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 – Why ban balaclavas, but not burqas? Covering your face is clearly an affront to trust, openness and civility. Progressives know this, of course – although they only say so when it suits them. And their double standards aren’t only on show when it comes to the burqa.
The recent anti-immigration protests in Dover and Portsmouth were condemned as ‘thuggish’ by Labour’s crime and policing minister, Sarah Jones, who admonished the protesters for being ‘dressed in all black and wearing face masks’. But when hundreds of Islamic sectarians – dressed in all black and wearing face masks – marched through Whitechapel in east London last year, there were no such complaints from the left. Nor has there been much criticism of the thousands of protesters who have covered their faces with keffiyehs while calling for the destruction of Israel on pro-Palestine marches over the past few years. It seems it’s only when white working-class men start masking up that we hear all the talk about law and order, and the importance of seeing each other’s faces.
– Hugo Timms
|
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.
|
Surely the time for polite blog posts has come and gone, has it not?
They ban baklavas and not burkhas because such are the orders of the invader masters of the State and its servants.
Subotai Bahadur
There were anti uniform statutes in the 1930s – it could be argued that a demonstration of men all dressed in black and with face masks is a uniform, although the same could be said of many of the demonstrations of the LEFT – so there is the matter of Two Tier Policing and Two Tier “Justice”.
As for banning the burqa – my former Member of Parliament, Philip Hollobone, wanted to ban the burqa – and it is true that face coverings should not be allowed for someone who wants to enter a building, such as a bank, for security reasons (full disclosure – I used to be a security guard, motorcycle helmets and so on, had to come off if someone wanted to enter certain sorts of building).
However, on the specific example of the burqa – it is not the item of clothing that really matters, it is the BELIEFS of the person that matter.
Do they believe that people should be killed for leaving Islam? Do they believe that people should be killed for mocking Muhammed? And-so-on.
If they do believe these things then it does not matter what they are wearing – indeed it could be argued that wearing distinctive clothing acts as a warning to other people. And if a person does NOT believe these things – then they are NOT a follower of Islam – even if they were born into a Muslim family.
Islam is a religious and political world-view – Muhammed was not just a religious thinker, he was a ruler who laid out legal principles – which he stated, very firmly, came from God and could NOT be changed by Earthly authority – and that he (Muhammed) was the LAST prophet – that no one, after him, could claim to have revelations from God.
Islam can not be changed today – it is specifically designed to prevent that.
For example, in the wars to wipe out the Jews in Arabia (who had lived there for centuries before Muhammed was born) the followers of Islam (of submission) called out “raise your hand” – this was NOT an invitation to surrender, surrender would not save the men from death and the women from sex slavery, what they meant by “raise your hand” was to attack the Jewish practice of putting one’s hand over brutal pieces of scripture when reading aloud, so that one does not say death for such-and-such – the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament) being a series of books, written by different people – at different times, and it does indeed contain brutal passages that should NOT be carried out. Rabbis have spent many centuries working out what scripture should be carried out – and what passages should not be carried out (hence, for example, the great English lawyer, John Selden, asking for the record of their debates, often very heated debates, to be the one book, other than the Bible, he was allowed during his imprisonment).
The Koran is different – it claims to be the direct word of God, given to Muhammed – it MUST be carried out. To a follower of Islam putting one’s hand over a passage in Islamic scripture (the Medina verses that abrogate the earlier Mecca verses) is against Islamic principle. The commands of God, given to Muhammed, must be carried out – the infidels (all over the world) must be crushed, as it says (for example) in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran – the world, NOT just in a specific country.
Secure in the knowledge that if one dies fighting – trying to crush the infidels (all over the world), – one goes to paradise. And the Islamic paradise is a very different place from the Jewish or Christian Heaven – the rewards are carnal, just as, in this world, Muhammed promised men if they joined his wars of conquest, that their rewards would be material, plunder and sex slaves, if they betrayed their, non Islamic, families (obviously it would be better if their families joined them in submission, in Islam, then no betrayal would be necessary) and, if it was tactically necessary, pretended to be friends of infidels (to be a friend of infidels is forbidden – but to pretend to be their friend is a useful and intelligent tactic) they planned to destroy.
Carried out, whether one wears special items of clothing – or not.
It should be noted that the entire Western establishment disagrees with the above – to the Western establishment Islam is a religion of peace. Indeed the Western establishment holds that anyone who expresses a contrary opinion of what Islam is, an opinion based on the clear teachings, and personal example, of Muhammed, and 14 centuries of experience, should-be-punished.
Such people would include such former Prime Ministers as Gladstone and Winston Churchill – such people would be hounded from their jobs today, indeed they would be sent to prison. Not by Muslims – by the modern Western establishment.
Should-be-punished – that is the core of the “Hate Speech” “Islamophobia” doctrine – that people who tell the truth about the teachings of Muhammed and what he and his followers did and do, should-be-punished for their words.
“Surely the time for polite blog posts has come and gone, has it not?”
I fundamentally disagree Fred Z – indeed I think the chances for success of a revolt against the King-in-Parliament are zero. David Hume was mistaken – if (if) he really believed that all governments depend on at least the tacit consent of the majority, they do NOT – many governments depend on superior fire-power and organization (the professional security services and military – force and fear), the Islamic Republic of Iran being one example.
I further think that such violence (such rejection of “polite blog posts”) is exactly what the Western establishment (including the British branch of it) want – as it discredits dissent and gives them an excuse for a vicious crack-down.
Warning – anyone in a group who suggests violent action is doing terrible harm to the cause of saving this country and the West in general (even if their honest intent is to help). Indeed SOME of them well be working for the police or the security services, trying to encourage opposition groups into discrediting themselves – and giving the establishment an excuse for a vicious crackdown.
