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]
|
Malcolm Hutty spots someone taking a frequent ‘Samizdata.net’ position…
An article in the Telegraph argues that Britain should seek maximum political capital through institutionalising a re-invigorated permanent alliance with America. France and Germany should be left to take care of the neccessary fence-mending; since when has it been in Britains interests to increase French political influence?
So far, so very Samizdata. And not at all suprising for a Telegraph op-ed. However, down at the bottom of the web page is this significant byline:
David Frum was President Bush’s speech writer and author of his ‘axis of evil’ speech.
You do not have to believe in ‘argument from authority’ to realise that sometimes who is making an argument is as important as anything they say.
Malcolm Hutty
Polly Toynbee, doyenne of the transnational progressive movement and all-round-leftist prig, is shocked, shocked! that Tony Blair’s forthright denunciation of France’s perfidy over Iraq is damaging our prospects of getting deeper into bed with the Eurofederalists…
Once again <drums roll!> – excellent! Let’s hope that a woman who is so consistently wrong is actually correct on this one!
So it appears that we are now a few days, or possibly even a few hours, away from being engaged in an honest-to-goodness, actual, balls-out, fighting war. Despite the misgivings of Antoine Clarke, I believe HM forces will acquit themselves admirably although there is no doubt that the bulk of the war effort will fall upon the much larger US contingent.
We are here now because Tony Blair has prevailed over the anti-war sentiments of much of his own party. Without wishing to sing his praises per se, he has confounded the sizeable number of British commentators who believed that he did not possess the spine to see through his pro-war commitment. He clearly does and he clearly has. Last night’s vote in the House of Commons, on a motion to delay hostilities with Iraq, was defeated despite a record number of Labour rebels voting for it and, ironically, with most of the opposition Conservatives voting against.
Of the Conservatives who voted for the motion, some are undoubtedly what Mark Steyn has called ‘defeatist patricians’. In all but name they are Social Democrats and are driven by sentiments that are not so much anti-American as they are pro-EU. For them, the top-down, corporatist paternalism of Europe is much more resonant of the natural order of things than the racey vulgarity they see as intrinsic to the American way of doing thigs.
But there are others on the British right who are vigourously opposed to Britain taking any part in the attack on Iraq not because they harbour anti-American sentiments (indeed, they heartily reject such nonsense) but because they believe that it is not in British national interests to do so. They are far from confident that any US administration would go to bat for Britain in the way that Britain has gone to bat for America and whilst this may or may not prove to be the case, they (and I) do have genuine cause for complaint about the kid gloves that successive US administrations have put on when dealing with the IRA.
However, it would appear that at least some of isolationist argument in this regard is based on the erroneous (and largely left-inspired) view that Tony Blair is merely acting as George Bush’s ‘poodle’; that he will get his ‘orders’ direct from Washington and that he will send British troops off to yomp around the planet in whatever direction the Whitehouse commands.
It is this kind of thing that makes for good copy, but it is not actually true. For good or for bad, Blair has very much acted as his own man throughout this whole affair. Had it not been for Tony Blair, the Americans would almost certainly have not agreed to take (the ultimately fruitless) UN route to disarming Saddam. Had George Bush had his way, the war in Iraq would, by now, have been over and done with. Try telling anyone in Washington that Tony Blair is their ‘poodle’. I think you will be sharply disabused of any such view. → Continue reading: The widening channel
Colleagues of mine of Guardianista persusations are muttering about how that evil, gun-toting Texan retard in the White House has “probably busted the EU, the UN, and even NATO”. Much gnashing of transnational progressive teeth today.
As Perry might put it – excellent!
Unless you have been living on an isolated desert island for the past three years – not an entirely bad thought – you would have read of how the collapse of scandal-ridden firms like Enron and WorldCom contributed to the bloodbath in the world’s stock markets.
As the tales of corporate accounting hijinks and outright fraud surfaced, the Cassandras took to print and the airwaves to inform us of how these tales proved that the equity-crazed Anglo-Saxon form of capitalism was vulnerable to such behaviour. Of course, what these tales proved was that the world’s modern capital markets can and will punish malefactors harshly. They certainly did.
Well, corruption is hardly the sole preserve of corporations. And surely there are few more corrupt institutions that the European Commission, as shown by this story in today’s Financial Times newspaper. But whereas businessmen at Enron and elsehwere were swiftly brought before the courts, it seems that corruption in the bureacracy of the EU is proving much tougher to clean up.
To which I would add, why is anyone surprised?
At this very moment, a coterie of bureaucrats and politicians are holding an intense round of meetings and negotiations on a matter of great international significance.
