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]
|
Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, and Anne Hidalgo, the Parti Socialiste mayor of Paris, have written a joint article for the Guardian called “In London and Paris, we’ve experienced vicious backlash to climate action. But we’re not backing down”. They write,
“We welcome efforts such as the EU’s Digital Services Act, which requires online platforms to counter the spread of illegal content, including disinformation, and lays the groundwork for holding platforms accountable. But much more is needed. For example, the UK’s Online Safety Act could be strengthened by explicitly recognising climate disinformation as a form of harmful content.”
It is remarkable how people who would be ashamed to support a law to “counter the spread of illegal speech” happily praise a law that “counters the spread of illegal content.” The magic of words: just re-label “speech” as “content” – as being inside something – and it can now truly be contained, as in “restrained or controlled”.
The same people regularly proclaim that Europe is a place which has banished censorship of the press. That is almost true, although both the EU and the UK governments are working to restore their old powers. In the meantime they are willing enough to temporarily refrain from censorship of ideas spread by old technology if it gives them cover for censoring ideas spread by new technology.
Do not go along with their word games. The term “Freedom of the press” is not restricted to words conveyed to the public by means of a a mechanical device for applying pressure to an inked surface resting upon a print medium. Nor does “freedom of speech” only refer to words that come out of mouths by the action of tongue and lips. In the words of a source they claim to respect, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says,
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Emphasis added.
And while I’m emphasising things, let me also emphasise this: the minute I learn that an idea is being censored, I give that idea more credence.
No, that does not mean that I automatically believe any censored idea entirely. (How could I? A million contradictory falsehoods are censored alongside the truth. The problem is that the act of censorship destroys our ability to tell which of them is the truth.) It means that I strain to hear what is being said behind the gag. It means that I start to wonder how real the claimed consensus is, if those who depart from it are silenced. It means that I start to wonder why the proponents of the “accepted” view feel the need to protect it from counter-arguments.
I said in 2012 that my belief in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) was two and a half letters to the left compared to most commenters on this blog. Damn, it should have been one and a half letters to the right. Oh well, you knew what I meant. With regard to CAGW or whatever they are calling it now, whether I phrase it as my belief moving to the left or my disbelief moving to the right, the surest way to make that movement happen is to pass a law defining “climate disinformation as a form of harmful content”. Then I will know that the so-called scientific consensus on climate change is no such thing. If certain hypotheses cannot be discussed, not only is there no scientific consensus, there is no science.
-*-
A related post, but focussing on self-censorship rather than the government censorship that Mayors Khan and Hidalgo favour: “Bubbles, lies and buttered toast.” Any form of censorship is fatal to science.
What we are living through today, in a phrase, is an unprecedented break in national continuity. As a country we are disconnecting from the old Britain. The Britain of our national story is disappearing, the Britain of the Romans through the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans, the Tudors, Nelson and Wellington, the two world wars and even the Attlee settlement.
Gone is the Britain of Christianity and the Church as a core component of British identity, and moral judgement has become utilitarian, about what is convenient, disconnected from any traditional, let alone transcendental, set of values.
Fast receding is the Britain of real state capacity and national ambition, as we move from Victorian St Pancras to the hole in the ground at Euston, from the first nuclear power station back to the windmill.
Our national character is changing. We are, at last, becoming the “young country”, the country without a past, that Tony Blair wanted.
– David Frost (£)
Personality traits such as patriotism and bravery are viewed as desirable within the military. This often encourages overt masculine behaviour amongst its members, therefore stepping outside the norm and challenging the group is often looked down upon and difficult to do. The task-focused approach can also lead to corners being cut if it is deemed that the ends justify the means, that certain actions or behaviours are tolerated if they achieve the desired result. The danger with this is that such undesirable behaviours, if tolerated for long enough, become the norm and the level of standards gradually erodes… Methods of bonding and creating team cohesiveness within the military often involve pranks and banter, but this isolates those who are different to the norm.
– Group Captain Louise Henton OBE (£) writing in 2003 prior to her tenure as base commander for RAF Brize Norton.
