Small Tyrants, threatened by big,
Sincerely believe
They love Liberty.
-W.H.Auden, ‘Marginalia’, City Without Walls, 1969
|
|||||
|
No doubt anti-market commentators will be using the current troubles of U.S. broking giant Merrill Lynch to bash the capitalist system. But they would be wrong, just as wrong, in fact, as to say that the demise of U.S. energy titan Enron was a slap in the face for we free-market types. Not so. What I think the Merrill saga shows is that in a dynamic marketplace where more and more wealth is attached to the realm of ideas rather than physical capital, it is crucial to ensure good behaviour. Merrill has suffered over doubts about the impartiality of the analyst advice given to clients. It shows how the brutal forces sweeping global capitalism can chasten the brashest of Wall Street players. And it ought to show investors in stocks and bonds something else – let the buyer beware! I am not entirely sure what to make of this admission from Donald Rumsfeld to the effect that it is ‘inevitable’ that terrorists are going to get their grubby paws on WMD sooner or later and bloody well use them. I don’t think anybody is blogland is surprised by this admission. After all, isn’t this something we have all speculated about? A nuclear weapon is not exactly available at any retail outlet (yet!) but it seems that constructing just a rudimentary one is not as mind-bogglingly difficult as it used to be. Given that, all that is required is the will to use it and we all witnessed an unambiguous demonstration of that will last September. No, what is arousing my curiosity is the Official Stamp that these suspicions have now been given by Mr.Rumsfeld. Even the most gauche among us have been alerted in no uncertain terms. So is Mr.Rumsfeld trying to soften us all up? Does he know something we don’t? Or is it a case of expecting the worse but hoping for the best? I couple this with the appearance yesterday of a dire warning on the front page of a popular British tabloid (sorry, can’t find link) that suicide bombers were on their way to Britain. It may or may not be true, of course. British tabloids are somewhat notorious for issuing dire warnings that turn out to be nothing more than, well, dire warnings. Things are a tad less dramatic over on the actual battlefront in Afghanistan where British Royal Marine Commandos trudge around disconsolately seeking engagement with an enemy that either cannot be found or no longer exists. Meanwhile, back in the West, we are fighting a war of catastrophic expectations and that ratchet has just been cranked up another notch or two. It has been of extreme concern to me for several years now that the sinister person who does the voice-overs for the sinister BBC “children’s television” show, The Teletubbies, at any rate in the version shown here in London, sounds exactly like Britain’s sinister Prime Minister, Tony Blair. What can this mean? Or am I dreaming this? “I’m 48 years old and I’ve been taxed to pay for America’s nuclear arsenal my whole life. Now I want to get my money’s worth.” Guardian’s Weblog links to an interesting article about how repressive regimes suppress the Internet, Censorship Wins Out by Andrew Stroehlein. (It was posted on April 4, so this is another of my better-late-than-never reading suggestions.) If your taste runs to reading only a few intelligent paragraphs rather than half a dozen intelligent pages (I know the feeling), try these:
CPJ stands for something called the Committee to Protect Journalists. Stroehlein goes on to mention a website called the the Three Gorges Probe, which reports negatively on a dam scheme in China about which locals are willing to complain out loud. In general, Stroehlein, in a manner appropriate to a Guardian linkee, tends to neglect the importance of economic influences. To suppress the Internet is to impose upon one’s country severe economic damage, and not just political harm. It isn’t just reportage and opinion that is spread on the Internet. There is also all that other boring stuff that regular people like to have, like … stuff. Thus, suppressing the Internet will eventually erode the will to power of the elite, both by de-glamorising their own elite lifestyle, and by ruining or perpetuating the already ruined state of the economy upon which they prey. Eventually it becomes impossible for them to pretend even to themselves that their rule is in anyone’s interest except their own, and in due course not even that. By suppressing the Internet – not just because of what it is and what it symbolises, but because of what it does (and what the Internet can do now is only the beginning of that story) – they lose the future. And once you lose the future in politics, you lose period. In the early hours of Sunday morning (the 19th – last night as I finish this) I watched BBC News 24, although following that link will probably only get you the operation as a whole, not the story I’m about to refer to. Which was: John Simpson talking, in Holland, with a Dutch journalist, who interestingly had just returned to Holland after spending a decade in South Africa. I didn’t see the beginning of the interview and I therefore didn’t catch the name of the Dutchman. Peter something, I think. It was on just before 3 am. For the time being anyway, democracy is doing its job. There was mass unease in Holland, and the ballot boxes had registered it. In Pim Fortuyn, Holland – indeed I would go further and say Europe – found a major politician who knew how to talk about “multiculturalism” and all that, in a way that does justice to the fears that regular people (by which I mean non-Muslim people) have about it, without being blatantly racist in the manner of the BNP (British National Party), or, if I understand him and his followers correctly, Jean Marie Le Pen. Simpson mentioned that interview he did with Fortuyn a few days before Fortuyn’s death. He recalled that when he had said that something that Fortuyn had said to him “sounded very like racism”, Fortuyn had got extremely angry, for this was a distinction Fortuyn (unlike Simpson, it would seem) well understood. Islam is not a race, and being hostile to it, as Fortuyn was (and as I – a convinced atheist – also am), is not racism. Islam is a body of ideas, predominantly false and – insofar as Islam