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]
|
Samizdata quote of the day The ever-rational, ever-eloquent, ever-humane Matthew Parris in The Times:
Many faiths and ideologies achieve and maintain their predominance partly through fear. They, of course, call it “respect”.But whatever you call it, it intimidates. The reverence, the awe — even the dread — that their gods, their KGB or their priesthoods demand and inspire among the laity are vital to the authority they wield.
Against reverence and awe the best argument is sometimes not logic, but mockery. Structures of oppression that may not be susceptible to rational debate may in the end yield to derision.
|
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.
|
Sorry to go off topic but I just heard that George Galloway has been arrested in Egypt. He has been denied entry to the country as a security threat.
A “Respect” spokesman just said about the police state, no freedom of speech, Mubarak regime, wicked etc…etc…
I’m going to have another shower and see if I wake up properly this time.
Rich: if true, that’s brilliant!
I’d just read the Paris article before I read Guy Herbert’s quote-of-the-day. Matthew Paris’ opinions are pretty much the only reason why I read the Times. His disagreement with colleague Ben McIntyre’s previous article on the cartoons was most welcome.
Mike, it’s true, he is apparently locked in a cell with 3 or 4 other undesirables.
I wonder if he’s on his knee’s yet asking “Would you like me to be the pussycat?”
mike – absolutely agree about Matthew Parris. A very fine mind and a fine writer. And Ben MacIntyre’s piece was ridiculous.
I think Matthew Parris has two problematic points in his article.
First is the point on over-sensitivity of some religions/cultures/countries (Islam, Israel, Turkey, Greece) to offences and self-censorship that it leads to; e.g. journalists censor their texts to make them “more neutral” and less “offensive”. I do not think any serious writer or artist would seriously consider limiting his expression of opinions merely because they can be offensive to someone – indeed I do not remember any galleries removing controversial works on Christianity, or Guardian limiting its caricaturist in the Israeli issues. What leads to real self-censorship is a real, tangible threat of death. Only because of inability to take the risk of death – one’s own and fellow citizens’ death – galleries remove anti-Islamic works, Danish editor writes that the cartoons should have never been published, and artists refuse to draw illustrations on Muhammad for children’s book. We have to admit that the West has nothing to oppose to this kind of censorship.
Second problematic point – is the one made on religions:
In my opinion these views are profoundly mistaken, and those who subscribe to them are under a serious misapprehension on a most important matter. Not only are their views not true for me: they are not true for them. They are not true for anyone. They are wrong.
I think that when dealing with religious beliefs at the level of “right” and “wrong”, the discussion gets down to the level of the Soviet “scientific atheism”: “Our cosmonauts went up there and made sure: there is no God”. In his non-believing in any God the writer is no more right or wrong then any of the believers – just because of the thing being a “belief” and nothing else. The logical exercises of proving that at the level of beliefs all religions are mutually exclusive do not lead anywhere and the main point is missed: what makes Islam to stand out of all the modern religions is the ability to demand everyone else’s subordination to its roles, and to punish the ones who refuse – with death punishment. It is again the attitude to death which makes the difference, and again – we’ve got nothing to oppose to it unless we admit that we need to take the risk…
this bit is a quote of course…
I always like Mencken’s variation: “One horse laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms”.
Does anyone here think that a sense of proportionality is needed? To receive a sour look from the Catholic Priest is NOT the same as a death-sentence fatwah of a Mullah.
Is subjugation the issue? Does anyone here believe their aren’t subjugated to some form of organization? Do you believe in Law and Order? Then you are subjugated. The difference is who is doing the subjugation. One is a government (Law and Order), the other is a religion (death-sentence fatwah). One (in a Democracy) is elected by the people. The other is appointed by God…. or elected in a Democratic Theocracy (Iran and others – if you believe these are valid elections).
This is typical transference…. Only the transference is done for a good cause. Which makes me itch even more..
Someone forgot to watch the sausages at the Danish embassy bbq in Damascus.
Against reverence and awe the best argument is sometimes not logic, but mockery. – Matthew Parris in The Times.
“Above all else, the Devil cannot stand to be mocked.” — C. S. Lewis
Really, the question of the belly laugh is exactly what this culture war is really about. These jihadists aren’t fanatical because they truly believe. They’re fanatical because they have no shred of proof left to believe, and they’re trying desperately to beat back the conclusion that there is no god in heaven and Mohammed was a fraud.
Julian, what you say appears to make sense until you understand that the original Islam was not peaceful in the first place, these people aren’t becoming fanatical because they are losing their belief, they are becoming fanatical because in a multi-cultural world they are searching for identity and going back to their old world religon.
