I am writing this in one of my wife and I winter escapes from the France of our residence. A country existing in a make believe state with no government because of the antics of the clown president last seen fawning over the US president.
We are sitting in the middle of the garden route of South Africa a small enclave within this country that exists in a sort of 1950s make believe cocoon.
I post to say the Times of London as if I was in the UK about how I am confused by the make believe logic employed by most comments on Ukraine that seem to support an obviously neo nazi regime against the demonised nation that lost over 25m fighting the original Nazis.
I follow it up by commenting on the make believe 'end of times' crisis that is used to impoverish the nation by the folly of 'net zero'.
I do all these things through the medium of computers. What should and could be the tools to improve the lot of man but instead are used to create interlocking and layered make believe existence.
We live in computer simulations and increasingly cannot see reality.
Bravo David! An outstanding piece, I'll be including this in the extra Bazaar that runs later this week. I was pleased to see you using Stanley Fish as an epigram too... what a shame that Fish is off the menu these days, as he has many interesting challenges worth engaging with.
One trivial query for any literature buffs listening in: when Orwell talks of "the Clever Ones", is he perhaps making reference to Dickens' Little Dorrit, where the browbeaten Affery calls Mrs Clennon and her husband, Flintwich, "the clever ones", in weakly explaining why she defers to these Machiavellian menaces in all things...? It is a situation very much parallel to what is being played out at scale today.
Thanks Chris - I wouldn't put it past Orwell at all but I should say the reference is over my head. I'm not a big Dickens reader (though I did once watch a stage performance of Little Dorritt). I have been meaning to write properly about Fish, a genuinely complicated figure, but it involves a lot of work.
Aye, I know what you mean about Fish! I've never tackled him head on either, although I would like to at some point. As for Dickens, I've come to his novels quite late in life, but I have been loving his work, and indeed all the 19th century novels I've been reading over the last year or so.
A really good explanation of what goes on in the pointy heads of Eurowonks. But perhaps nothing entirely new; that sort of thinking can be traced very far back in history. After all, what else was the Christian policy of excluding and punishing "heretics"? (Note that I say "Christian", not "Catholic". Protestants have been just as enthusiastic about repressing and murdering anyone who disagrees with them).
What you say is absolutely correct and it has all been said or written before and yet the types you speak about still do see it. History warned but they will not pay due heed, so I think of the penultimate verse of Kiplings 'Gods of the Copy Book Headings' -
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
Excellent article. Although I wonder if the person mentioned at the start was worried that free speech allowed fascist ideas to spread and therefore contribute to Nazis gaining power, rather than suggesting that Nazis supporting free speech themselves?
I do agree that we should have free speech nonetheless.
You can make an argument that politics has always been about trying to get the toothpaste back into the enabling, inclusive and safe tube. It often seems to work when 'things' are going well but no matter how well politicians design or rename the toothpaste tube they cannot resist the squeeze of reality forever.
Perhaps we can do 'our bit' by identifying politicalised versions of Free Speech as Controlled Speech, or Monitored Speech, or even Compelled Speech. No warm fuzzies there.
Being a simple soul, this put me in mind of Utopia.
"At the first constitution of their government, Utopus having understood that before his coming among them the old inhabitants had been engaged in great quarrels concerning religion, by which they were so divided among themselves, that he found it an easy thing to conquer them, since, instead of uniting their forces against him, every different party in religion fought by themselves. After he had subdued them he made a law that every man might be of what religion he pleased, and might endeavour to draw others to it by the force of argument and by amicable and modest ways, but without bitterness against those of other opinions; but that he ought to use no other force but that of persuasion, and was neither to mix with it reproaches nor violence; and such as did otherwise were to be condemned to banishment or slavery.
This law was made by Utopus, not only for preserving the public peace, which he saw suffered much by daily contentions and irreconcilable heats, but because he thought the interest of religion itself required it..."
So appreciate your writing David. Thank you
Thanks!
We exist in a make believe world in so many ways.
I am writing this in one of my wife and I winter escapes from the France of our residence. A country existing in a make believe state with no government because of the antics of the clown president last seen fawning over the US president.
We are sitting in the middle of the garden route of South Africa a small enclave within this country that exists in a sort of 1950s make believe cocoon.
I post to say the Times of London as if I was in the UK about how I am confused by the make believe logic employed by most comments on Ukraine that seem to support an obviously neo nazi regime against the demonised nation that lost over 25m fighting the original Nazis.