has anything to say about the likes of me – aggressively nasty ideas, in my opinion. It is a culture, political as well as religious. I congratulate John Simpson for reporting his conversation with Fortuyn accurately. His own opinions about “racism” are silly, and hit the nail squarely in its surrounding timber. But when Fortuyn told him this he reported Fortuyn’s reaction for the important fact that it is. Maybe Fortuyn’s answer – stop immigration now – isn’t yet very appealing, and may never be workable in a way that is remotely humane, but his question cannot now be funked. There is, as Fortuyn insisted, a clash of civilisations going on within Europe, never mind between Europe and other places. Muslims now make up forty per cent of the population of the big cities of Holland, and will soon be in a majority in them, or so the Dutch journalist said. If some Muslims then start taking the idea of majority rule seriously, the bad times could begin. At that point democracy may stop working, and become the justification of and provocation of major conflict instead of the means of avoiding it. For the last few decades, the idea in the West has been that the severe conflicts that have erupted between Islam and the West over the centuries could be made to go away by us all pretending that there was no problem and refusing to talk or even think about it. Since 9-11, and now since the shooting star that was Pim Fortuyn’s political career, that notion is in the process of being junked. Ever since 9-11, the internet has pulsated with infidels analysing Islam, explaining its doctrines, describing its foundation ideas, reflecting upon the career and example of Mohammed himself (not good news in my opinion), gasping with horror at the virulently anti-Semitic grotesqueries of the Middle Eastern press. Personally I am extremely pessimistic, and see no lower limit to how nasty things may eventually get, down to and including genocide. I further believe that looking such horrors in the face makes them less likely, rather than more likely, to happen, which is why I believe in trading these moderately insulting insults now. What makes the situation particularly horrible is that there is little that “individual decent Muslims”, of which there are huge numbers, can do about all this. Islam itself, as Fortuyn insisted, is the problem. Individual Muslims, however genuinely decent, and however desperate they may be to escape from the economic stagnation and political nastiness of the Mulsim heartlands and hence desperate to live instead in a country like Holland, are nevertheless the carriers of an inherently antagonistic culture. They seem doomed eventually to destroy the very havens they are now moving to in such numbers, by their very presence in such numbers. Until Islam undergoes fundamental changes, there’ll always be trouble between it and its neighbours. Or, of course, Western culture could be profoundly altered. We could accept Islam. Let me give a passing nod to political correctness, and temper the savageries in the previous paragraphs by saying that there is, of course, a quite different way of alluding to these same notions. Instead of Islam being blamed, it could equally well be said that we infidels are the basic cause of all the trouble between ourselves and Islam, because of our stubborn refusal to submit to it. Either way, as far as the formerly or still Christian West is concerned, we are talking about two fundamentalisms here, not just one. Something very big has to give between us and Islam if these two now utterly distinct and antagonistic cultures are ever to learn to get along in a state of prolonged and intermingled amicability. This is the problem that Holland is now squaring up to. Should Muslim newcomers be forced to learn the Dutch language? Should there be some kind of oath of allegiance which all, of all cultures, must swear? Or what? All this stuff should be and will be of intense interest to us in Britain, because our demographics are heading in a similar direction. With all attention focussed on the Middle East, it might be easy to forget the India .v. Pakistan conflict which, according to this report has moved another half-notch up the ratchet. Of course, it may be nothing more than a brief intensification of the sporadic skirmishes that have been bubbling under for the last few months but, coming on the back of the news that Delhi has expelled the Pakistani Ambassador, a lot of the ingredients of all-out, balls-out war look like they’re falling into place. I disagree with Perry de Havilland‘s attack on the boycott of the Cannes Film Festival for four reasons. First, I’ve got nothing against voluntary boycotts as opposed to trade embargoes or tariffs imposed by government or international bureaucratic organisations. Provided no force is threatened against those who attend, opponents are entitled to stay away and ask others to do so. Second, the Cannes Film Festival is an excellent target for a boycott to hurt the French establishment. It is a matter of pride that the Americans feel compelled to turn up. The one thing that really upsets the French cultural establishment is the idea that France is irrelevant. A boycott of Cannes is as good a way of making this point as any short of war. Third, some French film critics criticises the Cannes Film Festival for its anti-commercial ideology. The hit “Amelie” in France released as “Le Fabuleux Destin d’Amelie Poulain” was ignored mpelled to turn up. The one thing that really upsets the French cultural establishment is the idea that France is irrelevant. A boycott of Cannes is as good a way of making this point as any short of war. Third, some French film critics criticises the Cannes Film Festival for its anti-commercial ideology. The hit “Amelie” in France released as “Le Fabuleux Destin d’Amelie Poulain” was ignoredd, opponents are entitled to stay away and ask others to do so. Second, the Cannes Film Festival is an excellent target for a boycott to hurt the French establishment. It is a matter of pride that the Americans feel compelled to turn up. The one thing that really upsets the French cultural establishment is the idea that France is irrelevant. A boycott of Cannes is as good a way |
|||||
![]()
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Recent Comments