With apologies, Mr McG; other than here and Brownstone, where is there a list of your admirable writings? For example I liked your exposition of the Trilling cadence, from compassion to compulsion. But I wonder, despite the many real-world instances, whether such a pattern is inevitable. My suspicion is it may not be, but is a problem arising from a flaw in the distribution of power and wealth. The modern era has overseen the centralization of political power, and great concentrations of wealth - while buying off the folks through redistributions of income. As I see it, this is a problem of institutions. Objectively, the folks are well off. But also objectively, not as Free To Choose as they might be. And also, perhaps soon , bjectively not able to object.
Concentration of wealth and power is I think more a product of the problem than a cause. There is a useful Antony de Jasay point to be made here, but it's a bit too big for a blog comment. I'll write more on these subjects soon - never fear.
You kindly asked about my other writing - my website has links to my academic work, and some pieces elsewhere: https://www.davidmcgrogan.com
Life goes in pulses, doesn't it? Causes and outcomes chase each other round the block and seem inseparable. Consider wealth; it is a stock concept, as opposed to income, which is a flow. Income is a reward for action, whereas to maintain one's stock of wealth you must simply hold it - more like inaction. As power is associated with wealth, so democrats (and populists) should wish for a wide distribution of wealth. But they don't; they, and economic utopians, are fascinated by (re)distributing the flow. Also, before the 20thC the financial instruments necessary for a society to be property-egalitarian were not yet available. Do not blame the poor for their poverty. But a poor man cannot easily hold on to what he has, and unless he gets over that hump, he stays poor. And of course, elites of every stripe want to keep him there. The Trilling cadence requires that the flock remain dependent on institutions, both public and private. To break it requires a confident people. A radical widening of ownership would empower individuals, such that, as someone once said, the state would "wither away".
Interesting conversation at our Post Office this morning: nothing remotely philosophical but a revelation of the anger, frustration and alienation now felt by us, the ordinary folk: self identification enraged the man at the adjacent counter: he'd overheard my conversation with the assistant, whom I know well.He was livid -disgusted by the growth of transgenderism, its irrationality and the threats it poses to children, young people and women.
The lady waiting behind him was alarmed by the content now available on many teens' smartphones and my interlocutor behind the counter summed up the madness by informing us that from hereonin, she will be identifying as a baked potato.
Not one of us have any trust in our leaders, let alone respect,and none of us have much hope for the future. In particular, we are worried and repelled by the indecent agitprop now peddled by the education sector ,the Open Borders madness and the steady encroachment of Nut Zero zealotry.
Truly ,Blighty is an unhappy nation; rudderless and in steep decline.
May I highly recommend Hippolyte Taine, the French historian, who, in his Vol 5 of "Histoire de la France Contemporaine", Book 1, wrote the most insightful analysis of the Jacobin philosophy I've ever read. He wrote for a French public imbued with "political principles" (no suprise to anyone on this side of the Channel) by which they judged the past. In other words, they were just as dogmatic as French structuralists, the woke, etc. In his preface, Taine remarked he had only one political principle, so simple as to seem puerile, yet it formed the basis for his analysis: "A human society, especially a modern one, is a vast and complicated thing. Therefore, it is difficult to know and understand (connaitre et comprendre). And that is why it is difficult to handle it ("manier") well." I'd like to add just one quote about Jacobin philosophy (a derivative of Rousseau's Social Contract) "The Jacobin does not see "real" people. He has no need. With eyes closed, he forces the human spirit into his mould. He never considers this multiple, undulating and complex 'matter' - peasants, craftsmen, bourgeois....with their inveterate beliefs, their inclinations, and their wishes." In reading this section, the parallels between then now are uncanny, or perhaps they are inevitable.
This is a mind bending conclusion for me, since your diagnosis and mine align (by different routes, as ever) as does your conclusion (the necessity of holding onto our principles through the growing darkness). Yet on that basis, the implication is that I would qualify as a 'small c conservative'. I can't imagine any such title for myself (would I be a liberal conservative...?).
My philosophy, and my political philosophy in particular, isn't something I would expect most 'small c conservatives' to connect with, although there is an undeniable presence of the past in my work. But I'd sooner quote Hume than Smith (I note, with amusement, you have hit both the big two Scottish Enlightenment philosophers here at Uncibal already), am much more sceptical of economics than anyone I've spoken to so far, and accept far more positive aspects of chaos than any 'small c conservative' I've ever encountered.
