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]
|
I imagine that the life of a satirical magazine like Britain’s Private Eye or the hilarious Brains Trust website must be getting progressively harder when you come across the increasingly insane forms of real-life eccentricity sweeping much of the planet.
The latest example is this news story about the fact that Britain’s police forces, are, apparently, “too Christian” for the liking of many would-be recruits, and moves are afoot to change small details in police badges to accomodate this.
Now I am an atheist with no particular axe to grind on this, but I cannot help feeling that the growing willingness of old British institutions to lose any trappings of anything remotely “western”, “Christian” or, heaven forbid, “British”, is not something to be welcomed. It is a sign that our civilisation is losing its nerve. Little things like this all add up to something bigger.
Paul Marks puts a very uncomfortable question to English supporters of the British Union.
There has long been a debate, in libertarian circles, about whether there is a special commitment among the people of England (or the cultural institutions of England) to liberty – or whether England is much the same as other Western nations.
My own position is that (whatever may have been true in the past) England today is indeed much the same as other Western nations. The English tend to say that they believe in freedom – but when faced with one of the ‘hard questions’: Are you in favour of the abolition of the National Health Service? Are you in favour of the legalization of cocaine? Do you support adults being allowed to buy automatic rifles? and so on, support for liberty tends to collapse – it is much the same in other Western nations.
In formal politics England is also much the same as other Western nations. One of the two major political parties is in theory in favour of a smaller less interventionist government – the Conservative party. Yet when it is actually in government, the Conservative party is not very good at reducing the size and scope of government – but (again) that is much the same as the Republicans in the United States, the Liberals in Australia, the R.P.R. in France, the Christian Democrats in Germany (and so on).
But have a look at Scotland and Wales. The most important party is Labour (a party, whatever some people may like to think, that is overtly in favour of ever more government spending and regulations). The Labour party is far more important in Scotland and Wales than it is in England and far more important than its sister parties are in other Western nations, but that is not the most important point. The second party of Scotland and Wales is NOT the Conservative party.
The Scottish and Welsh nationalists and the Liberal Democrats are all openly statist parties – and they are more important than the Conservative party in Scotland and Wales.
The Liberal Democrats in Scotland and Wales support the ruling Labour party (so perhaps can be discounted), but the major opposition are the statist nationalist parties.
In short Scotland and Wales have openly statist governments working for ever more government spending and regulations – and openly statist oppositions, working for ever more government spending and regulations.
This is not normal in the Western world. Is it in the interests of England to be bound to Scotland and Wales?
Paul Marks
Although the BBC was unable to prove that government officials had hacked its system, the staff were “morally certain” it had happened. Leaving aside the meaning of “morally certain”, this is a serious matter. The way this breach of the BBC’s already dubious independence was perpetrated was that one correspondent noticed that when he wrote a script on the newsroom computer for the next news bulletin “he would be rung up by Downing Street before it was broadcast and lobbied on a point or two”. This didn’t happen just once or twice and John Simpson, the BBC’s world affairs editor, claims in his new book that the tactics were part of widespread attempts by the government to pressure the BBC and other broadcasters into more favourable coverage of its politics.
Apparently, another BBC broadcaster said the corporation knew the identity of the hacker but lacked the evidence to make a complaint. This is the bit I can’t understand, as someone has to be at the other end of the phone persuading the reporters to temper bulletins that had not yet been transmitted. My first reaction would be: “how the hell did you know what I just wrote on the newsroom computer?!” It seems a measure of how unquestioning of the government the BBC must be, if no one has challenged their big brother tactics. Or is it just ‘cos its family.
Oh, and the government officials say:
This story is utterly ridiculous, complete drivel.
But then, they would say that, wouldn’t they?
When the state watches you,
dare to stare back
The awful disappearance of two young girls in Britain who were possibly lured to a meeting via the Internet and then kidnapped by some vile monster has renewed calls for a clamp down on the Internet. The sort of things being talked about to contain the perceived threat from on-line ‘paedophiles’ (by which people really mean pederasts) is fairly mild stuff but that is always how it starts out. I just hope that this is not used as yet another excuse for the Panopticon state to stick its proboscis ever deeper into our private on-line lives.
Jonathan Hanson has spotted some interesting parallels between Tinseltown and Downing Street
In ruminating over the current government in England, an analogy occurred to me that I hoped you might find worthy of publishing and/or commenting on.
It hit me that there are rather creepy similarities between the Blair left liberal machine and Hollywood’s current marketing strategy.
Hollywood is no longer interested in quality, only in what sells. The producers and directors strive to appeal to the lowest common denominator of moviegoer (constituent?), in a bald-faced effort to bring in the most money (votes). The content of the message is unimportant, as to whether or not it has a moral, a germ of spiritual inspiration, or the slightest connection to reality. Hollywood is happy to exploit minorities, the poor, violence in society, and numerous other causes, not in the name of justice, but in the name of profit. The result is millions of moviegoers sitting slack-jawed while being spoon-fed pablum.
Am I missing anything?
Jonathan Hanson, Tucson, Arizona
[Editor: No Jonathan, you are not missing a damn thing]
After the world cup, Wimbledon, the ‘presidential miscarriage‘ by Cherie Blair, the Prime Minister’s wife.
What is the protocol for such occasions I wonder? Street parties or condolence cards would probably seem vindictive or tacky. Perhaps we should ask if the ‘presidential’ family medical records can be accessed by the Westminster Council’s social services department under one of the pretexts offered under the Regulation of Investigative Powers Act.
