The image of that philistine was a bit much over my morning coffee, David. I try to avoid upsetting my stomach first thing. Spot on, as usual. Turdy adores China's basic dictatorship. From the perspective of character analysis, which is my bag, he is that way because he lacks a basic upstanding manliness. He's the kind of kid that gets picked on for that missing element. He's sneaky and smarmy. During his first campaign for office, his handlers had him perform a boxing match to compensate for this lack of character. He is anything but tough. These ingredients are dangerous in a national leader. So when the trucker convoy arrived, he didn't understand how meeting with their leadership could augment his own image as a leader. He stamped his foot like a Kim Jong and, working with Freeland (another sicko of the do-as-I-say school), sought every remedy to enforce his will rather than acknowledge the movement wasn't just a small "fringe" but a significant tranche of the population. It amazes me the contempt with which he lords his power over the People's Republic of Canadia. But he couldn't do it without the preconditions, some of which you mention. There are other aspects in play, not the least of which are his legacy connections to the judiciary and the willingness of the banks to go along with his illegal edicts to freeze bank accounts. He may be constitutionally legitimate, but essentially showed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be a mere formality and even a joke. He is so despised, he now has to travel with massive security detail, which further bolsters his image as dictator. When you put the pieces together, he truly is a dictator. I mean, one might make the argument that Hitler was constitutionally legitimate as well. So I',m not convinced that calling Turdy a tyrant is hyperbolic. That said, your point is well made. Considering the technologies in play, one could arrive at this juncture unintentionally. I would argue, however, that Turdy is doing it all very intentionally.
I’ve been trying to think of historical analogies for this process of atomisation/totalisation -> dissolution -> rebirth. The French Revolution. The collapse of the Roman Empire. The rise and fall of totalitarianism in the 20th Century. The late Bronze Age collapse (The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes has some interesting suggestions on what may have happened). None of the above entirely convincing. But then we’re in the midst of the process, so it’s hard to get a clear perspective and not lose our heads while all around us are losing theirs. Your pieces help 😊
I think your last sentence is apposite, David. I imagine those present in the periods immediately preceding the events you list were similarly unaware, or unbelieving, of what was about to happen. We have a tendency to think these things are ‘in the past’ and that Western civ in particular is obvious and enduring.
Is perhaps this atomisation and totalisation of society analogous to what happens inside a chrysalis before it becomes a butterfly? A complete dissolution of everything so that a new structure can emerge.
I'm hoping so. Currently arguing that dis-illusion allows you to see through a fake democracy. But it's a tough sell - people are attached to what-is and reluctant to consider any process that might involve pain.
I can empathise with this. Much of the anxiety and depression I have experienced in last 2 or 3 years arises directly in think from seeing what David McG and others are describing, but feeling utterly impotent, fearful for what is to come, and desperately wishing for things to be as they were.
Being present to and mindful of the situation, trying not to allow myself to be distracted, doesn’t help. Acceptance and letting go, letting the process, which I think is much deeper and more powerful than individual egos and conscious desires/aversions, work itself out, while trying to keep one’s head above the water, is the way (as in Tao), perhaps.
Excellent analysis, thank you David. It brought to my mind two quotations, one from Plato and the other from Shakespeare. Plato noted over 2,000 years ago:
"Each ruling class makes laws that are in its own interest. And in making those laws it defines as 'right' for its subjects what is in the interest of itself."
In Measure for Measure Isabella tells the corrupt Angelo:
"O! It is excellent to have a giant's strength but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant".
Will we ever see polticians who set out to work for the common good by way of honest, humble servant leadership? This question is, of course, rhetorical.
A powerful piece. And yet I am reminded of the philosophy of Epicurus (341-270 BC) whose life overlapped that of Aristotle (384-322 BC). I have wondered before if Epicurus' philosophy was formed against the social pressures of his time.
Without getting into detailed debate Epicurus argued that necessary pleasures were enough and excessive pleasures should be avoided as harmful. He built a small community (the Garden) on the outskirts of Athens and invited his companions to live there in brotherhood. He was very firm about avoiding fame as that made you dependant on the 'respect' of others. Indeed his handy aphorism was 'Live unknown!'.
As a thinker, Epicurus distinguished himself from the mainstream of Greek thought by depoliticizing the concept of happiness and dissociating it from its traditional link to citizenship. So it could be done then... but how easy it would be to do now depends on how easy it would be to distance yourself from the chatter of modern life. But there are far more people, distractions, and others who wish to 'Live very well known indeed', to make this an easy task.
