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]
|
My previous posting about ‘ironic Jihad’ was satirical but this is certainly not!
The militant Islamic group Hamas is urging followers to conduct a three-day ‘electronic Jihad’ on Jewish websites, starting today, Novermber 29th. Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Los Angeles said the latest find this week was particularly alarming: “We have had numerous hackings back and forth between Israeli and Islamic sites since the Intifada began two years ago.
But this is something we have not seen in some time. There seems to be an entire portion of a We site which is devoted to a ‘how to’ get involved in that kind of activity.”
The term ‘Jewish’ websites could mean anything from Israeli government sites to any company that does business with Israel.
Apparently, the same way bloggers are using the Internet as a forum for ideas and for additional sources of information, increasingly computer literate Islamic groups are using it to transform the Islamic and Islamist world and to circumvent official sources of information.
“….The Internet has become not only a battlefield, as this announcement would seem to indicate… of electronic wars, but it is also a key element in propaganda battles in Arabic, Persian and in English.”
The irreverent Brainstrust reports how “devastated victims on all sides of the Miss World riots have claimed that they were merely trying to make an amusing point in an ironic manner and that their opposite numbers ‘have no sense of humour at all’.”
Read here about a comedy fatwa and call for a full-scale ironic jihad… It’s Friday, for God’s sake!
Yesterday Perry and I went to see the Aztecs exhibition at the Royal Academy of Arts in London. The event has been widely advertised, commented upon and heralded as “once in a lifetime opportunity to experience the grandeur and sophistication of this once great civilisation”.
It was certainly unique – most of the Aztec artefacts were for the first time shown outside Mexico and the exhibition presented a powerful image of the extinguished culture. It also felt rather alien, without any reference point to a known cultural context. Greek and Roman art is familiar, and we have grown accustomed to aesthetic norms of other cultures – Indian, Far Eastern, Arabic, Egyptian, Assyrian etc. We have come to terms with the diversity and varied beliefs across history and view them with a tourist’s curiosity and fascination.
We have also restrained ourselves from pronouncing any judgement on other cultures and their ways, satisfied with our understanding of why they did things the way they did. We only heap judgement and condemnation on the European ancestors and their evil, corrupt and dark ways – slavery, imperialism, feudalism, colonialism, fascism, unrestrained capitalism, the list of -ism is long, conspicuously lacking Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism… But I digress.
And so I encountered an uncomfortable paradox. The Aztec culture was bloodthirsty, obsessed with death and killing in a way that surpassed any other civilisation known to us in its cruelty and disregard for human life. At the exhibition you can see the stone across which they bent the humans about to be sacrificed, sliced their breastbone open and tore the beating heart out to offer it to one of their insatiable blood-craving gods. There is also a funny looking vessel, with a carpet of little blobs on its surface, complete with a lid to keep the stench of human skins of the flayed victims of Aztec religious rituals. The surface is meant to look like human skin turned inside out. How artistic and in the best possible taste!
Kneeling Cihuateotl. (one monkey) Stone. The British Museum, London. Photo © The British Museum, London
Yes, there are also many splendid works of art. A rattle snake carved out of stone, a stunning jade mask that was a valuable Olmec antique to Aztecs themselves, numerous statues of people, gods and animals, breath-taking in their beauty and strangeness. The Aztecs’ artistic skill, however, did not make them a civilisation worthy of respect and propagation.
Mosaic mask of Tezcatlipoca, Aztec. Human skull, mosaic of turquoise and jet, eyes of shell and pyrite. The British Museum, London. Photo © The British Museum, London
Their society was rigidly ordered and controlled. It was totalitarian and authoritarian in the most sublime matters and in the most trivial. It required human and blood sacrifice and its warriors were used almost exclusively for capturing humans for sacrifice. It also prescribed to a minute detail what people were allowed to wear depending on which class they belonged to. OK, the last one may sound just like a typical feature of a feudal society with its rigid medieval hierarchy but believe me there is a difference. For the Aztecs, the only good death was a violent death and they believed that dying as a human sacrifice was one of the most ‘valuable’ deaths. Dying in childbirth was another one. Go figure. They also believed that sacrificing humans was essential to all existence. Their gods required blood and without it the sun, moon, earth and other bits would cease to exist. By the time of the Spanish Conquistadors this cosmology ‘required’ them to sacrifice 10,000 people a year in their main temple.