Then it would be fairly straightforward to ensure that we could be treated to photostats of ultra-sound scans and blood test results in foreign newspapers if not British ones.
As I’ve just eaten, I’d rather not pursue this line of thought any further.
[Editor: Given that some responses have rather missed the point Antoine was making, let me point out that Tony Blair wanted to give mere local authorities the power under the Regulation of Investigative Powers Act the ability to access the private medical records of pretty much anyone. As a result, some lowly council functionary might have got hold of hapless Cherie Blair’s medical records involving her miscarriage and given how insecure local authorities are, they could have ended up in the press. Of course Tony Blair would not want that, but then why should anyone be subject to the state prying into such private matters? That is the point Antoine was making, not some vindictive jab at Cherie Blair]
‘Animal rights’ campaigners of the RSPCA were themselves the target of protests by rural activists who are having their entire way of life criminalised.
But the fact is, the establishment will not take any notice of well mannered protests by people from the leafy shires. Of course there is indeed an established template for a minority-within-a-minority group in the British Isles to successfully defeat a majoritarian tyranny, provided you are willing to fight your corner for many years.
Sadly that template is Sinn Fein, the ‘political wing’ of the Provisional IRA: if the deck is stacked against you, play the game by different rules, a fact that has not been lost on some of the members of the Countryside Alliance’s splinter factions… and those ‘splinters’ are rather larger than many care to admit.
Yes, that is right. Regardless of the facts presented about how nationalised industries fail in every other sector, the moral (it is funded by theft) and intellectual (it makes no economic sense) arguments against a socialist health service that is based on force backed appropriation has fallen on deaf ears in Britain.
So how about a purely utilitarian analysis based on life and death? The NHS is institutionally incapable of not perpetrating horrors like this. If you pay taxes in the UK, that is what you are paying for. On nothing other than utilitarian grounds based on self-preservation, do you still want the NHS to survive?
I occasionally use the NHS myself under the logic as as the state forces me to contribute to it regardless of alternate arrangements I might make, I may as well use it to recoup at least some of my own money. In fact I am going to submit to its ‘tender cares’ tomorrow. Wish me luck!
Calling all you former anti-Apartheid protesters of years gone by: do you miss the comradery of old days standing in front of the South African embassies in London or Washington DC or Paris in protest at a regime that treated people not as individuals but just as a collective racial category? Have you not been able to bring yourself to throw out the old placards and tee-shirts? Well have I got some great news for you! Britain is introducing overt political Apartheid and so your time has come again!
Huh? You’re not interested? Oh, I see… it is only so called right wing collectivist racial discrimination you were against, not collectivist racial discrimination itself.
Sorry to have bothered you.
Paul Marks marvels how the insidious bias of the BBC can even mislead a hardened sceptic like him!
Even people who think they are cynical about what they see and hear from the BB. can still be fooled by it. I give as an example myself.
On Monday the 5th of August I watched and listened to the B.B.C. report that there had been the worst one month decline in manufacturing industry since “Mrs Thatcher in 1979” (cue film of Mrs Thatcher).
“Yes [I thought to myself] Mrs Thatcher was very unwise to accept the pay rises that the Labour government had promised to end the winter of discontent – if only Mrs T. had ripped up those agreements on coming to power (on the grounds that the Conservatives had not signed them) and had taken on the unions at once (when the people were strongly against the unions) then the line could have been held on government spending and taxes need not have gone through the roof [as they did in the first years of Mrs Thatcher’s government] and the recession would not have been worse here than it was in other nations”.
Then in the small print of the newspapers today I read that the month in 1979 that was being referred to was January (Mrs Thatcher was, of course, elected in May) . The BBC fooled me totally.
Paul Marks
When I read this first paragraph in a longer piece about Rowan Williams the intrinsically hilarious next Archbishop of Canterbury (he even looks funny), I could not help but marvel over the sheer linguistic and logical absurdity of it
ST DAVID’S (Reuters) – The future Archbishop of Canterbury has been made an honorary druid at a colourful pageant in his native Wales, but he denies that the ceremony makes him some kind of pagan.
Actually it does indeed mean precisely that. The next Archbishop of Canterbury has been made ‘some sort of pagan’, namely an honourary pagan. The Druids are a pre-Christian order whose spirituality is by definition pagan: it pretty much has to be if it is pre-Christian! The Archbishop designate has allowed them to make him an honourary Druid, therefore…
I suppose having some facility with simple logic is not a pre-requisite for a job of such passing consequence to the Church of England.
Ah yes, we must all be thankful for those liberty-loving dudes over in Brussels for saving us from the predations of the British State, according to Antoine.
Well, he’s partly right; the British State is predatory but to look to the EU or the Human Rights Act for salvation is to jump out of the British frying pan and into the European fire. If Antoine cared to trawl through the archives of this blog alone, he would find himself confronted with ample evidence of the lunacy and petty tyranny that has been imposed on us since joining this wretched Reich. This is a trivial, but sadly typical, example
There is no paradox here except that perhaps the British State could afford to be marginally less predatory if it wasn’t for the £1.8 million per day that they must collect from the British taxpayer in order to contribute to the Euro-coffers (and thereafter distributed to Hamas among others). Now that is a f*cking paradox! Besides, we all know that it is only a matter of time before all taxes get harmonised across the EU and nothing ever, ever, ever gets harmonised downwards.
I cannot wait for Antoine’s next mind-boggling invocation: support Chinese Maoists because at least they put an end to foot-binding?
|
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.
|