Never mind new political parties, we may need a whole new language to deal with the situation we now face. And I suppose, when it comes down to it, that's what this riveting series has also explored. Many thanks for writing it!
PS: What is your beef with Kierkegaard exactly? I always find him uplifting, and would never associate him with being 'blackpilled'!
I was just alluding to Kierkegaard's advocacy of the importance of despair. It's underrated.
The meaning of 'conservatism' is itself a very big and fraught subject but, to be honest, if one finds oneself, in some context or other, trying to secure the continued existence of some valued thing in the face of radical change, then one is being a conservative in the most basic way - no?
Thanks for clarifying re: Kierkegaard, appreciated. As for whether anything I do or believe is 'conservative' - it's clear that it is. In as much as anything else, anyone who advocates environmentalism with a focus on land and species is seeking to 'conserve' those species and that land space. But words have baggage, and political words need porters to carry it all.
Entropy is the measure of the disorder of a system
My feeling is that the technocracy now imposed is leading to growing social entropy, as resentment, loss of trust and respect for, our leaders spreads.
Yesterday while watching a documentary on the hapless people of Tibet, who struggle to preserve their Buddhist beliefs and culture against the colonisation by the Han Chinese, I noted that many Tibetans now express a feeling of internal exile-they have a sense of being exiled in what is left of their own country.
This summarises my own growing sense of internal exile, alienation and frustration as I read of the latest irrational proposals and their dire consequences:
HMG is unable or unwilling to control our borders,with the chaos now unfolding showing no signs of abating, yet is now apparently embarking on a frankly ridiculous attempt to criminalise any 'excessive' use of energy by the public.
Neil Oliver summarises in his usual inimitable style:
With apologies, Mr McG; other than here and Brownstone, where is there a list of your admirable writings? For example I liked your exposition of the Trilling cadence, from compassion to compulsion. But I wonder, despite the many real-world instances, whether such a pattern is inevitable. My suspicion is it may not be, but is a problem arising from a flaw in the distribution of power and wealth. The modern era has overseen the centralization of political power, and great concentrations of wealth - while buying off the folks through redistributions of income. As I see it, this is a problem of institutions. Objectively, the folks are well off. But also objectively, not as Free To Choose as they might be. And also, perhaps soon , bjectively not able to object.
Concentration of wealth and power is I think more a product of the problem than a cause. There is a useful Antony de Jasay point to be made here, but it's a bit too big for a blog comment. I'll write more on these subjects soon - never fear.
You kindly asked about my other writing - my website has links to my academic work, and some pieces elsewhere: https://www.davidmcgrogan.com
Life goes in pulses, doesn't it? Causes and outcomes chase each other round the block and seem inseparable. Consider wealth; it is a stock concept, as opposed to income, which is a flow. Income is a reward for action, whereas to maintain one's stock of wealth you must simply hold it - more like inaction. As power is associated with wealth, so democrats (and populists) should wish for a wide distribution of wealth. But they don't; they, and economic utopians, are fascinated by (re)distributing the flow. Also, before the 20thC the financial instruments necessary for a society to be property-egalitarian were not yet available. Do not blame the poor for their poverty. But a poor man cannot easily hold on to what he has, and unless he gets over that hump, he stays poor. And of course, elites of every stripe want to keep him there. The Trilling cadence requires that the flock remain dependent on institutions, both public and private. To break it requires a confident people. A radical widening of ownership would empower individuals, such that, as someone once said, the state would "wither away".
This goes back to Machiavelli. I have a post coming that is vaguely about this issue.
Interesting conversation at our Post Office this morning: nothing remotely philosophical but a revelation of the anger, frustration and alienation now felt by us, the ordinary folk: self identification enraged the man at the adjacent counter: he'd overheard my conversation with the assistant, whom I know well.He was livid -disgusted by the growth of transgenderism, its irrationality and the threats it poses to children, young people and women.
The lady waiting behind him was alarmed by the content now available on many teens' smartphones and my interlocutor behind the counter summed up the madness by informing us that from hereonin, she will be identifying as a baked potato.
