Friday, March 11, 2022
FRIDAY MUSIC: Tina Turner, by JD
Thursday, March 10, 2022
Tiddles: a counterblast, by Sackerson
Embarrassingly, Tiddles completed his D.Phil. at my old
college in Oxford in 2002 and I am sorry to say that for an intellectual his
thinking on religion and transhumanism appears jejune and he does not seem to realise
its implications. On the whole I prefer the anarchic yobs and Welsh drunks of
Jesus in the late Sixties and Seventies, whose Junior Common Room once elected
a goldfish as President on the grounds that like other leaders it went round in
circles opening and closing its mouth (an interpreter was appointed to convey
its rulings.) Bawling fools tend not to do much harm; it is the theoretical systematisers
and world-reformers that led to the killing of countless millions in the last
century.
Consider Tiddles’ facile remarks on religion in his 2017
Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/08/virtual-reality-religion-robots-sapiens-book
‘What is a religion if not a big
virtual reality game played by millions of people together? Religions such as
Islam and Christianity invent imaginary laws, such as “don’t eat pork”, “repeat
the same prayers a set number of times each day”, “don’t have sex with somebody
from your own gender” and so forth. These laws exist only in the human
imagination.’
The Abrahamic religions postulate a God who both made the
world out of nothing and set the rules for our behaviour: the Creator and
Law-Giver; but according to Nick Spencer https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-problem-with-yuval-noah-harari/12451764
, Tiddles’ position is that ‘There are no gods, no money, no human rights, and
no laws beyond the “common imagination of human beings.”’
if we accept that moral laws have no basis, then consider
what this implies for a thoroughly consistent rationalist: a world entirely without
moral laws that are binding independently of our wishes and opinions. David
Hume said in effect that one cannot reason from an ‘is’ to an ‘ought’; you can describe
what people think is right and wrong, and even why they may think so, but there
is no reason why you should privately adopt their view. In fact, it is
convenient if you don’t: I should like everyone else to believe in queuing for
the bus, so that I can jump the queue; this helps to explain why psychopaths
are over-represented in positions of power. All that matters (if you have any
care for yourself, and there is of course no reason why you should) is to work
out how to minimise the negative consequences for yourself of society’s
disapprobation of your actions.
This nihilism being so, it is difficult to explain why Tiddles
is in Schwab’s caressing embrace. Schwab may have a grand vision for future
society, but as nothing matters, there is no reason to help him bring it about.
Tiddles has expressed concern https://www.cbsnews.com/news/yuval-harari-sapiens-60-minutes-2021-10-29/
that in an AI data-gathering world humans are ‘hackable’, can be manipulated
more comprehensively than ever before. Is this not the WEF’s plan, to design an
environment full of blandly contented Stepford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stepford_Wives
people? Isn’t this what the Chinese are
up to with their ‘social credit’ system https://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4?r=US&IR=T
, intended to nudge their citizens relentlessly towards absolute conformity with
the CCP’s commandments? What is the point of creating a perfect world, but not
for us as we have previously and in differing ways understood ourselves?
The resistance to this nightmare heaven may have to come
from the irrational, the superstitious, the emotional, the capricious, violent,
stupid, human-hearted humans.
Dig your claws in, Tiddles, and leap off Schwab’s lap.
THURSDAY BACKTRACK: Music and news from 60 years ago - week ending 10 March 1962
1 |
Rock-A-Hula Baby / Can't Help Falling In Love |
Elvis Presley |
RCA |
2 |
Wonderful Land |
The Shadows |
Columbia |
3 |
The Young Ones |
Cliff Richard and The Shadows |
Columbia |
4 |
Let's Twist Again |
Chubby Checker |
Columbia |
5 |
March Of The Siamese Children |
Kenny Ball and his Jazzmen |
Pye |
6 |
Tell Me What He Said |
Helen Shapiro |
Columbia |
7 |
Wimoweh |
Karl Denver |
Decca |
8 |
Forget Me Not |
Eden Kane |
Decca |
9 |
Crying In The Rain |
The Everly Brothers |
Warner Brothers |
10 |
The Wanderer |
Dion |
HMV |
11 |
Stranger On The Shore |
Acker Bilk |
Columbia |
12 |
Walk On By |
Leroy Vandyke |
Mercury |
13 |
Softly As I Leave You |
Matt Monro |
Parlophone |
14 |
Little Bitty Tear |
Burl Ives |
Brunswick |
15 |
Hole In The Ground |
Bernard Cribbins |
Parlophone |
16 |
Lesson No 1 |
Russ Conway |
Columbia |
17 |
Don't Stop, Twist |
Frankie Vaughan |
Philips |
18 |
Theme From Z Cars |
Johnny Keating Orchestra |
Piccadilly |
19 |
I'll See You In My Dreams |
Pat Boone |
London |
20 |
Frankie And Johnny |
Acker Bilk |
Columbia |
Monday, March 07, 2022
Are we a liberal democracy? by Sackerson
In the New Yorker interview https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine referenced last week by our editor https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/who-is-really-to-blame-for-the-war-in-ukraine/ , political scientist John Mearsheimer spoke of the ‘disastrous policies’ pursued by America as it tried to impose the ‘Bush Doctrine’ of liberal democracy on Middle Eastern countries.
