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]

Almost live from the Pro-Saddam Hussain/Anti-liberation of the Iraqi People Protest

Not much commentary is needed really about his protest in London, but judging from the placards, more people seemed interested in Palestine than Iraq.

A rolling river of political incontinence

I guess they want to give Saddam time to develop nuclear weapons, thereby giving themselves someone else to protest against

… but Saddam Hussain not wanted for murder by Socialists Workers apparently

At least this one is amusing

I wonder if they could find Iraq on a map?
Hell, I wonder if they could find
Britain on a map

Actress & pro-totalitarian activist Vanessa Redgrave

One protester made the serious tactical blunder of assuming David Carr was in agreement with the marcher’s objectives. He explains the error of her ways.

I have never seen so many Arabs in London

This chap wants the world to look like that paragon of human rights and civic virtues, the Palestinian Authority

Socialist Dictators of the World Unite! And another guy was waving a Soviet flag (the picture of that did not come out unfortunately)

No, war will cease when men no longer stand up to fight against tyranny

Your intrepid blogger can feel his brains being sucked out…

All the usual people really. Yawn.

The Great Eye of Samizdata gazes at London

David Carr and I are off to take pictures of the Pro-Saddam Hussain/Anti-Liberation of the Iraqi People demonstration in London this afternoon… I hope to have a report up this evening.

The morality of private property

In response to a contention that I made in the comments section of an earlier Samizdata.net article that ‘wealth redistribution’ was intrinsically immoral, a commenter replied:

Have you considered that many people consider wealth redistribution morally right, and consider it morally right to use violence to achieve it?

Well I happen to believe in objective (albeit conjectural) truth, and hence objective (and yes, conjectural) morality, so the subjective views of other matter little to me when deciding what is and is not a moral use of violence. I understand that statist people think it is ‘moral’ to take my money under threat of violence. I also know that some people think it ‘moral’ to prevent mixed marriages, ‘moral’ to kill Jews, ‘moral’ to treat women as chattels, ‘moral’ to jail people for sodomy. So what?

To say my property is there for others to help themselves to is to negate the very existence of several (i.e. ‘private’) property, which is of course what paleo-socialists are quite up front about wanting to do and modern socialists want to do in the fascist manner (i.e. allow ‘private’ property whilst regulating its use to the point ownership becomes a meaningless notion).

Yet without several property, there is no modern western civilisation, let alone liberty, so taking my money is not just theft, it is an assault on civilisation itself, and I have no objection to using violence to defend it. I am all in favour of shooting burglars that a home owner finds in their house, so my views on tax collectors and the people who sent them (i.e. anyone who legitimises what they do) should not be hard to figure out. The only reason I am not out shooting people and putting bombs in cars is a purely utilitarian cost/benefit analysis that it is not the most effective way to secure my liberty and the liberty of others. Those who love liberty can (mostly) play a waiting whilst economic reality has its way with the nations just as it did with the Soviet Union, but that does not mean fighting figuratively and literally for liberty is not moral. In fact, it is really one of the most moral reason for fighting there is.

Ban everything!

Richard Madeley & Judy Finnigan, a well known pair of daytime television presenters on UK Channel 4, are the epitome of Middle England sensibilities, not to mention falling hook line and sinker for whatever PR hype is trawled in front of them. When they saw the music video for All The Things She Said by the teenage Russian lesbian couple called TATU, they were so shocked that they are demanding not just a boycott but that the TATU single be banned.

So yet again we here are told by the self-appointed guardians of ‘morality’ that things which they find distasteful or threatening should be suppressed by force of law. I can almost hear Ivan Shapovalov, TATU’s creator and promoter, chuckling as these idiots take the bait and provide his winsome couple with a whirlwind of free publicity.

Disturbing to some, it seems!

Well given that TATU’s single looks like topping the UK charts, I guess not all that many people agree with these statist prigs.