What could possibly go wrong?
On Tuesday, Parliament voted to decriminalise abortion after 24 weeks. On Friday, Parliament voted to allow assisted dying. All eyes were on the latter change. LBC’s report was typical: “MPs pass landmark assisted dying bill by just 23 votes following emotional debate in historic social change”.
In contrast, the change to the abortion law had an easy birth. It was passed by a landslide. Scarcely anyone talked about it before it was passed – it featured in no manifesto – and, beyond a few sighs, even the right wing press does not seem to want to talk much about it now. It is portrayed as a merely technical change to deal with a few edge cases. Much is made of the fact that late abortions are not being legalised; rather they are being decriminalised. “It would not alter the settled time limit for a termination,” said the Labour MP Stella Creasy, disingenuously in my opinion, given that it makes the settled time limit into dead-letter law.
My record in political predictions is not great, but I will make three of them now.
1) This law will result in far more late-term abortions than its proponents predict. Many supporters of decriminalisation have pointed out, as did the Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi in the BBC article I linked to above, that nearly 99% of abortions happen before a pregnancy reaches 20 weeks, leaving just 1% of women “in desperate circumstances”. But the number of people willing to do a thing when there are no penalties for doing it is much greater than the number willing to do it when there are penalties. And as the number of late term abortions becomes higher, the reasons for doing it will become slighter.
2) It’s 2025. People film everything on their smartphones. People will film late term abortions. Supporters of abortion will do it to show that they are not ashamed. Opponents of abortion will do it to show how similar the foetus you are now allowed to kill at 35 weeks looks to the baby you are not allowed to kill at 40 weeks. (Or at 35 weeks if it happens to have exited the birth canal.) And some will livestream late term abortions to show, or sell, the video to the curious. The dissemination of close-up images of what a late term abortion looks like in real time will change the abortion debate in the same way that the dissemination of close-up images of what being on the receiving end of an airstrike looks like in real time have changed the debate about war.
Of course visceral reactions to seeing war or abortion at close range do not change the logical arguments about either. But the Left has very little practice in countering the strongest argument against abortion, the very one that will be literally brought into sharp focus by the smartphone “record” button. As I said in a post called “How not to change minds on abortion”,
Over the years I must have read hundreds of Guardian articles on abortion, mostly in its US section because abortion is such a live issue there. I do not recall a single one that argued against the main sticking point of the pro-life side, namely that abortion takes a human life – let alone argued for it.
The arguments put forward in these Guardian articles and others written by progressives almost always relate solely to the rights of the woman. That is indeed an important question, but it avoids the question of whether the foetus also has rights. But pictures are harder to avoid than words.
There is nothing new about abortion being shown on film. You can find examples from both sides if you look. One of the best known examples from the anti-abortion side is the 1984 film “The Silent Scream” made by Bernard Nathanson, a former abortion provider who became an anti-abortion activist. It shows live ultrasound footage of a 12 week old foetus being aborted. Critics argued that elements of the film that seemed to show the foetus feeling pain were deceptive, as a foetus at that stage of development is not capable of pain. This argument will be unavailable in the case of similar videos showing abortion in the third trimester.
3. As a result of public outrage, in ten or fifteen years’ time the UK’s abortion laws will be stricter than they have been since 1967. My guess is that the limit will be around 15 weeks, as it is in most of Europe.
-*-
I discussed how the issue of abortion relates to debates within libertarianism in this post from 2013: “Thinking aloud on a mountainside”.
Quote:
“Having to carry a stranger because otherwise the stranger will die is approximately the position of a pregnant woman expecting an unwanted child.”
First, that as the Casey report acknowledges, the crimes really are mostly committed by ethnic minority men, mostly Pakistani, against white-majority children. And Labour are, far more than any other party, the standard-bearers for “diversity”. On this front, Helen Lewis spelled out the problem with commendable clarity earlier this year: no one on the Left wants a “national conversation” about the rape gangs — because so many of the possible solutions are, from this perspective, prima facie unacceptable:
“Would it include calls for the mass deportation of migrants, as many on Europe’s emergent Right want? […] Should Britain enact a “Muslim ban” or reject asylum seekers from Muslim-majority countries? When liberals are still queasy about engaging with this topic, it’s because they sense that these shadow arguments lie just out of sight.”