Mohammed was a warlord and took part in massacres and sold the survivers as slaves and concubines.
Its not anti-Muslim hate mongers who say this, its writen about in their own history. Its not a secret.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AndrewBostom50820.htm
Yes mockery and ridicule has always been my first way of doing things, but I fear it may not be enough on this occasion.
Charles Moores article in the Spectator mentions the strange fact that all these Danish flags turn up on the arab street ready for burning in front of TV cameras! Now as those of you who have been to muslim countries know well, that Danish flags are not top of the re-stock order in the shops, so where are they coming from?
Who is provoking whom?
“indeed I do not remember any galleries removing controversial works on Christianity, or Guardian limiting its caricaturist in the Israeli issues.”
Journalists like MP working for the Times might practice a certain amount of self-censorship (or should I say ‘editing’?)when writing about Israel in order not to offend Israelis because that is consistent with the political bias of the Times. Journalists writing for the Guardian are more likely to write offensive things about Israel because – again – that is simply consistent with the political bias of the Guardian.
What you have forgotten here is that self-censorship may be made voluntarily for reasons other than avoiding a death-threat. It is one of the things that makes life in polite, civil society between free individuals work well. Yet self-censorship has a complementary aspect – voluntary ignorance, i.e. the act of ignoring views, artworks, people etc that you don’t like. We all know that sometimes, some individuals may simply be (knowingly or unknowingly) rude in our prescence and so we simply choose to ignore them. Muslims demand self-censorship from others without recognising the free choice of voluntarily ignoring the cartoons. That is just one more reason why there can be no place for them in a decent, liberal society.
“I think that when dealing with religious beliefs at the level of “right” and “wrong”, the discussion gets down to the level of the Soviet “scientific atheism”
No it doesn’t (and soviet ‘scientific atheism’ was merely a kind of PR stunt). Dealing with beliefs at the level of right and wrong is exactly appropriate. The very meaning of ‘belief’ is to regard a proposition as true, or probably true. At least, I am referring to rational belief of course (not belief in Allah). The point Matthew Paris made was that there are no rational grounds to warrant belief in god – and that that remains so, not simply for him but for everyone else who may evaluate the proposition that god exists – because reason is a universal property of the human mind… though sometimes I find cause to doubt even this proposition.
mike,
Journalists like MP working for the Times might practice a certain amount of self-censorship (or should I say ‘editing’?)when writing about Israel in order not to offend Israelis because that is consistent with the political bias of the Times.
That is not what Mr Parris says. He says columnists like him will trim their self-expression sometimes to avoid a predicatable avalanche of hate-mail. It is a question of personal comfort bought at small cost, not protecting, or inhabiting the culture of, the newspaper. (Getting even small quantities of hate-mail is not nice, I can assure you.)
Though in any case, The Times hasn’t a notable pro-Israel bias, that I, somone frequently critical of the country, can detect, Times Newspapers does not make its columnists follow an editorial line, and Parris in particular could go to almost any other serious paper tomorrow for a vast sum. Lots of people buy the Times on a Saturday mainly for him. (The audience for its other unique attraction, the Listener crossword is somewhat limited.)
guy herbert:
I stand corrected. Yet self-censorship in order to follow an editorial line surely does happen, and is quite voluntary and not necessarily connected with predictable death threats or indeed hate mail (though I know this does occur).
However the point I followed through with on voluntarily ignoring the views of others was my main thrust.
Not really – an academic discipline with compulsory university courses, textbooks, dissertations… I do not know what is “rational belief” anyway
This is exactly the point – the “death threat” censorship works effectively independently of the political bias of the publication. Leftist would call it “respect”, rightist would call it “responsibility” – but both at the end won’t publish the cartoons and excuse it with statements which they themselves will not buy in any other situation. No editor wants to be blamed – even indirectly – in some terrorist attack which was “the result” of a publication – no matter that that attack would of happen anyway in a bit different disguise
“I really hate the way some Israelis and their apologists become angry and rude whenever the state of Israel is criticised; the interviewees who jump down their interviewer’s throat the moment they dislike a line of questioning about Palestine; the readers who write — themselves offensively — to allege anti-Semitism when none was felt or intended, or bark at you if you talk about their “wall” rather than “fence”.
“There is no doubting the result of this habit: we journalists are forever deleting a line here or a thought there because of the barrage of complaint we know would otherwise come from the Israel lobby. But does that lobby realise how much unvoiced hostility towards their cause this fans?”
(Matthew Parrris, The Times, February 4, 2006)