I'm really unsure what drove the global panic about the Wuflu. It never made sense even if, as we now know for almost certain, the original virus was deliberately genetically engineered. By this time 5 years ago we had copious evidence from the Diamond Princess and the various other cruise ships and US Navy ships that for most people this was a nasty flu at worst. Yet the panic spread and I'm fairly sure some of the spread was deliberate, though who did it and why is unclear
It was undoubtedly to an extent stoked by governments. I don't see a huge amount of mystery in this, actually. To a politician, being seen as a saviour is catnip. By portraying government as the solution to Covid, they were simply furthering their own interests.
Governments and politicians undoubtedly stoked the blaze, but the mainstream media, and joe public via social media also added some fuel. 'Normal' politics is tiresome and the divisiveness is wearing. All of a sudden, there was a common enemy, across the globe, and people (at least in the internet connected parts) could join together in defeating it, and share their contributions in the fight (a.k.a. sheep-like compliance) on the web. There was a palpable 'war spirit', with lots of effort made to help out with activities necessary to deal with the utterly pointless restrictions we faced (e.g. delivering meals to the isolated elderly) . The only people excluded from this great enterprise were the few dissenters, the covidiots, the granny-killers, who deserved to be locked away from the self-righteous, and denied the opportunity to speak and act freely, and in some cases to earn a living.
I saw the effect of the government/media/social compliance phenomenon first hand at a beach barbecue when the restctions were lifted somewhat. One officious individual was telling the various couples where to sit, in order to comply with the 'bubbles' and 'two meter' rules. I muttered something about 'government b0ll0cks', and was rounded on quite sharply. Of course, all that malarkey became irrelevant as soon as the wine flowed and the food was shared around. Great government-fitted blinkers, but no brains or self-reflection. Seeing it all from my sceptical perch definitely lessened my faith in humanity.
Ironic, then, that every (?) government across the globe that attempted to save their populations was turfed out at the next election. Maybe there is longer term electoral advantage to be gained from standing firm and doing the right thing than giving in to the mob for immediate applause.
The same thing happened to Churchill after WW2. He was ousted in 1945 by the Labour Party under Attlee. (There's an entertaining video about this on YT at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YokrY_G8L-c )
Churchill seems to have believed that his celebrity would carry the day. Politics however is about power rather than principle so, although I agree it would be a lot better, we won't see any successful principled politicians in the near future (remember what happened to Andrew Bridgen?) At least, not in the UK.
Yes, this was Boris’s self-consciously Churchillian moment; his hubristic chance to unite the nation around his leadership. His attempt was bolstered by being hospitalised with, and recovering from, covid, further emphasising his battling Dunkirk spirit. This he later elaborated on by evoking JFK, with his proclamation of a world-beating ‘moonshot’ programme of vaccine development, knowing full well that it was almost ready.
It's very hard to attain any definite knowledge through the miasma of deliberate obfuscation, half-truth, and crackpot beliefs.
But I think it quite probable that Covid was a biological weapon carefully crafted in labs by American scientists and others in their pay. And, also quite likely, deliberately released - first in Wuhan, then in Iran and Italy.
The US government has extensive previous in biological warfare. It has by far the biggest investment, the most labs (many of them thoughtfully placed very far away from the USA should anything go wrong), and very powerful motives. Namely, it is irreconcilably opposed to Russia, China, and Iran - but cannot hope to overcome them through conventional warfare. Nuclear war is always a draw: everyone dies. Not so good even for maniacs. So biological weapons, ideally optimised for the genes of a particular "race", might seem the best option. And one has to remember that Dr Strangelove, while apparently a ridiculously impossible figure of satire, was in fact closely modelled on certain real people.
Also, the biological warfare explanation also accounts for the "vaccines" being ready in such an impossibly short time. Perhaps they were prepared, not in response to the virus, but in parallel with it.
I'm quite sure it was deliberately created. Whether it was done for nefarious reasons by the US or by the Chicoms I do not know. We already know about the gain of function grants for some of it but there could more. Who knows? At least some of the Wuhan people are dead and they are the people who actually made the thing.
