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]
|
Rockin’ all over Tehran There appears to be no end in sight yet to the rioting and civil disorder in Iran which is now entering its fifth day:
“This is just like it was before the revolution,” she added, recalling months of unrest that toppled the U.S.-backed shah in 1979.
How very interesting. Meanwhile, and strictly in keeping with Western press policy, Islamofascist nutjobs are referred to as ‘Conservatives’:
Conservatives blamed unrest on a U.S. plot.
Times must indeed be bad for the Mullahs. Their tin-foil hats are starting to slip.
|
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.
|
Tin Foil Turban. Or what ever you call those black round things that Khatami wears.
As long as the USG just SHUTS UP and STAYS OUT, this situation will likely sort itself out for the best. The mullahs shouldn’t get to use the “US subversion” excuse to abuse their population — let’s not give it to them.
Samizdata posters should, of course, continue to support Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Strong Property Rights in Iran, as loudly as possible.
Q: How can we best, as private individuals, work to support this potential “regime change”? We want maximum freedom increase with the minimum body count.
Islamofascist nutjobs are referred to as ‘Conservatives’.
They are conservatives. “Conservative” is context-dependent; it means someone who is defending the status quo, whatever status is quoed in any given place.
To second Den Beste, it’s an acceptable use of “conservative”. They didn’t write “Conservatives”, capitalised, mid-sentence which might have been a touch prejudicial…
What’s much more of a problem is the general media’s uncertain and confusing use of “right” and “left”, where “right” tends to be used in the same context as conservative, but with a more pejorative edge. (One recalls that during the anti-Soviet revolutions, the Communist governments were often “the right” to the BBC.)
So unforgiveable is it to be on the right, indeed, that where it is necessary to describe a right-facing political grouping that must be deemed respectable (the Aznar government in Spain, say), they are always “centre-right”.
“Conservatives blamed unrest on a U.S. plot.”
For once I hope the mullahs are right – i.e. the USG is supporting the protesters, though I doubt it. They should support them, protesters beeing for freedom and democracy and against oppresion.
Madison:
“As long as the USG just SHUTS UP and STAYS OUT”
No, the USG should not shut up and stay out – that would be delinquent. They should support as strongly as possible the protesters.
The “shut up and stay out” meme would have been appropiate if the USG supported the mullahs, which I trust isn’t the case.
“The mullahs shouldn’t get to use the “US subversion” excuse ”
They will use it anyway, no matter what the US does. At least the US can do the right thing, but, again, I doubt they are doing it as vigorously as they should.
Madison’s advice “stay out” is morally wrong. When oppressed people fight to shed their murderous oppressors – staying out, beeing neutral – is equivalent to supporting thr bad guys.
Guy Herbert writes:
“What’s much more of a problem is the general media’s uncertain and confusing use of “right” and “left”, where “right” tends to be used in the same context as conservative, but with a more pejorative edge.”
Mr. Herbert is quite correct. What is more, yesterday a BBC Radio 4 report did, indeed, refer to the theocratic monsters in Tehran as ‘Right wing’.
The Corporation (and much of the liberal printed media) frequently use the terms ‘conservative’ and ‘Right wing’ as shorthand for ‘unpleasant’
It’s all part of the continual drip-feed of Leftist propaganda in this country, helping to make any opinions that differ from the liberal-Left consensus appear absolutely untenable to a ‘civilised mind’.
I agree that the US should shut up and stay out. Liberty is always stronger when it is earned. US intervention at any level will merely give the nutters a straw to grasp at.
US intervention should be an option only when it is clear that the ruling elites are so brutally and firmly entrenched that a popular uprising is not an option. While this describes Iraq circa March, 2003, I am not yet satisfied that it describes Iran.
Besides, I tend to think that we Americans have our hands full with Afghanistan and Iraq. No overstretch, please.
“Earning” means doing something by one’s own effort on the first part, but that does not preclude assistance.
An Iranian girl is blogging with some compelling first person stories of the student riots. If you scroll down and have a strong stomach, she has links to pictures from the aftermath of the suppression of the students.
Although things could change, I suspect overt outside intervention would be very counterproductive. Hopefully these protests will reach the critical mass needed to overturn the regime on their own.
Michael Dobbs writes today in the Wasington Post that the US doesn’t have a strategy on Iran.
Is that the same non-strategy that was used to such unfortunate effect in Afghanistan and Iraq? If so, let’s hope someone misplaces the road map too.
If the US has a strategy, people will want to know what it is. And if they know what it is, some people will carp because the strategy isn’t implemented.
Or maybe the “strategy” is the old “do nothing” option, ie, wait and see. With the Western elites’ propensity to jump on the US for whatever it does or fails to do, such a strategy makes sense.
