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]
|
A young black man can be murdered by a gang of white thugs at a bus stop1. The result? Senior politicians and police in front of the cameras; public inquiries; new phrases such as ‘institutional racism’; sweeping reforms; a trust set up to help others from ‘similarly disadvantaged backgrounds’. A young white man gets murdered by a gang of four black men and a black woman in Lewisham, South East London; it makes a one-inch high column at the bottom of page two. Why?
– Ian Wells, London E18, today in readers’ comments section of Metro newspaper (a daily distributed for free on the London Underground).
1 = Reference to the murder of Stephen Lawrence.
Long before the Great Unwashed got it into their tiny minds to start smashing up city centres in protests about ‘globalisation’, there was a healthy trade in cultural memes going on between Britain and the USA.
Jazz music made the transatlantic crossing some time in the 1920’s I believe, and took off so successfully in Britain that we began sending our own band-leaders, like Ray Noble, over to the States. The process was enhanced during World War II when US soldiers romanced British ‘dames’ to the tunes of Benny Goodman and Glenn Miller.
Post-war, America gave us Elvis and, a few years later, we launched a British invasion of the USA spearheaded by the Beatles.
But it wasn’t just a trade in popular music. Thanks to that engine of global cultural hegemony, Hollywood, American speech idioms also found their way into British culture. Whilst some British pundits sneered contemptuously at all these ‘ghastly Americanisms’, they were unable to stop Brits picking up terms like ‘ballpark figure’ or ‘okay, I’m outta here’.
The stalwarts who vainly attempted to arrest this process were misguided. Since language is one of the few aspects of life that is not controlled by the government, it is a free market of terms and idioms and many Brits casually adopted American expressions that they found to be more expressive and colourful than their own and seamlessly weaved them into their everyday conversations. That’s how choice works and I’m all for it.
But, alongside (or possibly, underneath) this healthy cultural cross-fertilisation is an equally lively, but rather less celebrated, trade in obscenities. I remember clearly back in about 1975 when an American boy at my school used the term ‘motherf*cker’. We were so shocked. It was quite the rudest thing we’d ever heard. But, since then, it has duly taken it’s place in the British lexicon of pre-fight insults.
Of course, it is encumbent on us Brits to return the favour by bestowing upon our American cousins an etymological treasure of our own. I am delighted to be able to say that it appears that we have done so.
On my journey’s around blogland, I came across Rachel Lucas, a ‘gun-totin’ anti-idiot from Texas (and you can’t get more American than that, surely) who has a category on her blog called ‘Liberals and other Wankers’.
Seeing it made me grin from ear to ear because she uses the term with such casual aplomb and without a word of explanation and that means that Rachel is confident that her American readers will recognise and understand the word ‘wanker’.
Now, ‘wanker’ is a pure, home-grown British slang the American equivalent of which is ‘jerk-off’. But, let’s face it, ‘wanker’ is pithier, punchier and altogether more abusive. Calling somebody a ‘jerk-off’ is merely naughty, but calling them a ‘wanker’ is downright rude and is, therefore, an infintely preferable term when your intention is to be downright rude. Rachel Lucas clearly intends to be downright rude to her left-wing compatriots.
I believe this is a recent development and I would hazard that the British end of the blogosphere has played a part in this successful export drive. In any event, we Brits have bestowed upon our US cousins a valuable tool in the armoury of bellicose confrontation, and at a time when they need it most. We have responded to their market need as they have often responded to ours.
Whilst it won’t appear on any balance sheets, the term ‘wanker’ has now taken its place on Unofficial Honour Role of transatlantic trade history. Hurrah!
Islamic preacher Abu Obeida, an Algerian asylum seeker in Britain, has allegedly said that Islamic law requires Muslims everywhere to come to the assistance of Ba’athist Socialist Iraq if it is attacked by the West.
British journalist A.N. Wilson decries British and American threats against the Iraqi regime in his article called War on Iraq is madness, claiming that Anglo-American actions make Abu Obeida’s call to British Muslims to take up arms against British forces seem quite reasonable.