Sacrificial knife, Mixtec Aztec. Flint with turquoise mosaic handle. The British Museum, London. Photo © The British Museum, London
Now, if someone tells me that it was alright for Aztecs to kill 10,000 people, ‘cos the poor dears believed that the sky will fall on their heads if they don’t, I would tell them that they have lost their marbles. To me it is a manifestation of a primitive and barbaric civilisation that was doomed. And if it wasn’t, I am glad it was exterminated. I do not agree with the Spanish Conquistadors and their methods any more than I’d agree with raiding for sacrificial victims but Aztec culture was demonic. I am glad I can see what the Aztec artists created and marvel at their talent and skill but I rejoice that they are in a museum.
I want to be able to condemn what I see as evil in their civilisation just as we criticise societies in our past and present. So in the West we have animal rights activists who would not allow us to wear fur coats but will admire a civilisation whose priests wore skins of their human victims until it rotted off their bodies (their heads too, yuck). Of course, to them it’s not the same, for we want to fiendishly protect our bodies from cold, or God forbid, adorn ourselves (how beastly!), whilst the Aztecs symbolise renewal and the preference for human skin was merely part of their spring festival (how quaint!).
Just like the masterpieces of da Vinci and Michelangelo do not suggest that the contemporary societies and their rulers were just and equally inspired in their expression, let’s not confuse the strange appeal of Aztec art with the inhuman nature of their society. I may be inspired by the Aztec art, but there my inspiration ends and so does my admiration for their culture and civilisation.
Greece has banned the sale of living dead dolls – kids’ toys featuring fiery eyes, scarred faces and bloodied mouths which come in their own little coffins. Oh, and the dolls also have their own death certificates.
 Playful Sybill Sybill is strapped in a strait jacket with a collar and chain while Inferno has auburn hair, fiery eyes and bat-like wings. They should be a hit with children who just love all things gory and gruesome. But no, the Development Ministry said:
“There is no way we will allow these dolls on the market…these toys constitute a serious threat to the smooth formation and development of the child’s personality and mental health.”
Unlike your knee-jerk statist interference., right? 
Germans are fighting back with humour! The country’s number one hit is called Der Steuersong (The Tax Song), and has found fertile ground in the hearts of a nation fed up with broken election promises and increasing taxes.
The song that shot to the top of Germany’s pop charts with more than 350,000 copies sold within a week is a spoof sung by Schroeder’s impersonator, Elmar Brandt, who has captured the mood of the country in the lyrics:
“Promises that were made yesterday can be broken today….”
“I’ll raise your taxes, I’ll empty your pockets, every one of you nerds stashes some cash away, but I’ll find it no matter where it is…”
“I’ll raise taxes now because the election is over and you can’t fire me now…”
“We could raise a ‘bad weather tax’, or an ‘earth-surface usage tax’, a levy for breathing, air’s going to become more expensive, and I’m only getting started..”
“A tooth tax for chewing, bio tax for digestion – nothing’s free anymore…”
Schroeder’s government of Social Democrat-Greens has slumped dramatically in voter surveys since the September 22 polls after breaking election promises not to raise taxes. On Monday Schroeder announced another new tax on equities and property sales – which the conservative opposition called the 49th new tax since he was first elected in 1998.
