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]
|
Four people have been gunned down in a drive-by shooting outside a nightclub in Bradford.
Residents in Manchester have taken to the streets in protest at the rising level of gun violence.
And (just on the TV so no link yet) a man has been shot dead in a pub in the East End of London.
The Kalashnikov. The AK-47. The weapon of choice for every communist insurgent and marxist regime in the world. Not just because it was simple, sturdy and effective but also because it was produced by the horny-hands of comrade workers in the Soviet Union and so untainted by decadent and exploitative Western capitalism. Its symbolism was, perhaps, just as important as its stopping power.
But that’s all over now
“A two-year legal dispute between Russian companies for the copyright of the world-famous Kalashnikov assault rifle has been won by its original producer in the Urals.”
Ironies don’t come thicker than this; the gun that was supposed to blow away people who believed in property rights and profit will, henceforth, be produced under the mantle of both. Yes, the sinister and fearsome Kalashnikov has been co-opted into the Great Capitalist Project. If Che Guevarra were alive now, he’d be spinning in his grave! 
“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
– C. S. Lewis
[Courtesy of St.Andrews Liberty Log ]
India and Pakistan. Will they? Won’t they? Will there be mushroom clouds over Peshawar or will it all amount to nothing more than sporadic mortar fire, vigourous fist-shaking and some spectacular face-pulling before all parties come grudgingly to the table to thresh out their differences? I couldn’t tell you because I just don’t know.
The preponderance of opinion, though, seems to be that it won’t go all the way. That both parties have far too much to lose from all-out, balls-out war and, consequently, the instinct of self-preservation, if not common humanity, will win the day. I don’t regard this as a misapprehension. After all, both India and Pakistan do have a lot to lose from all-out war, particularly if it escalates to the point where plutonium bhajias are being lobbed over the Line of Control, and I am sure that this is not lost on the polity of either protagonist. But just because war would be a disaster, that doesn’t mean it won’t happen anyway.
We in the West find it very difficult to contemplate true catastrophe so we tend to assume rather too glibly that such catastrophe is not possible because catastrophe leaves a vasy body-count in its wake, not to mention the damage it causes to many investment portfolios. But have we not been lulled into a false sense of guarded optimism by the 20th Century? The Century that saw the Nazis buried by the Allies in Word War II, the Soviet Union laid low by capitalism and France beaten by Senegal in the World Cup (Alright the last one happened in the 21st Century but I am just too pleased not to mention it).
In other words, our generation has become well used to seeing the world in terms of the rise of badness and madness being overwhelmed by the onward march of goodness and reason. Those of us born post-WWII have been particularly fortunate to have lived through an era of relative peace where ‘war’ is played out on TV and mostly consists of a bit of a fracas followed by a peace process. So many times have we seen these melodramas played out that they have become the topography of conflict. We assume that the men in uniforms will be free to do their thing for a short period before everyone calms down and the men in suits step in to press flesh and hammer out some sort of deal. But we may forget that this is a manifestation of our era and not an eternal truth and all eras have to come to an end sooner or later.
‘Jaw-jaw is better than war-war’ has been the axiom of our age. ‘There is no substitute for victory’ may be the axiom that replaces it.
I must admit that the terms ‘Libertarian’ and ‘Monarchist’ are not one that are effortlessly congruent but neither are they mutually exclusive. So it is without any hesitation that I declare myself to be, in my own quiet and understated way, a Monarchist, at least as far as Britain is concerned.
This being the case, I am only too happy to rise to the challenge of Brendan O’Neill
“..in fact, worst of all is a monarchist who dare not speak his name, who won’t come out in full defence of the royals. So come on then – defend the monarchy.”
I do dare to speak my name, Mr.O’Neill, and defending the monarchy is not just my burden but, I’ll have you know, my pleasure.
If one is to live within the institution called ‘nation’ then it is entirely reasonable (and maybe even essential) to have something or someone to symbolise that nation. Our monarch fulfils that role not just satisfactorily but admirably. It is an institution which is the product of our heritage, culture and history and a reminder that our constitution and civil society was painstakingly built by the craft and toil of ages and has now been largely squandered by the kind of elected representatives you seem to admire so much.
The monarch is a continuum; it is an anchor for the commonwealth of the people and stands not above politics but apart from politics. The monarch has served and continues to serve as a totem for both British sense of community and nationhood; a stubborn reminder that British civil society is not within the gift of Tony Blair or Romano Prodi and will be here long after both of them have turned to dust. Our Queen really does serve, our politicians merely feed at the table.
I might remind you, Mr.O’Neill that it is not the Queen that is bleeding us white with taxes, it is elected politicians. It is not the Queen that is suffocating us with pettyfogging regulations and laws, it is elected politicians. It is not the Queen who has traduced our civil liberties, it is elected politicians. It is not the Queen that has delivered us, bound hand and foot, to the fat Cardinals in Brussels, it is elected politicians. Given the choice between Queen Elizabeth and the gaggle of mendacious, thieving sluts that people like you have in mind to replace her, I know for sure which one I would take up arms for.
So there you have it, Mr.O’Neill. A defence of monarchy. And since I have been bold enough to defend my position, perhaps you will allow me the indulgence of a challenge of my own? It is a challenge for you and all others who believe in ‘democratic’ virtues. Did you take a holiday last year? If so, did you canvass everybody in your constituency beforehand on their opinion as to a) whether you were entitled to a holiday and b) where you should spend it? If not, why not?
With less than 48 hours to go until the commencement of the Football (Soccer) World Cup, one could rightly expect the outbreak of a ‘footbal fever’ in England. And, indeed, there is a tingle of breathless anticipation in the air and a sweating of the palms at the prospect of our opening game against Sweden on Sunday.
