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]
|
Paul Routledge in the Mirror (not a permalink, sorry) offers a follow up to the “Bollocks to Blair” story covered here by Brian the other day:
“Getting fined worked,” he says. “I had only sold two before the police came. Once word got round, people took pity on me and everyone wanted one. I ended up selling 375.”
But more scarily…
The cops asked for the shirt seller’s eye colour, shoe size and National Insurance number to keep track of him “in case he reoffended”.
Once you know that, you know what the fuzz are up to – building a national database of people they don’t like.
Well that we knew. In fact the government is building a database of everybody just in case it might not like them – or might have some reason to ‘assist’ them personally (as a matter of ‘enabling’ a more ‘active citizenship,’ you understand) by telling them what to do – at any time in the future.
For myself I’m only surprised the cops did not take careful note of the brand of footware, and take his footprints for the national footprint database, which they have recently acquired the power to do – I kid you not. Or perhaps they did…
John Lettice in The Register calmly points out how so much ‘anti-terrorist’ activity and supposed ‘terrorist threat’ arises from the dogs of war chasing their own tails:
Real terror cases and claimed terror plots frequently include plans to attack major public buildings, tall buildings (e.g. Canary Wharf), international airports, and references to CBRN weapons use. Few if any of those that have been “frustrated” or documented so far include convincing plans (even plans, full stop) for actually mounting the attacks, sourcing the deadly poisons and constructing the weapons. Transcripts meanwhile are peppered with lurid and unfeasible attack ideas (often sounding uncannily like the sort of thing a mouthy teenager would say to impress his mates) and references to ‘terror manuals’ which often turn out to be dodgy survivalist poison recipes and/or the ubiquitous Encyclopaedia of Jihad which, as it includes references to tall buildings, is a handy fall-back if the prosecution is in want of a target list.
Read the whole thing here.
Meanwhile we have testimony from an amateur bomber that makes it pretty clear how coherent the ‘mouthy teenager’ Islamist ideology and planning is:
He says non-Muslims of Britain “deserve to be attacked” because they voted for a government which “continues to oppress our mothers, children, brothers and sisters in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and Chechnya.”
Jabbing his finger emphatically, he warns: “What have you witnessed now is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq and until you stop your financial and military support to America and Israel.”
(From The Guardian)
This quote no longer appears on the BBC site. Maybe they think it is somehow persuasive. But the misconceptions that Blair’s government can have any influence on the Russians in Chechnya, that it oppresses (rather than in fact succouring) the Palestinians, or that it provides financial support to either Israel or the US, ought to show how clueless these guys are about the real world. As should the idea that bombing the general population can make any difference to the policy of a state. (What touching faith in democracy!) As should the empty braggadocio of continuing, stronger, attacks. Compare that with what we’ve actually seen: outside the Middle East only wildly sporadic and variable isolated actions.
Unfortunately, if there’s anything more stupid than Mr Tanweer it is the fear-frenzy of the mainstream media. What has been continuing and strengthening is fuss and panic. A fevered but entirely vacuous piece by Gordon Correra, BBC Security Correspondent says: “Shehzad Tanweer’s videotape provides more evidence linking the London bombers to al-Qaeda.” Er, no it does not. It provides evidence for the not very shocking hypotheses that videotapes made for purposes of self-satisfaction can travel almost anywhere in a year, that post production is cheap and easy these days, and that the chief function of ‘al-Qaeda’ is as a brand-name. Mr Correra has spent too much time reading ‘security’ briefings and too little considering celebrity sex tapes. A clip in a video package of someone drawing a circle on a map has more worldwide effect than any physical activity in a real place, just as watching Paris Hilton, et al., has led to more considerably more sexual stimulation than they could ever have achieved personally.
This isn’t a clash of civilisations; it is a clash of fantasists. It is just a pity that both sides have some capacity to do real harm to the peaceful lives of non-players.
Andrew O’Hagan in the Telegraph takes up the fashionable topic of ‘anti-social behaviour’:
I grew up on a housing estate myself, and I watched it go, in the course of 20 years, from being a zone of optimism and clean living to a sink estate and an unemployment black spot.
My mother lives alone and her door was kicked in by junkies in the middle of the night, just so they could steal her telly. My mother has never been the same (she moved into sheltered housing) and I recognise that the yobs who ruined our street are very different from the respectable working class of my youth, who deserved (and still deserve) every bit of support the Government and the community can give them.
