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]
|
Europe is swinging to the Right according to this article in the EU Observer.
In 1997 only three of the fifteen EU countries had Conservative governments. Now the figure is seven and the Portuguese are expected to elect a Conservative government this year.
However, expect no material changes. European ‘Conservatives’ (Christian Democrats) are not informed by classical liberal values and therefore tend to be, at best, centrist and, at worst, indistinguishable from the Social Democrats they replace.
Q: What is the difference between Argentina and Japan?
A: About five years
“Speciesism is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species. Speciesism is wrong for the same reason racism and sexism are wrong–because all beings interests should count equally. Peter Singer refers to this as “the principle of equality”. “All the arguments to prove human superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering, the animals are our equals”. For any individual who can suffer, the degree of suffering, not the species of the sufferer is what should count”
I promise that I have not made this up. It is lifted from the ‘Animal Rights’ section of ZNET which, quite deservedly, has a link in our ‘Havens of Fluorescent Idiocy’ section
Must rush now. I’ve got a member of another species nicely browning off under the grill.
Amidst the hand-wringing of the chattering classes about the fate of the Al Qaeda members now enjoying an extended break at Club Fed in Cuba, it may be useful to examine the claim that they are prisoner of war and, therefore, should be treated in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Convention.
The Convention they are referring to is Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and the defintion of ‘Prisoners of War’, contained in Article 4, includes ‘…militias and volunteer corps’. However, important provisos are set out in Subsection A (2):
“(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war”;
In order to be classified as ‘Prisoners of War’ militias or volunteer corps must satisfy all of the above conditions.
It is my view that Al-Qaeda fails to satisfy any.
(a) Al-Qaeda operates by means of an autonomous or, at least, semi-autonomous, cell structure. They are therefore not commanded by any identifiable person.
(b) Anybody seen the Al-Qaeda flag/symbol/pennant/banner? No, neither have I.
(c) Whilst the combatants in Aghanistan most likely did bear arms openly, other Al-Qaeda operatives moving and living undercover in up to 60 different countries around the world cannot possibly be carrying any arms openly.
(d) The attacks in which Al-Qaeda is implicated have, in most cases, been against civilian targets and devoid of any obvious or identifiable tactical or strategic purpose other than to cause terror and widespread fear. It is my view that is not within the laws or customs of war.
Therefore, it is my view that the US government has a very good case that the Al-Qaeda members do not qualify as ‘Prisoners of War’ and are, therefore, not entitled to the protection of the provision of the Geneva Convention.
Of course, this does beg the question of the status of the US actions. Do they constitute ‘war’? Well, possibly not but call it a ‘military action’ or a ‘police action’ if you will. For that matter, call it a ‘Ballroom Dancing Competition’; the point is to prevail.
Strange how this issue is kept strictly off of the political and media radar. Not a word about it on the BBC
But this is from the London Evening Standard
SCOTLAND YARD has ordered police in north London to wear bullet-proof vests at all times because of soaring gun crime — the first time such an order has been made in mainland Britain.
Officers in Haringey have been told protective armour should be worn on the streets even on routine patrols after a dramatic rise in the number of firearms offences.
In the past 12 weeks there were 300 emergency calls in Haringey in relation to alleged firearms, 109 of these resulted in evidence of guns being used or seen.
Bob Elder, chairman of the Police Federation’s constables’ branch, who is based at Haringey, said: “My colleagues are increasingly worried. In Haringey there are 999 calls about firearms activity on an almost daily basis.
“There is a heightened awareness of firearms issues in boroughs such as Haringey and Hackney and there is now a directive that officers should wear body armour on operational duty as a health and safety issue.
“We have pretty strong gun laws in this country but they do not seem to be having any effect.”
Is it possible that we taxpayers could have body-armour as well? Or would it be unsafe in private hands?
Rand Simberg made a cute observation about this war taking on Pythonesque dimensions which I find highly apposite in view of what the war has done to Libertarians.
Prior to 9/11 we were united in grim struggle against the predations of our respective governments and the ‘liberal/left’. Since 9/11 we have cleaved in two; now we are Anti-war Libertarians and the Warblogger Libertarians. The former find themselves lining up with Noam Chomsky and the latter have locked step with Christopher Hitchens. We fire pixelated Katushya rockets at each other over the Green Line of cyberspace
Of course they are now the Judean Peoples Front and we are the Peoples Front of Judea. Or is it the other way around? In any event they are the Splittists!!