We all recognise this. We’ve all been here before. But never, ever can I recall quite the level of overt patriotism that is clearly on display all over London. Driving to work this morning, I was waiting at a set of traffic lights behind a dozen or so other vehicles all of which were displaying either the Cross of St.George or the Union Jack boldy from their aeriels or emblazoned in their rear windows. Houses, shops, offices and restaurants are festooned with bunting and flags. Everywhere I look, there’s a flag.
I get the feeling that this is about more than football.
“If you aren’t a part of the solution, you’re part of Europe”
(Courtesy of Eristic)
Three cheers and bloody hurrah for Iain Duncan Smith for having some backbone and standing up to both our government and Spain’s over the latters petulant and childish demands on Gibraltar
It’s been an awful long time since any mainstream politician of any stripe stood up to the demands of Europeans over anything but such feathers has he ruffled that:
“Iain Duncan Smith suffered a diplomatic rebuff prior to his three-day European tour, starting today, when Spain’s prime minister cancelled plans to meet him.
And it looks like IDS is not going to back down. Good. Now if he can stand the carpetting he is assuredly going to get in the press (“xenophobe, anti-Europe, intransigent, extreme right-winger…yadda…yadda…yadda”) then we’ll know that whether he’s actually got a brass set or not.
Don’t know how to tie your own shoelaces? Just what is the proper way to make a cup of coffee? Should a person sleep standing up or lying down? Having difficulty finding your own arse even though you’re using both hands a map? Don’t know how to barbecue sausages? Well, fret no longer because HM Government is here to help you.
“The Agency’s food hygiene campaign is going alfresco during summer 2002 with a 30-second TV ad spelling out the risks of not cooking barbecue food properly.
This should come as a blessed relief to anyone planning a barbecue this summer. After all, in a country where the mere act of lighting a charcoal briquette is enough to bring on a monsoon, only the hopelessly naive and terminally idiotic can possibly be planning a barbecue in the first place.
‘The Agency’. It sounds so sinister, doesn’t it? That’s because it is. The Food Standards Agency was established in the wake of the BSE crisis to reassure a jittery and highly risk-averse British public that the government was doing its bit to protect them from the evil bugs lurking in their own fridges. Which means, of course, that they do less of their own bit and, thanks to greater dependency and bureaucratic empire-building, today’s patronising message will become tomorrow’s law. I see Sausage Inspectors in our future.
It’s just another brick in the Napoleonic Wall behind which our collective goose is slowly being cooked.
During this past week, I managed to catch a late-night documentary programme on Channel 4 about a young British woman’s interest in reincarnation and her search for her past lives. Unfortunately, it was late, I was tired and feel asleep before the end of the show so I never discovered whether or not she was successful in her quest.
However, I was conscious to witness much of her journey during which she encountered like spirits who were searching for their past incarnations and, in many cases, claimed to have found them. Well, ‘found’ may not be exactly the right word; ‘adopted’ may be more accurate because a startlingly high number of these perfectly ordinary every-day folk were convinced that they were once Cleopatra or King Louis XIV or Horatio Nelson. One middle-aged chap from Leeds claimed to be a reincarnation of the Egyptian God Horus. Not for any of them was the grey, ignominious life of a peasant labourer from the Russian Steppes who died boringly of old-age or an anonymous factory-worker from Manchester who gave up his ghost in the First War. Far too prosaic.
I realise that reincarnation is a central doctrine for both Hindus and Buddhists and may well be true for all I know, but I can’t help getting the feeling that, in the hands of vulnerable Westerners, it is a matter not so much of faith but therapy. Watching these people gave me the impression that they were victims of an inverted ‘Cult of Celebrity’. Those unlikely to be touched by fame and fortune in this life can comfort themselves by arrogating some from a ‘previous life’. If you can’t ask the question ‘Don’t you know who I am?’, you can at least ask ‘Don’t you know who I was?’.
The impression I got from most of the participants was of mildly unhappy or unfulfilled people and whilst I’m all for the pursuit of happiness I am not sure that seeking past lives is the way to do it. There is something very negative about the whole exercise of seeking yesterday’s glory rather than tomorrow’s promise and I am sure that finding out I was Hernan Cortez in a past incarnation would only throw the relative mundanity of this life into sharp relief. Better, in my view, to devote one’s efforts to finding fulfillment among the living rather then searching for dubious glamour among the ranks of the dead.
The great convergence of all the world’s idiots into one, big indistinguishable glob is a phenomenon that has been widely documented throughout the blogosphere but is one that, hitherto, I had only read about but not actually witnessed.
That has now changed. Just about an hour ago, I was caught up in real, live manifestation of this phenomenon on the streets of Tottenham, North London. Well, when I say, ‘caught up’, I was actually on my way to a DIY superstore to engage in some healthy, life-affirming consumerism when I got stuck in traffic behind a slow-moving demonstration. On being allowed by the police to drive slowly by while it snaked its way down Tottenham High Road, I got a good look at all the banners; Kurdish communists, Sinn Fein, Hamas supporters and anti-globalisation protestors. There they were, marching and chanting side by side, arm-in-arm in protest for or against something or other. I didn’t care enough to inquire.
But, as I drove by, I felt the warm satisfaction of knowing that they were chiefly complaining about people like me. Splendid! I wound down my car windows, turned up the John Philip Sousa march that was conveniently playing on my car radio and sped off to do my bit to help spread capitalism.
Ever since Tony Blair ushered in the ‘Age of Blandness’, I sense that a lot of people in this country have been seeking a true ‘Voice of Britain’.
Personally speaking, I reject such collectivist concepts both formally and informally. However, if there was such a thing as a ‘Voice of Britain’ then Richard Littlejohn would be it.
|
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.
|