>>Madison’s advice “stay out” is morally wrong. When oppressed people fight to shed their murderous oppressors – staying out, beeing neutral – is equivalent to supporting thr bad guys.<< I'm not saying that WE as individuals should shut up and stay out -- quite the contrary. I'm saying that an already overextended and unreliable organization -- the U. S. Government -- should stay out. The U.S. Government has an extremely bad reputation in Iran, and one that is well deserved. Training the Shah of Iran's torture-murderers doesn't exactly endear one to a population. Of course we should, as private citizens, support resistance to tyranny as individuals. Where do I send money, guns, etc?
Support for Iranian people today, and all the way up to and through the General Strike already called for July 9th, can best be shown 2 ways:
1) -according to an Iranian blog I just read-
by NOT DEALING with mullahs. Deny them any legitimacy. Simply urge America to NOT DEAL WITH them, in any way, shape or form.
2) support the strike coming up, informally and through our unions, NGOs and informed individuals. Support the people, and look for a Milosevic/Marcos type of resolution to this foment.
‘Nuf said for a minor Eye Opener.
T.J. Madison might want to know (actually he probably won’t) the most recent topic posted over at Instapundit:
IRANIAN PROTESTERS ARE EMAILING THE BBC WITH REQUESTS FOR AMERICAN HELP:
As Glenn would say, Heh.
I think the USG does have a strategy, and suspect it is working:
Make some supportive noises, convince the mullahs that we’re actually doing something, and wait.
Let the mullahs spend their efforts hunting down the non-existant “US agents and spies”. Let them spend time debating what we’re planning and/or doing. Conceal the grass roots nature of the real threat until it’s too late.
Perhaps the US’ rumblings about Iran’s nuclear program could shift towards a suggestion that it wouldn’t be so bad if a democratic Iran held nuclear weapons, but otherwise . . .
But back in the real world, the US’ reaction to the Iranian students, while not nearly as bad as its reaction to Tiananmen Square, feels like an afterthought. (We wait until the protests have been mostly put down and THEN we say something in support of the students!)
Matthew, it isn’t the responsibility of the US to be pro-active in every crisis in each and every country in the world. France is doing such a bang-up job in the Congo; perhaps France can assist the Iranian students.
>Jacob: Madison’s advice “stay out” is morally wrong. When oppressed people fight to shed their murderous oppressors – staying out, being neutral – is equivalent to supporting the bad guys.
I think it’s a mistake to focus on the morality of an action — focus instead on the morality of the result of an action. [further reading]
Jimmy Carter always did The Right Thing™. And it always backfired on him and on the people he was trying to help, throwing millions into slavery. George Bush is clearly A Bad Person™, a dumb and violent cowboy who acts immorally. Yet his actions have had the result of liberating millions. So who is really more moral? [further reading]
We’re not neutral in Iran. We want the mullahs out and the liberals in. What course of action will help bring about that outcome?
I can imagine cases in which bursting in, guns blazing, could have the result of helping the good guys. I can imagine cases in which subtle covert assistance could have the result of helping the good guys. Hell, I can even imagine cases in which tepid support for bad guys could have the result of helping the good guys.
And I can imagine cases in which keeping your mouth shut could have the result of helping the good guys. That is not the same as staying neutral. Sometimes the best support you can give a cause is quiet support. And I think I agree with Madison that that’s a good approach for Iran: if the mullahs are likely to fall anyway, why push them, when pushing will invariably generate a counter-reaction that may hinder the liberals?
Well, we want the Iranian students to SUCCEED, therefore it is better to leave France out.
Madison:
The USG isn’t terribly competent, but this doesn’t mean it should intentionally stay out. It should do the best it can in the right direction.
Iranian students have repeatedly indicated that they are not against the US, they want US help, they aren’t French, they aren’t Baath.
Heddleson:
“Is that the same non-strategy that was used to such unfortunate effect in Afghanistan and Iraq?”
I don’t know if that was meant in serious or in irony. Anyhow, that “non strategy” produced results that are way superior to the regimes it replaced.
Finally, just for the fun – let US proclaim in favour of democracy in Iran. That surely is in step with the general strategy of promoting democracy everywhere. Proclamations are cheap.
(A side benefit would then be – seeing the French and UN proclaim for the mullahs).
Reuters reports: “President Bush on Sunday praised pro-democracy demonstrators in Iran.”
We stayed out of Czechoslovakia in ’56, and it cost the Czechs dearly. We should be ready to back an apparently successful revolt with a modest, but prominent presence. Perhaps working with a select few Iranians to give them a few very surgical air strikes. Something to discourage the council of Mullahs to abandon mass meetings in favor of teleconferencing
Conservative indeed. At least they aren’t being called “Tories”