I'm fairly sure that it was not deliberately released. The entire response from the PRC makes that clear. They were extremely scared of it, which to my mind suggests that they thought they knew what it was and that they thought it was a lot worse
In fact I do not believe the Chinese - at least, those in China - made Covid. I think it was wholly an American creation. And I believe it was deliberately released, not through any “lab leak”, but by some hostile agency. The US contingent at the world military games in Wuhan, just about that time, was remarked upon for the ineptness of several of its members. Perhaps they were not athletes at all.
<But I think it quite probable that Covid was a biological weapon carefully crafted in labs by American scientists and others in their pay. >
So, how do you explain the several other novel coronaviruses that were discovered in the 20-30 years before the present one? There is a test for your theory. New discoveries were made at roughly seven-year intervals, so the next one should arrive near the end of this decade.
Oh, and no one has proved that gain-of-function experiments have had a viable outcome.
The deliberate confusion between Rules (aka law) and Guidance (aka the whim of the prime minister and his surrounding courtiers), and the egregious proliferation of the latter, was a particularly unedifying highlight of the Covid Era.
If any school head had been brave enough to keep a school fully open, as opposed to being a crèche for the offspring of Key Workers (another ghastly invention of the CE), we can be sure that Mr Plod would have been round like a shot to shut the school by force. Not because Mr Plod could justify his action by law, but because Mr Plod could.
Thank you for another excellent article. At the time this was all unfolding we just couldn't believe what the government was doing (and even more so how everyone was just accepting the ridiculous Pythonesque cabaret). Your analysis of the situation is very interesting and I will enjoy referring to it when the philosophy group I have recently joined progresses from ethics to legal discussions.
"This is not rocket science - the subtext is practically a supertext. Where he was now was under increasing political pressure to close schools. And therefore schools had to close as a matter of pure political expediency."
I once worked for a local college and met one or two of the 'academic staff,' all of which without exception were self righteous and entitled, structurally lazy people who would do anything for an extra day off. If there was an inset day and the principle wanted to address them at 2.30pm with a rousing speech, they'd be pissed off and annoyed that it wasn't 9.30am, so that they could call it a day and go home.
Excellent again, David. Am I reaching too far to extrapolate this the other way to the exercise of what seems to be political decisions by lawyers? The current stand-off between the Lord Chancellor and the Sentencing Council, for example. Even if I'm wrong, as a number of your recent articles have highlighted the boundaries between law and politics are hopelessly blurred.
Precisely right. Law is becoming politicised and politics legalised. It’s the same coin with different sides. We no longer really know what the difference is between them.
I have to say I found Lewis' judgement re Dolan's legal case to be quite unimpressive overall. He wrote things like "The decision on proportionality and necessity under the 1984 Act and Regulations is, ultimately, for the minister." - which somewhat undermines the whole concept of judicial review, not to mention parliamentary democracy!
You mentioned the Civil Contingencies Act - at no stage in the pandemic did the government resort to that Act. (It was speculated that the reason was that the CCA requires regular reviews of regulations by Parliament.) The government instead (mis-)used the Public Health Act 1984 to impose the lockdowns.
The Public Health Act had been amended by the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This latter Act was mostly about regulating health service quality, but it had Section 129 tacked onto it. This section massively expanded the Health Secretary's powers to issue health protection regulations, including lockdowns (though they are not mentioned in the Act).
The whole disgusting mess is typical of the heap of wreckage that is our UK body of legislation. Most of it is expressly designed to exclude parliament from any say in governing the country, passing powers to Ministers (for which read: civil servants) to govern via regulations.
You are right: our legal system is basically about political power. And that political power is increasingly being taken away from elected politicians and handed to experts, technocrats and bureaucrats instead. Which makes it even more puke-worthy to hear second-rate politicians waffling about "enshrining ... in law" (where ... is Net Zero or anything else that takes their fancy).
Note the word "enshrining". That's not even a political word. It is a religious word. It is as though these halfwits, having abandoned Christianity, actually believe they have substituted it with something far better: the legal system reimagined as an idol that they can worship.
Yes, the Lewis judgment was really dreadful in so many ways. But the Court of Appeal didn't do much better even on the narrow issue of the vires of the Public Health Act. The entire thing almost seemed like an exercise in judicial enforcement of lockdown, to be honest - it was as though the point from the get-go was to stomp over any future attempt at judicial review.
