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]
|
Is the UKIP really a single issue party any more? I have been asking that question for a few months now and I keep being pleasantly surprised by the answer. Sure, I am all for getting out of the EU but that does not change the fact that the biggest threat to the liberty of British people is very much home grown. Just ditching the EU is not enough, not by a long shot.
However more and more the UKIP seems to be sounding more than just a single drum beat… their latest satirical offering on the web is not just about the €uro-nanny superstate but rather just about the nanny state in all its forms and its message is overtly anti-Big Government… and not just Big Government from Brussels, the tag-line “Big Government needs little Hitlers”. Outstanding.
It would appear their slogan of It’s time we governed ourselves! means not just independence from the corrupt political machine in Brussels but time we as individuals had more ability to govern our own private affairs without domestic nanny-states and nanny-super-states alike regulating every aspect of life.
I may not agree with all their platform but more and more frequently they are putting out messages I can get behind without any problem at all.
Hosting company ‘Watching America’ are currently under a sustained (two days and counting) denial-of-service attack and as a result various blogs may be hard or impossible to access as a result. Consider this a public service announcement. Methinks some lynchings are in order.
There is an article in the ‘Independent‘ regarding the report stating that the case made by HMG for attacking Iraq and deposing the Ba’athist regime was a big fat pack of lies. And, if your primary justification for supporting bringing down Saddam Hussain was the threat of WMDs, then this is probably alarming new (and that was indeed the core of the UK and US government’s case).
If however your reason for supporting the ouster of Saddam Hussain was not the same as Tony Blair or George Bush… who cares? Sure, I bought the logic of Saddam having a WMD programme as his behaviour seems to suggest it, but that was always just one of many reasons to want him gone. Those of us on record as taking a rather different line regarding the main reason to go in (i.e. he is a mass murdering tyrant and deposing him will not start WWIII) are unlikely to lose much sleep over these revelations.
The article says the government lied. Well I’ll be, the government lying? Who’d a thunked it? No, if you supported getting rid of Saddam Hussain because you see deposing tyrants with volunteer armies as a good in and of itself, and would rather see your tax money spent on that rather than all the other crap it gets spent on, do not need to change their position one whole hell of a lot due to this. Really if you did not (and do not) buy the argument that leaving the mass murderer from Tikrit and his psychopathic sons in charge would be ‘okay’ and in the interests of people in Iraq, then the UK and US governments problems are of only incidental interest.
Am I happy about how the post-war insurgency has been handled and the preposterous obsession with imposing ‘democracy’ in a tribalised society? No, not at all, and I am astonished that the US seems to have unlearned so many of the lessons of the Vietnam War… but in the overall scheme of things I am still of the view that the world is better off without Saddam Hussain.
In fact, seeing Tony and Dubya in political difficulties as a consequence of their own mis-judgements is hardly bad news but is perhaps the best of all possible worlds. Saddam gone, the home grown US and UK Big Government administrations in trouble… yeah I can live with that.
To my complete lack of surprise, the latest inquest into Princess Diana’s death in 1997 is expected to state that she died because her chauffeur was drunk and lost control of the car whilst evading paparazzi. Sad but it happens all the time.
Why is it that people have such need to concoct weird conspiracy theories to explain so many events when recourse to good ol’ William of Ockham usually provides a far simpler explanation for why things happen? In particular, government conspiracies are either obvious (revealed by ineptitude or crassness) or non-existent due to the extraordinary difficulty of any group of more than three people have in keeping anything secret for more than a short period of time. It is not that conspiracies do not happen, it is just that they cannot stay secret for very long.
A great thing about capitalism is that people pay for the consequences of their own stupidity. So staying on the topic of Russia as per my last article, I have no sympathy with Shell Oil now that they are getting shafted by the Russian state after making vast investments in that country. The word of the Russia government (even more so than most governments) is worth less than nothing. As a result, anyone who makes agreements with that government and puts big money into a place which has for years clearly been a kleptocratic sink hole is the author of their own misfortune when things inevitably go pear-shaped.
So now that odd organisation Interpol has joined the ever more multi-national hunt for Alexander Litvinenko’s assassins. This all completely pointless. If the Kremlin or anyone else had wanted Alexander Litvinenko dead with no one knowing who had killed him, they would have simply have hired some thug in London to push him under a bus or stick a knife in him. But no… instead the murderers chose an absurdly sophisticated method of assassination by using an exotic toxic isotope only available to someone with access to the resources of a nuclear industry. The conclusion to draw from this is screamingly obvious: Vladimir Putin wants his critics to know who killed Litvinenko in order to frighten them into silence. I can see no other plausible explanation.
So why keep pretending it is a mystery who murdered this man? He was killed in London by agents of the Russian government and as a result the only discussion needed is how to react to a foreign government using violence to decide who can say what about people in Britain. At least the sort of response directed at Iran in the aftermath of the Salman Rushdi affair must be implemented. At the very least.
“We will not steal on your behalf unless we like you” … that is more or less what Tony Blair has said to the Muslim community in the UK.
