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]
|
So government minister Clare Short is against a war in Iraq. That makes the following remarks all the most interesting:
The truth is this is a war. Wars are vile… It’s against an evil, monstrous regime that has caused a terrible war and displacement, raping and killing people. Now it is doing it again. This evil will be reversed. We will succeed, the sooner the better… But we will do what is necessary. It will be done and we will look after people and get them home…Please everyone think what is at stake here… This is a challenge for our generation. We must do what is right otherwise evil will triumph, Europe will have fascism back in it and all the instabilities that will lead to increasing conflict… Please be steady everyone. We’ve got to do what is right and we will do it.
– Clare Short, May 23, 1999, on the need for war against the Serbs (not OK’d by the UN).
So please will someone tell me… why is she opposed to a war to depose Ba’athist Socialism in Iraq? It seem that her claims that the UN must sign off on a war against tyranny did not matter when it came to Slobodan Milosevic, so what makes Saddam Hussain different?
We are always being told by those who oppose war against Ba’athist Socialism in Iraq of the downside… and although on balance I still support the armed overthrow of Saddam Hussain’s regime, on some of those issues I am all too aware that there is some truth to the fact this open ended ‘war on terrorism’ is also being used as an open ended ‘war on domestic civil liberties’.
However, let us also ponder the potential upside:
- Enough Americans will finally realizes that not only is the UN a body which allows blood soaked tyrants to stand up with impunity and take money from taxpayers in the USA, and this will push the US political establishment into seeing that the UN no longer serves any positive role… leading to US withdrawal and the UN’s financial collapse. Excellent!
- War results in the overthrow of a mass murdering tyrant who has waged wars against three nations in the region, and the Iraqi people end up almost immeasurably better off. Excellent!
- Tony Blair stands steadfast with the USA and the Anglosphere is once again shown to be the true repository of resisting tyranny across the world… Excellent!
- …and at the same time is fatally weakened politically by virtue of the fact the gulf between him and the grass roots of the socialist Labour Party have now been so starkly illuminated that it can no longer be finessed by spin doctors. Excellent!
- NATO is shown to be the anachronism it is and is restructured… and a new looser alliance of willing partners in Europe and North American emerges to take its place, without France and Germany… Excellent!
- … which also derails the terrifying prospect of a pan-European military alliance centred on the EU. Excellent!
- And speaking of the EU, now that France has broken cover with its remarks to Eastern Europe to ‘shut up’, I think the future seeds of the EU’s disintegration have been well and truly planted. Very excellent!
Always curious to know what US politicos are thinking about these turbulent times, I had dinner with Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) last night and made many of these points to him. Whilst I would not say he was happily endorsing my views, I did not see any grimaces or rolling of eyes from the urbane Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. Although he did not make me a convert to the joys of the ‘Patriot Act’, I was surprised to see the number of issues we did indeed agree on.
Of course I am well aware things can always shake out very differently as war and politics have a ways of springing surprises on even the canniest of customers, but sometimes things also have a way of turning out better than expected. Face it, nobody really knows what will happen.
Jeremy Sapienza wrote in his article called Only Terrorists Kill Innocents on Anti-State.com:
There seem to be many people, even in libertarian circles, who think that America was attacked because of abstract principles like “freedom” and “prosperity” and even “democracy.” And I didn’t want to say it, but so far it has been overwhelmingly true: the libertarians who would otherwise agree with the rest of us on most things but have done complete 180s here are Jewish. They support Israel blindly and fanatically, out of some allegiance to, as one writer put it, his “creed.”
[…]
It is a very easy concept to understand: the US government bombs innocent civilians all over the world, with hundreds of thousands dead in Arab parts, and so they hate us. They hate us because our government exterminates them like mosquitoes. So, in response to our government killing civilians, they kill OUR civilians. It is not right, but it is the only logical sustaining impetus for this utter hatred of Americans and our country.
[…]
Don’t worry, if we carpet-bomb Kabul there will still be Afghanis. I mean, they can still make more, right?
[…]
What the hell is the matter with you people!? Why are you so thirsty for innocent blood!? There has not been any arguments thus far that have convinced me that Muslims or Arabs are innately evil, or innately hate America because it is a prosperous, capitalist country. These are the ravings of people who are either lunatics or are too lazy to apply otherwise-heeded libertarian principles to their knee-jerk emotional reactions. Death is horrible. We should be working to eliminate it, not perpetuate it.
