Monthly Archives: April 2007

Showing the Yanks How it’s Done, unfortunately

The UK authorities manage to put their suspects away for 20 years each at the end of a 3-year investigation by following the rule of law and convincing a jury of peers who spent a record 27 days in deliberation. No-one doubts the truth of the verdicts, the propriety of the process, or the seriousness of the charges; justice seems to have been done and shown to be done. Those convicted are shown to be the evil, credulous, fools they really are, yet were given every chance in an open court to prove their innocence. If there is a war of ideas going on here, this is a propaganda victory for the open societies of the West.

In comparison when it comes to Guantanamo the US ends up looking like a banana republic, where western prisoners whose imprisonment ends up embarrassing allies get off scot free, while the browner, poorer, more unfortunate ones rot hopelessly. The rule of law and of due process are rejected as inconvenient in preference for a series of show trials which would have appalled Stalin in their obvious incompetence and unfairness. The evidentary basis behind the charges is ususally torture-based, the accused presented as deadly, ruthless trained killers, while everyone knows they are more likely the hapless victims of local vendettas, “sold” to the US for a reward. It is the authorities who end up looking like bumbling, confused, evil, credulous fools. The enemies of the West are handed a priceless recruiting tool, while putative allies are repulsed by the hypocrisy and stupidity.

I am struck by how much each approach has differed in effectiveness, yet I’ve not seen this mentioned anywhere. Tragically there probably are dangerous men in Guantanamo who have committed or are capable of committing dangerous crimes. But we’ll never really know. It turns out that in the UK some of the convicted men associated with some of the 7/7 bombers, but this was withheld from disclosure in the interests of giving the accused a fair trial — can you imagine the US authorities acting with the same restraint? It would be splashed all over a White House press briefing in an instant.

It’s an incredible juxtaposition. It would make me proud to be British, had not my discovery of Spinozan philosophy shown me how trivial such sentiments are.

Wonder if they mention Spinoza, he obsesses.

I know what I am doing in the next 3 spare hours I can find. Watching this 3-part BBC documentary on the history of atheism. Apparently to be shown — horror of horrors — in the USA on (where else) NPR.

UPDATE: watched it, or enough of it. They, or rather Jonathan Miller, all-round Clever Person and presenter of the documentary, do not. Spinoza’s name is mentioned only in passing in part 2, in the title of an anti-Atheist screed published in the C17th. But a great deal of streaming video bits are spent in a discussion of Hobbes, and some Baron d’Holbach who in 1790 was the first vaguely modern person to formally call himself an atheist. I still, I have to admit, to finish part 3. My overriding impression is so far that it is all a bit anglo-centric. Not enough discussion of the impact of continental mechanical rationalists like Descartes, let alone of Spinoza. Never mind, when Jonathan Miller reads Ultimi Barbarorum he can apologise in the comments section.

I’m not paranoid if everyone really is out to get me

Normblog (via Alex Massie) does a fairly poor job of trying to skewer Naomi Wolf’s now well blogged, and I think really quite interesting, piece on the descent of the US into a sort of fascism.

He doesn’t actually say anything substantive as to why it is wrong, rather simply asserts with no argument that “talk of the danger of dictatorship and fascism is light-minded posturing”, and “dictatorship in America ain’t gonna happen any time soon” because the US polity is so, he asserts, very “resilient”. This is very typical of the responses of the moderate and not so moderate right when you use the “f” word. Another reaction I’ve seen is to dismiss the arguments as hackneyed, cliché-ed. But being hackneyed doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

I think that complacency is dangerous in itself, and moreover lacks historical imagination. No-one in 1920s Italy or 1930s Germany thought they would ever “go fascist” in the sense that we know it. We know the “powers that were” in Weimer thought Hitler to be an easily controlled frontman for a coalition of industrial and aristocratic interests who never dreamed they would be unleashing their doom. And you don’t need a dictatorship to have a fascist state — any electorate can do that by themselves very well, and then vote itself out of power. No-one would be that stupid? From where I sit outside the US, voting Dubya in for Bush 2, with an increased majority, seems to have been pretty fucking thick too. Wolf makes Norm’s and Alex’s point herself:

It is a mistake to think that early in a fascist shift you see the profile of barbed wire against the sky. In the early days, things look normal on the surface; peasants were celebrating harvest festivals in Calabria in 1922; people were shopping and going to the movies in Berlin in 1931. Early on, as WH Auden put it, the horror is always elsewhere – while someone is being tortured, children are skating, ships are sailing: “dogs go on with their doggy life … How everything turns away/ Quite leisurely from the disaster.”

 No, bald assertion won’t do it. Objections to Ms Wolf’s piece need a point-by-point rebuttal to be convincing; she needs a proper fisking. This is the problem however, because hyperbolic as she may have been, 8 out of 10 of her laundry list items seem pretty undeniable. She’s not making this stuff up: endless war with the evil enemy; create a prison system outside the rule of law; develop a thug caste of enforcers (you sniff? been blogging at all in the past 5 years?); spy on everyone; infiltrate and harass the opposition; arbitrary confinement at the pleasure of the executive; root out potential and actual dissenters in government; misinform and control the press; characterise dissent as treason; suspend the rule of law (habeus corpus, right to a jury trial, counsel etc). Check ,check, umm check I guess, check, maybe, check, check, maybe, and check.

If you want to be effective in your dismissal of Wolf, what you need to do is take issue not with accuracy of the shortlist itself, but convincingly define fascism in a way that shows you either need more than this list to create a fascist state, that this, in other words, is the wrong list, or that these unfortunate phenomena are not in fact the hallmark of burgeoning fascism, but rather harmless eccentricities common to greater or lesser extent to a lot of open societies. This is a lot harder to do in a readable blog format. Has someone done that? I wish we had some readers; they might know someone who has.

My conclusion: I am not convinced the US is a fascist state yet, nor will be in my lifetime. I think fascism would even be the wrong word for what could happen in a worst case scenario. In any case I hope it will pull back from the brink; I have faith, based on Reason, in the justice and beauty of the Spinozist project that is the US constitution. But my faith in the “resilience” of it against internal threats relies more on hope than on Reason. Wolf’s instincts are in the right place, and I am glad she wrote the piece. The key point for me, and Norm Geras and Alex Massie seem to fail to understand this, is that open societies are fragile. They need to be tended to, looked after, treasured, protected. As much from ourselves as from outside enemies. We cannot be too paranoid about threats against them: I am less frightened about the consequences of erring on the side of freedom and license and more frightened about erring on the side of security, and of fear itself.

Ultima Barbarorum, Mr Mayor

I think it is time for us to start endorsing presidential candidates, Bento. Spinoza would likely be fairly ambivalent where the traditional platforms of political parties in the US are concerned, though the current Republican party would probably be anathema. But let’s assume he would choose one candidate from both.

 Of the current Democratic crop of candidates, I am not sure what he would think of John Edwards. I think he would disqualify Hilary on the sole grounds that she is a woman, sadly. They weren’t very liberated in that sense in the 1670s. Obama? I would like to think so. But we cannot say either way. He might not have met many black people either. As Goldstein points out, that age was obsessed with hair. Let’s say he would endorse Edwards, then.

Republicans are even harder. He might secretly like McCain, but would be rather sickened at the compromises Old Potato Face has had to make in order to win. His performance on the Daily Show certainly made me cringe. He could endorse Mitt Romney too, were he in a mischevious mood. I mean, everyone knows someone just made Mormonism up; nothing would undermine the religious right more than kow-towing to one of them. Unless of course he were Wiccan. So let’s say Thompson, the faut de mieux candidate, if he runs.

Whatever. If I am doing a pretty bad job of imagining who Spinoza would support, I do think I know whose nomination he would do almost anything to prevent: Rudy. Andrew Sullivan, thankfully back from holiday, has enunciated the case against Rudy best. It’s worth reading.