And second, it’s not just about race relations. It’s also about the public sector, of which Labour has long presented itself as a champion. And the extent of institutional complicity, already clear, is reiterated in Casey’s report: they all knew.
The police, especially, knew. Victims were blamed, or even arrested: in one notorious incident, a father arrived outside the house in which his own daughter was being raped, called the police, and was then himself arrested. In other incidents, girls would press charges only to be immediately contacted by their rapists with threats: events strongly suggestive of police corruption. One officer in Rotherham told a desperate father that the town “would erupt” if the crimes were exposed; another, according to the 2014 Jay report, admitted these atrocities have been ongoing for 30 years but “with it being Asians, we can’t afford for this to be coming out”.
Care homes also knew. One Bradford girl reported all the way back in 2014 that the home where she ought to have found safety and respite didn’t just look the other way — when the men who raped and sold her arrived outside the home, the staff would tell her to “go out and see them”. Councils knew, too: Birmingham was suppressing reports into looked-after children being raped and trafficked 30 years ago. In Oldham, the notorious leader of one rape gang was appointed “Welfare Officer” after a girl had already come forward with allegations against him. How many teachers knew? If Dominic Cummings is to be believed, the Department of Education knew.
– Mary Harrington
Read the whole thing. Nothing less than a counter-revolution will fix this.
Labour spent decades denying the grooming gangs, now it dares to pose as on the side of victims.
– Tom Slater
Andrew Lilico, on CapX
“Our fiscal situation is hopelessly beyond the capacity of our politics to address it. Tax and spending is so high, and so concentrated in unproductive activities such as NHS spending, that it is bearing down on growth, creating a doom loop of insufficient tax revenues to keep our debts from rising leading to increased tax rates leading to lower GDP growth leading to lower tax revenues. The only ways out are fiscal crisis, inflating away our debts or brute luck. What’s my guess? I’m still betting on luck, with new technologies boosting growth enough for us to escape, but crisis is getting nearer and nearer with every month that passes.”
When people start holding out for the whizz-bang potential of tech, or just plain luck, to take us away from the brink, things aren’t good. Plan for the worst, and hope for the best is a smarter strategy. At the moment, the UK, like all too many other developed countries, appears to be stuck in what Lilico refers to the “doom-loop” of sluggish growth, an ageing population, falling revenue, higher borrowing, and so forth. The term “doom-loop” got used a lot, I recall, during the pandemic, when some of our present discontents took a turn for the worse. Breaking free of such a “loop” will require a level of brute courage and honesty that, unfortunately, will be a tall order. I am not even sure how far down this path Nigel Farage of Reform can go – particularly if he is trying to woo disgruntled, “our NHS” Labour voters in the north, Midlands and other parts of the UK. As for the Tories…they appear for the moment to have gone on a sabbatical.
Where to turn for ideas? Well, I’ve started to read the books (here and here) on the UK’s economic plight by Jonathan Patrick Moynihan, who is a member of the House of Lords (“Baron Moynihan of Chelsea”), and a businessman and venture capitalist. The books are superbly written, and rather lovely items in their own right with the cartoons of famous politicians and pundits on the dust covers. They seem to chart a way forward. But at root the message is hard: cut spending, and shed a lot of functions.
The question, for me, is when and how does the work of pushing back against the current insanity start, assuming that Starmer, Reeves and the rest of these jokers see out a full parliamentary term.
At what point, for example, would an Argentinian-style chainsaw approach be required? Are we going to need a case of crisis treatment when all else has failed?
An hour ago the Twitter account “NHS Nurses”, @SocialistNHS, posted a video to Twitter that shows a fat White British man with a can of Stella in his hand and a Union Jack painted on his belly complaining about immigrants.
“They’re taking all our jobs,” says the man.
