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]
|
Tony Millard strikes again with a Pythian observation.
The following words were captured directly from a radio broadcast – it’s an excerpt from an interview with Fortuyn a couple of weeks ago, in which he was complaining about his security arrangements, that is, total absence thereof:
…when I am killed or wounded then you (prime minister) are responsible because you give me no protection and you make the atmosphere in this country so poisonous that people want to hurt me…Pim Fortuyn, 2002
Tony Millard (Tuscany, Italy)
Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit takes a swipe at the awarders of the Nobel Peace Prize (May 7, 10:21:39 am), but I suspect him of misunderstanding the problem.
The basic problem of the Nobel Peace Prize is that it is awarded for effort rather than for achievement, and often not even for effort, merely for general niceness, and not infrequently for the kind of niceness that might well stir up a war.
My guess is that Glenn Reynolds disagrees with the Nobel Peace Prize awarders about the mere meaning of niceness, and that this is the basis of his disdain for them. I probably share his view of what niceness is, more than I do that of the Nobel awarders. But niceness is one thing; peace is quite another.
With the much more widely respected Nobel Prizes for various sorts of science, the awarders do the vital thing they don’t do with their Peace Prizes. They wait, to see if something of lasting value has actually been achieved. With science they often don’t have to wait that long, because with science the fact of significant progress is often clear for all to see.
But peace, by definition, has to go on for a decent length of time before it can reasonably be called peace. It is idiotic to award Peace Prizes to the signatories of a “peace treaty” before the ink is even dry. What if peace breaks down? Only time will tell if the lasting peace supposedly being attempted was in fact lasting.
Giving the Peace Prize to Shimon Peres for doing some “peace” deal or other in the Middle East a few months previously is idiotic, not because Perez is a bad man hell-bent on war (I don’t know what sort of man he is), but because he was so plainly still in the thick of the struggle and it wasn’t at all plain that peace would result. Surprise, surprise, it turns out that it hasn’t.
A decent Nobel Peace Prize ceremony would drag obscure old diplomats and forgotten statesmen out of retirement for well deserved pats on the back, for things they did thirty years ago, which, we can now see, caused a prolonged outbreak of peace in some hitherto intractable and now – because so peaceful for the last thirty years – utterly forgotten circumstance.
Examples? Can’t think of any off hand, what with peace being so unmemorable. Maybe readers of this can suggest some genuinely worthy Nobel Peace Prize recipients.
But I foresee further problems. One is that diplomats in their active phase tend to be older than star scientists. By the time you realise that a diplomat did a good job he’s liable to be dead. (Perhaps Nobel Peace Prizes should be awardable posthumously.)
And another even deeper problem is that the means of achieving peace can often be so not nice. Victory can be hideous in the manner of its achievement yet impeccably peaceful in its consequences, and hence in the total amounts of war and of peace that it gives rise to. Abject surrender can likewise do wonders for peace.
I recall witnessing a “peace” demonstration during the Falklands War, in Trafalgar Square. Said a plaintive placard: “PEACE IN THE FALKLANDS” (i.e. “Britain stop fighting”). Also saying “PEACE IN THE FALKLANDS” was a nearby news placard advertising the Evening Standard. For once, the instant prophecy proved correct. The British army, ignoring the “peace” protesters, had carried right on fighting and had on that very day won (as it turned out) the Falklands War, thereby establishing (as it also turned out) a period of peace which has lasted to this day.
Tony Millard seems to agree with the old saying that two is a party and three is a crowd.
I am always baffled by those (presumably the same heavily bearded Oxfam worker types) who seek to promote more immigration on the grounds that any decline in the UK population would lead to massive infrastructure and social problems – New Zealand seems to manage all right with less than 4 million for a similar area.
I can’t think of anything better than sharing our small crowded island with 40 million less people…
Tony Millard (Tuscany, Italy)
Tony Millard has a unique Chianti fuelled view of how to revitalise rural economies
Whilst I agree with the general premise that our welfare/benefit system is responsible for many of society’s ills, I am more concerned at the undermining effect of fossil fuels on the “working classes” (for want of a better word – meant in its historical sense, i.e. those with more forearm than forehead).
The artificially low cost per watt of diesel, particularly the untaxed, “farm” or “red” sort, has a hidden crippling effect on those parts of society whose principal selling point to employers is “grunt”. By providing an artificially low alternative to the working classes’ human energy, we radically reduce their earning power and status, with all the miserable consequences that that entails. Taxing fuel at a level to raise pump prices to say six times their current level, with a commensurate (i.e. total tax-take) reduction in income tax would have a number of benefits
1. augmentation in the status of the musclebound
2. re-focusing of local economies on local production
3. reinforcement of the rural economy by increased teleworking, local spending, and farm jobs
Basic manufacturing is already in terminal decline – the West can never again realistically be expected to compete with the likes of the Chinese in this area – and the service industry is less fuel price sensitive, and as such I am not yet convinced of the arguments that suggest a huge rise in imported products.