Thanks for this. To avoid fame and to live well unknown was also very much the desire of Francis of Assisi (1181/2-1226), the founder of the Order to which I belong: The Secular Franciscan Order. ("Secular" in this sense means 'not monastic'. Secular Franciscans are ordinary men and women who live in the world, work for a living and follow the Franciscan spirit of prayer, simplicity of life and humble, hidden service to others. Succeeding generations of members of the Order have been living this kind of life for 800years). Francis called himself a nobody. It is somewhat paradoxical that a "nobody" like Francis should after his death become such a very well known Somebody.
As David points out more and more people are attracted to the ideal of living well unknown. It isn't an easy task, I grant you, but I would recommend it. Actually, I haven't found it difficult to follow Francis' example because I have always been a nobody and am content to remain so!
Bruce Epperly has written a very good recent book about Francis and Clare of Assisi and the Franciscan theologian Bonaventure. The title is "Simplicity, Spirituality, Service: The Timeless Wisdom of Francis, Clare and Bonaventure".
The point being, the process is not being directed by evil powers that be, but is natural, organic and evolutionary. Figures like Trudeau are epiphenoma, not causes.
Great question - and I think the answer is ‘yes’. I have been thinking about precisely this issue. I am a big fan of Robert Caro’s books on Robert Moses and Lyndon Johnson. In both cases, we see described for us a personality type which simply enjoys political success for its own sake. The point is to be in charge, to win the game. The result is that they come to adopt policies that are simply in alignment with the zeitgeist, and for that reason alone. Trudeau is like this, I think.
Great insight into the sibling aesthetic. Explains a lot about the outlook and behaviour of my former tribe, the British Left. I've often seen the green-eyed monster on their faces and heard him in their words.
Another thought provoking Article .....our world is unimaginably different from Aristotle's, thus the mode of tyranny in those times would 'operate' over much smaller 'controllable' numbers. Of course, there is hope, thank you Aristotle! In these 'tyrannical times' because of the reach and pervasiveness of technology, the mode of tyranny is already embedded, eg, being 'cancelled', being 'debanked', being 'divided' by educational opportunity, but it can never be a 'totality of tyranny', because technology is imperfect, and, nowadays, there are just too many people to control.
Trudeau seems to be a born to be 'tyrant', Canada his fiefdom, just as Von der Lying in Europe has eyes over her own larger fiefdom, but look at how many of its constituent parts challenge being part of it.
A 'mode of tyranny' might last a very long time but 'currents' move against it all the time, whether that's through the technology, or, because people are 'social animals' full of intelligence and innovative approaches, 'problem solvers' ( and tyranny is a big problem). We are 'the glitches in the machine' that can never be removed.
Yes - this is why I think Aristotle emphasised why tyranny is short-lived: it's because it can't actually achieve what it sets out to achieve. It undermines itself. We, sadly, have to go through that process now. But there is something on the other side.
Indeed.... and, the 'tyrannical system' seems to be operated by those with huge egos, impervious to their own imperfections. Plenty of tyrants through history with big egos allied to their sense of infallibility, until events teach them otherwise.
Pride comes before a fall. This is the only moral of every story, as GK Chesterton once said. I've been ruminating over writing something about that for some time.
I would just like to say how much I enjoy these articles and the feedback also. No vitriol, no ad hominem attacks but well considered thoughts and erudition.
I lack the knowledge to contribute to the dialogue but wanted to voice my appreciation anyway.
Travelling internationally, and therefore all kinds of out-of-sorts, but had to stop by and say how much I love this piece. Not enough talk of Aristotle these days, David, and this is a brilliant adaptation of his Politics to critique Canadian PM Justin Trudeau. Stay wonderful!
Excellent analysis for historical examples of tyranny, David thank you. I have written for years charting the demise of Britain but I am not convinced that it's unplanned by a cabal of globalist mega-rich, controlled and organised by a money cartel of transnational banksters (BIS) with a hydra of unelected global institutions like the UN, WHO, WEF, World Bank, IMF, et al which all submit to the authority if CFR.
I am sure some will scream 'conspiracy theorist', a term invented by the CIA to divert attention for JFK's murder, which is now admitted. And can you deny that 911 was a planned false flag?