Enviro-mentalists everywhere blamed the energy industry (and, in particular the US energy industry) for the phenomenon of ‘Global Warming’
It was all because of emissions, they said, and it appears that they were right. According to this article the whole ‘Global Warming’ boondoggle was due to the emissions of large amounts of money from Enron
Whilst short on specific details it does provide a suggestion of the extent of the link between giant corporations and the various ‘movements’ that purportedly campaign against them
What next I wonder? We will discover that Naomi Klein is funded by Nike? At this stage, I wouldn’t bet against it
On Saturday night, 3 men were shot in Palmers Green, North London. One was killed, the other two are in serious condition
Last night, a man was shot and seriously wounded by an armed intruder in Brixton, South London
The Metropolitan Police have announced a London-wide campaign to tackle the growing problem of gun-related crime
I can’t quite make my mind up about this
Undoubtedly one of the primary driving forces behind the EU has been post-war German guilt and the desire not to be Germans anymore. So perhaps this should be welcomed
On the other hand… er…
I’ve been hearing a lot lately about an organisation that calls itself ‘Anti-war’ who operate a website called (not surprisingly) ‘Anti-war.com’ wherein a cabal of eminent writers and thinkers campaign vigourously against the foreign policy of the US government and, currently, its choice to respond militarily to the WTC attacks. Making quite a to-do they are
Chief among the ‘anti-warriors’, and apparently their poster boy, is one Mr. Justin Raimondo who seems to be postively incandescent with rage at the US government for launching a racist war to further the imperialist aims of the Washington elites. Mr.Raimondo claims that his views are informed by his libertarian, non-interventionist, principles based on which, the US should stop its foreign adventures, stop meddling in other countries, stop ‘putting pins in rattlesnakes, stirring up hornets nests etc, etc (By the way, foreigners are all ‘rattlesnakes’ and ‘hornets’? Just how racist is that?)
Nothing reprehensible about that position. Isolationism is not a principle I agree with but, when honestly debated, it is a defensible position. What is reprehensible are insinuations that the US brought this attack on itself and only has itself to blame. Reprehensible because (a) they are factually wrong and (b) brutally insensitive and (c) par for the course with Mr. Raimondo
That’s right. He’s flogged this particular ‘blame the victim’ horse before in an article that I’m quite sure he’d like buried now but, alas, it’s too late (thankyou, Google). The link below will take you something that Mr.Raimondo wrote in 1999 as an expression of his ‘libertarian principles’
Now before you go there, I feel it only fair to issue a product warning: it’s long. It’s long, it’s turgid and it’s full of details about who said what to who at the National People’s Democratic Conference of 1968 (or something). In other words, it reads like a Trotskyite student screed; the kind of thing that is so laboured and coma-inducing that you get the feeling it has been written with a view to bludgeoning you into submission by the sheer weight of it’s paragraphs. Not that I am, for even a moment, suggesting that Justin is a Trotskyite because he clearly isn’t. No, he’s worse than that, he’s a bore
But I always say that the truth is worth suffering for so, take some amphetamines, prepare a pot of strong coffee, tell your family you’re going to be away for a while and click here
You’re back! Well, brace yourself: it is the year 2025. Men have colonised Mars and… Okay, only joking
The article itself though is rather less of a joke and I knew something was iffy right away when I saw this breathtaking assertion:
“…the Chinese media has been relatively open for some time”
Really, Justin??!! Perhaps you could direct us all to the URL for the Chinese Anti-War.com then? Better still, take yourself over to Hong Kong and start ranting at the Beijing government in the same manner as you do Washington. Go on, Justin, I dare you. I double-dare you!!
But that’s the least of it. Justin goes on to assert just how reasonable the Chinese government is and that the Tiananmen Square protestors were nothing more than a contemptible rabble who were complaining about China’s progress towards capitalism and wanted a return to socialist purity and the true principles as espoused by Mao Tse Tung. Now, I am the first to admit that memory does not constitute history, but I clearly recall that the centrepiece of the protest was something called the Goddess of Liberty, a simulacram of the Statue of Liberty. Perhaps Chinese ways are just too inscrutable for this particular British dunderhead, but that would seem a very strange choice of totem for a bunch of Maoist fundamentalists to rally around
But that’s not important. Any public demonstration will invariably attract all manner of folks with all manner of sundry grievances and I wasn’t there so I don’t know. What is important is that they were unarmed civilians and the ‘enlightened’ Chinese government responded by killing them all
Or not, apparently. Because in the Gospel according to Justin:
“… Instead, the President engaged in an hour-long colloquoy with Chinese premier Jiang Zemin on the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident, in which a few hundred rioters bent on self-immolation achieved their stated ends”
So there we have it. The protestors were a bunch of suicidal nutbags with stupid ideas who brought it on themselves. They were asking for it. Sound familiar? He even goes as far as to suggest comparison with Jonestown. What were all those tanks doing there then, Justin? Shipping in the laced vodka?