“What qualifications do you have?” asks the female interviewer.
Our man replies with a choice piece of nonsense: “None – they are taking all our qualifications as well”.
The NHS Nurses mock this reply with the words,
“They’re taking all our jobs and all our qualifications”
Jesus wept… Our NHS and social care is made up of highly skilled migrant workers
How can this ever be a bad thing?
It is in fact possible to conceive of circumstances in which this would be a bad thing. There is an obvious conflict of interest between migrant workers and native born workers – or would-be workers. To observe this conflict of interest is not to take a side, but it is stupid to pretend it does not exist. A commenter called Robert Ferguson raises another way in which “Our NHS” being made up of migrants is not necessarily a good thing when he says, “Stealing other countries healthcare workers is not a good look.” I think Mr Ferguson’s belief that workers belong to their states of origin is fundamentally mistaken on moral grounds – and states which try to keep “their” workers by force are poorer than those which do not – but, still, the question of why this transfer of labour from Africa and South Asia to the UK takes place needs to be addressed rather than treated as a law of nature.
I found the tweet via this comment from a group called “Labour Beyond Cities”, who said:
A large swathe of the left is both too thick to realise this is an AI video and also too thick to realise that class hatred towards white working class people is strategically very poor, divisive and alienating.
So the stereotypical fat, white, useless, racist Brit in the video is not real. He was a little too exactly like a socialist’s idea of a Reform voter to be true. As one of the comments a proposed Community Note says, if you need confirmation, look at the gibberish written on the pub sign. And one can just about still tell it is A.I. by something “off” in the way the man moves.
In a few months we won’t be able to tell.
What difference, if any, does the man’s nonexistence make to the arguments involved?
Farage wants healthcare more like France, Netherlands or Switzerland, which all have a varying degree of insurance element. NHS was always a terrible way to do healthcare, which is why rest of Europe didn’t copy it
So, is it not ironic Reform party are open to at least exploring that kind of system, whereas the supposedly pro-European anti-Brexiteer elements who most depreciate Farage get the vapours at the notion of a more European healthcare system for the UK? 🤣
P.S. Before sharing this article with your friends and family, please be aware that the Government’s Prevent anti-radicalisation programme has recently declared that concern about mass immigration is “terrorist ideology”. A Prevent training course hosted on the Government’s website lists “cultural nationalism” as something that could cause you to be referred for deradicalisation.
Prevent, you’ll remember, is the programme to which the Southport murderer Axel Rudakubana was repeatedly referred from as young as 13. He went on to stab a number of children and adults, 3 of whom died.
Usman Khan, the terrorist who committed the London Bridge attack in 2019, was under Prevent monitoring when he carried out his attack in the middle of a prisoner rehabilitation event for which he had travelled to London. Prevent officers tasked with monitoring him had “no specific training” in dealing with terrorists.
According to the Prevent training guidance, if you believe that “Western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups” you will be referred to the very programme which failed to deal with them.
This is Britain. So think before you think.
– Konstantin Kisin (£)
To win back free speech, Britain needs a new constitution, argues Preston Byrne.
The problem:
What is happening today, it seems, is that the entire population of the UK is in the midst of realizing that whether a controversial idea may be safely expressed depends, in large part, on the hearer, and not the speaker.
Current law fails the rule-of-law test:
the law hands police and magistrates wide discretionary powers to decide which viewpoints are acceptable, depending on the social or political mood at the time and on the ground.
Legislation can not seem to fix the problem:
Because every legislative fix proposed in recent years has failed to address the root problem: the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. This is the idea that the King-in-Parliament wields unlimited power with no guardrails, and has long been a foundational principle of British constitutional order. The British state does not concede the existence of any legal limits on its own authority. Individual rights have become casualties of rigid adherence to this ancient doctrine, which, plainly, no longer serves the interests of the society it governs.
Byrne goes on to argue that the application of speech laws has changed over time due to fashion. The only real solution to that is absolute free speech like that granted by the US First Amendment.
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.
– David McGrogan
|
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.
|