In actuality, what they are doing is plotting the destruction of a nation. Several nations, in fact. But the only one that matters to me is the one of which I am citizen: Britain.
No cruise missiles are involved. No smart bombs, no fighter jets, no artillery and not a single soldier will be deployed on the ground. Instead, the Weapon of Mass Destruction to be employed is called the EU Constitution.
Imagine, if you can, a constitutional document that has been drafted by the editorial team of the Guardian. Well, now you have some idea of what it contains. It is currently in the draft stage under the stewardship of former French President (and those words alone should be enough to raise the hackles on your neck) Valery Giscard D’Estaing. Once completed, it is the instrument by which Europe will be governed.
For a more detailed analysis of exactly what these people regard as the essential missions of European governance, I recommend this essay for the Cato Institute written by Patrick Basham and Marian L. Tupy (who also blogs splendidly from his University at St.Andrews):
“Conversely, the EU constitution is filled with “positive” rights for Europeans that can only be guaranteed by limiting the freedoms of other Europeans. As Hans Werner Sinn, director of the Munich-based Institute for Economic Research, notes: “The document ignores the free-market economy. There is not a word about the protection of property and no commitment to free enterprise and the division of labor.”
But the EU constitution does vow to protect “social justice,” “full employment,” “solidarity,” “equal opportunity,” “cultural diversity,” and “equality between the sexes.” It claims to desire “sustainable development,” “mutual respect between peoples,” and the eradication of poverty.”
Bear in mind that the precise terms of this document are still in negotiation which means they could conceivably get worse. As it is it condemns every European to a sullen and proscribed existance under the velvet whip of a honeycomb of pettyfogging, authoritarian bureaucracies. Some future!
At this point it is appropriate for me to extend my thanks to Philip Chaston who has painstakingly charted the progress of this melancholy circus and, most importantly, the enthusiastic role being played in it by everybody’s ‘war hero’ Tony Blair.
It does give us cause for a deeply ironic chuckle when we see him being compared to Winston Churchill in the foreign press. Janus is nearer the mark, for while he struts the world stage bleating about ‘freedom’ he is quite knowingly pushing this country towards the trap-door. Oh yes, he is being seen to quibble about some of the details but there is no doubt about his commitment to the project.
I suppose we must take a portion of the blame for the misapprehension. Perhaps we should have made it clearer that this man is not trustworthy. Anyway, for the record, this man is not trustworthy. How ironic that he should be instrumental in liberating the Iraqis from their baleful tyrant whilst simultaneously glad-handing the British people into bondage. Sorry, irony is not the quite the word. Tragedy, more like.
We have taken our eyes of this ball for too long. Maybe mesmerised by the spectacle of this man defying much of his own party to do the right thing on the War on Terror, we have scandalously overlooked the fact that he is also busy writing the final chapter of this country’s glorious history.
It appears that we may have underestimated the soaring ambitions of the European Union. Not content with absorbing the ‘Vilnius 10’, they have set their sights on outer space:
“Europe’s first mission to the Moon looks set for a July blast-off.
Scientists and engineers working on the Smart 1 spacecraft are hoping to fly around the 15th of that month – but it all depends on the status of the launcher.”
Doubtless this will be the first of many such missions designed to extend the scope of the European orbit. According to French EU Commissioner Bertrand Maginot:
“At this time, the cosmos is totally unregulated. This is an intolerable situation.”
A Swedish EU representative, Helena Hankårt was prepared to outline the precise aproach:
“It is not so much that we intend to conquer space. It is more a question of bringing space within democratic control.”
The British deputy chair of the Celestial Expansion Committee, Sir Crispin D’oilly-Gitte was rather more forthright in his views:
“Oh but we simply must extend Euwopean influence into space. Otherwise it will be full of those fwightful Amewicans”
The Celestial Expansion Committee has drawn up detailed plans for future ventures and even a broad agreement on contingency operations, as indicated by Dutch Committee member Willy Van Der Pimp:
“There is a draft plan setting out an appropriate response in case of encounters with alien life-forms. However, it is agreed that the aliens must commit themselves to meeting certain minimum regulatory standards before any communication can be approved.”
Members of the committee refused to be drawn on the question of whether space should, indeed, be referred to as the ‘final frontier’.
And now, a bit of homegrown outrage. If you live in a EU country, in a few years, you could be subjected to the new European arrest warrant. Under legislation going through Parliament, it might soon be possible to have you extradited to the Continent for “racism” and “xenophobia”.