Yet another "very fine piece of writing"; it really does deserve the praise it has attracted. But it's a Joycean not-quite-compliment. In similar vein Bruce Pardy's "We Approach State Singularity" at [https://brownstone.org/articles/we-approach-state-singularity/] wonders how far we are from a social event horizon - indeed, have we already have passed it without noticing? But we are I think at Lenin's question: "what is to be done?" (now that the revolution is over). I suggest our woes trace back to 1918, and the sprit of "never again!", lands fit for heroes, and Goodbye to All That. The road to our Hell is paved with those good intentions. The West found it had no suitable institutions to put those grand ideas into effect. Naturally, it copied what appeared to work; the army. The result: welfare today comes from huge top-down bureaucracies. The tragedy: modern man thinks there is no other way. He has become an intellectual and economic invalid, dependent on mighty carers. We not yet wholly lost; but (to pinch one of David's favourite phrases) that's the Direction of Travel. Immodest as I am, I will offer a different DOT. At root, the west's problem is that the individual is weak and overwhelmed by the colossi of the state. Solutions, therefore, must entail making the individual stronger; that is, expanding his degree of freedom and increasing his power relative to the colossi. Education is the usual answer; it may help the clever ones, but will not strengthen most of the poor. The poor need wealth - which is the right to receive income without work, from assets that they own outright. They receive similar money now - but only from the state or from state-approved funds, and only as income. That even exacerbates dependency. Effective change will require hard thinking, but I am sure we will find angels in the details , not devils.
The image of that philistine was a bit much over my morning coffee, David. I try to avoid upsetting my stomach first thing. Spot on, as usual. Turdy adores China's basic dictatorship. From the perspective of character analysis, which is my bag, he is that way because he lacks a basic upstanding manliness. He's the kind of kid that gets picked on for that missing element. He's sneaky and smarmy. During his first campaign for office, his handlers had him perform a boxing match to compensate for this lack of character. He is anything but tough. These ingredients are dangerous in a national leader. So when the trucker convoy arrived, he didn't understand how meeting with their leadership could augment his own image as a leader. He stamped his foot like a Kim Jong and, working with Freeland (another sicko of the do-as-I-say school), sought every remedy to enforce his will rather than acknowledge the movement wasn't just a small "fringe" but a significant tranche of the population. It amazes me the contempt with which he lords his power over the People's Republic of Canadia. But he couldn't do it without the preconditions, some of which you mention. There are other aspects in play, not the least of which are his legacy connections to the judiciary and the willingness of the banks to go along with his illegal edicts to freeze bank accounts. He may be constitutionally legitimate, but essentially showed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be a mere formality and even a joke. He is so despised, he now has to travel with massive security detail, which further bolsters his image as dictator. When you put the pieces together, he truly is a dictator. I mean, one might make the argument that Hitler was constitutionally legitimate as well. So I',m not convinced that calling Turdy a tyrant is hyperbolic. That said, your point is well made. Considering the technologies in play, one could arrive at this juncture unintentionally. I would argue, however, that Turdy is doing it all very intentionally.
Indeed A, the concept of global government has been around a very long time:
https://austrianpeter.substack.com/p/cecil-john-rhodes-a-south-african?r=hhrlz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
I’ve been trying to think of historical analogies for this process of atomisation/totalisation -> dissolution -> rebirth. The French Revolution. The collapse of the Roman Empire. The rise and fall of totalitarianism in the 20th Century. The late Bronze Age collapse (The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes has some interesting suggestions on what may have happened). None of the above entirely convincing. But then we’re in the midst of the process, so it’s hard to get a clear perspective and not lose our heads while all around us are losing theirs. Your pieces help 😊
I think your last sentence is apposite, David. I imagine those present in the periods immediately preceding the events you list were similarly unaware, or unbelieving, of what was about to happen. We have a tendency to think these things are ‘in the past’ and that Western civ in particular is obvious and enduring.
Thanks, David.
Is perhaps this atomisation and totalisation of society analogous to what happens inside a chrysalis before it becomes a butterfly? A complete dissolution of everything so that a new structure can emerge.
I'm hoping so. Currently arguing that dis-illusion allows you to see through a fake democracy. But it's a tough sell - people are attached to what-is and reluctant to consider any process that might involve pain.
I can empathise with this. Much of the anxiety and depression I have experienced in last 2 or 3 years arises directly in think from seeing what David McG and others are describing, but feeling utterly impotent, fearful for what is to come, and desperately wishing for things to be as they were.