Religious groups will have to prove their commitment to integration before being awarded taxpayers’ cash, Tony Blair said today, as he reignited the row over Muslim headscarves. […] “Very good intentions got the better of us,” Mr Blair said. […] Mr Blair warned that public money had been too easily handed out to organisations “tightly bonded around religious, racial or ethnic identities”
After decades of pushing ‘identity politics’ and ‘multiculturalism’, the very architects of that approach are acting surprised now that many Muslims in the UK have taken that the establishment at its word. Of course all this really means is that Muslim groups which occasionally make the right sort of sounds will soon be receiving plundered tax money in abundance as never before as a sign that the making token gestures whilst coming from a threatening alien community is the way to enrich yourself in modern Britain, regardless of what even a cursory examination reveals about what you really think (see the government and media’s bizarre characterisation of Sir Iqbal Sacranie as a ‘moderate’ Muslim).
Although every Hindu I have ever met do not seem to have a problem with Britain, If I was a Hindu I might start taking note and begin making threatening noises about ‘saffron fascism’ and ‘disaffected youth’ and then just wait for the dosh to start rolling in for those willing to make some small obeisance to nice Mr. Blair… and what about the Jamaicans? And the Poles? And the Jews? Start making a fuss guys, hold a few scary demonstrations and then set up some organisations which make government approved “tut, tut” sounds and just wait for the money to start flowing. Do you think that is not what is going to happen?
Following on from Johnathan Pearce’s article yesterday, I see more and more articles in the media about the issue of Britain’s military being asked to fight two wars without proper funding by a government which seem to know sweet FA about military affairs. Is this a sign that the issue is gaining some wider political traction? If so, I expect to see Dave Cameron suddenly develop an interest in military matters (perhaps a Tory spokesman will soon ask why the UK treasury has been skimping on military equipment funding and thus failing to fit more eco-friendly engine in the army’s clapped out Warrior APCs).
Cynical? Moi?
As a minarchist (rather than an anarchist) I regard managing the military as one of the few legitimate roles of the state and thus find myself in the unfamiliar role of arguing for more tax money for a state endeavour… how weird is that?
I must say that I like the style of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Rather than playing the game with mealy mouthed statements so typical of a lot of think-tanks, they push their ideas with a catchy boot-to-the-goolies like “Smoking is healthier than fascism”. Not surprisingly this is available on a tee-shirt from those most righteous pranksters, Bureaucrash.
I feel a purchase coming on…
There is quite a lot about the affair of the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko (almost certainly by the Russian secret service) in London. Much of it is quite interesting but there was a line in an article in the Sunday Times that really made my blood boil when they quoted an unnamed minister:
Amid signs that his death could cause a diplomatic row, Tony Blair concluded the cabinet meeting by saying “the most important issue” was likely to be Britain’s long-term relationship with Moscow. Another minister present said: “It caused some alarm that this case is obviously causing tension with the Russians. They are too important for us to fall out with them over this.”
I had to re-read that a couple times as I could hardly believe my eyes:
“…They are too important for us to fall out with them over this…”
So a foreign government can murder someone in Britain with a radioactive substance and some shit in the cabinet is more concerned that we retain good relations with the murdering guilty party? I would dearly love to know which minister said this. Did anyone catch a reference to this remark elsewhere which says who it was? If the Russian state murdering people in London is not just about the best and more righteous reason to ‘fall out’ with a foreign government, then what the hell is a good reason to fall out with a regime? Moreover, to make that remark where it would enter the public record more or less tells Putin he can murder anyone he likes in the UK as relations with the Kremlin are what really matter to HMG.
No doubt the mystery minister is peeved that the late Mr. Litvinenko has the temerity to get himself assassinated on British soil for daring to bad-mouth the psychopathic Vladimir Putin. Yes, the sooner this tiresome freedom-of-speech nonsense is suppressed so that intergovernmental relations can return to normal, the better.
Truly, the state is not your friend.
Blogs and other internet sites should be covered by a voluntary code of practice similar to that for newspapers in the UK, a conference has been told. Press Complaints Commission director Tim Toulmin said he opposed government regulation of the internet, saying it should a place “in which views bloom”. But unless there was a voluntary code of conduct there would be no form of redress for people angered at content.
– BBC
It is extraordinary how people opine without understanding the subject. It seems like Mr. Toulmin understand nothing whatsoever about the internet. There is indeed a “form of redress for people angered at content” on blogs available and that is… blogs. It is extremely simple: go to blogger.com, spend about five minutes doing the ‘three easy steps’ and then start posting your rebuttals on your own damn blog.
As for a voluntary code of conduct… I invite Tim Toulmin to ask his lawyer to write one down on a piece of paper, roll the document up tightly and then stick it wherever his lawyer’s imagination and Mr. Toulmin complacency will allow. I look forward to being told off for that remark when Tim Toulmin sets up his own blog.
For another similar view to mine, see here.
There seems no end to the absurdity of US planners as to the conduct of the war in Afghanistan… surely the way to victory in all military conflicts is the unswerving pursuit of a single core objective (in this case the destruction of the Taliban and its power base) with ruthlessness and focus.
Yet what do we see? A demented conflation of the entirely justified war against the sponsors of the 9/11 attack on New York and Arlington, with the preposterous ‘war on drugs’. At a stroke, attacking the income of Afghan farmers and warlords alike thereby more or less guaranteeing that these people will make common cause with the Taliban on the basis that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
|
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.
|