Well I am a so-called ‘pro-war’ libertarian, though 100% Goy, so I assume at least some of what is being written on anti-state.com is being directed at me and those of my ilk. However I do not support Israel 100%… in fact probably rather less that 50% if the truth be known.
Nevertheless I think it is clear that America was indeed attacked for abstract principles, just not ones like “freedom” and “prosperity” and even “democracy”. It was attacked for the abstract principles upon which the Islamic fundamentalism is based, which is to say ‘anti-secularism’ and as a corollary, anti-capitalism. You see Islam is indeed under attack in ways that really terrify fundamentalists the world over. However it should be obvious that the people who brought us the latest in Kamikaze tactics that bombing, and violent death generally, is not what frightens and engenders hatred from Islamists… it is an aggressive, global, unbounded secularism, whose carrier wave is a global and God-neutral capitalism which they fear. Not B-52s or F-16s or Tornados or Cruise missiles, but Playboy and Nintendo and banks-which-charge-interests and cheap DVD’s and satellite TV which mullahs cannot effectively control and so on and so on…
The likes of Al Qaeda want ‘us’ to leave ‘them’ alone… and by ‘them’ they mean the world’s Muslim population. But ‘we’ will never ever do that, because ‘we’ not really controlled by any authority who can make us stop making and selling whatever nominal Muslims the world over want to buy. And so out of desperation, the people to whom the very reason for their existance on earth is an imposed morality centred on certain abstract conceptions of God and Man which the secular world cares nothing about, attack us.
But Jeremy Sapienza does not see that, just the fact Iraq has been bombed since the ‘end’ of the last Gulf War, ergo that is the reason ‘they’ attacked ‘us’. And yet on September 11th the USA was not attacked by Iraqis angry at their treatment by the USAF, so I cannot see the relevance of Mr. Sapienza’s remarks about that being why ‘they’ kill ‘our’ civilians … neither was the USA attacked by members of the PLO or Hamas, who regularly get bombed by Israel, so I am not sure what relevance that has either… and just for completeness, neither were the hijackers that day Serbians who were pissed off about losing Kosova due to US and NATO actions, or German smarting over the end of the Third Reich or Japanese lamenting the loss of the South-East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.
For the most part they were Saudis… and I cannot off-hand recall the last time the USAF bombed Saudi Arabia.
But then I think the article about which I am commenting is just a litany of misunderstandings and outright fallacies…leaving aside the patently false and positively libelous notion that the USAF/USN intentionally targeted civilians in Afghanistan (or anywhere else in the last decade). I wonder if Mr. Sapienza realises ‘carpet bombing’ is a technical military term which actually has a specific meaning. If Kabul had been carpet bombed, it would look rather like Dresden or Hamburg circa 1945, with tens of thousands killed in each air attack.
So what is the matter with us? Well for a start, we are not ‘pro-war’… we are pro-liberation. If Jeremy Sapienza can come up with a way to end mass murderous Ba’athist Socialism in Iraq by using harsh language and grimaces and singing Kumbayah, then I will quickly become a generous benefactor of anti-war.com. Until that is the case, I do wish he would stop his knee jerk emotional reactions and realise that yes, death is horrible… and the best way to stop the epidemic of state sponsored death in Iraq is to engineer the overthrow of Ba’athist Socialism so that Saddam and Uday, and their coterie of thugs, end up hanging on meathooks in a public square in Baghdad.
You see, some libertarians see the world the way it really is and want to actually see tyranny overthrown with the tools at hand now and replaced with liberty and justice for all. Quaint but there you have it.
Yes we all know that what will follow Ba’athist Socialism will not be some libertarian nirvana, but it will be better that what is there now… if you are an isolationist, then call yourself an isolationist, I have no problem with that. Just don’t think you are taking a moral libertarian position. You ain’t. The article quotes the anti-war.com crowd, who are very willing to contemplate the cost of war and the benefits of peace… but that rather misses the obvious fact that the alternative to war in Iraq, right now, is not ‘peace’ but continued tyranny. So what is the cost of tyranny in Iraq, Mr. Sapienza… year after year after year?
So when he writes “Death is horrible. We should be working to eliminate it, not perpetuate it”… why is he so keen to see Saddam Hussain, the principle cause of unnatural death in Iraq, perpetuated? That may not be his desire, for I have no reason to think Jeremy Sapienza is an evil man, but that is the reality of an anti-war position.
In news which will surprise no one who has actually been following events and listening to what Tony Blair has been saying consistently for more than a month, it has been reported that 300 British SAS troops are already operating inside Iraq. God speed, Gentlemen.
