And Hermer’s characterisation of historical events is in any case cobblers, of course. International law did not stop the actual honest-to-goodness Nazis first time around; American industry and Soviet manpower did that. The idea that if only we had had the ECHR in 1933 all of the unpleasantness of World War Two and the Holocaust could have been avoided is, to put it politely, absurd. One doesn’t constrain a belligerent regime through an ‘international rules-based system’; one does it through force, or the threat of it.
|
|||||
|
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] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
Economics |
Samizdata quote of the day – the very model of a modern Attorney-GeneralJune 4th, 2025 |
 17 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – the very model of a modern Attorney-GeneralLeave a Reply |
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. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
There are a lot of UK politicians who have come to believe in the ‘power’ of rhetoric – the theory and practice of eloquence, whether spoken or written, the whole art of using language so as to persuade others.
Dry facts and history are not respected in Rhetoric when persuasion and feelings can dominate the debate. Rhetorical debates are dueling persuasions. As a consequence terms like Nazi, racist, far-right, are sprinkled carelessly about to make a point not assert a fact. Modern politicians have been seduced into the easy rhetorical debate.
Imagine how far you would be allowed to go if you started countering with Pol Pot, oligarch, plutocrat, or far-left.
We know from the war on Freedom of Speech (which started decades ago) and from the Covid lockdowns, that the ECHR is NOT a defense of basic liberties.
The ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) is not a defense of the liberties of the British people (see above) it is a weapon to use against the British people – which is why Attorney General Lord Hermer, who hates the British nation, supports it.
This was the person who went to the British Chagos Islands waving the flag of Mauritius (literally – he had himself filmed with it, he was boasting of his treachery) a county a thousand miles away, which has never ruled the Chagos Islands – at least not till the despicable “deal” Lord Hermer has just had the British government agree to.
But there is also the basic question of how Lord Hermer, an anti British fanatic, became Attorney General?
Lord Hermer became Attorney General because Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer appointed him – they are old friends and allies, they are very much on the same wavelength.
So there you have it gentle reader – not only is the unelected government, the officials and “expects”, determined to destroy the British people – so is the elected government. There is no conflict between them – they are in accord.
“Appealing to Parliament” against the officials, including the judges, and “experts” is, therefore, pointless – as Parliament is mostly (not totally – but mostly) made up of people who hate you, and want to destroy you.
As an intelligence officer, whenever the JAG types would snigger that “military intelligence” was an oxymoron, I’d usually reply with:
“And here’s another one: international law“.
To be fair, rhetoric is a powerful persuasive force in many important situations.
Thing is, governments are for the situations where rhetoric ain’t powerful enough.
I am sure that Hermer believes that if only Britain had served the correct injunction upon Hitler, World War II would never have happened. He seems truly to believe in the power of “international law”. Unfortunately for him (and by extension us), “international law” has about as many divisions as the Pope.
In a limited sense he is correct in that “International law” is an extremely effective way to weaken, impoverish and ultimately enslave western countries – no more so than our once proud nation.
However even a tool like Hermer knows damned well that Russia, China, the Indian sub-continent and pretty much every African and Muslim nation (but I largely repeat myself) have a good chuckle at international law as indeed does Israel for different reasons.
Back to the old trope: We think they’re stupid, they think we’re evil.
So, in the face of a lack of convincing logical argument, they will always fall back on base principles to make their case – we are evil.
Thus, they resort to the Nazi slur so often. It’s almost an admission that they have no specific case to make – that they lose all factual and logical argument, but dammit, they FEEL like they’re good and we’re bad.
City folk are surrounded by people, and a made environment. Argument and diplomacy (including terrorism) often work under these conditions.
Farmers and country folk are surrounded by a natural environment (as modified by people, often themselves). Dialogue has some beneficial uses, but farm people know very well that there are things you cannot argue with, only prepare for.
The farmer goes into the city, occasionally. Very few city folk go to the farm, although some came from the farm. And our nations are becoming more and more citified.
When the American constitution was written, most citizens were farmers; I think I have heard that some of the founding fathers thought it would only work with a majority of farmers. There are too damn many today who think it should no longer be considered – unless it serves them.
I don’t think they’re stupid. They’re ignorant, and the evil ones are proud of it.
Law is force or the threat of it
A lawyer
Mistaken “Post” press
Or HTTP errors
Creating Waka.
There is a mistake implied in the post and in some of the comments.
The mistake being that Lord Hermer has good intentions, that his conception of International Law is like that of, say, Hugo Grotius – but that Lord Hermer is unrealistic in relation to what can be achieved.
