is NOT.
The English are a mixture of the Germanic tribes who came to this island in the 5th and 6th centuries A.D. and the Britons who were already here – I say “Britons” not “Romano-Britons” because four centuries of Roman rule left almost no genetic impact on the population.
The Vikings are so close to the Angles (England was Angleland – so the Association Football chant is correct, and their class superiors are mistaken – “En-ger-land” is closer to the orignial term) that they can not be told apart – and the Normans were a tiny group (no disrespect meant to Perry).
Within living memory England was overwhelmingly populated by English people – ethic English people, of course the massive change in recent decades has come as a great shock.
Pretending that there is no such ethnicity as the English (that it is entirely a matter of culture and political loyalty) is just WRONG – and it enrages people (understandably so).
None of the above should be taken to mean that different principles of economics, or of morality, apply to the English people than apply to all other people – but to imply that the English ethnicity does not exist, is both wrong and dangerous – dangerous because the denial of the existence of a people (the “this land has always been Diverse in population” LIE) enrages people.
To undermine a people and then pretend they did not exist anyway (and so can not have been undermined – because it is impossible to undermine a people who never existed) is to add insult to injury.
As the old Russian saying has it “first they smash your face in – they they say you were always ugly”.
I must say that the Establishment’s attempted erasure of the largest ethnic group in Britain is a great wheeze. How can you have rights when you don’t exist? I say ‘Establishment’ rather than Labour because the Plastic Tories and (obviously) the LibDems agree.
Rees-Mogg’s recent article in the Spectator was a helpful reminder than you can never hate the Tories too much and a useful answer to the question of why “Tory stalwart” Moggy happily supported a series of Tory administrations which governed to the left of Blair.
Marius – I wish I could argue against what you say, but the Jacob Rees-Mogg Youtube films and the Spectator article on-this-matter can NOT be honestly defended. It is true that Jacob Rees-Mogg puts a conservative cultural gloss on the argument (which former Prime Minister Blair would never do) – but I am reminded of former Prime Minister John Major making a speech about how England would always be a land where old ladies rode home from church on their bycycles “along country lanes – through the morning mist” – that England, as John Major knew very well, had been in decline for decades – and this was before Blair. More recently Jacob Rees-Mogg has made some good YouTube films attacking government economic policy – but Marius would point out, why did he not resign in the face of the tidal wave of government spending (and so on) of the last government – where, for example, Prime Minister Johnson (a friend and ally of Mr Rees-Mogg) said in private that the Covid policies were insane (which they were) – but still rubber stamped everything the officials and “experts” put in front of him – regardless of either the financial or the human cost.
A government that closes down cancer screening (part of the lockdown policy), but carries on industrial scale baby killing (regardless of the same lockdowns), can not be honestly described as Conservative.
[Which is why (for example) Roman Catholic Bishops and priests in the United States carrying on an election campaign (and it is an election campaign) of, in effect, “vote Democrat” – the Democrats being the party of mass, industrial scale, abortion and the party of the sexual mutilation of children, as part of the “Trans” fashion, is so troubling – especially as the de facto “vote Democrat” campaign is based on the Democrat Open Borders policy – i.e. endless WELFARE migrants, Cloward-and-Piven style mass dependancy on government programs and services – which must leas to the total collapse of the United States of America.]
And this is part of why the thesis that “English” is just a cultural and political idenity is so false-and-dangerous.
Jacob Rees-Mogg is a highly intelligent and learned man – he must know that English culture has been in decline for many decades and is now collapsing, yet he writes as if it was sound and had nothing to fear from hostile world-views such as Islam – a case he made not just in the Oxford Union debate (where Lawrance Fox and “Tommy Robinson” showed that his arguments were false – wildly false), but also in written articles and YouTube films – “most Muslims can be our friends” being contradicted directly by Muhammed “take not the Christians and Jews for friends” (although pretending to be friends is allowed to a follower of Islam – indeed it a useful tactic, as Muhammed, a political and military leader of genius, well understood).
But then Jacob Rees-Mogg, again a highly intelligent and learned Gentleman, recites Latin prayers live on GB News – disregarding the fact that not only the Latin Mass has been “discouraged” by Rome since the 1960s (please remember it was never a matter of just translating Latin into other languages – the new 1960s mass is NOT just a translation of the Latin Mass, it is different), but the THEOLOGY behind these Latin prayers is also opposed by those in power in Rome (the Easter service was undermined as far back as 1954 – not because Pius XII wanted to do that, but because officials and “experts” were already too powerful for him to resist, especially because he was very ill – much the same people were behind the 1960s attack) – to treat Leo XIII (Robert Prevost – who has record of leftist political activism going back to at least 1983) as if he believed the same things as, say, Pius X, the Pope who formally condemned “Modernism” – the theology which is now the basis of Vatican policy – via “the synodal way”, is wrong.
A person can believe what Pius X belived or they can belive what Leo XIII believes – but they can not (honestly) claim that these two things are-the-same – as recent excommunications make clear.