Being present to and mindful of the situation, trying not to allow myself to be distracted, doesn’t help. Acceptance and letting go, letting the process, which I think is much deeper and more powerful than individual egos and conscious desires/aversions, work itself out, while trying to keep one’s head above the water, is the way (as in Tao), perhaps.
I think this is right.
If it is hurting you, move away David - it's a big world: https://austrianpeter.substack.com/p/hmg-omni-shambles-remoaner-coup-who?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=762792&post_id=79971341&isFreemail=false&utm_medium=email
Yes David, it's The Fourth Turning: https://austrianpeter.substack.com/p/the-fourth-turning-pits-the-people?s=w
Excellent analysis, thank you David. It brought to my mind two quotations, one from Plato and the other from Shakespeare. Plato noted over 2,000 years ago:
"Each ruling class makes laws that are in its own interest. And in making those laws it defines as 'right' for its subjects what is in the interest of itself."
In Measure for Measure Isabella tells the corrupt Angelo:
"O! It is excellent to have a giant's strength but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant".
Will we ever see polticians who set out to work for the common good by way of honest, humble servant leadership? This question is, of course, rhetorical.
Nice. Thanks!
A powerful piece. And yet I am reminded of the philosophy of Epicurus (341-270 BC) whose life overlapped that of Aristotle (384-322 BC). I have wondered before if Epicurus' philosophy was formed against the social pressures of his time.
Without getting into detailed debate Epicurus argued that necessary pleasures were enough and excessive pleasures should be avoided as harmful. He built a small community (the Garden) on the outskirts of Athens and invited his companions to live there in brotherhood. He was very firm about avoiding fame as that made you dependant on the 'respect' of others. Indeed his handy aphorism was 'Live unknown!'.
As a thinker, Epicurus distinguished himself from the mainstream of Greek thought by depoliticizing the concept of happiness and dissociating it from its traditional link to citizenship. So it could be done then... but how easy it would be to do now depends on how easy it would be to distance yourself from the chatter of modern life. But there are far more people, distractions, and others who wish to 'Live very well known indeed', to make this an easy task.
People are, in small but growing numbers, trying to move in that direction - you can see it.
Thanks for this. To avoid fame and to live well unknown was also very much the desire of Francis of Assisi (1181/2-1226), the founder of the Order to which I belong: The Secular Franciscan Order. ("Secular" in this sense means 'not monastic'. Secular Franciscans are ordinary men and women who live in the world, work for a living and follow the Franciscan spirit of prayer, simplicity of life and humble, hidden service to others. Succeeding generations of members of the Order have been living this kind of life for 800years). Francis called himself a nobody. It is somewhat paradoxical that a "nobody" like Francis should after his death become such a very well known Somebody.
As David points out more and more people are attracted to the ideal of living well unknown. It isn't an easy task, I grant you, but I would recommend it. Actually, I haven't found it difficult to follow Francis' example because I have always been a nobody and am content to remain so!
Bruce Epperly has written a very good recent book about Francis and Clare of Assisi and the Franciscan theologian Bonaventure. The title is "Simplicity, Spirituality, Service: The Timeless Wisdom of Francis, Clare and Bonaventure".
Indeed, I have spent some time on retreat at Hilfield Friary, Cerne Abbas, and follow the guidance of Jesus and St Francis. Less is more: https://austrianpeter.substack.com/p/manic-britain-sun-tzu-speaks-asian?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=762792&post_id=106385717&isFreemail=false&utm_medium=email
The point being, the process is not being directed by evil powers that be, but is natural, organic and evolutionary. Figures like Trudeau are epiphenoma, not causes.
Great question - and I think the answer is ‘yes’. I have been thinking about precisely this issue. I am a big fan of Robert Caro’s books on Robert Moses and Lyndon Johnson. In both cases, we see described for us a personality type which simply enjoys political success for its own sake. The point is to be in charge, to win the game. The result is that they come to adopt policies that are simply in alignment with the zeitgeist, and for that reason alone. Trudeau is like this, I think.
Great insight into the sibling aesthetic. Explains a lot about the outlook and behaviour of my former tribe, the British Left. I've often seen the green-eyed monster on their faces and heard him in their words.
Another thought provoking Article .....our world is unimaginably different from Aristotle's, thus the mode of tyranny in those times would 'operate' over much smaller 'controllable' numbers. Of course, there is hope, thank you Aristotle! In these 'tyrannical times' because of the reach and pervasiveness of technology, the mode of tyranny is already embedded, eg, being 'cancelled', being 'debanked', being 'divided' by educational opportunity, but it can never be a 'totality of tyranny', because technology is imperfect, and, nowadays, there are just too many people to control.