Pride and sense of purpose is an excellent societal glue – let’s re-value honest toil.
Tony Millard (Tuscany, Italy)
The Opinion Journal’s email newsletter has pointed out a real gem. It seems a group of rather uneducated people have decided the famous second book in the Tolkien series, “The Two Towers” was actually named by director Peter Jackson for the World Trade Center:
“Peter Jackson has decided to tastelessly name the sequel “The Two Towers”. The title is clearly meant to refer to the attacks on the World Trade Center. In this post-September 11 world, it is unforgivable that this should be allowed to happen. The idea is both offensive and morally repugnant. Hopefully, when Peter Jackson and, more importantly, New Line Cinema see the number of signatures on this petition, the title will be changed to something a little more sensitive.”
So we are left with only two equally astounding possibilities:
(1) Tolkien was more prescient than even Nostrodamus. Some Forty-seven years ago he foresaw the Twin Towers attack and that his second book would be made into a blockbuster movie in the following year.
(2) Jackson has invented time travel. He wanted to use a title relating to the World Trade Center attack but did not want anyone to blame him, so he travelled 47 years into the past, joined J.R.R and his friends in the Oxford local and suggested “The Two Towers” would be an excellent title.
If you want a laugh, check out the petition where over a thousand of the mentally challenged have recorded their intellectual incapacity for posterity.
The BBC‘s John Simpson was shown on last night’s TV news interviewing the late Pim Fortuyn. Fortuyn said something along the lines of: “we have guests who are trying to take over the house.” Said Simpson: “That sounds very racist to me.” Replied Fortuyn: “Give me a definition of racist.” At which point the BBC report ended.
I sympathise with Fortuyn on this. If ever there was a word that can mean several different things within the same conversation, or even the same paragraph or sentence, that word is “racist”. David Carr and I had an exchange on Samizdata not long ago in which I said that the number of definitions of “multiculturalism” was two, while he replied that it was zero. Number of definitions of “racist”? Well, let’s see how many we can think of.
- Believing that races differ from each other.
- Believing that races differ from each other in important ways, like intelligence or physical abilities.
- Believing that races differ from each other in important ways, like intelligence or physical abilities, for genetic reasons rather than because of cultural or environmental circumstances.
- Believing that because of such differences, members of different races should have different political rights.
- Believing that a particular group of people who are racially different are also different in their culture.
- Believing that a particular group of people who are racially different are also different in their culture, for genetic rather than historically contingent reasons.
- Not liking the different culture associated with a different race and wanting that culture changed, opposed, corrected, or confronted.
- Because of believing that a member of a different race is likely to be different in a particular way, believing that this particular member of the different race is himself likely to be different in this particular way.
- Believing that this particular member of a different race is different in this way, even when you have got to know him individually and know that it isn’t so.
- Believing that all the members of a particular race should be murdered.
I haven’t polished this list, or tried to make it exhaustive. I’ve listed ten different meanings, but if you took as long doing your version of the list as I have just taken doing mine, it would probably contain a different number of items, and if you took as long as you needed to get yours exactly right, your list would probably be a lot longer (as would mine). But my point here is not to start a “how many meanings and exactly what are they?” debate.
My point is merely the simpler one that according to some definitions of “racist” almost everybody is racist, while according to other definitions, hardly anyone is.
Who does not believe, for example, that races differ from one another? Who but a total ignoramus about the world and its ways sincerely believes that there is no such thing as a cultural difference associated with any racial difference, anywhere?
But, so frightened are we of being called racist that we would sooner deny everything on the list, whoever compiled it, rather than risk being thus labelled. The few brave or perhaps brutal souls who are prepared to admit to “racism”, that is, who tick yes to some of the items on the list, even as they strenuously deny others, demonstrate with their fate why denying everything makes sense.
Yet for the majority of thinking people to be denying everything is also very dangerous, because important truths get neglected in public debate, such as the exact truth about Muslim culture, and the exact things that ought, and ought not, to be done about this truth.
Equally dangerous is that if, under challenge from someone like Mr. Le Pen, any of the items on the list are admitted through clenched teeth to be true, it is then liable to be assumed that therefore the entire racist agenda, racist by any definition, has been acknowledged to be correct, when in fact defensive lines can be dug in between different items, and should be. It is assumed, that is to say, that the one huge defensive line must be drawn this side of “racism” by any definition. But this is to concede that no worthwhile lines can or should be drawn between different items on the list.