That raises the question of whether the UK itself is a ‘liberal
democracy.’ How do we define the term? The relevant Wiki article looks back at
a 1971 book by Robert Dahl and lists ‘eight necessary rights’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy#Rights_and_freedoms
shared by all varieties of such forms of government:
1. Freedom to form and
join organisations.
2. Freedom of
expression.
3. Right to vote.
4. Right to run for
public office.
5. Right of political
leaders to compete for support and votes.
6. Freedom of
alternative sources of information
7. Free and fair
elections.
8. Right to control
government policy through votes and other expressions of preference.
‘Freedom of expression’: we are familiar with the
ill-defined constraints on ‘hate speech’ but also on dissident speech on
subjects such as policy to deal with Covid and the efficacy and dangers of the
new medicines to combat it. Yes, the new media giants are also acting as
censors, but there is no sign that our government pushes back.
‘Freedom of alternative sources of information’: we have
just cancelled RT online so that we cannot consider inconveniently different opinions
and claims of facts from that source. Never mind ‘alternative’: who does not
see gross propaganda in our mainstream press coverage of Ukraine? How are
voters in a democracy enabled to make judgements in such a distorted
information environment?
‘Free and fair elections’: the current system for General
Elections means that many people like myself are in a ‘safe’ constituency where
their vote has virtually no effect, other than in some rare convulsion such as
the collapse of the ‘Red Wall’. We had a referendum on the Alternative Vote in
2011, but my recollection is that both the Labour and Conservative parties ‘bust
a gut’ to rubbish the idea. By contrast, I was astonished that the referendum
on Brexit was covered so fairly in the media, yet since then the Establishment
has obviously been busting another gut to neuter the result. Also, the party
system itself is a major problem – see how hard it is for independents to gain
a seat in Parliament, and how even a veteran like Frank Field can be ousted
when he fails to toe the Party line.
‘Right to control government policy etc.’ In a way it
surprises me that the government is responsive at all, given a guaranteed
five-year period before having to face the electorate again (unless they themselves
choose to go to the country early), and the ability to abrogate civil rights by
Privy Council rulings and passing laws such as the Coronavirus Act with its
‘carte blanche’ powers – which the Opposition allowed to renew without even a
division in the House. The current proposals for a ‘UK Bill of Rights’ look
like a further dangerous enabling for authoritarians https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/is-this-the-reform-of-our-human-rights-that-we-really-need%ef%bf%bc/
plus enshrining the principle that our rights are to be determined by
government and so can be amended or cancelled at a later date. Goodbye the
implications and traditions of Magna Carta and the Common Law.
If the UK were to sit a GCSE examination in ‘being a liberal democracy’ it might just about scrape a pass with 4/8, but hardly anything more.
Saturday, March 05, 2022
Glass hearts: the danger to our liberal culture, by Sackerson
A young female student is tearing down community posters
from a ‘Lennon wall’ and meticulously picking off the shreds that remain. She
is Chinese and the messages that offend her are criticisms of her government.
Tiananmen Square? That was 40-50 years ago (33, actually), before she was born,
she says; why should she care?
She is not doing this in China, but in an Australian university
(how tolerant is the host country! Can tolerance survive intolerance?) and she
is one of very many Chinese who are enforcers worldwide – online as well as in
person - for their nation’s narratives. As ‘Serpentza’ here demonstrates, dare
to use social media to reveal inconvenient truths about the CCP and skilled
trolls will appear, skewing the argument with accusations of racial prejudice
against ‘Asians’; refute them and they become abusive and aggressive.