Trudeau seems to be a born to be 'tyrant', Canada his fiefdom, just as Von der Lying in Europe has eyes over her own larger fiefdom, but look at how many of its constituent parts challenge being part of it.
A 'mode of tyranny' might last a very long time but 'currents' move against it all the time, whether that's through the technology, or, because people are 'social animals' full of intelligence and innovative approaches, 'problem solvers' ( and tyranny is a big problem). We are 'the glitches in the machine' that can never be removed.
Yes - this is why I think Aristotle emphasised why tyranny is short-lived: it's because it can't actually achieve what it sets out to achieve. It undermines itself. We, sadly, have to go through that process now. But there is something on the other side.
Indeed.... and, the 'tyrannical system' seems to be operated by those with huge egos, impervious to their own imperfections. Plenty of tyrants through history with big egos allied to their sense of infallibility, until events teach them otherwise.
Pride comes before a fall. This is the only moral of every story, as GK Chesterton once said. I've been ruminating over writing something about that for some time.
It would be worth reading when you get around to it, Mr McG.
I would just like to say how much I enjoy these articles and the feedback also. No vitriol, no ad hominem attacks but well considered thoughts and erudition.
I lack the knowledge to contribute to the dialogue but wanted to voice my appreciation anyway.
Thank you.
Thanks very much! I'm keen to avoid anything getting personal, so it means a lot that that gets noticed.
Travelling internationally, and therefore all kinds of out-of-sorts, but had to stop by and say how much I love this piece. Not enough talk of Aristotle these days, David, and this is a brilliant adaptation of his Politics to critique Canadian PM Justin Trudeau. Stay wonderful!
Thanks Chris - I appreciate it!
You might like https://ukresponse.substack.com/p/dont-wait
Excellent analysis for historical examples of tyranny, David thank you. I have written for years charting the demise of Britain but I am not convinced that it's unplanned by a cabal of globalist mega-rich, controlled and organised by a money cartel of transnational banksters (BIS) with a hydra of unelected global institutions like the UN, WHO, WEF, World Bank, IMF, et al which all submit to the authority if CFR.
The military grade PsyOp, which burst upon us in early 2020, was indeed planned, timed, and coordinated by most countries in the world, but driven by the Anglosphere of developed nations. This is real, planned tyranny IMHO https://austrianpeter.substack.com/p/smart-cities-online-safety-bill-birmingham?sd=pf
I moved to South Africa (which most westerners know little about), but which has a strong and effective democracy as demonstrated recently: https://austrianpeter.substack.com/p/election-special-food-prices-eskom?sd=pf
I am sure some will scream 'conspiracy theorist', a term invented by the CIA to divert attention for JFK's murder, which is now admitted. And can you deny that 911 was a planned false flag?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLz9ewBt-dw
I rest my case, but I am open to challenges.
Yet another "very fine piece of writing"; it really does deserve the praise it has attracted. But it's a Joycean not-quite-compliment. In similar vein Bruce Pardy's "We Approach State Singularity" at [https://brownstone.org/articles/we-approach-state-singularity/] wonders how far we are from a social event horizon - indeed, have we already have passed it without noticing? But we are I think at Lenin's question: "what is to be done?" (now that the revolution is over). I suggest our woes trace back to 1918, and the sprit of "never again!", lands fit for heroes, and Goodbye to All That. The road to our Hell is paved with those good intentions. The West found it had no suitable institutions to put those grand ideas into effect. Naturally, it copied what appeared to work; the army. The result: welfare today comes from huge top-down bureaucracies. The tragedy: modern man thinks there is no other way. He has become an intellectual and economic invalid, dependent on mighty carers. We not yet wholly lost; but (to pinch one of David's favourite phrases) that's the Direction of Travel. Immodest as I am, I will offer a different DOT. At root, the west's problem is that the individual is weak and overwhelmed by the colossi of the state. Solutions, therefore, must entail making the individual stronger; that is, expanding his degree of freedom and increasing his power relative to the colossi. Education is the usual answer; it may help the clever ones, but will not strengthen most of the poor. The poor need wealth - which is the right to receive income without work, from assets that they own outright. They receive similar money now - but only from the state or from state-approved funds, and only as income. That even exacerbates dependency. Effective change will require hard thinking, but I am sure we will find angels in the details , not devils.