Don’t give up hope

This cheered me up. Not that I’m Wiccan, of course. But Spinoza would approve.

Whither Limbo?

Dear Baruch,

The article in the IHT about how the Pope has abolished limbo begins hopefully. Indeed, what a silly idea limbo is. How could Catholics have been so wrong all these millennia? Best to be conservative in one’s claims about knowledge about what happens when the unbaptized die:

The document traces centuries of Church views on the fate of unbaptized infants, paying particular attention to the writings of St. Augustine — the 4th century bishop who is particularly dear to Benedict. Augustine wrote that such infants do go to hell, but they suffer only the “mildest condemnation.”

In the document, the commission said that such views are now out of date and that there were “serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision.”

It stressed, however, that “these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge.”

No one can know for certain what becomes of unbaptized babies since Scripture is largely silent on the matter, the report said.

Pointing out that interpreting Scripture is not a good way of attaining adequate knowledge is a positively Spinozan thing to do. But then the Vatican went and read God’s mind anyway, without bothering with Scripture:

It stressed that none of its findings should be taken as diminishing the need for parents to baptize infants.

“Rather … they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the church.”

Still, Spinoza did tell his landlady once that her very ordinary religion was perfectly acceptable as a guide for ethical living, as he didn’t think most people were cut out for philosophizing, and we also have this added benefit for Spinoza:

He said the document also had implications for non-Christians, since it could be seen as suggesting that non-baptized adults could go to heaven if they led a good life.

If I understand that right, being baptized and good = 100% chance of going to Heaven. Being unbaptized but good = 0 < x% < 100% chance of going to Heaven, depending on how nice you think God is.

As somebody who, against my will, was baptized, this at least provides hope I’ll get to meet Spinoza in Heaven — if I can ever find him amid that ocean of fetuses the place has turned out to be.

Warfare 2.0.

Fascinating blog. The Iraqi insurgency explained in the vocabulary of open source software development. Interesting looking book, too, the first chapter of which we can read here.

Deadly terrorist nerds are no joke, clearly. If the success of the insurgency in Iraq sets off a chain of copycat open source terrorist campaigns, we are all in trouble. But are the conditions in Iraq easily replicable elsewhere? Also, I don’t think we have to worry about nanobots yet. God knows I’ve tried to find decent nanotech stocks to buy, with zero success.

I wonder what the defence against this is, if it does take hold. Probably only the ability of the uniting ideas of the regime to maintain loyalty among the population. I guess that would be where Spinoza comes in.

More Parris

Matthew Parris, again, is clearly paying attention.

They are the very devil, these people, they could wreck our world, and their central belief in God’s plan has to be confronted. Confronted with passion. Confronted because, and on the ground that, it is not true.

Spinozists must step up!

Matthew Parris, always worth reading, has an interesting piece on the relative lack of progress our society has made in the last half century compared to the previous one, lack of progress in both technology and thought. Apologies for the slightly stale nature of the link. Key passage:

With very few exceptions. . . the great life-changing inventions and discoveries — humble or hi-tech — that shape modern society were made before or during the Second World War: automobiles, aeroplanes, the jet engine, electricity, telephones, radio, television, refrigerators, washing machines, industrial mass production . . . the list is endless. In medical science the same is true: germ theory, penicillin, virology, radiology, anaesthetics and bacteriology are all pre1950, and the huge leaps enjoyed in average life expectancy in the developed world were made relatively early in the last century. Today life expectancy is only creeping forward. . .  When I was 10, my schoolmates and I believed that an Age of Reason was almost upon us. Reason was (unthinkingly) associated with science; and science would help to lead mankind not only to a more comfortable, but to a more just and moral, way of life. . . .

 . . . None of this has come to pass.