There is a new form of bigotry – “monetary xenophobia”, or opposition to the euro as identified by some EU funded bodies, such as EUMC, the European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia.
It has become increasingly obvious that European integration means transfer of authority to ever greater number of EU institutions, further from the reach of the member states’ citizens. Despite the decades of assurances that there are no plans to set up a common legal system and its enformcement, the Federasts just couldn’t contain themselves.
Now, it is becoming a reality – smuggled past unsuspecting publics in the traumatic days after September 11, 2001. If the emerging European constitution is ever implemented, Britain seems destined to give up its remaining veto in home affairs.
This has already been seriously diluted since the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 – which, incidentally, committed Europol to a more aggressive role in combating “racism” and “xenophobia”. Indeed, clause 3, section 20, sub-section 2 of the proposed legislation states that arrests under such warrants can be effected by policemen or “other appropriate persons”. Who are they? Commission officials? Europol?
Apologists for Europol have always claimed that it would be nothing more than a ‘clearing house for information’. Yet, Europol is initiating changes in policy and is in the vanguard of moves to increase the power of the authorities over ordinary citizens within the EU.
Europol can hold information on individuals on its Central Information System database that includes their ‘sexual orientation, religion, or politics’, as well ethnic origin, age, address, and so on. Indeed under article 8.4 of the Europol Convention there is a catch-all category of ‘additional information’ that could include hearsay and unsubstantiated allegations. Individuals included in the database need not have been convicted of committing criminal offences under national law or be thought likely to have carried out crimes for which they were never convicted. Information can be entered about persons who it is believed will commit crimes in the future.
The difference between British and Continental public culture, manifested in the legal realm, could not be more obvious.
In Britain, expression of heinous – even unconventional – views can marginalise you. But unless you seek to incite violence, your opinions in and of themselves cannot subject you to the rigour of the criminal law.
Not so in Europe, where technocratic elites have inherited the jealous intolerance of absolute sovereigns. Even as ministers struggle feebly to minimise the remit of Brussels in criminalising opinion, one is left with the abiding impression that they are acquiring far more influence over our traditional way of life than we will ever enjoy over theirs.
I think we should now be thinking of how best to live ‘independently’ of the EU avoiding its technocratic nightmare, whilst aligning Britain’s strategy with allies more powerful and far more natural to our Anglosphere traditions.
The State is not your friend…
and the Superstate even less so
I was able to avoid the so-called peace rally on Saturday by spending the weekend in the altogether more agreeable company of my girlfriend and the wonderful people of Malta. Malta is currently going through a referendum on whether to join the EU, having won the dubious right to apply for entry to that body recently. Naturally, my temptation is to tell any proud Maltese (and they are proud) to say no.
Malta has a mixed and varied history, as rich as that of any much bigger European nation. English is widely spoken there and there are many signs of Britain’s influence on the island when it was a vast Royal Navy base – red telephone kiosks, old English cars, road signs, old-fashioned bakery stores out of an Arnold Bennett novel. The country has a relaxed feel about it and a fairly liberal business regime. I cannot vouch for this with 100 percent certainty, but I would imagine doing business in Malta is going to get a lot more of a bureaucratic ordeal if it does join the EU.
I think French President Chirac’s recent arrogance towards the European nations who have sided with the Bush administration over Iraq will not have gone missed among the Maltese. It may even have a direct impact on the referendum vote, if the antis can use this intelligently. The Maltese will see, in its rudest form, what being a member of the EU means. Obey moi.
Martin Cole takes a Popperian cudgle to the deadening hand of the emerging Euro super-state
Pericles in his famous funeral oration for the slain warriors of democratic Athens, among many other ringing statements in favour of democracy, pertinently said the following:
Although only a few may originate a policy, we are all able to judge it. We do not look upon discussion as a stumbling block in the way of political action, but as an indispensable preliminary to acting wisely.
The above is quoted directly from Karl Popper’s book The Open Society and its Enemies published in paperback by Routledge Classics (ISBN 0-415-23731-9). It should be required reading for all members of the convention chaired by Vallery Giscard d’Estaing on the future structures of the European State.
Others following these debates are also recommended to the book, but for those unable to obtain a copy, or spare the time to read it, I give below a brief summary of what I consider to be the most salient points as concerns the dangers Europe now faces if the convention proceeds as seems likely. In my opinion, never will the outcome of such a debate be likely to affect so many millions of people, and rarely can there have been such reluctance to openly discuss the frightening implications of the decisions being taken.