It is this latter syndrome that the nastier racists stand ready to exploit, as soon as any of their more obviously true complaints are conceded to have merit. I can see why lots of the people who read things like Samizdata want even quite nasty racists to do well electorally. Few of such readers are themselves nasty racists, but they want some of the more obvious truths about racial matters to be faced rather than funked in public debate. The trouble is that the nasty racists won’t stop there. They’ll use what power they are able to garner with the truth to spread untruths and to do truly nasty things.
For further intelligent thoughts on this subject, see Natalie Solent‘s posting last night. As for what she posted in the morning, let me just say: my sentiments exactly. Thanks Natalie.
Some good news today. The USA has renounced its membership of the International Criminal Court.
“…When you sign you have an obligation not to take actions that would defeat the object or purpose of the treaty,”
says US diplomat Pierre-Richard Prosper.
He actually, and rather diplomatically I suppose, understates the case. The effect of signing up to the ICC is to wrap a straightjacket around any effective means of self-defence. And that’s only the start of the problems which I go into in greater depth in one of my previous post on the ICC.
Whilst I am delighted, the usual suspects are already moaning about American ‘unilateralism and isolation’. I say we put a stop to that by following America’s example and making it ‘bi-lateral’.
Paul Staines points to a party which actually has some commitment to liberty.
I don’t vote, well the last time I voted was when Thatcher was leading the Tories. If you can remember those days, it was then that a political party that wanted to lower taxes, promote competition, roll back the state, maintain a fierce fiscal policy, privatise and deregulate got my vote.
What is more it wasn’t a fringe no-representative libertarian party, but a governing party. Well there is such a party once more – in Ireland.
The Progressive Democrats have done more for Ireland in the last five years than the other parties did in over 80 years. They brought into politics a party that wasn’t genuflecting to the Church nor tracing its lineage back to gun-runners.
As the Tories tack to the centre, my vote remains reluctantly lost to them, but the PDs, the only Thatcherite governing party in Europe, get my vote in principle if not practise.
The Irish election is coming up, see the Progressive Democrats manifesto.
Paul Staines
1)Who? and 2) Why?
Dutch anti-immigrant politician Pym Fortuyn has been assassinated.
First reports suggest he was shot several times outside a radio station in Hilversum by a lone gunman.
I think those tectonic plates of history just juddered. Stay tuned.
To nobody’s surprise, Jacques Chirac has been re-elected as President of France.
And, to the palpable relief of just about everyone, his margin of victory was such as to enable every pundit and politician to pronounce that the spectre of the ‘far right’ has been vanquished. I’m afraid I am not so persuaded.
Whilst le Pen himself has been defeated, the resentments and fears that temporarily elevated him have not and are highly likely to continue to fester and foment. For a lucid analysis of the reasons for the attractions of Radical Nationalism to the working class, I heartily commend this piece by Emmanuel Goldstein.
Whilst Chirac is, nominally at least, a man of the Right, his past record has often been characterised by a craven submission to left-wing ideals. His immediate and public acknowledgement of the part the socialists have played in re-electing him suggests that nothing will change.
Far from being chastened, the French left will be highly emboldened by this result. As far as they are concerned, it is they who put Chirac in power:
“”One can scarcely say that this is a victory for the right. It’s a victory for France,” said Serge Lepeltier, general secretary of Chirac’s Rally for the Republic (RPR) party.”
Already the BBC are attributing Le Pen’s defeat to the ‘street protests’ which were organised by the militant left. They are not going to let Chirac or France forget this and will demand a qui pro quo for their support which will mean that any ideas Chirac may have for deregulation or economic reform (assuming he has them in the first place) will have to be shelved and, again, he will be forced into a sclerotic coalition with the socialists.
At the age of 73, we have probably seen the last of Le Pen himself but let us not be fooled into thinking that we have seen the last of the Radical Nationalism he represents. How much more successful could it prove with a younger, fitter, smarter and more charismatic figure at the helm? In a country whose ossified political class promises ‘more of the same’, it can only be a matter of time before such a standard-bearer emerges.
Hernando de Soto seems to have had an immense impact on all of Spanish America, and most particularly on his homeland of Peru. Unfortunately you hear very little about Peru in the news other than Fujimori escapades or Shining Path villainy. This letter from Dr. Edgar David Villaneuva Nunez, Congressman of the Republica of Peru to Microsoft shows an entirely different side of government in Peru. It is much worth the read whether your interest is in the meta-context shining through it, or of the powerful set of arguments Dr Nunez makes for free software.
The story is in the letter so I will let Dr. Nunez provide the rest of the narrative.
Definition of a ‘barking moonbat’: someone who sacrifices sanity for the sake of consistency.
– Adriana Cronin
|
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.
|