You really are helping get to the black heart of things.
I was reminded of this ‘They control the process for the process – and, if necessary, the inquiry into the process for the process – so they can always change whatever they want, while maintaining the facade of ‘open and fair’, of course, without anybody realising.’
Slight tangent, but I’d love to hear your take on someone that I've heard mentioned a few times recently - Friedrich List.
"‘Prerogative,’ he concludes, ‘is nothing but the Power of doing publick good without a rule.’"
Or, as the good Mr Locke may have omitted to mention, doing publick harm without a rule. Which might, realistically, be the case more often. Even much more often.
One of the concerns was that the children would spread it amongst themselves and then take it home to their parents and grandparents. And were not the teachers part of the panic? And did they not fight hard for the schools not to reopen?
But what I find most enfuriating is the way the UK is tearing itself apart with its COVID Enquiry which, instead of identifying key factors to better fight the next pandemic (and there surely will be one), it is totally ignoring where the virus came from and why.
The inquiry is a scandalous waste of public money. We all know what the conclusion will be, because it is foregone - the final report will say we should have locked down faster and harder because that is received wisdom. Why do we need to spend hundreds of millions of pounds for this to be announced?
- If the judges and the ministers agree, the will of the elites prevail regardless of the letter of the law. Hence power is more important than some underlying morality.
- If the judges disagree with the ministers, then their will prevails because they can interpret the law however they like
- if the ministers disagree with the judges... I suppose they can do some kind of executive thing to force their will through? It seems like this doesn't exclude judicial oversight? Unless the king gets involved?
Forgive me, my knowledge of these things is not great.
Good questions. If the ministers disagree with the judges there is little they can do except try to get Parliament to legislate in such a way as to overturn the judgment. This is sort of what the 'Safety of Rwanda' bill was for - a way to override judicial opposition by ordering judges to find that Rwanda was a safe country to deport people to.
Thanks for this piece - and even more so for the opportunity to post free comments! 😂 I'll endeavour to keep my pushback brief. You say:
"The problems really begin the moment one starts to ask where the underlying moral order comes from and why it means that everybody is entitled to equal concern and respect. Christians have no problem answering that question. But the 21st century liberal finds it extremely vexing."
You then claim the only options are Rawls or hand-waving. If you're observing what happens in our institutions, this is substantially correct. But as one of your liberal readers, it is unfair to say this is the only move in play. Another approach is to go back to Kant. What Rawls did is nothing less than sink Kant below the waterline. 'Neo-Kantian' is too forgiving a name for the endless naivety unleashed by A Theory of Justice. I believe Kant would have repudiated Rawls.
As both a liberal and a Christian, Kant's political philosophy is vitally important to me for many reasons, including because Kant is a Christian but he understands that Christianity cannot be taken as necessary without undermining Christian theology. C.S. Lewis seemed to understand this too.
I'll leave you with the piece I ran on the same day as your piece, as other readers may be interested in why what is now called 'human rights' are nothing of the kind:
I believe C.S. Lewis advances the view I attribute to him here in The Abolition of Man, although it might come up in Mere Christianity instead or as well. He strongly emphasised the importance of individual faith and moral choice, but he stressed that this is a matter of personal conscience, and opposed the idea of trying to impose such strictures as societal mandates.
I noted that Lewis' invocation of what he calls Tao/the Way in Abolition of Man looks suspiciously like it could have been influenced by Kant's philosophy cf
"The Tao, which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected."
He doesn't mention Kant's Categorical Imperative, but is clearly swimming with the same dolphins. I note that while 'First Principles of Practical Reason' looks somewhat like a Kant reference to me, it might actually refer to Aquinas (riffing off Aristotle), who I'm not well acquainted with.
One caveat: most of my knowledge of Lewis' philosophy is from secondary sources. I have been thwarted in my interest in Lewis' philosophy because nobody ever gives these books away, so second hand book stores have never yielded me these particular treasures!
