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]
|
Scott Rubush is far from impressed with all this technology and I, for one, am greatly relieved that, at long last, somebody has had the guts to speak the truth.
“technology does little to change the quality of life…”
Says Scott and…
“Hell, I live in the 21st century in one of the wealthiest cities on earth, and I still had to roll my arse out of bed this morning and go to work—at a computer terminal, no less”
How right he is. I, too, am deeply nostalgic for the days when I could rise from my rat-infested bed of straw in the middle of the night to milk a goat, bury a couple of my children and vainly try to dig a turnip out of the frozen soil with rudimentary hand-tools. Those were the days when we had real quality of life.
After all, what has technology ever done for us, eh?
Well, I suppose there’s the steam engine, the lathe, penicillin, vaccines and manned flight.
But, apart from those things, what has technology ever done for us, eh?
Okay, well, there’s electricity, the internal combustion engine, steel, oil fractionating, synthetic fabrics, rubber galvanisation, intensive farming and antibiotics.
But, all that aside, what has technology ever actually done for us, eh?
And I suppose there’s radio, radar, cine film, pasteurisation, central heating, the lightbulb, plastics, telecommunications, the laser, microwaves, invitro fertilisation, the integrated circuit, computers and, of course, the Internet.
So apart from steam engine, the lathe, penicillin, vaccines, manned flight, electricity, the internal combustion engine, steel, oil fractionating, synthetic fabrics, rubber galvanisation, intensive farming, antibiotics, radio, radar, cine film, pasteurisation, central heating, the lightbulb, plastics, telecommunications, the laser, microwaves, invitro fertilisation, the integrated circuit, computers and, of course, the Internet…WHAT HAS TECHNOLOGY EVER ACTUALLY DONE FOR US, EH??
Despite my best efforts to filter out the Olympics, the bru-haha about the Skating Gold Medal has managed to show up as a blip on my radar screen. If I have got this straight, a Russian pair was awarded the Gold and a Canadian pair the silver only that seems to have outraged the whole world for some reason (there is a war on, you know) so a gaggle of IOC apparatchicks went into a furious round of secret investigations and deals were made in various smoke-free rooms and, voila, now the Canadians have the Gold medal instead. Apparently the judges got it all wrong
Which leads me to a question: how does anybody know?
First of all, skating is not a sport. It is a hobby; a genteel pastime, especially when it’s called ‘Ice Dance’ which is skating for homosexuals
Secondly, how does anybody know who ‘won’? In football, Team A scores more goals then Team B. Simple. Team A has won. In Boxing, Fighter A is parading around the ring holding a belt while Fighter B is being carried out feet first. Fighter A has won. In swimming, Swimmer A makes his way across the pool quicker then Swimmer B. No arguments; Swimmer A has won
Now skating: Couple A does some circles, triple salkos and pirhouettes. Couple B does some circles, triple salkos and pihouettes. And the winner is…??????
Of all people, the Germans have gone and stuck the boot into the fledgling Euro. By rejecting warnings from the European Commission about their swelling budget deficit, they have done just a little more to hasten the decline of the Euro to the status of Monopoly money
The warnings in question arise as a result of the Germans breaching the Stability and Growth Pact drawn up in 1997 (mostly by the Germans, ironically) and which limited Eurozone countries to a ceiling on their budget deficits of 3 percent of GDP. Clearly an intended shackle on high-spending governments, it was seen as a bitter pill that had to be swallowed if the Euro was going to attract investment and prove a success
But, it appears, that the success of the Euro is as nothing when compared to the prospect of losing an election. Germany’s economy is deep in recession, unemployment is already at 4.5 million and rising and Gerhard Schroder knows that unless he can dole out the largesse before the next election then his name will be added to that growing list
The German deficit is already at 2.7 percent and will assuredly go over the 3 percent barrier in the next few months. The German government have told the Commission to go and take a flying f*ck but has promised to reduce its deficit to zero by 2004 (and if anyone believes that, then I have a bridge in Sarajevo to sell them)
The ‘Stability Pact’ balloon is going up, filled with all the hot-air about ‘reform’
Still, I couldn’t be happier. If Gerhard Schroder has done his bit to hasten the demise of the Euro then my Valentine Card is already on its way to Berlin to tell him that he has a not-so-secret admirer in London
Tony Adragna of Quasipundit has some interesting and provocative things to say about Libertarianism.
As a Libertarian, I welcome this. Tony is clearly a very intelligent and moral man (and, if he reads this, then I hope he takes those observations at face value because that is how they are meant) and he has done what every intelligent and moral person should do when confronted with any idea or philosophy: he has challenged it and challenged it well.
It would be tempting to respond be hectoring him about Libertarian ideas; tempting but unnecessary and probably counterproductive. Tony has obviously been more than a little exposed to those ideas and finds them wanting. As far as rebuttal is concerned, I shall confine myself to a rejection of his use of the term ‘anarchy’ when he really means ‘chaos’. The two concepts are quite different both in theory and practice.