“I’ll rip you nerds off, you’ll be overpowered, I’m always in for a surprise…”
“There is no tax that I can’t collect. I want your bank notes, your sweaters, your cash and your piggy banks…”
“Dog tax, tobacco tax, car tax, ecological tax – did you really think that was the end of the line? Like a pirate hunting for income, I’ll raise all your taxes and if you’re broke, you can buy your food at a discount store or go hungry…”
I am not sure it sounds better in German (here is the full English translation) but the spirit of the song is sound. Ordinary Germans say that “it sums up what we’re all thinking.” Fed up with taxes? Well, what are you going to do about it?
China is pushing Hong Kong to enact the anti-subversion legislation, under which people found guilty of acts of treason, sedition, secession from, or subversion against the mainland government could be imprisoned for life. To you and me, any criticism of China or its leaders can be punished by being locked up for life. More importantly, Hong Kong’s constitution guarantees a wide range of civil liberties not granted in mainland China and the greatest danger of any anti-subversion law is the possibility that it would open a channel for mainland China’s laws to be applied in Hong Kong.
Britain has urged the government of Hong Kong to protect basic rights and freedoms as the former British colony prepares to pass the anti-subversion law based on the mainland’s broad notions of “national security” and “state secrets” demanded by the Chinese government.
Apparently, China is concerned that Hong Kong could be used as a base from which to subvert the mainland. What a splendid idea! But what is it that I read?! Hong Kong is required to pass some form of anti-subversion law under its constitution, which was agreed between Britain and China before the territory reverted to Chinese rule. The Hong Kong Basic Law is the miniconstitution that took effect July 1, 1997. The Article 23 prohibits foreign political organizations from conducting political activities in Hong Kong and forbids political organizations in Hong Kong from establishing ties with foreign political organizations.
For example, the proposed law could be taken to mean that as few as two Catholics who contact or sponsor a mainland Catholic community not recognized by the Chinese government could be charged with endangering national security.
China’s foreign ministry spokeswoman insisted the legislation would bring Hong Kong into accordance with general international practice. Although to us at Samizdata.net it often appears that general international practice is being brought into accordance with Chinese practices.
I have a better idea, why don’t they try a poster campaign instead?! 
I do not know whether the news of the fire service strike has travelled beyond the UK, but in case anyone is interested, here is the truth behind it: Today’s London firemen’s strike is the most outrageous bid for money since the Fleet Street print disputes of the 1970s. The system is being milked of money, and the public of sympathy. I admire the firemen’s gall and enterprise. They need no sympathy.
[…]
The Fire Brigades Union demand for 40 per cent in the face of the Bain Report may seem outrageous. But money is not really the issue. The issue is reform. Were the present shift system to go, 40 per cent is probably fair compensation and cheap at the price, especially if other Spanish practices go too.
[…]
Last year’s Tube strikes ended in capitulation by London Underground after a preelection call from a terrified Downing Street. This call sent an excited tremor through every London trade union. Tony Blair was an intervener. He would give in if pushed. The fire strike is the result.
It’s worth reading the whole article – it is the best analysis of the wave of strikes hitting London and the UK. London is chaotic at best of times, it is beyond chaos during strikes, but words fail me to capture the situation with an increased threat of terrorism thrown into the bargain…
Update: John Blundell of the Institute of Economic Affairs has some suggestions about how to run fire brigades.
In a comment to David Carr’s post, Alan K. Henderson asks whether Elizabeth the First would have delivered a speech like the one we got to hear yesterday by Elizabeth the Second. A pertinent reminder as the famous speech of her ancestor (in throne, not blood) attests not only to more balls but timelessness of (some of) the sentiments expressed: My loving people, we have been persuaded by some, that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit ourselves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but I assure you, I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear; I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good will of my subjects. And therefore I am come amongst you at this time, not as for my recreation or sport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live or die amongst you all; to lay down, for my God, and for my kingdom, and for my people, my honor and my blood, even the dust. I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart of a king, and of a king of England, too; and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realms: to which, rather than any dishonor should grow by me, I myself will take up arms; I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know already, by your forwardness, that you have deserved rewards and crowns; and we do assure you, on the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean my lieutenant general shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble and worthy subject; not doubting by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and by your valor in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over the enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.