Curious. Oakeshott was into the Tao as well - I’d never really been all that interested in that aspect of his thought, but thanks to this comment I can grasp it better. I may have to do some further digging. Thanks for this!
"What you’ll notice about this is that is a patent non-sequitur".
Very reminiscent of the many, many "scientific" papers submitted to and published in reputable journals, in which the body of the paper clearly proves one thing and the Conclusions say exactly the opposite.
Boris bottled it with the edication unions, who pretended their members were at risk when they weren't. But of course, Boris bottled EBERYTHING. Brexit. Covid. Immigration. All buggered by the lard arse yellow belly.
This links to a table of stats re those actually killed BY Covid,not the fraudulent "with" Covid, based on the PCR tests, known to give 90 t0 95% false positives. As the designer noted, they were not to be used to ID specific viruses.
In 21 months, less than 10k died FROM Covid. That' c 15 per diem. Ergo, not even an epidemic.
<100 under the age of 50
TWO under the age of 14. More will have been killed or damaged for life by the jabs. State sponsored murder.
These were experimental jabs. 1st phase clinical trials two plus years off. Emergency authorisation. Proper testing sidestepped by the WHO twice changing the definition of vaccines so they cd pretend gene therapy shots were just "vaccines", thereby not requiring testing as a new transport medium.
Coercing people to get jabbed was a clear breach of the Nuremberg Code
Not, it seems, a concern of the whitewash inquiry.
I'm really unsure what drove the global panic about the Wuflu. It never made sense even if, as we now know for almost certain, the original virus was deliberately genetically engineered. By this time 5 years ago we had copious evidence from the Diamond Princess and the various other cruise ships and US Navy ships that for most people this was a nasty flu at worst. Yet the panic spread and I'm fairly sure some of the spread was deliberate, though who did it and why is unclear
It was undoubtedly to an extent stoked by governments. I don't see a huge amount of mystery in this, actually. To a politician, being seen as a saviour is catnip. By portraying government as the solution to Covid, they were simply furthering their own interests.
Governments and politicians undoubtedly stoked the blaze, but the mainstream media, and joe public via social media also added some fuel. 'Normal' politics is tiresome and the divisiveness is wearing. All of a sudden, there was a common enemy, across the globe, and people (at least in the internet connected parts) could join together in defeating it, and share their contributions in the fight (a.k.a. sheep-like compliance) on the web. There was a palpable 'war spirit', with lots of effort made to help out with activities necessary to deal with the utterly pointless restrictions we faced (e.g. delivering meals to the isolated elderly) . The only people excluded from this great enterprise were the few dissenters, the covidiots, the granny-killers, who deserved to be locked away from the self-righteous, and denied the opportunity to speak and act freely, and in some cases to earn a living.
I saw the effect of the government/media/social compliance phenomenon first hand at a beach barbecue when the restctions were lifted somewhat. One officious individual was telling the various couples where to sit, in order to comply with the 'bubbles' and 'two meter' rules. I muttered something about 'government b0ll0cks', and was rounded on quite sharply. Of course, all that malarkey became irrelevant as soon as the wine flowed and the food was shared around. Great government-fitted blinkers, but no brains or self-reflection. Seeing it all from my sceptical perch definitely lessened my faith in humanity.
Ironic, then, that every (?) government across the globe that attempted to save their populations was turfed out at the next election. Maybe there is longer term electoral advantage to be gained from standing firm and doing the right thing than giving in to the mob for immediate applause.
The same thing happened to Churchill after WW2. He was ousted in 1945 by the Labour Party under Attlee. (There's an entertaining video about this on YT at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YokrY_G8L-c )
Churchill seems to have believed that his celebrity would carry the day. Politics however is about power rather than principle so, although I agree it would be a lot better, we won't see any successful principled politicians in the near future (remember what happened to Andrew Bridgen?) At least, not in the UK.
Yes, this was Boris’s self-consciously Churchillian moment; his hubristic chance to unite the nation around his leadership. His attempt was bolstered by being hospitalised with, and recovering from, covid, further emphasising his battling Dunkirk spirit. This he later elaborated on by evoking JFK, with his proclamation of a world-beating ‘moonshot’ programme of vaccine development, knowing full well that it was almost ready.
