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 – censorship edition “We know that the Online Safety Act (OSA) is a disaster. The group it is billed as protecting, children and young people, is not only rebellious: it is precisely the class most adept at using VPNs and other devices to circumvent it. And this is even before you get to the unintended consequences. The more we try to regulate the semi-respectable internet sites out there, the more we push thrill-seeking young people to the darkest and most frightening corners of cyberspace, where they can suffer serious harm. Furthermore, the greater the pressure on the young to sign up to dodgy free VPNs, the greater the likelihood of their later suffering trolling and identity theft. Some protection.”
Andrew Tettenborn
|
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.
|
Ministers such as Nadine Dorries were utterly deceived by officials and “experts”.
Contrary to what ministers (of all political parties) are told, the “Online Safety Act”, and other such measures, were never about “protecting children” (and so on), they were always about censorship and the general control of information and opinion.
The tactic is an old one – almost three centuries ago Prime Minister Walpole pushed the censorship of the theatre – supposedly the objective was plays pushing rape, incest, murder (and so on) – but the real objective was to hit political dissent (the horrible play that Walpole showed the House of Commons in order to shock them into voting for censorship – was privately financed by Walpole himself).
Today we have our old “friends” the international community – going back to the Rio Conference of 1992, and even to the Club of Rome in the 1960s.
Control of information and opinion has always been the agenda of such people.
Indeed the first American President to support international governance, Woodrow Wilson (more than a century ago now) was a firm supporter of the control of information and opinion – he detested the First Amendment, and the rest of the Constitution of the United States.
“Philip Dru: Administrator” was written before the First World War by Wilson’s friend (indeed “other self”) Colonel House – and it is totalitarian (the international community would love the book).
As is “Looking Backward” (1887) by Edward Bellamy – who with his cousin Francis Bellamy (they were both socialists – openly so) helped start off he Progressive movement. The more “mainstream” Progressive, Richard Ely (basically the creator of modern American academia – and I do not mean that as a compliment), friend of both “Teddy” Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, was also a supporter of censorship and control – he founded the “Academic Freedom Campaign” in a very Orwellian move (as the objective of the academic “freedom” campaign was to drive pro freedom people OUT of university teaching, its objective was to get all universities under leftist control).
One can not have a “Progressive society” if one allows “reactionary dissent” – Herbert Marcuse did not invent that position, it was there in Robespierre back in the 1790s.
Robespierre did not support the death penalty for murder (indeed he resigned from the legal system before the Revolution of 1789 because it had the death penalty for murder) – but he supported the death penalty for expressing reactionary opinions – or for violating price control regulations.
Nadine Dorries. Oh goodness, I’d forgotten about her. Largely a fool, was my impression. Besotted by Boris Johnson.
Johnathan Pearce – yes, I do not mean to be unkind (I am sure the lady means well – and all that), but the term “nice but dim” might have been made for Nadine Dorries.
Sometimes officials and “experts” have to work hard to confuse and wear down a minister – but not, I suspect, in the case of Nadine Dorries.
Present ministers (Labour Party ones) are a different matter – officials and “experts” do not have to work on these ministers at all, as the new ministers share the objective of control (international control) – of censorship and persecution of “reactionaries”.
The present House of Commons is very much on the same page as the officials and “experts” – it supports tyranny, so things are going to get worse, much worse, here.
So how is life under that rock?
They are not “experts”. I challenge Sir Nick Clegg to parse a single line of HTML or to actually build a computer. The tiresome wanker has a book out and his missus is making a shot at becocoming PM of Spain. It’s all in The Guardian.
Gab is now accessible in the UK without needing a VPN.