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]
|
Nobody should be surprised. Nobody. We all know that if you keep picking at a scab it will eventually turn septic. You can only torment even the most good-natured of dogs before it turns on you and takes a chunk out of your leg.
Despite the ridicule and loathing that has been directed at them (much of it justified I hasten to add), the British National Party has scored another election success in the North of England, this time taking a local authority ward in Blackburn, the parliamentary constituency of the current Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw who has responded by issuing a desperate-sounding public plea for ‘more tolerance’ in our society.
He’s worried. He is right to be worried. And I’m worried too because, despite strenous efforts to market themselves as decent and patriotic, the BNP remains a viscerally nationalist organisation who pose as big a threat to liberty as their counterparts on the left.
However, panic is not yet due; this was merely a council by-election and the BNP are not about to take their seat at the top table of power. But, taken together with their other recent successes at local level, it has to be admitted that they are enjoying a growing popularity as well as building a plausible grassroots movement.
→ Continue reading: Ignore no more
Jacob Resler wonders what would have happend to Britain in World War II if the United States had taken an ‘even handed’ approach between the UK and Nazi Germany.
The British Government has imposed a de facto embargo on the supply of defence related items to Israel. A spokesman of the Israeli Defence Ministry by the name of Mr. Kuti Mor confirmed this in an interview. There were 130 items that the Ministry of Defence whished to purchase from British suppliers, but an export permit has been denied by Britain. British officials said it was their policy not to send military supplies to zones of conflict though they never openly declared an embargo. Most of the items were spare parts, and two of them have been cited as examples: one is a pyrotechnic charge needed to eject the pilot from Phantom fighter planes in emergencies; the other is a small engine used in unmanned aircraft (drones).
It seems Britain’s government idea is that the best way to fight terrorism is to punish its victims. In this Britain fits very well in the EU, it behaves exactely like France, Belgium or Germany. (I could not think of a worse curse). Interesting what would have happened in both World Wars if the US had adopted a policy of not sending supplies to zones of conflict. I think this piece of idiocy needs to be more exposed to the public.
Jacob Resler
Patrick Crozier pins the blame for the strike firmly where it belongs
The firemen (don’t expect me to use the virtue fascist term “firefighters”) have kicked off an eight-day strike. The Evening Standard (and I am sure a whole host of other worthies) have chosen to single out the unions for blame.
Poppycock. It is the sole responsibility of the government to provide firefighting services as no alternatives now exist. If it fails to do so then it is it (the government) and no one else who is at fault. If they find that they can’t sack striking firemen then that is again their fault for either signing no-dismisal agreements or making such action illegal (I am not sure which, if any, applies in this case.)
I think (but I am damned if I can find the quote) Enoch Powell once described unions as “pure as the driven snow”. He was right.
In expectation of an obvious comment… Yes, I know ultimately it is our individual responsibility to provide ourselves with fire-fighting services. I do not know if it would be legal or not to do so but the fact that the state usually provides one and taxes us for the privilege tends to crowd out the alternative.
Patrick Crozier
Frank Sensenbrenner sees the triumph of subjectivism in the British legal system. The victim’s perception of the nature of a crime now replaces analysis of the objective facts.
It seems that in David Blunkett’s Britain, it has become a greater crime to offend the opinions of a select class than to infringe upon their rights. Natalie Solent recently reported on Robin Page’s arrest. Mr Page, a reporter for the Daily Telegraph, was arrested for inciting racial hatred after stating that rural individuals should have the same rights to legal protection for traditional events as other minorities, such as blacks, Muslims, and gays.
At the heart of the subject is the definition of inciting racial hatred. A libertarian perspective would conclude that inciting racial hatred would be advocacy for direct action to deny liberties and rights to a certain race or group, as opposed to merely voicing bigoted opinions. No matter how repellent one’s opinions are, if one is only disparaging certain groups, as opposed to suggesting criminal action against them, it is free speech. After all, no one is forcing anyone who might be offended by free speech to listen to it. Most of history’s famous human rights campaigners such as Martin Luther King, Steve Biko, and Mahatma Gandhi used the same construct as Mr Page. They did not advocate hostilities against their oppressors, but demanded equal rights. Today, suggesting similar ideas is racial hatred.
There is deep hypocrisy in the enforcement of the Public Order Act in this context. While Mr Page stewed in prison for advocating equality, Sheik Abu Hamza and his cohorts preach the slaughter of infidels on the streets of London and by main landmarks. Surely proposing murder is a greater crime than proposing equality? Just a look at Al Muhajiroun is bad enough. While Mr Omar Bakri Muhammad is certainly free to preach whatever he likes behind closed doors, to allow him to advocate crime in public is too far.