Maybe this goes to the heart of why we are living in an age of creeping barbarism, religiosity and superstition. I suspect it is because science, or reason, seems to have failed us, or rather, it is moving forward in a way we no longer notice. The river of knowledge has moved underground. We become more and more aware of what it is we do not know, of the things we cannot change. Never mind the fact we have not landed on Mars, do not live on the moon and there are very few flying cars. We still die of cancer, of heart disease. There is no AIDS vaccine. Guerrillas in Vietnam and Iraq can defeat the highest of high tech weaponry developed by the greatest superpower the world has seen, by hiding in bushes or behind walls. There have been no significant, practical advances in our understanding of physics discernible to the layperson since the H-Bomb, just boffins in wheelchairs writing books about black holes which — let’s be honest — no one can actually understand.

Spinoza by contrast lived in an age when everything seemed up for grabs. Copernicus, Newton, Hobbes, Locke, Rembrandt, Vermeer were all creating new ways of thinking, of understanding things, of seeing. The Dutch East India Company was opening huge swathes of the world to commerce (OK and slavery, exploitation and disease too, but you can’t have everything). Mathematics and reason provided unbounded hope. What was impossible? Similarly, as Parris points out, in the 1930s and 1950s, we won the war, people were dreaming of rocket cars and disposable underpants we can eat (this came true however). They were also designing planned societies, and dreaming up Milton Keynes.

My point: in the environment and age Spinoza lived, the invention or discovery of great all-encompassing systems of thought, of intellectual progress, were possible. The priests of superstition, religion, false certainties were shown to be wrong and the atavistic illogic of authoritarianism had to give way to the light of Reason. Science was more interesting, more powerful than the old conceptions of god.

In our age, the sensible person is trained to be deeply suspicious of peddlers of great thoughts. We do not see the great achievements. Science seems toothless, Reason seems fallible. And so the stupidity of superstitious religion, of the irrational politics of naked power, of illiberalism, fundamentalism, hypocrisy and cant reasserts itself. We live in the age of Dubya, suicide bombers, The Base, CheneyRumsfeldGonzales, Iraq, Howard, Blair, WSJ op-eds, Hilary Clinton, torture, that fact no-one seems to give a shit about torture, farm subsidies, the end of habeus corpus, the fact that no-one seems to give a shit about habeus corpus, Motorola managers, hate speech, criminalising hate speech, bed-wetting hand-wringers, complainers, The Economist, sites like this, Sarko, Sego, that other one — all this goddamned crap! This goddamned crap is because it looks like science and reason has failed us.

They haven’t failed us of course. It just looks like they have. I think the potential of the internet and genetics are the 2 greatest forces for change in our time. At some point a theoretical physicist might even discover something useful. But it might take time. So we need Spinoza at times like this to remind us what pure a priori reason can achieve, and to remind us it is not all hopeless and we don’t need the goddamned crap.

Barbarians at the gate

Baruch,

This is so stupid. Who wants to be a part of this? Whatever happened to free speech? the FT:

Laws that make denying or trivialising the Holocaust a criminal offence punishable by jail sentences will be introduced across the European Union, according to a proposal expecting to win backing from ministers Thursday.

The only restriction on free speech should be incitement to violence. The new law is against that, but also against hate speech. Why? Are people going to stop hating if they can’t articulate their prejudices? Wait, let me answer that: No.

[National laws] will also have to criminalise “publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes” when such statements incite hatred or violence against minorities.

Not every atrocity qualifies for the privilege, however:

Diplomats stressed the provision had been carefully worded to include only denial of the Holocaust – the Nazi mass murder of Jews during the second world war – and the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. [...]

In an attempt to assuage Turkish fears, several EU diplomats said the provisions would not penalise the denial of mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman troops in the aftermath of the 1915 collapse of the Ottoman empire. Turkey strongly rejects claims that this episode amounted to genocide.

Well, at least I’m glad the Belgians and the Sudanese got off easy. Wouldn’t want to crimp their style. And we can still deny that the slave trade existed, or deny that the Spanish decimated South American natives, etc… And finally, everyone in the Muslim world can now punish “insults to Islam” and not have to worry about Europeans making free speech arguments, because the Europeans, Muslims can now gleefully point out, have their own sacred cows.

This whole continent is adrift, I tell you.