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 kind of Cardinal At last, somebody is speaking the truth to flower-power:
An arch-conservative cardinal chosen by the Pope to deliver this year’s Lenten meditations to the Vatican hierarchy has caused consternation by giving warning of an Antichrist who is “a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist”.
My money is on George Monbiot. Quick, somebody check his scalp for birthmarks.
|
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.
|
If the Catholics are considering knocking off a few potential candidates, the two most likely anti-Christs are.
Peter Singer , Animal rights guru, spends most of his time try to get Poppers gold standard of science “falsification” junked so he can get a load of pseudo-science excepted as fact.
George Moonbat, sorry Monbiot, Fully paid up member of the Marxist/green left, originally in the National/International Socialist hybrid, gorgeous George Galloway’s Respect Party, also sentenced to life imprisonment in his absence in Indonesia.
Its a tough choice, But when Vatican rings me up for my opinion/consultancy , (I Will be charging bill on this one) ill go for Singer, he is the Karl Marx of our age, a very dangerous individual, once again its Death dressed up as Peace and Love.
Sorry folks that should be “ill be charging BIG on this one”.
I am just too excited, ill never have to work again, I am sure to be getting what Michelangelo got index linked! those catholic blokes have got loads. hallelujah!
sean, I have no idea what you are talking about
Or maybe its Al Gore.
Sounds like the sermon we need to hear.
He’s not alone in that view. I’ve heard Senator Inhofe suggest something similar, quoting Romans 1:25 “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator— who is for ever praised. Amen.”
In fact, that whole section of Romans 1 is pretty funny if you think of it as predicting a hippy anti-christ.
Perry, if the world is going to the dogs (Prof, Rees gives us a 50/50 chance of survival in this century) then we might as well join in the witch hunts and make some cash before the big day. ( the arrival of the Antichrist heralds the end of the world as for as I know)
Perhaps it could be a troika, in which case surely we should anticipate the Vatican’s next move and move swiftly on John Pilger, George Monbiot and Al Gore.
Ah, sometimes, every now and then, it’s just great to be a Catholic.
Surely, manuel II paleologos you’re Greek Orthodox?
J O Lennon.
J S Mill.
(Who of his own free-will on half a lager shandy was particularly ill)
I always hated that song. It is heartening to know that Mill probably would’ve concurred. We can only speculate on what he would’ve thought about Queen’s “Fat-bottomed Girls”.
Hear the words I sing
War’s a horrid thing
So we sing sing sing
Ding-a-ling-a-ling
Nick M,
That Lennon song always creeped me out. There is something so utterly death about it.
I think it was:
“Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too”
Anti-statist, you might say… 😉
The Contest in America did make a similar point, in the bit the above quote missed out:
“When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice–is often the means of their regeneration.”
I think it was the former case Lennon was objecting to. I think that as a product of his time, Mill might have had more of a problem with Queen than Lennon would have with the war to end slavery, but who can say? By the judicious choice of the invariants, historical counterfactuals can be made to come out any way you like.
Pa, I am afraid you are being too generous:-)
Cardinal Biffi said that Christianity stood for “absolute values, such as goodness, truth, beauty”. If “relative values” such as “solidarity, love of peace and respect for nature” became absolute, they would encourage “idolatry” and “put obstacles in the way of salvation”.
Amen to that.
Alisa,
You may be right. 🙂
Are solidarity, love of peace, and respect for nature really “relative values”? Does he perhaps mean lesser values that can and should be traded off against more important ones? Or is this a usage/application of the relative/absolute distinction I was previously unaware of?
And by “amen”, did you mean it in the Hebrew sense of “let it be so”, or the more modern colloquial one of “I agree”?
And what’s so bad about idolatry?
Sorry. Too many questions. The picture of the Catholic Church hunting down ecologists (as opposed to environmentalists, which I think is what he meant) and John Lennon being presented as a candidate for antiChrist has provoked the weirder side of my sense of humour.
Pa: just remember “Give Peace A Chance”, and it leaves no doubt what Lennon had in mind. I did like many of his other songs, though.
Yes, they are “relative values”, because they are conditional, because if they are not, they can be abused. Goodness, Truth and Beauty are not conditional, (although they can be objective).