It's very hard to attain any definite knowledge through the miasma of deliberate obfuscation, half-truth, and crackpot beliefs.
But I think it quite probable that Covid was a biological weapon carefully crafted in labs by American scientists and others in their pay. And, also quite likely, deliberately released - first in Wuhan, then in Iran and Italy.
The US government has extensive previous in biological warfare. It has by far the biggest investment, the most labs (many of them thoughtfully placed very far away from the USA should anything go wrong), and very powerful motives. Namely, it is irreconcilably opposed to Russia, China, and Iran - but cannot hope to overcome them through conventional warfare. Nuclear war is always a draw: everyone dies. Not so good even for maniacs. So biological weapons, ideally optimised for the genes of a particular "race", might seem the best option. And one has to remember that Dr Strangelove, while apparently a ridiculously impossible figure of satire, was in fact closely modelled on certain real people.
Also, the biological warfare explanation also accounts for the "vaccines" being ready in such an impossibly short time. Perhaps they were prepared, not in response to the virus, but in parallel with it.
And lots of biolabs in Ukraine (the new, post Covid cult).
I'm quite sure it was deliberately created. Whether it was done for nefarious reasons by the US or by the Chicoms I do not know. We already know about the gain of function grants for some of it but there could more. Who knows? At least some of the Wuhan people are dead and they are the people who actually made the thing.
I'm fairly sure that it was not deliberately released. The entire response from the PRC makes that clear. They were extremely scared of it, which to my mind suggests that they thought they knew what it was and that they thought it was a lot worse
In fact I do not believe the Chinese - at least, those in China - made Covid. I think it was wholly an American creation. And I believe it was deliberately released, not through any “lab leak”, but by some hostile agency. The US contingent at the world military games in Wuhan, just about that time, was remarked upon for the ineptness of several of its members. Perhaps they were not athletes at all.
<But I think it quite probable that Covid was a biological weapon carefully crafted in labs by American scientists and others in their pay. >
So, how do you explain the several other novel coronaviruses that were discovered in the 20-30 years before the present one? There is a test for your theory. New discoveries were made at roughly seven-year intervals, so the next one should arrive near the end of this decade.
Oh, and no one has proved that gain-of-function experiments have had a viable outcome.
That other coronaviruses have been identified and described has nothing whatever to do with the belief that Covid-19 is a biological weapon.
Try reading some of these articles: https://www.unz.com/page/covid-biowarfare-articles/
The deliberate confusion between Rules (aka law) and Guidance (aka the whim of the prime minister and his surrounding courtiers), and the egregious proliferation of the latter, was a particularly unedifying highlight of the Covid Era.
If any school head had been brave enough to keep a school fully open, as opposed to being a crèche for the offspring of Key Workers (another ghastly invention of the CE), we can be sure that Mr Plod would have been round like a shot to shut the school by force. Not because Mr Plod could justify his action by law, but because Mr Plod could.
Yes, quite.
Thank you for another excellent article. At the time this was all unfolding we just couldn't believe what the government was doing (and even more so how everyone was just accepting the ridiculous Pythonesque cabaret). Your analysis of the situation is very interesting and I will enjoy referring to it when the philosophy group I have recently joined progresses from ethics to legal discussions.
Thanks!
"This is not rocket science - the subtext is practically a supertext. Where he was now was under increasing political pressure to close schools. And therefore schools had to close as a matter of pure political expediency."
I once worked for a local college and met one or two of the 'academic staff,' all of which without exception were self righteous and entitled, structurally lazy people who would do anything for an extra day off. If there was an inset day and the principle wanted to address them at 2.30pm with a rousing speech, they'd be pissed off and annoyed that it wasn't 9.30am, so that they could call it a day and go home.
Excellent again, David. Am I reaching too far to extrapolate this the other way to the exercise of what seems to be political decisions by lawyers? The current stand-off between the Lord Chancellor and the Sentencing Council, for example. Even if I'm wrong, as a number of your recent articles have highlighted the boundaries between law and politics are hopelessly blurred.
Precisely right. Law is becoming politicised and politics legalised. It’s the same coin with different sides. We no longer really know what the difference is between them.