For those of you who are not upset by lesbian schoolgirls in really short skirts singing infectiously catchy tunes, check out their live gig at the 2002 MTV Europe Music Awards (in English) or their rather splendid little OTT video in Russian (fast connection recommended for both links).

TATU singer Julia signs petition to ban Richard & Judy

Games for the future

The BBC on-line has an interesting article called never ending computer games about using vastly improved Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) to avoid linear pre-scripted games. Of course this is vastly harder to actually pull off than some people seem to think and in some ways a degree of control over events is essential to maintain an interesting and coherent story line.

Nevertheless, any giants leaps in A.I. has to be welcome as it may well lead to entirely new ways of ‘writing’ fiction, relying less on a movie-like approach of pre-scripted actions, but instead driving a story with a series of looser ‘objectives’ which can be solved in many ways, some of which might not have even occurred to the games writer, which is both a potential joy and a source of potential problems… imagine a Lord of The Rings Game:

  1. Gandalf lures the Nazgûl back to Hobbitton on a wild goose chase with a false reported sighting of Frodo having gone back there after his visit to Rivendell
  2. Gandalf summons his giant eagle ally (the one who he escaped from Isengard on the back of)
  3. With the Nazgûl safely out of Mordor airspace, Gandalf and Frodo fly over Mount Doom on their giant eagle friend, drop The Ring of Power into the volcano safely from 5000 feet up, Sauron goes ‘poooofff’!
  4. Frodo and Gandalf are back in Hobbitton in time for tea and biscuits the next day… done and dusted but rather an anti-climax!

The games designer had better be on the look-out for possible ‘elegant story killer’ endings!

A.I. characters would be ‘accented’, given objectives of their own and then populated around the game in certain contexts, at which point if the A.I. is good enough, the discreet A.I. ‘players’ will take act and react dynamically to event driven ‘reality’ so well that games would be vastly less predictable. It would however require a very different set of ‘rules’ compared to all forms of current fiction, making games more like a high tech form of ‘Dungeons & Dragons’, which is to say an interactive and much looser sort of fiction. Unlike D&D however, the games designer has to balance the game ahead of time rather than on-the-fly. This means good games design will be at a huge premium given that powerful new A.I. technologies will give us whole new ways to make totally crap games as well as transcendently good ones.

Saddam’s ‘useful idiots’

There are two anti-war movements… and I think both of them are wrong, though for quite different reasons. But it is the Old Left’s anti-war sentiments regarding Iraq which Janet Daly takes to task in her article in the Telegraph Answer this: do the people of Iraq deserve freedom?. Although I am not a huge fan of “hang ’em an’ flog ’em” conservatives like Janet Daly, I find myself in broad agreement with her on this.

Whilst I realise isolationists (many of whom are on the conservative right or are paleo-libertarians) who oppose the destruction of the Ba’athist regime are often a different intellectual kettle of fish and do not see themselves as give aid to a tyrant, it is the questions like the ones Janet Daly poses which cause me to describe the left wing/paleo-socialist ‘anti-war movement’ as the ‘Pro-Saddam Hussain/Anti-liberation-of-the-Iraqi-people movement’.

Beyond belief

Most of the British armoured vehicles being sent to the Gulf in preparation for war with Iraq’a Ba’athist Socialist regime will arrive not painted in the correct desert warfare camouflage, but rather in the European colours. Not enough money for paint? Did the fact the Army was going to go to Iraq somehow take the Ministry of Defense by surprise?

This shoddy state of affairs is a measure of the true attitude of the Labour Party towards the military they are about to order into action. Yet somehow they find money for welfare payment to asylum seekers and legal aid to burglars who want to sue householders who use force to defend their property.

Yes or no, Dr. Blix?

The mighty N.Z. Bear has a splendid article about what he would do if he was UN Secretary General for a day, fisking UN Resolution 1441 and Iraqi non-compliance. Good stuff!