“Amen” in the modern colloquial sense (I am a realist:-))
Being a secular Israeli, and having studied [parts of] the Old Testament from a purely secular perspective (as part historical document, part a work of literature/philosophy), I am accustomed to use the word “idolatry” as signifying falsehood in general, rather than its more literal meaning. Maybe it is not a coincidence that in the article it was put in quotation marks.
Love of peace is most definitely relative. Most peace activists strive for an ideal where violence is the currency of change. But they only call it violence when the other side uses it.
Respect for nature, also relative. How can someone who ‘respects’ a waterfall, be more respectful of nature than someone who studies partical physics? It’s relativism.
Solidarity? I prefer more tenuous connections to my fellow humans. And solidarity to what purpose? Again relative to the opinions of the speaker.
As for Lennon, you left out the next verse which begins
Imagine no possesions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
which could easily describe death, and then he descends (if possible) from there to total, no exceptions permitted, collectivism. However, my understanding is that if he stays dead, he’s not a candidate.
Mid,
I think I see what you’re trying to get at, but it still doesn’t look quite right to me. The criticism there is that the peace activists are hypocritical in calling for peace in one context and violence in another. That’s still not relativism in the sense in which I understand it. Relativism is when you say different moral systems are equally valid. Taking sides is when you say the rules for one group or cause are different from the rules for another. Hypocrisy is when you propound rules that you yourself do not follow.
If they openly said that violence is OK for terrorists but not for governments, that would be taking sides. If they officially condemn violence of all sorts, but somehow only seem to bring the subject up when it’s capitalist governments doing it, that’s hypocrisy. If they were saying that those calling for peace and an end to war, and those calling for more war were equally valid moral positions within their own contexts, that would be moral relativism. And if they were saying that we must respect all of these moral positions, and people are only to be judged by the local standards of their own cultural context, that would be an example of relative morals.
By your definition, would you say this includes when they only call it idolatry if it’s not veneration of the shrines and relics of saints you’re talking about?
In saying that, I’m not trying to have a go at Catholic beliefs – I’m nit-picking about the meaning of words. Given that this report is probably a translation from Italian, and has gone through the journalistic misunderstanding filter to boot, I don’t put much weight on it.
Yes, Lennon was talking about a hippy-communist utopia, and it’s garbage. But it was wars driven by nationalism and those to “convert/defeat the unbelievers” he was criticising. That he probably thought those were the only sort is a nonsense worth pointing out, but I don’t expect well-reasoned ethical philosophy in Beatles song lyrics. It is certainly funny that the guy who once claimed to be more popular than Christ should now be a suspect for antiChrist and I’m not saying it isn’t deserved; I just feel it ought to be for the right reasons. 🙂
(PS. In my book, McCartney is a stronger suspect because of abominations like “Mull of Kintyre” and “Frog Chorus”… is there such a thing as absolute musical taste, or is it all relative?)
John Lennon was indeed (at least at times) anti private proerty – although he was rather keen on keeping his own.
Thank you, Nick M., for reminding me that J.S. Mill wrote some good things. I remembered that quote after you cited it – I tend to be very anti J.S. Mill (I am not even wildly keen on James Mill) and, therefore, can forget his good side at times.
As for the Roman Catholic Church:
Only a few years ago the leftists were certain that they totally controlled it – what pain they must be in now.
I must admit (I almost typed “I must confess”) that I feel no compassion for the leftists in their pain.
They have not repented, so (not being a saint) I have not forgiven them their actions.
You might find this mildly amusing. I did.
97 + 108 + 32 + 103 + 111 + 114 + 101 = 666.
Those are the ascii codes for what string of characters…?
Numerology: could there be something in it?
The Kleptones did a remix of John Lennon referencing almost exactly this point: Imagine It’s Not the End of the World
Relativism is, in its broadest use, when the fundamental nature of something is determined by its relation to something else.
When ‘peace’ activists send gun wielding troops (police) to appropriate my property and redistribute it to those they believe are justly entitled to it, and when other people send gun wielding troops to appropriate a dictator’s property and redistribute it to those we believe are justly entitled to it, only one is an act of ‘war’?
This selective definition of ‘war’ in place of an honest statement of personal loyalty, is relativism of one very common kind. Words having different meanings depending on who you use them on…?