Now please stop this preposterous charade of pretending to need the imprimatur of that exclusive club for mass murderers, thieves, thugs and tyrants (The United Nations) to justify anything whatsoever. We are already well past the point of no return, so just leave those friends of Saddam Hussain and Ba’athist Socialism who write for and advocate the views of the Guardian newspaper to their delusions of relevance.
The moon in silence goes its way and heeds no yelping cur.
knock, knock…
Melanie McDonagh, ever the dependable voice of anti-idiotarianism and reason, has pointed out the ludicrous thinking behind the latest changes planned regarding laws on domestic violence. The intention is to remove the defence of provocation, whilst at the same time introducing a plea of self-defence for women who kill after years of being abused… or as Melanie sums it up:
a killing that is premeditated for a long time will be treated more lightly; in another, a killing that was not premeditated at all will be treated with the maximum severity.
As one would expect from a socialist collectivist like Solicitor General Harriet Harman, because men tend to kill out of anger and women out of fear, the law will be skewed to in fact make that a presumption. This is not really English law so much as feminist law, treating men and women according to their category rather than as individuals judged on the basis of facts.
But murder, like romance, is unique to the couple concerned. And it doesn’t take much reflection to see that a blanket extenuation of self-defence is quite as likely to lead to miscarriages of justice as the blanket extenuation of provocation.
Quite so! This is a charter for murdering partners with whom a woman has a volatile (but not necessarily violent) relationship. The statue on top of the Old Bailey is ‘blind justice’, but no longer if you are male, it seems.
If you have played the computer game America’s Army, now you have the opportunity to try a… different… sort of real-life based first-person-shooter game:
Hizbullah has launched a computer game allowing players to simulate its fighters during military operations on Israeli soldiers prior to the liberation of the South. Special Force, which took two long year s of development by the Hizbullah Central Internet Bureau, hit the market on Feb. 16. The game consists of different stages all inspired by actual Hizbullah operations in the South. Players face the same conditions as Hizbullah fighters, including geographic locations, mines, the number of Israeli troops and even the weather conditions. Special Force also offers a training simulation, where players can practice their shooting skills on targets such as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and other Israeli political and military figures.
The medium of computer games is neutral… what next? A mod for a civilian airliner flight sim that re-creates some rather well known flights on September 11th? I would not be surprised. After that, maybe a ‘role playing computer game’ set in Poland in 1943 called Einzatsgruppen?
Unfortunately the good guys do not have a monopoly on creativity.
As the London based Samizdatistas are meeting for a booze up at the Black Widow Pub on Gloucester Road this evening, there may be a lack of new articles tonight.
It is good to see Mikhail Kalashnikov, the inventor of that fine weapon that was for so many years an icon of violent socialism, finally succumbing to full blown capitalism.
Coming to your neighbourhood soon… Kalashnikov umbrellas, snow boards and cocktails: products for real men!
More seriously, it seems only fair that the man who created what is pretty much the definitive assault rifle finally gets to make a buck or two out of his masterpiece.
(link via Kevin Connors)
Many of the anti-war protesters has been carrying placards with the slogan ‘Not In My Name’. Well if you voted in the UK, regardless of whether it was for Labour or Conservative or LibDem, then you gave your consent to the system which taxes me without my consent, so I suppose I am robbed in ‘your’ name. I was disarmed (by a Tory government) and forbidden to effectively defend myself in ‘your’ name. My rights to own property and control my own labour and capital are abridged into meaninglessness in ‘your’ name.
So when you say say about a war against the Ba’athist socialists of Iraq “Not In My Name”, please forgive me if I really do not give a damn if something gets done by the state that you do not like.
I do not think George Bush and Tony Blair want to topple Saddam Hussain due to an abiding concern for the Iraqi people, but frankly I really do not care why the statists who tax me are going to do it, just that they do it. Provided there is a net gain in liberty in Iraq, and it is hard to see how that could not be the case post-Saddam, then I am in favour of the violent and hopefully fatal removal of the Ba’athist thugs.
Do it for ‘Freedom for Iraq’, do it ‘because Saddam is a threat’, do it ‘because of links to Al-Qaeda’, do it ‘because the voices in my head told me to’… I do not care. Just do it!
You can even do it in my name if you like.