Elizabeth I of England – 1588
That seems to point up a significant difference between Europeans and Americans. A European says: “I can’t understand this, what’s wrong with me?” An American says: “I can’t understand this, what’s wrong with him?”
-Terry Pratchett
Crime seems to be a flavour of the day in the UK. Today a battle plan to fight crime was unveiled by the government in the Queen’s speech opening the new parliamentary year. And a new advertising campaign was launched on Monday by the Metropolitan Police Service named “Help us cut out hate crime”.
I noticed such posters on Monday and at first I thought they were designed to change the attitudes of the potential perpetrators of hate crimes by yet another ‘awareness’ campaign. (The New Labour seems to be very fond of ‘awareness’ campaign managing to spend prodigious amounts of tax-payers money on pointless and expensive advertising.) My immediate reaction was that of incredulity that anyone could imagine that plastering posters on the Underground would change anything, let alone someone’s bigoted and hateful opinions. Or do they believe in subliminal advertising?
No, the truth is far less subtle – the campaign urges victims of hate crime or those who have information about it to come forward. A name, an address or even a description of offenders will enable police to target criminals and stop the ‘abuse’. Adverts will appear in newspapers and in a number of gay, ethnic and disabled press titles, and on the Underground. There will also be a hate crime and domestic violence radio campaign as well as posters appearing on washroom panels, the underground, and on trains.
Yes, it may seem a good thing to encourage victims to come forward. But that would be more effectively and properly achieved by restoring our confidence in the criminal justice system by making sure that criminals are arrested, sentenced and jailed in timely and effective manner and that victims are not ignored or forgotten in the process.
The effect, if any, of the campaign will be an atmosphere of paranoia at the local community level. Abuse of the system will ensure that. Imagine the trouble you could cause to a neighbour you dislike by simply reporting on him for alleged domestic violence:
“reported cases of hate crime and domestic violence received by the MPS will be, where appropriate, passed to local Community Safety Units (CSUs) for investigation, otherwise handled by local borough police.”
But the scary bit is the bit about the hate crime itself, defined as abusing people because of their race, faith, religion, or disability, or because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transsexual. The danger is in the shift from the emphasis on one’s actions that can be classified as criminal acts – murder, rape, theft etc to an entirely different and vague area. Yes, it says ‘abuse’ but so does ‘substance abuse’ and nobody is encouraging drugs to come forward to report on their junkies. Suddenly, the crime is in the eye of the beholder and although it is correct that the victim is the obvious one to do the seeing, it is not correct to encourage the seeing of crime without providing a clear definition. It is precisely such vagueness of definition of hate crimes that encourages victim culture.
I have been of the opinion that Saddam Hussein will say ‘yes’ to the latest UN resolution, based on his opportunity to simply buy time and to exploit the rifts in Western opinion and short-and-shallow attention span of the Western public. I was not surprised by the Iraqi parliament’s ‘defiance’ since Saddam is the top man anyway. But Salam has more to say about it all: Nobody inside Iraq even bothered to tune in to hear what the parliamentarians had to say, while Al-Jazeera thought it was worth live coverage. But the Iraqi government did make it worth while for them. Who would have thought that they would reject the resolution? My money was on the Iraqi Parliament accepting the resolution and Saddam reluctantly giving the OK because that was the “will of his people”. Now I am very interested in the speech he will make to “justify” the acceptance of the UN resolution despite the recommendation of the Iraqi Parliament. (not that he has to justify anything or listen to recommendations, but since the whole thing was public he will make his views known, he likes to give speeches).
