I told myself I’d ignore politics for a while and comment – if and when I could – only on things that might help people figure out what to do financially.
But two recent stories call for comment.
The first was yesterday’s story about mob violence between Uighur Muslims and Han Chinese in China. The violence was said to have been triggered by the influx of Han into the oil-rich Uighur lands, which has led to resentment from the Uighurs. They see themselves as less well-off… and also as exploited by the Han. The Han regard these feelings as a sign of the Uighurs’ backwardness and stupidity.
Apparently, photos were circulated on the net of Han gloating over dead Uighur. That seems have led to violent confrontations between Han, Uighur and police. Chinese authorities also blame a nonresident Uighur activist for instigating violence over the photos. “Activists,” demands for disclosure of photos, and the web, all came in for blame.
The second story is in today’s news. Apparently, US Treasury and other web sites were subjected to Denial of Service Attacks that had them down for a long time. The same thing happened to some South Korean banking sites. The attacks are said to have been very sophisticated and to have originated with North Korea, which has been firing missiles defiantly over the past couple of weeks.
My first worry is – is this all posturing or is something bigger afoot?
My second worry is – is this going to be used to clamp down on the net and on net activists? After all, yours truly has written several articles since 2005 demanding that the US government disclose photos of torture of Iraqi women – those articles could also be seen as inflammatory. Am I inciting jihadists with articles like that? I have no idea. My thinking is that people brainwashed into jihad probably don’t need much of a motive beyond the history of US policy to get them going.
But I’m willing to admit that it probably adds a bit of gasoline to some fires.
What to do? Should one NOT demand disclosure and assume the state has its reasons that reason knows nothing of?
But what if the state is circulating its own fiery propaganda with lethal results? Don’t you sometimes fight fire with fire?
Fight fire with fire and the whole world turns to coal, says Mahatma moralist.
George Herbert said something better though. He said the whole world turns to coal anyway.
Only a “sweet and virtuous soul still chiefly lives.”
The question is how does a virtuous soul act in such times and in such complexities?
I have no answer.
Hello!
Glad you are back and posting.
How to act? Survive and do best for you and yours. By now you probably know that most people and governments are well immune from truth or functioning in anything approaching an honest or ethically consistent function. News from China is disturbing but frankly the media outlets are always wrong or miss points on what is going on in Suburban Maryland or Baltimore so it takes a great leap of credultiy to believe the narrative said to underly the violence in China–the ol the minority is always a victim and they wear white hats and the majority han wear black hats….
We are all here for what 60-80 years, and governments have been up to the same tricks for millenia. The net the so called savior and life line is also a great ally of the government and the net.
Write to reassure fellow travlers and to clear you mind and leave a mark. The urge to change the world is well vanity and when you get down to it destructive. If we all focused on living decent lives and properly minding our affairs and realizing the nature of humanity we would be better off. There are no utopias and the search for utopia only brings, despotism, statism, propaganda and more wars to end all wars, new government programs, final solutions, diversity, social work, anti-depreseants, keynsian economics, Hillary Clinton, Obamacare, Great Society, Cultural Revolution, Domino Theory…….
Be well and do what you do, but you can;t save the world or prevent them from driving off the cliff.
A virtuous soul acts in such times as it always acts, that is, consistent with it’s creed, with what it professes to believe. If it can do so, everything else will take care of itself.
Hi Robert –
Thanks for posting. Yes, changing the world is all vanity or delusion or simple mindedness.
I write to clear my own mind and because I feel a pressure to say things. I’m under no delusion that it will do more than provide some idle thoughts for some passersby.
The net..we have a short window – says an acquaintance – and then our freedom will be gone. Regulation is in the air.
Bob –
Translating the general principles of creeds into the specifics of actions is the problem.
The Good Samaritan is not supposed to walk by the innocent traveler who gets beaten up by thugs. He’s supposed to help the victim. Presumably, if he’d come on the scene earlier, he’d have been expected to stop the thugs too…
But you can’t always tell who’s the victim. If you came on the scene too late, you might confuse the perp with the victim…
Sometimes both sides are repulsive…
And sometimes, after you help the victim, he rewards you by beating you up…
It’s all very well preaching the ten commandments and moral renewal, which is what I hear from all sides these days…even the Wall Street Journal
It would have been much better if there were a hundred commandments, with point by point analysis of their application…but ten is far too few and almost useless as a moral guide.
Thou shalt not steal.
Every word there bears parsing…
Lila:
It is interesting that you chose the parable of the Good Samaritan to illustrate your point. It is one of my favorite stories from the Bible. Interestingly enough though, the Samaritan was the person on the Jerusalem to Jericho road you would least expect to stop and help the beaten Jew. Before he came upon the scene, a priest and a Levite passed the wounded man and both chose NOT to help him. Samaritans and Jews were enemies and it is quite possible that someone passing by while the Samaritan was helping would logically assume that he had beaten the injured man.
And so the Samaritan did what he felt was right, even though others did not and even though he took a great risk in doing so. The Samaritan had the virtuous heart, and he chose to live his life in a manner consistent with his creed, whatever the cost.
Perhaps that is preaching moral renewal and the 10 commandments, but your lament concerned what a “virtuous heart” should do and I don’t know how to separate virtue from morality. Sorry about that.
I do know this. If the Internet is censored and if blogging is outlawed, the people will find another voice. If governments become more overbearing than they already are, we will persevere. It is the nature of human history to do so, and we will do so in remarkable and unanticipated ways.
Live your creed, regardless of what it is….and regardless of the cost. If you do, nothing else matters.
“The unexamined life is not worth living.” — Socrates. That jives with me, and I’m sure with you too (which is why you write), and I believe with most/all sane people.
Regarding our cyber freedom, don’t worry :D… we’ve already eaten the apple and fallen from grace (graceful ignorance); opened Pandora’s box; etc. There is no stopping the free flow of information now–the flood-gates will only open wider. Hurray. Freenet (http://freenetproject.org) is an absolutely wonderful example of yet another widening of the gates–it is essentially censor and regulation and bomb-proof :b. I’ve seen a few new libertarians posting in it recently, actually. (Along with old anarchists.)
Bob – does nothing else matter but your own creed? Suppose the rest of your family doesnt agree with your creed but suffers the results of it..wouldn’t you live to regret it?
Dennis –
Thanks for the link.. I will check it out but you’re more optimistic than me.
I remember that people thought TV as the greatest cultural advance when it first came into use. Ha.