But it is the achievement of Tony Blair’s government that he has managed to make Mr Obeida and his friends sound like the voice of common sense.
Of course one should not think for a moment that A.N. Wilson has qualms about governments using violence, particularly against their own nationals, as he favours the forcibly sterilisation of social undesirables. Thus given his taste for violence backed state enforced eugenics I suppose his de facto support for Ba’athist National Socialism is not so hard to understand, i.e. he favours the type of regime which could actually implement the sort of views he holds.
Saddam may be a brute to his own people, but surely, by the standards of international law, this is less threatening than the Israeli occupation of territory that is simply not theirs. Think of Mrs Thatcher’s reaction when General Galtieri “did an Ariel Sharon” on some barren little rocks in the south Atlantic.
So Saddam Hussain, who used poison gas to exterminate entire towns which opposed him, who invaded Kuwait and before that Iran, is less of a threat that Israel? And Wilson’s history seems to have airbrushed out the fact Israel is in occupation of the West Bank and Gaza because its neighbours repeatedly attacked Israel first. I was not aware of any recent British attacks on Argentina prior to General Galtieri’s military occupying the Falklands but perhaps A.N. Wilson is privy to some secret history which I am not aware of.
If I were young enough for military service and was compelled to fight either for Iraq or America, I would fight for Iraq, on the simple grounds that the Iraqis and their surrounding countries should be allowed to work out their own destinies without Western bullying. If I feel that, how much more strongly would it affect a young British Muslim?
And there we have it. Presumably if A.N.Wilson were old enough to have been available for military service in 1939 and was compelled to fight either for Nazi Germany or Britain, he would have fought for Nazi Germany, on the simple grounds that Germany and its surrounding countries, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, the Netherland, Beligium, France and Austria, should have been allowed to work out their own destinies without British, and later American, ‘bullying’.
No doubt… after all, his views of forcibly castrating and spaying the underclass would have been very well received in Berlin in those days.
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
– Frédéric Bastiat
Because of the vagaries of the internet, comments are occasionally attached to Samizdata pieces that were posted many weeks ago. Such comments are liable not to be noticed. Well, my email this morning contained the text of a most helpful and interesting comment from Lisa Wylde on my piece about dog expert Jan Fennell. Here’s what Lisa said:
I was fortunate to get a place on one of Jan Fennell’s two day foundation courses. This was spent in her home, and to see how content and relaxed her own dogs were was an absolute inspiration. I have been interested in canine behaviour for many years, and it is interesting to see that many of the “experts” do not own dogs themselves – or indeed some of them own ones with “problems”. Of course there are some behaviourists, such as the late John Fisher who have a lot to teach us, unfortunately not all of them are as dedicated to the canine mind and spirit as he was.
You state that you should “ignore them all the time” this is not actually the case, simply that when YOU want to play and fuss your dog – YOU call them. Assuming they respond to your call, you can play, cuddle, fuss, whatever you want to do. But if you are sitting on the settee watching the tv, for example, and the dog comes to you uninvited, and plonks his head (or body!!) on your lap – you would quietly push them away, because you had not instigated contact. This is why some people believe it is cruel, “ignoring your dog all the time” but this is not actually what you do – just simply when you are relaxed and want to play with the dog you do so, and you would both enjoy it more, but if the dog was demanding to play, barking, jumping up etc. although you may accept his behaviour in the park when you are appropriately dressed, you may not appreciate the same “request” by your dog when you are dressed up ready to go out! Consistency is the key, if the dog knows that you will only play with it when you want to, and therefore learns manners, both of you will really relish that quality time together!
Lisa, thank you very much for this. This was the aspect of Fennellism that had been most bothering me, and you have answered my bother perfectly. After all, if you are supposed to ignore your dog all the time, then quite aside from the cruelty to your dog aspect, what, for you, is the point of having a dog? I knew there was an answer that I hadn’t assimilated, and I sort of knew what it was, in fact I must have read this answer myself in Jan Fennell’s book. But, I hadn’t absorbed it properly. Thanks for your explanation, and for your general confirmation of what I have believed of Jan Fennell ever since my sister and brother-in-law first told me about her, which is that she is definitely on the right track – the right dog track, you might say.