Perhaps the missing "mystery ingredient" is morality.
Absolutely right.
I have to say I found Lewis' judgement re Dolan's legal case to be quite unimpressive overall. He wrote things like "The decision on proportionality and necessity under the 1984 Act and Regulations is, ultimately, for the minister." - which somewhat undermines the whole concept of judicial review, not to mention parliamentary democracy!
You mentioned the Civil Contingencies Act - at no stage in the pandemic did the government resort to that Act. (It was speculated that the reason was that the CCA requires regular reviews of regulations by Parliament.) The government instead (mis-)used the Public Health Act 1984 to impose the lockdowns.
The Public Health Act had been amended by the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This latter Act was mostly about regulating health service quality, but it had Section 129 tacked onto it. This section massively expanded the Health Secretary's powers to issue health protection regulations, including lockdowns (though they are not mentioned in the Act).
The whole disgusting mess is typical of the heap of wreckage that is our UK body of legislation. Most of it is expressly designed to exclude parliament from any say in governing the country, passing powers to Ministers (for which read: civil servants) to govern via regulations.
You are right: our legal system is basically about political power. And that political power is increasingly being taken away from elected politicians and handed to experts, technocrats and bureaucrats instead. Which makes it even more puke-worthy to hear second-rate politicians waffling about "enshrining ... in law" (where ... is Net Zero or anything else that takes their fancy).
Note the word "enshrining". That's not even a political word. It is a religious word. It is as though these halfwits, having abandoned Christianity, actually believe they have substituted it with something far better: the legal system reimagined as an idol that they can worship.
Yes, the Lewis judgment was really dreadful in so many ways. But the Court of Appeal didn't do much better even on the narrow issue of the vires of the Public Health Act. The entire thing almost seemed like an exercise in judicial enforcement of lockdown, to be honest - it was as though the point from the get-go was to stomp over any future attempt at judicial review.
Excellent, as always!
You really are helping get to the black heart of things.
I was reminded of this ‘They control the process for the process – and, if necessary, the inquiry into the process for the process – so they can always change whatever they want, while maintaining the facade of ‘open and fair’, of course, without anybody realising.’
Slight tangent, but I’d love to hear your take on someone that I've heard mentioned a few times recently - Friedrich List.
Thanks! List is not a figure I know much about, to be honest - though I can see the contemporary relevance in terms of tariffs, etc....
"‘Prerogative,’ he concludes, ‘is nothing but the Power of doing publick good without a rule.’"
Or, as the good Mr Locke may have omitted to mention, doing publick harm without a rule. Which might, realistically, be the case more often. Even much more often.
One of the concerns was that the children would spread it amongst themselves and then take it home to their parents and grandparents. And were not the teachers part of the panic? And did they not fight hard for the schools not to reopen?
But what I find most enfuriating is the way the UK is tearing itself apart with its COVID Enquiry which, instead of identifying key factors to better fight the next pandemic (and there surely will be one), it is totally ignoring where the virus came from and why.
The inquiry is a scandalous waste of public money. We all know what the conclusion will be, because it is foregone - the final report will say we should have locked down faster and harder because that is received wisdom. Why do we need to spend hundreds of millions of pounds for this to be announced?
There is no price too high when you’re spending other people’s money to vindicate yourself!
Does it follow then that:
- If the judges and the ministers agree, the will of the elites prevail regardless of the letter of the law. Hence power is more important than some underlying morality.
- If the judges disagree with the ministers, then their will prevails because they can interpret the law however they like
- if the ministers disagree with the judges... I suppose they can do some kind of executive thing to force their will through? It seems like this doesn't exclude judicial oversight? Unless the king gets involved?
Forgive me, my knowledge of these things is not great.
Good questions. If the ministers disagree with the judges there is little they can do except try to get Parliament to legislate in such a way as to overturn the judgment. This is sort of what the 'Safety of Rwanda' bill was for - a way to override judicial opposition by ordering judges to find that Rwanda was a safe country to deport people to.
Dear David,
Thanks for this piece - and even more so for the opportunity to post free comments! 😂 I'll endeavour to keep my pushback brief. You say:
"The problems really begin the moment one starts to ask where the underlying moral order comes from and why it means that everybody is entitled to equal concern and respect. Christians have no problem answering that question. But the 21st century liberal finds it extremely vexing."