Polite blog posts are (not are not) the way to to proceed.
The Two Teirorists in Parliament and the media seem determined to give us more and more reasons to hate them. Why should I not oblige them?
Perhaps Muslim women wear burquas because:
a. They are told to by their husband’s who they must obey on pain of a beating or,
b. They are told to wear their burquas because their husbands do not want any other Muslim man to sexually covet her or,
c. The husbands do not want any other man to know how ugly his wife is (perhaps that’s why they are allowed more than one).
Just a thought.
Let’s not forget that five or six years ago the PTB were forcing us to cover our faces. It’s a little silly for them to complain about people covering their faces now.
decnine – yes, but express your dislike politely.
Penseivat – yes, sometimes force and fear is behind it.
What matters is the beliefs someone holds – not what they are wearing.
On my travels this morning I encountered the Economist magazine.
Its front cover article is “Islam and Europe: The truth and the lies” – and in the article the publication lied (repeatedly).
Islam, the Economist magazine tell us, is NOT a threat to Europe (the publication ignores the threat Islam poses to the rest of the world), thus the Economist magazine pretends that the teachings and personal example of Muhammed do not exist – and it ignores more than a thousand years of Islamic attacks upon Europe. “Islamism” is a threat the Economist magazine tells us – but it does not explain how this “Islamism” is different from what Muhammed taught, and personally did, and to what his followers have done for 14 centuries – of course it is NOT different. The Economist magazine also proclaims that “fear of Islam” is a threat to Europe – I see, if only Charles Martel “The Hammer”, Prime Minister Gladstone and other Western leaders had got over their inordinate fear of Islam (as President Carter said of an “inordinate fear” of Marxist “Communism”) peace with the religion-of-peace could be achieved.
The Economist magazine did this on the 25th Anniversary of 9/11 – urinating on the dead of this attack and on the dead of all the other attacks over the last 14 centuries, but I still do NOT believe that the Economist magazine should be banned or its staff should be punished in any way.
Either you believe in Freedom of Speech or you do not – and if you believe in Freedom of Speech that must include even utterly despicable publications such as the Economist magazine.
FrankH – good point Sir.
Paul Marks, your country is dying yet you want people to be polite.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny
Put another way: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
—Thomas Jefferson
What has happened since 9/11 2001?
The two most important things to have happened are the growth of the Islamic population in many Western countries, including the United States.
And the continued decline of the fertility of Western populations – it is now well below replacement level.
We are watching defeat take place.
I read that as “terrorists”, not “Teirists” but then I am using a phone and not the PC!
I think you answer your own question about obliging them 😀
It’s pretty rational. If you ban balaclavas, some working class white people who don’t like what the establishment has done to us will be incommoded. If you ban burqas or niqabs, there will be another 7/7, or Manchester Arena, or London Bridge. And who wants that?
That asymmetry makes the OP question trivially easy to answer.
(Not that that trivially easy answer is in fact any kind of answer.)
So, buy burqas. Make yourself look like a muslim thug. The poor dears will be paralyzed.
Henry Cybulski.
I have already told you that violence (an uprising) is exactly what the establishment want – as it would give them an excuse for the vicious crackdown they crave. The excuse to get rid of what liberty is left – which would make winning the next General Election impossible, as even the polite dissent that is still allowed – would also be banned (using the uprising as an excuse to ban even the most polite dissent).
Do not give the enemy what they want – do not play into their hands.
bobby b.
Pauline Hanson tried this in Australia – wearing a burqa in the Australian Parliament.
The lady was viciously denounced – and threatened with punishment by the Australian establishment (or, rather, the branch in Australia of the international establishment).
Muslims are allowed to wear burqas – for non Muslims to do so is considered “cultural appropriation”, an insult.
Serious question about the British chin which I can’t gauge here in the US:
I always assume that a people will reach some level of outrage, and then fight back. I think I know where we are here in the US right now – which is, nowhere near that – but I can’t gauge the level in England, which I think should be nearer to that.
Will England ever rise up and push back? Is it close?
With == 250k raped daughters already, I have to ask.*
(* – yes, I suspect that’s an exaggerated number, but the point remains . . .)
bobby b -fight back how? Much of the public is indoctrinated – hence such opinions as “Liz Truss crashed the economy” and “Andy Burnham cares about you” (tell people something often enough – and many people will believe it), but even those people who resist indoctrination are unarmed – helpless. Also the state is ruthless – as we witnessed in 2024 when protests in the summer were treated (by the entire media – including the supposedly right wing parts of it) as “Fascist-racist riots” – and people sent to prison (by courts that operated at high speed – when the establishment itself feels threatened all the “delays in the legal system” vanish) for such “crimes” as walking-past-a-protest (not even being involved in it) and posting opinions the government did not like on Social Media – the Prime Minister (a senior lawyer) described the accused as criminals before their “trials” – and the accused were told that they could either plead guilty, or be found guilty and get a harsher punishment. Those were the only two options.
Being found Not Guilty was not an option – they were told that, that they would be found guilty (and so should plead guilty) regardless-of-the-evidence.
The mask really came off the “Justice system”.
Winning an election and a Great Repeal Act, which must include dismissing some judges – the Supreme Court and co, is the only game in town – fighting on the streets will-not-work.
There’s something to be said for going full Spartacus and wearing a balaclava, baseball hat and shades to go to the supermarket from time to time no? The Deliveroo brigade tend to dress like this a lot of the time anyway near me. Maybe more of us should, to provide deniability for those a little more, er, actively engaged?