Alpha dog Brian with two pack members
Well, this Samizdatista finally donned his false beard and shades to spy on the latest James Bond epic, Die Another Day at the weekend. After stumbling out of the cinema, my ears still ringing after nearly two hours of loud bangs and eye-scortching special effects, here are my random thoughts about it.
My first thought about the film is that the franchise has become so entrenched as a formula that they resemble cartoons more than films with real people. I like Pierce Brosnan, who plays Bond with a certain wry wit and swagger (though he ain’t a patch on Sean Connery), but overall the film just doesn’t have that certain X-factor, that sense of style and sophistication, which made the early films so much fun. I miss the John Barry scores, which created a haunting background tone of their own. There is virtually no connection any more between the Bond of the cinema and the complex character that Ian Fleming created all those years ago in the Cold War.
I quite liked the opening sequence, even the bit where our Jim gets roughed up in the North Korean prison (glad to see one of the Axis of Evil nations getting ragged in the movies. George W. Bush will love it). You don’t get much of this in most Bond films, where the hero seems to pass through all manner of combats with nary a hair out of place. For once 007 gets a hard time. I sensed some members of the audience got a bit uncomfortable about that. But I thought it gave the film a bit of an edge we haven’t seen before, and the film-makers deserve some credit for that.
But the basic plot idea, of an errant North Korean bad boy plotting world domination via a scheme to harness diamond tech. to vaporise the West, was, well, so damn implausible that it lost me. In fact, quite a lot of the film was pretty much like outright science fiction. Now don’t get me wrong – I like science fiction. But the key to the best Bond films was ability to keep just this side of plausibility. The trouble with this one is that it falls right off the edge. Admittedly the makers may believe they have to create a diabolical villain while skating over the hottest current world controversies so as not to offend unduly. I cannot quite imagine 007 being pitched against Al Qaeda just yet. We tend to forget Bond started out going after the Russkies, but right from the start the film-makers have downplayed any ideological issues. Sometimes this means they come up with some very contrived villains. In this film none of the baddies really make a lot of sense.
The special effects and action scenes are great, but many of them are done at such high speed that you almost have no time to appreciate them. The film is not well paced. Arguably the best Bond film ever, Goldfinger, was able to mix up the rough-house stuff with slow-moving scenes such as the famous golf game with Goldfinger.
James Bond movies will probably roll on for a while yet. They make fantastic amounts of money and the makers know that barring disaster, they won’t lose their drawing power yet. But wouldn’t it be nice if just for once, we could tone down the gadgetry and try to make something that resembles the vision of its literary creator? I am not holding my breath.
 
Two good reasons to go see the new Bond movie
Alice Bachini takes on the post-war modern(ist) architecture and a BBC Open University educational programme in one sweeping and scathing masterblog:
“But alas, somehow, the Great Vision of Modernism went wrong. Mr Doodah is now the only person living in the enormous freezing-cold ‘penthouses’ perched atop the huge ‘mega-centre’ designed for shops and offices that inexplicably refused to co-operate with his vision and move to DumDoodle in the darkest Hebridean Countryside. “It was designed as a Centre For Living,” he explained, “a complete, all-in-one place which you would never have to leave again! And look,” he says. “What do we have now instead of my miraculous ideas? Shopping malls. Who wants shopping malls, might I ask you? Honestly!” and he shook his head in disbelief and delusion.”
[…]
“And there we have it: modernism. Yet another tragic victim of the international capitalist conspiracy.
The End. A BBC Educational Production for the Open University.”
Elon Musk, a South African internet entrepreneur made $300M on Zip2 and followed it up with $1.5B on PayPal.
His third company, set up in June this year, is SpaceX. He has done a clean sheet design start on a new vehicle aimed at cutting costs by two thirds. Falcon is targeted for launch by the end of 2003. Once operational, the two stage lox/kerosene Falcon will become the upper stages of a three stage heavy lifter.