Why are they doing it? It’s not for pay. ‘Serpentza’ says it
is because they have ‘glass hearts’: they have been through an educational
system that gives them a myopic political view, and they live in a country that
rigorously suppresses dissent. Diversity of opinion gives them real emotional
distress, ‘triggers’ them into vandalism and even violence.
Does this seem familiar?
Of course it does; and now the ‘snowflake’ generation we
have bred in the UK are getting older; soon enough they will become the troops
of our totalitarian new ideologies, or even the leaders. ‘It is intolerable to
us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret
and powerless it may be,’ explained O’Brien to Winston Smith in ‘1984.’
Who is going to defend liberalism? It evaporates like
morning mist in the hot sunshine of propaganda, as we see in our current war
fever. The shimmering heat of emotionalism creates distorting mirages: already
Facebook is full of amateur agitprop that betrays not the slightest understanding
of what – and who - has split Ukraine in two.
The ignorance is not surprising; mainstream news excludes
most dissidents. Only someone of Peter Hitchens’ seniority is allowed to put an
alternative perspective, and even in his case, when he castigated the West for
its arrogance and folly in continuing to treat Russia as an enemy after the
fall of Communism, his piece was pushed back to page 13 in the print edition, and labelled ‘‘A
personal viewpoint.’ Maybe we should be grateful that he appears at all; in
2015, when Geordie Greig was editor of the Mail on Sunday, Hitchens’ column was
mysteriously absent from the editions (3 and 10 May) immediately before and
after the General Election. I would give good money to see the submissions that
were spiked, if that is what happened.
The ’legacy media’ mostly do not educate and inform; their
main usefulness for us is to show us the current official line. For example, a
word used early by Boris in his comments on the Russian incursion is ‘unprovoked’;
I suspect this is to pave the way for an attempt to try President Putin at The
Hague for ‘waging aggressive war,’ the charge that legitimated the executions
of Hitler’s leaders. To accept the argument about lack of provocation, the
court would have to ignore such matters as 7 or 8 years of shelling the Donbas,
the million-plus mostly Russian-speaking people who have fled that area since
2014, the café-bomb assassination of Donetsk separatist leader Alexander
Zakharchenko, and allegations of neo-Nazi ‘targeted killings’ and atrocities from 2014
through to now.
Then there is the wider provocation: the game of ‘What’s the time, Mister Wolf?’ played by NATO as, contrary to assurances given after the collapse of the
Soviet Union, the EU progressively accepted country after country into its fold
and so into the NATO alliance against, well, an enemy that had ceased to be.
Who are the actors behind the scenes? The US State Department? The Pentagon? The
CIA? The IMF? Did they know how this would go? Is this dreadful affair a
miscalculation, or part of a greater plan?
To see things differently, we are forced to explore the wild
lands of the internet.
Oddly, although an influential Conservative commentator has called the Stop The War Coalition ‘fifth columnists’ (a term often used to mean crypto-communists, though originally referring to secret supporters of Spain’s Franco), the Left here seem to be backing the eastern Ukrainians. Professor Dutton (aka The Jolly Heretic) suggests that this orientation is because Russia represents the opposite of wokery.
Craig Murray notes how exaggerating the strength of Putin’s military has boosted shares of armaments companies and helped to justify additional expenditure on ‘MI6, the Defence Intelligence Service, the British armed forces, of their American counterparts, and of all their NATO counterparts.’
‘Demirep’ traces the start of the mess back to the EU’s
attempt to recruit Ukraine in 2013, and the subsequent overthrow of President Yanukovych
when he demurred (please colour me sceptical when people ‘spontaneously rise up’.)
As yet still in mainstream communication Peter Hitchens, the
licensed jester of the PTB, has been permitted to remind us of a deeper,
longer-standing US foreign policy as delineated by Paul Wolfowitz; long may he
continue to twit our political establishment; not that Lear’s Fool managed to
dissuade the King from his folly.
Contrariwise, on chewing-gum TV news (Hannity on Fox), South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is
calling for the murder of Putin; we shall see how much it helps world peace should that ever happen.
How easy it is to sway the public! CIA official Frank Wisner
boasted how his department could play the mass media and their audience like a ‘mighty Wurlitzer’ on which he could play any propaganda tune. The keyboards and foot pedals are busy again today.
It is not only the Chinese and their culture of censorship that is a threat to Western democracy. In fact the more democratic we are the more danger for us, if we are not provided with truthful, balanced information and taught in schools and universities to be open to contrarian points of view, to be aware that we may be mistaken. We need a Fourth Estate committed to liberalism; and stouter hearts, not glass ones.