You then claim the only options are Rawls or hand-waving. If you're observing what happens in our institutions, this is substantially correct. But as one of your liberal readers, it is unfair to say this is the only move in play. Another approach is to go back to Kant. What Rawls did is nothing less than sink Kant below the waterline. 'Neo-Kantian' is too forgiving a name for the endless naivety unleashed by A Theory of Justice. I believe Kant would have repudiated Rawls.
As both a liberal and a Christian, Kant's political philosophy is vitally important to me for many reasons, including because Kant is a Christian but he understands that Christianity cannot be taken as necessary without undermining Christian theology. C.S. Lewis seemed to understand this too.
I'll leave you with the piece I ran on the same day as your piece, as other readers may be interested in why what is now called 'human rights' are nothing of the kind:
https://strangerworlds.substack.com/p/bloc-rights-are-not-rights
Stay wonderful!
Chris.
PS: I failed to keep it short. But I don't have time to shorten it, sorry! 🙂
Thanks Chris. I'm glad we agree on Rawls at least. 'Endless naivety' indeed!
I'm curious about the allusion you make to CS Lewis. Where does he address that subject?
Hi David,
I believe C.S. Lewis advances the view I attribute to him here in The Abolition of Man, although it might come up in Mere Christianity instead or as well. He strongly emphasised the importance of individual faith and moral choice, but he stressed that this is a matter of personal conscience, and opposed the idea of trying to impose such strictures as societal mandates.
I noted that Lewis' invocation of what he calls Tao/the Way in Abolition of Man looks suspiciously like it could have been influenced by Kant's philosophy cf
"The Tao, which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected."
He doesn't mention Kant's Categorical Imperative, but is clearly swimming with the same dolphins. I note that while 'First Principles of Practical Reason' looks somewhat like a Kant reference to me, it might actually refer to Aquinas (riffing off Aristotle), who I'm not well acquainted with.
One caveat: most of my knowledge of Lewis' philosophy is from secondary sources. I have been thwarted in my interest in Lewis' philosophy because nobody ever gives these books away, so second hand book stores have never yielded me these particular treasures!
Stay wonderful,
Chris.
Curious. Oakeshott was into the Tao as well - I’d never really been all that interested in that aspect of his thought, but thanks to this comment I can grasp it better. I may have to do some further digging. Thanks for this!
"And since ‘emergency regulations’ can under s. 22 do more or less anything, they certainly extend to the capacity to order schools to close".
In other words, the "rule of law" is entirely provisional and, in fact, decorative - and can be whipped away at a moment's notice.
But we do not live in a "dictatorship". Oh, no. Not, at least, until it becomes convenient.
"What you’ll notice about this is that is a patent non-sequitur".
Very reminiscent of the many, many "scientific" papers submitted to and published in reputable journals, in which the body of the paper clearly proves one thing and the Conclusions say exactly the opposite.
Boris bottled it with the edication unions, who pretended their members were at risk when they weren't. But of course, Boris bottled EBERYTHING. Brexit. Covid. Immigration. All buggered by the lard arse yellow belly.
And yes, I voted for this flanneur.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/covid19deathsandautopsiesfeb2020todec2021
This links to a table of stats re those actually killed BY Covid,not the fraudulent "with" Covid, based on the PCR tests, known to give 90 t0 95% false positives. As the designer noted, they were not to be used to ID specific viruses.
In 21 months, less than 10k died FROM Covid. That' c 15 per diem. Ergo, not even an epidemic.
<100 under the age of 50
TWO under the age of 14. More will have been killed or damaged for life by the jabs. State sponsored murder.
These were experimental jabs. 1st phase clinical trials two plus years off. Emergency authorisation. Proper testing sidestepped by the WHO twice changing the definition of vaccines so they cd pretend gene therapy shots were just "vaccines", thereby not requiring testing as a new transport medium.
Coercing people to get jabbed was a clear breach of the Nuremberg Code
Not, it seems, a concern of the whitewash inquiry.
Grotesque. Are we a lawless state now?