In addition, the Public Order Act may go too far. According to an official government website, racial hatred is defined as threatening, abusive, or merely insulting behaviour. Also, was looking at what laws enshrine hate crimes against gays, and it looks even worse in that respect. According to Rainbow Network the perception of anyone that a crime was a homophobic or racially motivated attack is enough for it to be deemed so.
Therefore, Samizdatistas de Havilland, Carr, Cronin, Micklethwait & Amon, I look forward to seeing you as a fellow defendant versus The Crown when they get around to prosecuting the Samizdata Team for hate speech, as I’m sure there’s some idiot in Islington who’d deem Samizdata ‘hate speech’.
Frank Sensenbrenner
I’ve just run my beady eye over a draft of the Criminal Justice Bill conveniently printed in The Times but since non-UK residents have to subscribe I will refrain from linking (in accordance with the recent directive handed down by the Samizdat-buro).
Casting my mind back a few months, I distinctly recall that warm, fuzzy feeling of exuberation that only comes when the scent of a victory (albeit minor) is in the air. The scent in question was the aroma of cannabis which, HMG magnanimously informed us, was going to be ‘downgraded’ from Class B drug to Class C drug. Thus, whilst it would remain theoretically illegal, police could no longer arrest anyone for being in possession of small amounts for personal use.
Well, it was minor but worthwhile advance. Or so we thought, because the good news is that HMG has proved good to its word and cannabis is, indeed, to be reclassified as a Class C drug. The bad news is that the new Criminal Justice Bill gives police the power to arrest anyone found in possession of Class C drugs.
In short, we’re back where we bloody well started.
Triangulations, Third Ways and New Deals are all euphamisms for playing ‘Hide and Seek’ with reality. But reality is famously persistant and you can’t hide for long before it finds you. Then the game is up.
And even the ludicrously partisan BBC has to admit that the Labour government has a serious problem on the horizon:
“The Office for National Statistics said on Wednesday that the government’s coffers were £2.5bn in surplus last month, down by more than half on the same period last year, and well short of the £4.3bn predicted by analysts.”
The article points the finger at lower corporate tax takings but the real reason is that HMG has crossed over the Laffer Curve and further tax hikes will only result in diminishing returns.
This is a deeply worrying problem for a government that has ridden to power on the promise of an endless supply of lovely lolly to their core supporters in the public sector. That same public sector took them at their word and grows more militant by the day in its demands that HMG now cash the blank cheque they recklessly wrote to buy the election.
So the pot is empty and Chancellor Brown is left only with the option of massive borrowing to fund further spending. That means going back to the ‘bad old days’ of the 1970’s; something which Tony Blair has said repeatedly he is not prepared to countenance.
‘Hey reality, HMG is in the cupboard under the stairs’.
SCENE: A secret chamber underneath Whitehall. ‘Q’ is busy directing a gaggle of technicians when the sliding doors swish open. In steps OO7.
Q: Ah, Bond
BOND: Good morning, Q
Q: Off on another mission I hear
BOND: Yes. Her Majesty’s Government has gotten wind of a conspiracy by an International Hate Speech Syndicate. Seems they’re plotting to flood the civilised world with language that might be perceived as offensive.
Q: The Fiends!
BOND: Precisely. They must be stopped.
Q: You’ll need the proper equipment, Bond
BOND: Have you got my standard issue Walther PPK?
Q: Good grief, Bond! Are you mad? We can’t have people running around with guns. You might hurt someone. No, we’re going to issue you with these.
[Hands over a pair of brand, new trainers]
BOND: That looks like a pair of running shoes, Q
Q: Very observant, Bond.
BOND: Are they rocket-powered?
Q: No, but they are air-cushioned. If some snarling, evil henchman comes at you, you just slip them on and run like the blazes.
BOND: Hmm. I see. What about my Aston Martin?
Q: Sorry, Bond, but we’ve had to scrap that.
BOND: WHAT??!!
Q: It’s all part of our commitment to meet the targets for environmental protection agreed at the Johannesburg conference. You’re going to be issued with this bicycle.
[Wheels up bicycle]
BOND: Does it have any special features?
Q: It certainly does; it comes with a safety helmet and a set of knee-pads. Now do pay attention, Bond; you must never attempt to ride this bicycle without the proper safety equipment.
BOND: What about that silver gadget on the handle?
Q: Ah yes. Now if you press this little silver button here….
BOND: It fires a heat-seaking missile?
Q: No it’s a little bell that goes tring, tring, tring. Let’s everyone know you’re coming. Effective up to 5 metres.
BOND: I feel safer already
Q: Now remember, Bond, this is all the property of HM government and it has to be returned in one piece.
BOND: I’ll do my best, Q
[BOND turns to go]
Q: Oh and Bond……
BOND: Yes, Q?