But, of all his statements, this, for me, is the most telling:
“I think libertarianism is the most noble model for human society, but I don’t believe that humans can make the model work. Not yet, anyway…”
Whether intended or not, Tony pays Libertarians quite the highest of compliments. He is saying is, your world would be wonderful, if only it were practically realisable. The argument between us, therefore, is not about the worth of Libertarian ideas but about the nature of human beings and the societies they create.
But this is not why I applaud Tony. I applaud him because rather than display the reflexive conformity of so many otherwise intelligent people, he has taken the time and trouble to develop a serious critique and that is a good thing. He seeks not to dismiss but to engage. Rather than start a debate with Libertarians, Tony has done something far more significant and laudable; he has started a debate with himself.
All philosophy and political thought, of whatever stripe, has one goal: the improvement of the human condition. Welcome to the battlefront, Tony.
One of my one of my overriding concerns over the next couple of weeks is to avoid any TV coverage of the latest outbreak of ‘Olympic-itis’ from Salt Lake City. The last thing I want to do with what little and precious spare time I have at the moment is to spend it watching a bunch of po-faced fitness fanatics running up and down mountains and listening to a wailing selection of national anthems most of which sound like Turkey’s entry for the Eurovision Song Contest.
That’s what it all feels like to me: Eurovision on steroids, which is ironic given the Cromwellian intolerance of the IOC for any of their participants swallowing so much as a paracetamol lest it give any of them an ‘unfair advantage’. But I say let them take all the steroids they like. Who cares if they grow horns? In fact, let them grow six titties, four sets of genitals, a spare arse and a third leg. At least it would make the relay races interesting and that I would pay to see.
Short of that I think I’ll pass because former footsoldiers of the East German secret police dressed in sequin jumpsuits and doing triple-salkos is the very antithesis of my idea of entertainment and is it just me or is there something disturbingly reminiscent of the Nuremburg Rallies in those torchlit opening ceremonies? For sure the sight of all those glowing hopefuls being paraded around in their humiliating ‘national costumes’ with a ‘Strength-Through-Joy’ grin on their faces has a jumper-over-the-head factor of about 50. Those about to die of embarrassment, salute you!
I suppose it would be extravagantly churlish of me not to mention the transformation of Olympic events from taxpayer boondoggle to corporate sponsor-fest which, at least, has put a stop to the bankrupting of cities in which the spandex-circus was unfortunate enough to land. In those days they were not so much athletes as locusts in lycra, devastating a whole landscape before buggering off and leaving behind grand white-elephant stadia like monuments of a long lost race.
But corporatisation has had the unfortunate side-effect of morphing the games from dull and condescending expressions of post-war aspiration to multi-culti clappy-happy jamborees in which we are all supposed to enthusiastically join in North Korean style.
The Olympic Games are an expression of 20th century state collectivism; the manifestation of a time when ‘golden youth’ had to have spiffing lungs and rippling muscles in order to be productive citizens, a healthy individual meant a healthy polity and a nations worth could be accurately measured by how far its citizens could chuck a rock. The fact that the British usually collect less medals than an average French combat division is one of the many reason why I love this country.
The Olympic Games is an idea that has outlived its usefulness. At best it is arcane, at worst it is faintly sinister and, even if it were neither of those things, it would still be a dreary, nauseating waste of time.
“Don’t you ‘honey’ me, you worthless fuzz-ball you do nothing except lie around all day swatting flies and telling stupid jokes to all your moron pals while I have to strip all the meat and feed the kids. Have you ever lifted so much as a paw to clean this cage? My mother warned me about you, she said you were no good…”
[Thanks to dear friend and Samizdata reader Ed Collins for supplying the photo]
Two men have been killed and a third seriously injured after being shot by armed men in a pub in South London
Can anybody think of any historically-significant cultural or technological innovation to have emerged from Continental Western Europe since World War II?
[Editor: does Catherine Deneuve count?]
[Other Editor: how about the World Wide Web?]
[Reader Ken Hagler: “How about the VAT? You didn’t say it had to be good…”]
[Reader & blogger Mark Byron: SCUBA, Velcro]
[Reader & blogger Steven Den Beste: Audio cassette, laser disc]
[Reader Aaron Dickey: ABBA] hmmmm.
Update: Of course although the World Wide Web was created in CERN (Switzerland) Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor, was an Englishman
The ’38th Annual Munich Conference on Security Policy’ (will there be a 39th?) seems to be…shall we say, in a little difficulty. When the German press accuses the US of being on an ‘ego-trip’ one can safely infer that things are not exactly getting off on the right foot.
All the more so when you read accusations like this:
“The Americans call on the Europeans to spend more money on defence, while the Europeans accuse the Americans of being too self-willed and not interested in a real partnership”
For the benefit of non-British readers, allow me to translate the above phrase into English:
“The Americans are wicked for not sharing our crippling moral relativism and post-colonial guilt and selfish because they refuse to subsidise our defence costs while we pour all our resources into our bloated welfare sectors”
There is a wealth of analysis in the linked article but, for me, the most telling lines are in the conclusion:
“But the disquiet in Europe is not only about differences on security issues, or the war on terror, or the shift in the Middle East peace process. There’s another, deeper, perhaps existential (to use a favourite European word) element: all this is happening as the Europeans are trying to redefine exactly who they themselves are, concludes Newsweek”
‘Defining’ oneself is more usually about defining what your are against rather than what you are for. It’s a lot easier. It looks like the European elite is already well down the road to defning itself as against the US.