This mistake is a very severe one. Lord Hermer does not have good intentions, his intentions are bad (evil) and his idea of International Law is totalitarian.
Lord Hermer and his associates are not good people who are mistaken – they are evil (yes – evil).
Till this is grasped things will continue to get worse.
“Law is force or the threat of it”.
Lawyers who say that may think they are being “Realists” or whatever – but in reality they are playing into the hands of Lord Hermer and people like him, such people have plenty of force with which to enforce their perverse designs.
In grim reality such lawyers are down on all fours with people such as Thomas Hobbes (who wrote a “Dialogue between a philosopher and a student of the Common Law” which shows his utter contempt for the principles of justice – as traditionally understood, but he redefined it as state violence) and Jeremy Bentham.
If “law” is just “the commands of the state” then no person would have a moral duty to uphold it – on the contrary the moral duty of an honourable person would be smash it.
I refer readers to the judgments of Sir John Holt – Chief Justice from 1689 to 1710. Against both King and Parliament. And to the judgments of Sir Edward Coke – perhaps the most famous Chief Justice, and the great enemy of Sir Francis Bacon – the mentor of Thomas Hobbes.
In the end a person is on the side ofSir Francis Bacon’s “The New Atlantis” (1610) or they are on the side of Sir Edward Coke’s judgement in the case of Dr Bonham (also 1610) – which was against Parliament as well as the King.
Men such as Holt and Coke did not (contrary to what some fools, or knaves, say) did not “make” law – they were servants of the law, and defended the principles of justice against their enemies. No man “makes” these principles, each man (and woman) has to make the choice between moral right and moral wrong.
We know them – it is evasion to pretend we do not. And doing the right thing may lead to the consequence of humiliation, agony and death. If need be – so be it.
I’ve known a lot of things that have turned out to be blatantly self-contradictory – it is ignorance to assert we can tell which is which from mere decades of study.
CayleyGraph2015
You know moral right from moral wrong – and so do I.
That is why both you and me are morally to blame when we choose do what is morally wrong – because we know.
You presume a lot about what I know.
I know I’ve been in situations where it was impossible for me to do anything morally right (assuming the things I thought to be morally right were, in fact, morally right). In some cases, I ended up in those situations because of previous choices I made that weren’t morally right — but didn’t know it at the time. There’s a very high chance I could’ve known it in time to make the choices if I’d spent more time researching/studying/reflecting/etc. Of course, I also only had a finite measure of time to research, etc. before I had to make my moral choice, and there were plenty of cases where the “moral choice” I had to make involved doing something I couldn’t do simultaneously with research, etc.
Of course, this assumes that my “knowledge” of right from wrong exists and is correct. I’m quite content with the alternative explanation: My reflexive “knowledge” of right & wrong is just a vague heuristic; it will rarely but inevitably contradict itself in peculiar situations. In addition, there are more common situations where it doesn’t contradict itself, but the difference between a choice being obviously right and obviously wrong depends on information being known to arbitrarily high precision.
Do you hold me and yourself morally to blame when we overlook a chance to do what is right, and evil happens? If so, that’ll give a rather high minimum degree of knowledge one needs to have so as not choose to do what is morally wrong. If not, I’ll have to conclude that the best way to avoid evil is to be perpetually drunk, high, or asleep, so that you won’t know that anything is wrong in the first place.
Obviously, your theory of morality is subtle enough that cases fitting the previous paragraph’s description don’t just split into those two cases… which also indicates a rather high minimum degree of knowledge one needs to have so as not choose to do what is morally wrong.
Heinlein was more accurate, precise and concise.
“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers
My only quibble with Heinlein is that he misunderestimated the results of forgetting the basic truth.
Those who do so forget have their genes ended, terminated, extinguished. And rightly so – bunch of losers. They not only lose their own lives and freedoms but their male progeny are killed or castrated and their female offspring are killed or impregnated by the victors.
Sucks to be a Labour supporter, no?
CarleyGraph2015.
I repeat my previous reply to you. There is no need to type it out again – and you know it to be true (indeed you have always known this – without me saying anything).
Fred_Z
Mr Heinlein – was correct as-long-as you remember that this was a warning that what is morally right must be defended by force – or it will be defeated.
Mr Heinlein was NOT saying that what is morally right is defined by who wins a battle – he was not a liar.
Mr Heinlein was saying that we must try and ensure that we have sufficient force to defend what is morally right against evil.