Plato is the early villain in Popper’s analysis for the ever present drive against democracy and equalitarianism. The author describes, with detailed logic, the elitism, racialism and totalitarianism that can eventually result in a Society that follows the ‘chosen people’ concept, intrinsic to much of Plato’s writings.
Popper makes an excellent case that the critical divide in governance of a geographic entity, whether city, nation (and it follows, super-state) is between collectivism and individualism.
The argument made by Plato that the state be placed higher than the individual and the suggestion that justice is synonymous “for that which is in the best interest of the state” now apparent in the structures of the EU, must be refuted at, virtually, any cost. → Continue reading: Democracy or Pan-European Totalitarianism
It is a rare thing indeed when I trawl through the pages of the Subservient only to emerge with a smile and a jaunty spring in my step but today is just such an occasion.
Since the credentials of both the author of the article, a Liberal Democrat MP, and the organ in which the article appears, are impeccably federast I think it is safe to say that dire warnings of a split between the UK and Europe is not merely a product of wishful thinking.
“But there are two more profound reasons for the plunge in Britain’s status within the EU that should give Tony Blair real cause for concern. First, there is the euro. Last month, the Portuguese Prime Minister, Jose Durao Barroso, voiced in public what EU heads of government have long whispered in private – why should the UK be granted a leadership role as long as it is unwilling to sign up to one of the central tenets of EU membership? As long as EU leaders believed Tony Blair was merely biding his time before putting the issue to a referendum, there was sufficient goodwill to forgive Britain’s procrastination. But, as the Continent looks on with perplexity at the gridlock between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, fears have deepened that Mr Blair has missed his chance.
And then, most important of all, there is Britain’s special relationship with the United States. It is difficult to capture the conflicting reactions which Blair’s ostentatious loyalty to George Bush’s foreign policy elicits within the rest of the EU.”
As I have indicated previously, our strategic alliance with the USA is something which the EU cannot tolerate alongside it’s new-found ethos of being a rival to the US and not an ally. The day of British liberation is not at hand and may not even be close but it is just a little bit closer than it was a year ago.
Tony Blair has turned out to be a love-rat; forever declaring his affections for Europe while flaunting his high-profile affair with George Bush. The question is how long he can go on two-timing them both? Surely one of these girls is going to put her foot down and demand Tony’s fidelity before much longer and who can resist the heady romance of being a war-time bride?
I didn’t vote for Blair and I do not count myself among his fans but I find myself being forced to concede that he is doing more to pave the way for British independence than any number of phoney, careerist Tories.
It’s a done deal!
“Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia are all set to join the EU in May 2004.”
Following an intense round of Gallic shrugging, Belgian glad-handing, German tax raising, Italian bribing and Swedish introspection, Brussels has munificently agreed to don the mantle of the late Soviet Union and squat like a toad on the peoples of Eastern Europe.
My message to the ten lucky winners of ‘Economic Jeopardy’: you guys need your collective heads tested! Don’t you know that there is no destination printed on that ticket you’ve just bought to ride the Great Rattling Train of Regulation?
Still, there is hope for the Turks, left yapping like angry terriers outside as the stone gates of the Belgian Empire slammed shut in their faces:
“European leaders meeting at a landmark EU Summit in Copenhagen this week thwarted Turkish and Anglo-American hopes for early negotiations for the country’s entry into the European Union, opting instead for a review of its progress on its economy, human rights and democracy by the end of 2004.”
A review!! Oh come on, we all know what that means. Sometime towards the end of 2004 a roomful of enarques in Brussels will take some time out from their daily task of grinding out reams of pointless legislation to call up Jacques Chirac and ask him if he has changed his mind about the Saracens. ‘Non’. Review complete.
No, the real mystery is why the US appears to be so keen to stuff Turkey into the Euro-oven. Do they think it will strengthen the EU? Why would they want to do that? Have they not been keeping up with current events in the State Department?
Or, alternatively, perhaps they realise only too well that the French and Germans are never going to accede to Turkish membership and are therefore sponsoring the proposition in order to lever open a few nascent cracks?
Of course, if Washington wants to be really smart they could always drop a line to Ankara offering them membership of NAFTA. The Turkish terriers would snap at it, I’d wager. They clearly want to join the West. They want to be in the rich boys’ club. Oo-oo-oo I wanna be like you-oo-oo. So let them. In fact, Washington could really set the cat amongst the Princely pigeons by going further and offering NAFTA status to the ten soon-to-be-strangled-in-red-tape candidates above as well.
Of course the EUnuchs would be furious. Wouldn’t want that now, would we (snigger!).
My message to the Turks; we Brits are in and want out, you’re out and want in. Fancy a swap?
|
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.
|