I may share Salam’s opinion but I can only imagine what it is like to be there:
As much as I find the resolution unfair, provocative, unrealistic in it’s demands and timeline, vague enough to allow for all sorts of traps I hope saddam does accept the resolution. Only to buy us time. It is a lose-lose situation for the Iraqi people no matter how you look at it. The USA is still talking of regime change, I think Iraq will not go past the first 30 days before the USA shouts “foul”. And in a case of war I do believe that if saddam has any biological or chemical weapons he is very likely to use them on his own people to give the CNN and Jazeera the bloody images everyone doesn’t want to see.
It’s not just a question of whether it is right or wrong to fight war with Saddam. The blogosphere has been throbbing with arguments for and against. On this blog we know which course of action to defend. So far the Big Picture, that we are used to seeing both in current affairs and history, rarely includes the individual (usually he is the one driving it, often by means of oppression and violence). Salam’s lone voice reminds me of millions of human tragedies that do not get played out on the world stage.
The blogosphere may be one way of redressing the balance. Reading Salam’s interpretation of events has had a tremendous impact on my understanding of reality of the war on Iraq. I cannot conceive of such information originating from the traditional media. Not only because I do not have faith in their abilities and motivation, but simply because they have not been designed to fulfil such role. They correspond to the Big Picture view of the world, together with historical analyses, diplomatic discourse and political decisions. The media claims of unbiased reporting and enlightenment through controversy ring hollow as there is a mismatch between their explicit role and understanding of their own limitations.
So Salam’s blog is important, not only in the context of the current international events. For now, I just hope that individual voices will become audible more and more.
As I checked the on-line version of the Evening Standard, a London daily, for an update on yet more travel chaos in the capital, I ended up in the newpaper’s chat room. The posts covered a range of topics from strikes in the UK to German economy, Gordon Brown, the EU, etc. I was fascinated by the following opinions and encouraged by an unexpected degree of common sense they contained.
On Gordon Brown, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer:
Comparatively other European economies are worse off than ours… for now. The strikes [ed.note: London tube drivers, fire fighters, airport staff] were inevitable. As soon as Brown started raising huge amounts of tax (direct, indirect, stealth, overt, personal & corporate) and making such a great play out of how he was intending to chuck vast quantities of cash at public services without insisting on reform, the unreformed public sector was always going to demand its ‘fair’ share.
In a way, we can thank Brown. He has finally proved, beyond all shadow of a doubt, that old-fashioned socialism with a Treasury-centred tax-and-spend doctrine is a failure. In the past, plenty of excuses have been trotted out about how enough money wasn’t spent to really make a difference. Now, Brown has thrown unimaginable amounts of money, particularly at the NHS… and there is no visible benefit.
It is long past the time when Brown should put the brakes on spending until reform has been carried out. He is throwing good money after bad… our money. He intends to raise taxes further and further because his pride won’t allow him to admit that he has got it wrong. He will end up sacrificing British jobs, industries and competitiveness on the altar of his own enormous ego.
Great Chancellor? Ha! The man has the economic instincts and ability of a whelk.
On German economy:
It’s Economy has tanked. Many small Businesses are closing down due to massive tax and bureacracy. The Unions have way too much power here and the cost of employing people is outrageous. We need a Maggie Thatcher here to deregulate everything and make Germany competetive again. The only light at the end of the Tunnel is the success of the Euro.
Reply: Christ, it must a f***king dim light then.
On the EU:
Every new regulation from the EU seems to add to the pile, and the language of the EU is that Britain should become more like these countries, not that Europe should become more competitive.
[ed.note: to a Europhile in the thread] Do you understand? Do you see why so many of us find your seemingly blind adoration of all things Euroepan so laughable?
What we have now [in the EU] is a ‘club’ for failed socialist politicians where ineptitude, corruption and waste are rewarded by monolithic undemocratic structures. The main political agenda is set by France, whose selectivity in implementing the outcomes are legendary and Germany, which is drowning under the very rules it has helped to create.
How sound is that?! 
|
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.
|