After the bite, after the infection has taken hold, Brad Pitt surrenders his earthly coil and joins the ranks of ‘The Undead’.
Tom Cruise commands him to “Look at the world with your vampire eyes”. He does. It is not the same world; it is not the world that others see. He sees a different, hidden, ‘other’ world of signs and symbols and secrets to which the living are not privvy. He moves through this new world and ‘turns’ others of his choosing. But there is no going back; no return to the life he had before, spent in peace and semi-blindess.
Brian Micklethwait is not a number; he is my ‘Lestat’
Our very own Tom Burroughs has long complained to me about the consistently venal and ugly way in which businessfolk are portrayed in TV drama. His highly meritorious complaint is picked up and expanded upon by Rand Simberg
Having spent a few years of my life as a jobbing scriptwriter, I have moved amongst these people and, from my experience, the anti-capitalist theme of much of their writing is no surprise given their almost universal woolly socialist outlook. I know that, in Britain at least, this is so overwhelmingly the prevailing paradigm that it is, to all intents and purposes, a hegemony
I have tried to examine the reasons for this and the one that I find most compelling is that their socialism is a reflection of their life experience.
Most of those who spend their lives pursuing artistic success will do so fruitlessly. Very, very few make it and, even those that do, have spent years in struggle and poverty. The cliche of the artist starving in a garrett is a cliche because it is largely true. The simple, seemingly eternal, truth is that there are way too many people wanting to earn their living from artistic endeavour than the market can viably support and possessing talent guarantees nothing
Yet, there is no paucity of effort on their part. A writer may spend years of his or her life pouring their heart and soul into a magnum opus that nobody wants to publish or buy. Nor are they lacking in cognitive faculties. Most writers are highly learned and articulate and many feel that, for that alone, they should be rewarded in some way but are not. It is easy to imagine just how rudely offensive they find it when a monosyllabic, uncouth market trader can go off to the City of London to ply his share-dealing skills and earn more money in a month than most artists will earn in any decade of their lives
That is what they find so wrong about capitalism: its indifference. It cares not a jot for sincerity and effort and craft and endows its riches upon those who fulfil the often flimsy and evanescent wishes of consumers. The dedicated artist whose fingers have bled in learning to play Shostakovich on his cello, but can’t afford to give up his day job, knows that something needs changing when Gerri ‘Spice Girl’ Halliwell (who gave consumers what they want, what they really, really want) builds another palatial home on the Cote D’Azur. It’s all so unfair
Just how much more attractive to any writer or artist is the warm embrace of socialism with it labour theory of value, its promise to support and succour artists regardless of their output, to banish harsh wordly concerns of homelessness and unemployment and build a society based on status rather than contract
There are, of course, exceptions. There are always exceptions but they are the exceptions that prove the rule. And, for sure, there may be other factors involved, most notably good, old fashioned peer pressure. Success as a writer depends upon acceptance by the notoriously cliquey world of the Literatti and either you lockstep or step out (I stepped out)
But it is my view that, lying behind all of it, is the almost unchallengeable belief that Mistress Capitalism is cruel, capricious and immoral and so are those who feed at her breast
Have you ever been more than a little aggravated by the snotty moral superiority of vegetarians? I know I have. I also know that I somewhat dismayed by growth in popularity of this fetish, especially among women. These days I cannot find a single restaurant in London that doesn’t have a ‘Vegetarian Section’ on the menu.
This shouldn’t be a political issue, merely a matter of personal preference. But, while a vegan society remains the aim of the Animal Rights movement, it is a political issue.
Thus far, in defence of my firmly carnivourous ways, I have always used the freedom of choice arguments against the accusations that I am promoting cruelty to animals, harming the planet and ruining my health (although why these people should concern themselves with my well-being is a mystery to me).
However, thanks to anthropology there is another, and better, rebuttal available. Thanks to recent discoveries about the early history of our species we have learned of the contrasting fates of two different but concurrent sub-species of early hominid; Robust Man (Australopithicus robustus) and Gracile Man (Australopithecus garhi).
Robust Man was a vegetarian. We know this because of the extraordinarily prominent sagittal crest found on its skull. This crest could only have evolved in order to provide an anchor for enormous jaw muscles of the kind required for rumination. That, coupled with large, flat teeth, lead anthropologists to the conclusion that Robust Man ate roots, tubers and plants.
Gracile Man remains, on the other hand, consist of a smooth skull and lots of sharp teeth. He was a carnivore.
The trouble with eating vegetables is that they are difficult to digest and require a large gut in order to do so. Meat, however, is easy to digest. So Robust’s metabolic energy went into the development of his huge gut and Gracile’s metabolic energy went into the development of his brain.
As a result, Gracile went from picking the marrow out of bones to develop hunting skills and eventually become us while poor retarded old Robust wallowed around on the floor of the forest and farted himself into oblivion.
So, the next time somebody tells you that meat is murder, you can reply yes, but vegetables are suicide.
|
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.
|