We all know what happened to those protestors because we damn welll saw it happen and what I’d like to know is where is Justin’s incandescence? His outrage? His grief? His condemnation? His concern? Does he even give it a mention? No. Nothing. Not a word. Not a peep. Must’ve slipped his mind
I don’t quite understand how someone can live through one of the most savage and brutal episodes of state repression in post-war history (not to mention the persecution of dissidents that goes on to this day) and not only try to pretend that it didn’t happen but actually try to convince us all that the victims commited suicide! Not only that, but ten years after, he goes on to write a fawning apology for that same regime while turning all his indignant guns on Washington. Some people call that historical revision: I call it being on the payroll. If you ask me, this guy is being given an easy time
The fact that he does champion capitalism and free markets, in a way, makes it worse because he clearly has a brain and either he’s delusional or downright mendacious. Either way, if that’s an example of libertarian principles then, damnitall, my application for membership of the Labour Party is in the post
I don’t know Mr.Raimondo and I’ve never met him and I daresay he would rather be hung by the thumbs than to consort with a warblogger like me. So perhaps someone would be obliging enough to pass on this piece of advice next time young Justin starts up on one of his ‘anti-war’ rants:
Mr. Raimondo, you live in a glass house, old chum. Stop throwing stones
Oh and, by the way, be careful what you publish: Google is watching you!
The British government has promised to tackle Britain’s underachieving railway system head on and build a brand, spanking, new, spiffy, super-duper, hi-tech, luxurious, efficient rail network for the 21st Century
According to HM Government this miracle of modern transportation will be so generally splendiferous and commuter-friendly that, not only will the trains run on time, they will actually call at your house, wake you up, get you dressed, make you a cup of coffee and kiss your kids goodbye before whisking you off to your destination in hitherto unimagined levels of opulence and comfort
Sounds great, doesn’t it? There’s only one teensy-weensy little snag: er…there’s no money to build it. Nada. Zippedy-doo-da. Not a bean, a sou or a red cent
See, you can forget all the guff you may have heard about the alleged privatisation of Britain’s railways. The railways were never privatised. They were leased off on state franchise and bound hand-and-foot by regulations. A few years down the line (scuse pun) and the government is shocked, SHOCKED to discover that the main operating company, Railtrack is running at a huge loss and promptly takes it into receivership
Now the government is saddled with responsibility for rebuilding a decaying transportation system, mollifying an angry public and dodging lawsuits from even angrier Railtrack investors who have lost all their money. Boy, do these guys know how to make a rod for their own backs or what??!!
Still, ever mindful of the next election, the government has promised the above-mentioned whizz-bang new railway system with the money that they ‘hope’ to raise from private investors
Fat chance!! After watching the government send the Railtrack investors home with nothing except a kick in the pants, I know what my response would be if the government asked me for my money. I can’t print it here but it would consist of two words the second of which would be ‘off’
So, this weeks competition is to find a solution to this problem: How can the British government build an envy-of-the-world, state-of-the-art railway network for the 21st Century with no money whatsoever?
Please send your answers to:
The Right Honourable Tony Blair PM
10 Downing Street
London SW1
The winner will have the honour of having his or her idea credited to the aforesaid Tony Blair for PR and re-election purposes
FARC off
Colombia’s marxist rebel army has meekly agreed to dismantle its checkpoints, vacate its strongholds and return to negotiations rather than face an onslaught from the Colombian Army
Do these people imagine that they are geniune, bona fide marxist rebels? They’re nothing but a bunch of lily-livered, yuppified, namby-pamby WIMPS!! Now I remember the days when marxist rebels really were marxist rebels and could be counted on not to stop fighting until they were streaming up the steps of the Presidential Palace shouting Viva La Revolucion!!!, pouring El Presidentes finest single malt whisky all over the cobblestone streets and waving his mistresses silk panties on the ends of their bayonets
I don’t know. Marxists just ain’t what they used to be
|
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.
|