He’s out to eat Boeing, Arianespace and Lockheed’s lunch.
In addition to being miserable, it seems that the British (or a few of them anyways) are also getting a bit uppity:
“Police have issued a nationwide alert after discovering a deadly explosive device attached to a speed camera.”
No-one has yet claimed responsibility but I think it is safe to pretty much rule out the Islamofascists.
They will come to learn in the end, at their own expense, that it is better to endure competition for rich customers than to be invested with monopoly over impoverished customers.
– Frédéric Bastiat
I have been wondering recently why all the Al-Qaeda attacks happen in countries that would be at the bottom of the list of expected targets for a terrorist group with their agenda. They aim at American or Israeli targets but that does not explain the exotic selection of places they chose to do so. Here is a list of suspected Al-Qaeda attacks, by no means exhaustive:
- Djerba, Tunisia, 9th March – A truck explodes near the El Ghriba synangogue, killing 14
- Rishon Letzion, Israel, 11th April – a suicide bomber kills 16 and wounds 60 at a billiard hall
- Karachi, Pakistan, 14th June – suspected suicide bomber kills 14 outside Sheraton hotel and a car bomb outside the US consulate explodes later killing 11 and injuring 45
- Aden, Yemen, 6th October – an explosion of the French tanker Limburg kills a crew member
- Bali, Indonesia, 12th October – bombs explode outside the Sari Club disco at Kuta Beach resort killing 185 people and injuring hundreds more. A third bomb explodes near the US consulate in Sanur, no-one is hurt.
- Zamboanga, Philippines, 17th October 2002 – two bombs detonated at a shopping center leaving 6 people dead and 144 injured.
- Mombasa, Kenya – 28th November – a vehicle crashes into the lobby of the Paradise Hotel and together with a second device explodes, 14 killed and 80 injured. Two Stinger missiles are fired at an Israeli passenger jet at it takes off from Mombasa airport, narrowly missing 260 passengers.
These are not obvious terrorist destinations. One explanation is that the developed Western country have higher security, which makes it more difficult to carry out same style of attacks. I very much doubt that, as the IRA used to manage just fine disrupting life in London and I am not aware of any security measures that would make terrorist attacks impossible.
Any more theories about why the strange collection of targets? It is the ones that are missing from the list that puzzle me…
Paul Marks points out that it is the spending rather than the taxing which is the root of governments woe
People (not just us evil libertarians) often complain about taxation and there have been many attempts to reduce or at least limit it – these attempts have mostly been unsuccessful.
Few governments tax in order to create piles of money in their store houses – governments normally tax to spend. If we are to limit (let alone reduce) taxation it is government spending that we must fight. Limit one tax and the government will increase another – limit them all and government will borrow, ban borrowing and the fight come back to spending – i.e. (in the end) the fight is about government spending.
As far as I know there is only one State in the U.S. which shows (in its’ laws) a clear understanding of this and that State is Colorado. Colorado has many problems and I would not claim it is the most free market State (although it is one of the smaller government States), but I think that its spending based version of a “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” has, over the few years of its’ history, proved to be useful thing.
In Colorado government spending can only be increased in line with an increase in population or an increase in prices (yes I know there are all sorts of problems with the idea of a price index – but I will not go into that here). This would seem to a be a very moderate limitation – but (as far as I know) there is not another State in the Union that has such a limitations. Over the last few years Colorado has reduced the burden of taxation (i.e total taxes as a percentage of income – not reduced one tax and increased another) and balanced the budget.
The key really is government spending. To convince people that if they want some special benefit from government another benefit will have to be abolished (not just the total spending of the government increased).
In the end the fight has to be about spending. Whatever waffle either side comes out with about the “institutions of a just society” what matters is where the money goes. If we allow people to convince others that government spending is a “good thing” then all the anti tax and anti borrowing campaigns in the world will not save us.
Paul Marks
|
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.
|
Recent Comments