I follow it up by commenting on the make believe 'end of times' crisis that is used to impoverish the nation by the folly of 'net zero'.
I do all these things through the medium of computers. What should and could be the tools to improve the lot of man but instead are used to create interlocking and layered make believe existence.
We live in computer simulations and increasingly cannot see reality.
Baudrillard was in many ways prophetic.
Bravo David! An outstanding piece, I'll be including this in the extra Bazaar that runs later this week. I was pleased to see you using Stanley Fish as an epigram too... what a shame that Fish is off the menu these days, as he has many interesting challenges worth engaging with.
One trivial query for any literature buffs listening in: when Orwell talks of "the Clever Ones", is he perhaps making reference to Dickens' Little Dorrit, where the browbeaten Affery calls Mrs Clennon and her husband, Flintwich, "the clever ones", in weakly explaining why she defers to these Machiavellian menaces in all things...? It is a situation very much parallel to what is being played out at scale today.
Stay wonderful!
Chris.
Thanks Chris - I wouldn't put it past Orwell at all but I should say the reference is over my head. I'm not a big Dickens reader (though I did once watch a stage performance of Little Dorritt). I have been meaning to write properly about Fish, a genuinely complicated figure, but it involves a lot of work.
Aye, I know what you mean about Fish! I've never tackled him head on either, although I would like to at some point. As for Dickens, I've come to his novels quite late in life, but I have been loving his work, and indeed all the 19th century novels I've been reading over the last year or so.
All your articles are great, but the last 2 are particularly good.
"In the end the contents of that pressure cooker are going to come out and ‘participate’ - whether anybody likes it or not."
Very true, and the things you describe are going to make it happen sooner rather than later. Excellent.
A really good explanation of what goes on in the pointy heads of Eurowonks. But perhaps nothing entirely new; that sort of thinking can be traced very far back in history. After all, what else was the Christian policy of excluding and punishing "heretics"? (Note that I say "Christian", not "Catholic". Protestants have been just as enthusiastic about repressing and murdering anyone who disagrees with them).
What you say is absolutely correct and it has all been said or written before and yet the types you speak about still do see it. History warned but they will not pay due heed, so I think of the penultimate verse of Kiplings 'Gods of the Copy Book Headings' -
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
This is the really awful thing about it - it's so obvious, to anybody with an ounce of sense, where it will all end up...
Take a look at the photo of Mr. Türk.
Excellent article. Although I wonder if the person mentioned at the start was worried that free speech allowed fascist ideas to spread and therefore contribute to Nazis gaining power, rather than suggesting that Nazis supporting free speech themselves?
I do agree that we should have free speech nonetheless.
I think she was just trying to score a 'gotcha' without really thinking things through.
You can make an argument that politics has always been about trying to get the toothpaste back into the enabling, inclusive and safe tube. It often seems to work when 'things' are going well but no matter how well politicians design or rename the toothpaste tube they cannot resist the squeeze of reality forever.
Perhaps we can do 'our bit' by identifying politicalised versions of Free Speech as Controlled Speech, or Monitored Speech, or even Compelled Speech. No warm fuzzies there.
Toby Rogers just published a piece that I believe is pertinent to this topic.
https://open.substack.com/pub/tobyrogers/p/linkedins-role-in-the-iatrogenocide?r=1mxda8&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Being a simple soul, this put me in mind of Utopia.
"At the first constitution of their government, Utopus having understood that before his coming among them the old inhabitants had been engaged in great quarrels concerning religion, by which they were so divided among themselves, that he found it an easy thing to conquer them, since, instead of uniting their forces against him, every different party in religion fought by themselves. After he had subdued them he made a law that every man might be of what religion he pleased, and might endeavour to draw others to it by the force of argument and by amicable and modest ways, but without bitterness against those of other opinions; but that he ought to use no other force but that of persuasion, and was neither to mix with it reproaches nor violence; and such as did otherwise were to be condemned to banishment or slavery.
This law was made by Utopus, not only for preserving the public peace, which he saw suffered much by daily contentions and irreconcilable heats, but because he thought the interest of religion itself required it..."
Why can’t we Brits do it like the Americans can?
https://open.substack.com/pub/jamesroguski/p/get-out?r=jx6c3&utm_medium=ios