But a couple of paragraphs later we have,
Miss Rooney’s street, like so many in Britain, has been over-run by people fuelled by a mad sense of entitlement, by a vast carelessness and selfishness, and violence on their minds.
Overrun? I suspect Mr O’Hagan would find the yobs, like him, grew up on the estate. The difference is they (and probably their parents and grandparents) also grew up on the state. It is the support the “Government [with the same capital G as God] and community” gave them that created the “mad sense of entitlement”. If the state teaches people that they are not responsible for themselves then those without other information will believe it.
Such is the changing nature of that world and the ferocity of those forces, we need to adjust, to reclaim the system and thereby the street for the law-abiding majority.
That means not disrespecting civil liberties but re-assessing what respect for them means today and placing a far higher priority, in what is a conflict of rights, on the rights of those who keep the law rather than break it.
This is not the argument of the lynch mob or of people who are indifferent to convicting the innocent, it is simply a reasonable and rational response to a problem that is as much one of modernity as of liberty. But such a solution will not happen without a radical change in political and legal culture and that is the case I make today.
– Tony Blair MP, June 23 2006
As ever, the pretext is “modernity”… odd how that trope of Marxian theory crops up all the time. Things have changed, we are told. Rebalancing is imposed upon us by the sudden new wickedness of the world.
But read this in the context of other recent statements by Blair and his coterie and you can see that the PM is propounding a double fallacy in order to persuade us make a great leap backward. Ossa is the false dilemma between victim’s rights and suspects’ liberties; Pelion is the great mandarin standby, seeking ‘a balance’ – conceptualised as some mid-point between where we are now and the far extreme in the direction of the proposed policy. The Olympus the New Labour titans would storm is the fundamental western concept of trial. → Continue reading: Forward into the 14th century!
Discreet, that is. A case in point is something I observed this evening.
It was a hot day in London, by London standards. So a large, prominent office on Millbank had its back doors open. Being the sort of large, prominent, office it is, the back doors therefore had two police officers with Heckler & Koch submachineguns stationed outside, drawing attention to the place, and costing the taxpayer something over £100,000 a year, pro rata. I have seen this before. It is not an emergency procedure.
Are we to assume that the intelligence service in question was not intelligent enough to acquire proper ventilation and/or airconditioning when it took over the large, prominent, office building a decade ago? Could it be that there is no space inside the doors for an armed guard to stand discreetly? (If an armed guard were otherwise necessary on a non-descript building that was not obviously of governmental import – such as the soul-less, off-the-beaten track, south London and Euston buildings occupied by the same organisation for the latter half of the Cold War, when it had a serious job to do and took it seriously.) Or is this part of security swagger, the latest trend in government where departments impress politicians, each other, and the mulitude, with their importance and power by elaborate, even flamboyant, precaution and fortification?
I’ve got a little list — I’ve got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed — who never would be missed!
The Cereals Authority makes its hay with what is grown;
The Asset “Recoverer’s” take what you think you own;
The Office of the Regions now does what the council did;
The control of state surveillance is quite completely hid;
Elections are conditional, the Standards Boards insist;
They’d none of ’em be missed — they’d none of ’em be missed!
Chorus:
He’s got ’em on the list — he’s got ’em on the list;
And they’ll none of ’em be missed — they’ll none of ’em be missed.
We seem to have become practically as theocentric at the higher levels of the administration as these people we’re waging war against. It makes me kind of uncomfortable.
– Christopher Buckley, interviewed in the Sunday Times Magazine
He’s talking about the US; but there are some discomfortingly morally aggressive Christians in charge on this side of the pond, too.
Let it never be said Samizdata does not listen to its public. I am sure the sainted editors would prefer me to add at this point that we reserve the right, however, to listen carelessly and ignore your views if it suits us. Be that as it may, I was at the Adam Smith Institute’s Tax Freedom Day celebrations this evening, and one of our readers, having said some very complimentary things, made a rather brilliant suggestion that I am now going to steal.
Inflation, we are told, is at a long-term low, because of that nice Mr Brown’s prudence. My friend points out however, that part of Mr Brown’s prudence has been prudently to exclude from many of his more interesting taxation devices, the items forming the Retail Price Index. He proposes a new index, of all those items whose prices the Chancellor controls because their consumer price is largely duty, or because they are practical necessities for most people whose price is directly set by the government. The latter are excluded from RPI by definition and the (plausible) suggestion is that such prices have risen very fast indeed.