Q: Do try to avoid seducing any beautiful, exotic women on your travels.
BOND: Is that because it may compromise the mission, Q?
Q: No, it’s because you may well end up in prison, Bond. Dismissed.
Anyone who recalls reading my report on the ‘Liberty and Livelihood March’ that took place in London (although ‘took over London’ is more accurate) in September may have been as struck as I was by the militant tone of the participants. They were very angry people.
Of course, such belligerent postures often turn out to be more an expression of bravura rather than a forewarning of intentions but if this report in the Telegraph is anything to go by, then maybe they did really mean it:
“Militant hunt supporters are threatening to sabotage essential services, including electricity pylons, gas supplies and food deliveries, in reaction to the Government’s decision to introduce a Bill that would ban foxhunting.”
Home-grown insurrection about to begin?
“The Real CA were hopping mad, really furious, and the talk was very serious indeed. They are talking about highly criminal acts, but they feel they have been driven to it.”
I can corroborate that the people on that march were, indeed, hopping, jumping and skipping mad but is the ‘Real CA’ real? One can never entirely discount the possibility that this is a Security Service operation designed to smoke possible insurrectionists out of the woodwork and neutralise them before they start actually embarking upon any campaigns of damage or disruption.
Certainly, if the Security Services were not aware of the ‘Real CA’ they most assuredly are now and, if the insurrectionists are good to their word, what is HMG going to do about it?
Tonight three North African Muslims were arrested by MI-5 and charged under Section 57 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, with conspiring to release cyanide gas in the London Underground (the subway train system).
The arrested men were said to belong to an organization that is part of Al Qaeda.
If only the British State would spend a great deal more of its appropriated money on this sort of legitimate operation and building up our highly professional but vastly under-funded military… and spend vastly less time and stolen money distorting our economy, abridging our liberties and generally screwing things up, we would be a great deal safer than we currently are.
I walked past the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police Service in Victoria Street yesterday and saw giant banners telling citizens not to call the emergency services number 999. The advice was that “unless a crime is being committed or a person is in immediate danger” one should call the local police station.
If I understand this notice correctly, if I should observe a murder being committed in the street outside my window, and I am quite sure the victim is dead (e.g. by being decapitated with a machete), and the murderer flees the scene of the crime, then I must not call the emergency services or risk being arrested for wasting valuable police time. Instead I should attempt to contact my local police station which is normally either shut, or the fearless crimefighters are hiding in back offices compiling hate crime statistics. As the typical response time for calling my local police station is never (at least on the three occasions in the past five years that I tried that route), this means that the police don’t want forensic evidence, and the corpse is presumably a problem for the road sweepers.
With the abolition of the right to silence, police licence to shoot people in the street for no good reason, and the removal of double jeopardy, there doesn’t seem to be much point in wasting time on detective work to actually try to find out who is really committing a crime.
Meanwhile hate crimes have their own hotline. This is useful. I’ve been bored with the usual tiresome ethnic jokes for some time. The fact that one can be arrested for telling a joke which someone finds offensive on the grounds of race, gender, and sexuality will obviously make London a safer place to live.
Moors murderess Myra Hindley has just died and is hopefully now burning in hell. Good riddance.
…does not mean it is not true!
In Brian‘s earlier article about why railways are the width they are, there has been much commenting about the veracity of the theory that it can be traced back to Imperial Roman times. But in those comment, it was claimed the English V-sign is also of largely mythical origin. I disagree.
The meaning of the V-sign is quite well known and I have not seen any better explanations.
The US gesture of extending the middle finger is clearly just a phallic reference (i.e. “f**k you”), but the English V-sign, which has some similar connotations (i.e. it is not a sign of endearment), has historical roots dating back to the 1400’s. If the middle finger is a gesture of anger, the V-sign is a gesture of defiance and above all, a threat. “It is with these two fingers that I use my longbow!”… Up yours, with an arrow!
Of course as with anything of this nature, it is more or less a matter of folk lore yet I have not seen any evidence to contradict the contention that the V-sign was indeed a gesture of defiance by common English soldiers towards the French, though my understanding is that it was not just associated with the Battle of Agincourt but was in general use during the Hundred Years War.
 
Both versions of the gesture made perfect semiotic sense and
were calculated to resonate with the ‘common man’ circa 1940
Since World War Two the V-sign, knuckles inwards, has come to mean V-for-Victory far beyond the shores of Britain. Knuckles outwards, it retains its more ‘earthy’ meaning. Yet Churchill would have been well aware of both the gesture’s significance and history. He intended to coopt both to use against Nazi Germany: Defiance and, to put it bluntly, Up yours.
The V-sign considerably pre-dates the European Union…
but do not think it is can only be aimed at foreign enemies
|
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.
|