Regarding idolatry, I’m not sure how this fits with what you are saying, but ‘idolatry’ is by definition relative to the speaker.
“the journalistic misunderstanding filter” is always in overtime. No doubt you are right. After all, they know ‘the truth’, they merely need to find the evidence. 🙂
Regarding Lennon, I don’t think you understand him well at all. I believe in ‘Imagine’ Lennon was trying to achieve that ooom-chanting nirvana of separation from material existence. Without any exceptions I can readily recall, I much prefer McCartney. He his incredibly tied to material existence. I think this is one big reason I like his songs. Especially Wings era. Even his utter nonsense is couched in material sensations-
I had another look and I had a cup of tea and butter pie
and adapting to the very real properties of matter-
(the butter wouldnt melt so I put it in the pie)
and an absolute love of life-
Live a little be a gypsy, get around(get around)
Get your feet up off the ground
Live a little, get around
McCartney imagines somethingness. Lennon imagined nothingness. My friends who read Nietsche adored Lennon. Not me. And I’ve occasionally wondered if McCartney was consciously letting go of John and the whole Lennon/McCartney thing with his song Live and Let Die.
My jesting reference to Lennon’s candidacy was in strong part a shot at all of the religious people, including the speaker this post is about, who are so obsessed with ‘end times’. They are the equivelent of the roof top sitters of the 19 century waiting for the rapture. These people are neglectful of even the scripture they are claiming. “No man knows the hour” “Not even the angels”, etc. In other words, the real point of those passages is an admonition to be prepared, much as my mother told me to always wear clean underwear in case I was in a car accident. In no way did she intend me to look forward to, or in any way desire, a car accident.
[What an utterly bizarre thread this is becoming. Can it get any stranger?]
A pacifist and ecumenist? You mean, like Jesus?
– Josh
Pa, just so you know, I answered your questions, but for some crazy reason my last comment got caught in Samizdata smut control, although there was definitely nothing smutty in it…
The point I made in that comment that was eaten up alive was that subjectively these values are conditional (which is, of course, not the same thing as relative). I love peace, but to an extent, because there are things for which I am willing to fight, and even die. Solidarity? It certainly depends on what it is based – conditional again. I love nature, but I am not willing to give up my car and electricity in my house. Whilst values like goodness, truth and beauty are subjectively unconditional: I either find something good (as opposed to evil, not as opposed to bad), or I don’t. I either find something is true, or I don’t. I either find something beautiful, or I don’t.
Another comment I made is that in secular Israeli culture, of which I am part, the term “idolatry” is used as a metaphor for moral falsehood.
Alisa,
Conditional/unconditional is a very good way of putting it. (I had been racking my brain trying to think of one, and missed it. Thanks.) Yes, I’d certainly agree with that.
Point taken on ‘idolatry’. I think the Church tends to use it that way too: as something so obviously bad that you don’t even have to think about it. I’m sure there are many Hindus and others who might think that was a bit prejudiced, but I’m not going to judge. 😉
Jesus a pacifist – not really (Peter was prevented from putting up a fight because Jesus had decided to allow himself to be arrested – not because it is always wrong to defend oneself, although there are various peace and love words you could quote).
Jesus an encumenist – absurd. I rather doubt that Jesus was a regular visitor to the temple of Athena (and so on).
Indeed the central feature of Christianity (like the Jewish faith) is its denial of other religions. To the Christian, Pagan Gods either do not exist – or are devils. Although some Christian writers centuries later (Tolkien springs to mind) came close to claiming that Pagan Gods were misunderstood Angels.
Just a thought – how old are you Josh? Left libertarianism tends to be doctrine of the young – but (for example) there are some people who will be celebrating the 40th anniversary of the “summer of love” this year who were about at the time.
Well, that comment did show up after all.
BTW, here’s an approximate etymology of the word “amen“.
A pacifist? Do you mean the Jesus who horsewhipped a bunch of moneychangers in the temple, or do you mean the Jesus who said that people who didn’t have swords should sell their garments to go any buy them?
Or possibly just Jesus Chavez, who beat the crap out of me in high school wrestling? I doubt that whore-chasing SOB was the messiah, though.