The Gordon Adjusted Price (“GAP”) index would explain where your money goes, and why so many people find their pockets emptier despite notionally higher incomes and low inflation. It might make visible some of those hidden taxes. I have a hunch that the cost of living is actually falling in Britain, but the cost of government more than takes up the slack. Is it true? The GAP might provide a measure.
The Deputy Prime Minister is in trouble again. Apparently he has had a rest from the toils of office to play croquet at his grace-and-favour mansion. This has lead the something-must-be-done crowd to accuse him of slacking and call for his resignation. Apparently ministers – even ones without portfolio – are supposed to spend their every waking hour governing us.
Since Samizdata’s point of view (generally speaking) is that we would really rather be governed less, then I submit this is the sort of ministerial behaviour we want to see more of. With luck, it might spread to the Senior Civil Service, and stop the more serious business of the bureacratic dictatorship. Then Prescott would merit a dukedom. Meanwhile he certainly gets marks for making Britain a worse place more slowly than he might, and at the same time showing up the miserable priggishness of his political colleagues.
Or would you choose a world where a pleasant afternoon is better spent in a committee meeting figuring out how best to control other people’s lives, rather than enjoying a gentle game in the open air?
The FT’s The Way We Live Now column reports that David Blanchflower is to appear before the Treasury select committee, as he has been appointed to the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. I imagine he is up for it as an economist representative of the currently modish disguise of egalitarianism as a collectively-skewed hedonics.
So does Maggi Urry, one suspects. She writes:
Blanchflower’s most frequently quoted claim to fame is his co-authorship in 2004 of a paper entitled “Money, Sex and Happiness”. […] He calculated that increasing the frequency of sex from once a month to once a week would generate as much happiness as would a $50,000 a year pay rise. Depends, I would have thought on who the sex was with – the pay rise might be preferable.
I am a little more cynical. At British tax rates, I note that is approximately $750 a time. If you cannot get really good sex for less than $750 without a series discount then your grasp of the market is quite questionable.
How else? You might ask. But this abstract in McKinsey Quarterly caught my attention with its astounding wrong-headedness:
How Brazil can Grow –
The most important obstacle is Brazil’s huge informal economy which, distorts competition by putting efficient, law-abiding companies at a disadvantage. Macroeconomic instabilityreflected in the high cost of capitalis the second-most-important hurdle, followed by regulations (such as rigid labor laws) that limit productivity.
Could it possibly be that it’s the top-heavy regulatory state and shocking tax rates on officially recognised activities that are keep the poor poor, small companies small, and the poltically unconnected outside the system hoping not to be noticed? It couldn’t be state favouritism and that same capricious regulatory apparatus that keep the risks high and capital proportionately expensive? It would also be interesting to know in what sense ‘efficient’ and ‘law-abiding’ go hand in hand in such circumstances. It is implied that unlawful, invisible, enterprises are inefficient ones (in whatever sense that is). How do they know?
Now recent British history is changing.
Last week we heard that the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, had offered to resign but that the Prime Minister refused to accept his resignation. The PM subsequently told the House that he did not know the details when he rejected that resignation.
Yesterday the PM told the News of the World that he might have to sack Clarke, depending on what happened. This morning it emerges in The Sun, the News of the World’s stable-mate, that, “BUNGLING Home Secretary Charles Clarke did NOT offer to quit last week over the freed foreign convicts scandal. He told the BBC he had offered to go — which infuriated Prime Minister Tony Blair.”
Those of us who have been seized by the strange idea that the reason a PM might reject a resignation without asking for more details could only be in order to be able to deny knowledge later, can take comfort. It never happened.
That the serious press, read by a tiny proportion of the public, may have carried stories in which Blair supported his Home Secretary, and that he told the House of Commons something similar, carries no weight. Many millions of tabloid readers are subvocalising the much simpler truth: that Tony has been badly let down, and investigations are going on to discover how badly.
And as to the Battle of the Cowshed, I believe the time will come when we shall find that Snowball’s part in it was much exaggerated. Discipline, comrades, iron discipline! That is the watchword for today. One false step, and our enemies would be upon us. Surely, comrades, you do not want Jones back?
|
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.
|