David Goldstone has written in with Why Libertarians should be for the liberation of Iraq but against the war. I have replied to his thoughts afterwards
Dear Perry,
I have every sympathy with those on Samizdata who support the forthcoming war. The thought of Tony Benn telling an Iraqi women why it is wrong for her people to be freed from tyranny is skin-crawlingly repellent. And as for the marchers yesterday, well if they against the war that is almost reason enough for me to be for it.
Almost reason enough, but not quite. In the final analysis, I still believe (and I say this with all respect to those who disagree), that the pro-war libertarians are wrong.
Let me say clearly that this posting is not addressed to those who believe that the war is justified on the grounds of pre-emptive self defence. I disagree with them but the debate between us is not a debate of principle, merely one as to the weight of the evidence. Rather, this posting is directed at those who would justify the war on the grounds that it will bring liberty to millions of Iraqi’s.
Let me also say clearly that I fully endorse the goal of bringing liberty to Iraq and I would willingly contribute some of my own money to pay for a military effort to bring about that end.
But others would not. And therein lies the contradiction for libertarians. How can we justify using force (viz tax revenues) to make others pay for a war that they oppose? If the U.S. or U.K. governments were to conscript people to fight to free Iraq, I am sure we would be loud in our condemnation. Yet taxation is at only one remove from conscription. Whether we like it or not, millions of people in the U.S. and the U.K. disagree with the war. We may disagree with them, but how can we as libertarians justify forcing them to pay for it? The implications are obvious and run counter to everything that libertarians stand for.
I would dearly love to see a compelling answer to this question because I would dearly love to be able to support the war. But so far, I have yet to see any answer to this question on Samizdata, let alone a compelling one.
David Goldstone
Well David, I actually agree with you more than you might suppose! Although I am less convinced than you seem to be that Saddam Hussain poses no actual threat to me, my primary reason for wanting to see the overthrow of Ba’athist socialism in Iraq is that I wish to see an end to tyranny, the death or imprisonment of its perpetrators and an increase in liberty for Iraq’s hapless people.
For me the only argument against this being done by the militaries of the USA and UK is that this requires the theft of tax money from US and UK taxpayers.
However…
What is done is done. I have been robbed by the US and UK states (the two places I have been paying taxes) for a great many year and the lavishly equipped volunteer militaries capable of overthrowing Ba’athism are already in existence.
As selling off the military equipment and returning a huge pot of my stolen tax money to me is going to happen when pigs fly, I am left with either watching the proceeds of my robbery slowly depreciate as they sit in military bases scattered across the world, or instead demanding that I at least get some value for my stolen money!
Just as I would rather have privately own roads, private police forces and private healthcare, in the here-and-now I at least what the state owned roads to have no potholes, the state owned police to prevent me being mugged and the National Health Service to fix me up when I am injured. I am after all being forced to pay for all these things!
And so… please take this volunteer military I was forced to pay for and go and kill Saddam Hussain. The state made me pay for the weapons and salaries, so bloody well give me some value for my money!
It is a strange experience finding myself supporting Tony Blair, the man who presides over my ongoing robbery by the British state, let alone quoting his remarks of yesterday approvingly, but I suppose these are strange times:
There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which, if he is left in power, will be left in being.
I just wish the people marching yesterday would spare us the nauseating claim to the moral high ground and, if they still oppose the war, just acknowledge that theirs is an emotional rather than a moral argument and that the reality of their position is that if they get their way, Iraqi people will continue to die at the hands of murderous Ba’athist socialism in Iraq whilst they smugly congratulate themselves on their ‘having prevented a war’.
Preventing the overthrow of the people who did…
this…
and…
this… 
… to the people of Halabja with a weapon of mass destruction (poison gas) is the reality what those marchers are trying to achieve.
Regardless of how you feel about George W. Bush or Tony Blair or capitalism or Israel or the Palestinians or globalisation or anything else, that does not change the fact that the continuation in power of the murderous Saddam Hussain and his Ba’athist thugs will be the consequence of appeasement. Is that what you want? Is it?
Bianca Jagger addressed the Anti-War protesters assembled in London this evening thus:
No matter how terrible a nation is, the UN charter forbids just overthrowing the regime. The war against Iraq is unjustified.
In other words, if the National Socialist regime has confined its programme of genocide against the Jews to Germany and had not invaded other countries, war against Nazi Germany would have been unjustified.
And there you have it… THIS is where collectivist thought takes you. To hell with an individual’s right not to be murdered by the state, because the state, the NATION, the collective, is what matters more.
Evil. Truly evil.
|
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.
|