“What has this got to do with England” – the same process has been underway, the English culture of 1964, the traditional family, local traditions and-so-on has very little in common with what happens now in 2026. “British values” (as Marius well knows) were an invention of former Prime Minister Blair – people did not traditionally believe in Gay Rights, abortion, all religions being equal (equally absurd – being the real position of the establishment on religion, and every other aspect of traditional culture) – to present England as if it was a solid culture that people, from around the world in-2026 want to assimilate into – is wrong, just wrong. As for “stop the boats” this turns out to mean “bring them in by safe and legal routes” – although, again to be fair to Mr Rees-Mogg, he condemns mass immigration – legal as well as illegal (“then why did he not resign under the last government?” Marius will ask – and I have no answer). And, of course, today immigration is NOT the main point – not it is natural increase – births, of hostile populations (and pretending they are not hostile does not change this).
As for political loyalty – where is the Freedom of Speech and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that were vital parts of what Jacob Rees-Mogg would call the “unwritten constitution” – they are gone, as Jacob Rees-Mogg well knows (and, to be fair to him, he has in the past condemned what has happened).
The establishment does not believe in the traditional liberties of the English or the British – it has crushed basic liberties (on speech alone there have been more than 60 thousand arrests – this is not a few incidents, this is a systematic policy of tyranny). Jacob Rees-Mogg knows this – he has condemned it himself, many times.
The King himself made his position clear in his Christmas broadcast of 2024 – there is no need for me to comment much about this broadcast, which was backed up by many other statements and actions from His Majesty – as it was very plain, sadly so concerning the rise of the Islamic “community” and the crushing of British (especially English) dissent. One can hold that King Charles is personally a very nice man who means well – but one can not just ignore what he has said and done (repeatedly).
Sadly Nigel Farage is also in a difficult position – he feels he can not oppose Islam as-such (“we must not alienate Islam”) so he has to do what his friend Jacob Rees-Mogg does – claim that there is something called “Islamism” which is somehow different from what Muhammed taught and personally did.
Still back to the general point….
One can not honestly say “go off and die in a war with Russia – in order to defend the nation” (the position Mr Rees-Mogg has presented) whilst at-the-same-time saying the nation ethnically does-not-exist, and ignoring the facts (and, sadly, they are facts) that culture has been systematically undermined since at least the 1960s (pretend that the England of 2026 is, somehow, culturally fundamentally the same nation it used to be as recently as, say, 1964), and political loyalty is no longer a two way street – with the establishment (unlike – yes unlike, the establishment of the past) NOT being loyal to the British (especially the English) people.
Why fight for an establishment that hates you and is actively working for your destruction.
By the way – that de facto “vote Democrat” election campaign in the United States is not invented by local priests and Bishops – it is ordered from Rome (it comes from Leo XIII, Robert Prevost, himself – who is very much part of the Chicago Democrat network, in both Chuch and government).
And the churches here in Britain, Catholic and Proestant, are much the same – of course they are. And, as Katie Hopkins has pointed out, the Chief Rabbi has come out in de facto support of “communities” (Islamic and other) that wish to destroy Jews.
What Elon Musk calls the “mind virus” and what Gad Saad has called “Suicidal Empathy” is now the world-view of the establishment – both seccular and religious.
If it is allowed to win – the West will be exterminated.
One great advantage (and it is an advantage) that Islam has is that it can not be changed (or corrupted – to use a loaded word) as the “mainstream” Christain churches have been. Islam is specifically designed to make such “reform” impossible, as Muhammed was disgusted by what he considererd the weakness and corruption of the Jews in refusing to follow the punishments (for example for adultery) laid down in SOME of the scriptures. “Raise your hand” was not an invitation to surrender (men who surrendered were killed anyway – and the women taken as sex slaves) – it was a mocking refrenence to the Jewish practice of placing one’s hand over parts of scripture that called for violence, in order to prevent accidently reading them aloud and having unlearned people act on them.
The Koran, Muhammed and his followers made clear, is not a series of books written by different people at different times over centuries to be interpreted by the learned – NO the Koran, according to Muhammed and his followers, is the direct word of God revealed to Muhammed personally by the Angel Gabriel – when it says kill, Muslims, followers of Islam (of submission to Allah), must kill – although they may choose a tactically correct time to kill, as the Hadiths, the sayings of Muhammed, and his own life, as, it is claimed, a perfect model of conduct, show – professing friendship till the moment is right-to-strike, is a effective tactic.
Men were (and are) attracted to the cause of Muhammed by the rewards he offered for military service, plunder and women in this world – and in the next world (after death – if they have died fighting infidels, for the Islamic paradise is a very different place from the Christian concept of Heaven). Such people have no fear of death – one can not “deter” them, although they are also people of REASON – they carefully consider when is the correct time to attack, the correct time to do the must good in spreading Islam.
I repeat, being designed so that it can not be changed, is not weakness of Islam (as with the claim that being able to change is a strength – which is often WRONG) it is a strength, its greatest strength.
1. Want more respect? Try reproducing and rebuilding the country your fathers made great.
Let’s start with reproducing…
2. Not sure what Pauls Marks is going on about – Judaism NEVER in its history enforced literal versions of “an eye for an eye” – and the most religious “zealots” in Judaism (the Orthodox) are the ones proclaiming that the Oral tradition (including Rabbinic additions of evidence and legal process, and Rabbinic extension of the Biblical strictures on slavery) is of Divine origin. Such zealots are we…
Not imitating illiterate barbarians is not “corruption” of the law of Moses. The Oral tradition IS the “authentic” guide to actual application and practice of the commandments.
This says more about Muhammad and Islam than it does about supposed “hypocrisy” of the Jews….