Never bet on a Dictator’s rationality

I have liked many of Mark Steyn’s articles in recent months but in The Falklands War is a model of fierce good sense, he has outdone himself. he draws many useful parallels between the Falklands War and the impending war with Iraq’s Ba’athist regime.

Why would anybody think, faced with economic catastrophe, that invading a string of distant islands is the answer? Dictators don’t behave rationally. Indeed, one reason they become dictators is precisely to escape the tiresome constraints of rationality. There may be valid arguments for not going to war with Iraq, but not the ones that begin, oh, even if Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, he’d never use them against the West. Never bet on a dictator’s rationality.

This is Steyn at his best… read the whole article!

How not to make a single player computer game

After playing some excellent games like tongue-in-cheek No One lives Forever 2 and the the awesome & ultra slick Splinter Cell, I was starting to get the impression computer games were starting to really enter another era: an era in which equal attention is paid to scripts, story flow, voice acting and the ability to interact other than by shooting someone.

Splinter Cell: ultra cool
Shoot people, be stealthy, climb, jump, sophisticated interaction…
take hostages and extract information without saying ‘please’!

Boy was I wrong! Having just played Soldier of Fortune 2, I realise that even quality companies like Raven can produce clunkers. SoF2 is as linear and predictable as the original Doom, the cut scenes are filled with flat and indifferent declaiming and the characters are cliches (in itself sometimes amusing but in this case, not). Even the graphics are nothing to write home about. Level design ranged from uninspiring (“Ah, yet another blind corner… I might as well chuck a grenade as there is bound to be a bad guy lying in wait like the one before. And the one before that. And the one before that…”) to the idiotic (as in ‘my allies will try and kill me if I get too far ahead or behind the patrol I am helping to defend’…. riiiiiight) to the baffling (‘so I shot the guard dead with a silenced weapon, he was nowhere near the bloody alarm button and the alarm goes off anyway instantly? And the logic behind that is…??’).

Soldier of Fortune 2: suspect moustache
Shoot people, occasionally push buttons, try to hide (almost impossible)
plus shoot some more people… and then some more. And again…

I guess that the SoF & Raven brand names are responsible for the game’s excellent sales and I gather that multiplayer in reasonable in SoF2, but I would certainly urge anyone who likes a good plot line, thoughtfully designed scenarios or snappy dialogue in a single player game to look elsewhere and give this by-the-numbers First Person Shooter a miss… Deus Ex or Half Life this game ain’t.

This could be the start of something rather interesting…

After watching the news tonight, I am coming around ever more to David Carr’s way of thinking. Perhaps sheer irritation by the Bush Administration about the obscurantist stance of the French and German governments regarding the use of force to depose Saddam Hussain may achieve something I have long wanted to see… the end of the fiction in American minds that either France or Germany are in fact US allies in any meaningful sense.

This is the first step needed to de-couple the Anglosphere Atlantic Alliance from the legacy of World War Two and the Cold War. The first clear step that this process is under way will be the permanent withdrawal of most US forces currently stationed in Germany, a situation which is a costly anachronism in the post Cold War world. Maybe the opportunity will be immediatly post-Gulf War II, with the US troops currently based in Germany which are going to be involved in Iraq going back to bases in the USA instead.

I just hope the pompous Chirac and the buffoonish Schroeder keep plucking on the eagle’s feathers… sooner of later Blair, or his successor, is going to have to decide if they want to be on the side of history’s winners or history’s losers.

Hell, changing the name of N.A.F.T.A. to North Atlantic Free Trade Area would not even require reprinting all that stationary with the acronym on it!

‘Anti-liberation of Iraq’ protests in Washington

There is an interesting post by David Kenner over on An Age Like This complete with pictures he took, of the pro-Saddam Hussain protests in Washington DC. It is good to see a bit of blog primary reportage.

Also David has a picture of Protest Awards!: Most Offensive Banner.