Not one of us have any trust in our leaders, let alone respect,and none of us have much hope for the future. In particular, we are worried and repelled by the indecent agitprop now peddled by the education sector ,the Open Borders madness and the steady encroachment of Nut Zero zealotry.
Truly ,Blighty is an unhappy nation; rudderless and in steep decline.
May I highly recommend Hippolyte Taine, the French historian, who, in his Vol 5 of "Histoire de la France Contemporaine", Book 1, wrote the most insightful analysis of the Jacobin philosophy I've ever read. He wrote for a French public imbued with "political principles" (no suprise to anyone on this side of the Channel) by which they judged the past. In other words, they were just as dogmatic as French structuralists, the woke, etc. In his preface, Taine remarked he had only one political principle, so simple as to seem puerile, yet it formed the basis for his analysis: "A human society, especially a modern one, is a vast and complicated thing. Therefore, it is difficult to know and understand (connaitre et comprendre). And that is why it is difficult to handle it ("manier") well." I'd like to add just one quote about Jacobin philosophy (a derivative of Rousseau's Social Contract) "The Jacobin does not see "real" people. He has no need. With eyes closed, he forces the human spirit into his mould. He never considers this multiple, undulating and complex 'matter' - peasants, craftsmen, bourgeois....with their inveterate beliefs, their inclinations, and their wishes." In reading this section, the parallels between then now are uncanny, or perhaps they are inevitable.
This is a mind bending conclusion for me, since your diagnosis and mine align (by different routes, as ever) as does your conclusion (the necessity of holding onto our principles through the growing darkness). Yet on that basis, the implication is that I would qualify as a 'small c conservative'. I can't imagine any such title for myself (would I be a liberal conservative...?).
My philosophy, and my political philosophy in particular, isn't something I would expect most 'small c conservatives' to connect with, although there is an undeniable presence of the past in my work. But I'd sooner quote Hume than Smith (I note, with amusement, you have hit both the big two Scottish Enlightenment philosophers here at Uncibal already), am much more sceptical of economics than anyone I've spoken to so far, and accept far more positive aspects of chaos than any 'small c conservative' I've ever encountered.
Never mind new political parties, we may need a whole new language to deal with the situation we now face. And I suppose, when it comes down to it, that's what this riveting series has also explored. Many thanks for writing it!
PS: What is your beef with Kierkegaard exactly? I always find him uplifting, and would never associate him with being 'blackpilled'!
I was just alluding to Kierkegaard's advocacy of the importance of despair. It's underrated.
The meaning of 'conservatism' is itself a very big and fraught subject but, to be honest, if one finds oneself, in some context or other, trying to secure the continued existence of some valued thing in the face of radical change, then one is being a conservative in the most basic way - no?
Thanks for clarifying re: Kierkegaard, appreciated. As for whether anything I do or believe is 'conservative' - it's clear that it is. In as much as anything else, anyone who advocates environmentalism with a focus on land and species is seeking to 'conserve' those species and that land space. But words have baggage, and political words need porters to carry it all.
Entropy is the measure of the disorder of a system
My feeling is that the technocracy now imposed is leading to growing social entropy, as resentment, loss of trust and respect for, our leaders spreads.
Yesterday while watching a documentary on the hapless people of Tibet, who struggle to preserve their Buddhist beliefs and culture against the colonisation by the Han Chinese, I noted that many Tibetans now express a feeling of internal exile-they have a sense of being exiled in what is left of their own country.
This summarises my own growing sense of internal exile, alienation and frustration as I read of the latest irrational proposals and their dire consequences:
https://www.coronababble.com/post/how-do-we-halt-the-march-of-health-climate-fascism
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/09/now-the-uk-government-wants-to-control-your-kitchen-fridge-or-send-you-to-jail/
https://twitter.com/mattwridley/status/1699349497074090277?s=48
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-wests-sanctions-hypocrisy-russias-import-substitution-
HMG is unable or unwilling to control our borders,with the chaos now unfolding showing no signs of abating, yet is now apparently embarking on a frankly ridiculous attempt to criminalise any 'excessive' use of energy by the public.
Neil Oliver summarises in his usual inimitable style:
https://youtu.be/rh_8Wh-CSws?feature=shared
As Epictetus put it: Attempting to control what cannot be controlled results only in turmoil.