People don’t do things for no reason. Even if the violence seems mindless, there is a cause and effect somewhere but too often it’s so diffused by the time you get to it, others can say you’re in the realms of fantasy.
The person I quote from time to time, Svali, said that these people think they’re “doing a good work”, truly believe they’re looking after society in the interests of society’s long term gain, not unlike nanny administering the medicine to the child: “Get this down you now,” nanny knows best.
The fact that these are adults she is doing this to, the fact that these adults have been dumbed down to act in a way reminiscent of infants, escapes nanny – she was brought up in nurses school and that’s the way it’s going to be. Who gave her her authority to do this, to cut a swathe through other person’s lives?
The master of the household of course. And in real life, who is that? It’s the ideologues, the thinktanks like Moses Mordecai Levy, Eric Fromm, Voltaire, Herbert Marcuse, Timothy Leary, Doctor Benjamin Spock in the 50s and it’s the embracing of these ideas in song and film which overwhelms the critical faculties.
Then there is the reduction of complex issues to simplicities, e.g. all you need is love. The problem with this is not the message – that if love doesn’t underpin our dealings with others, i.e. if we don’t essentially like human beings and care about their future – love thy neighbour – then it falls apart. It gets greedy and me me me and then no one helps anyone.
No one’s disputing that. That’s taken on board already and it’s tough to do, looking around, especially for people who don’t suffer fools gladly – it’s getting a camel through the eye of a needle – but in not suffering fools gladly, we are assuming that we’re not fools in ourselves. I certainly can’t stand rank stupidity from people and yet the errors I’ve made in my life make me the ultimate fool, so a bit of humility please.
Summary – it’s a combination of clever ideologues taking self-evident truisms and “sliding” the definitions sideways, making them mean something not quite what we meant by it, until a new generation embraces the new definitions – this is the cleverness of it all.
Steve Hayes looked at the word “Franchise”, to give an example and how it is coming to mean something quite different to what he, on his continent, and we on ours, once meant by the word. That’s the thing – that’s how it is done.
Coming back to this assumption of authority on ideological grounds, there must be something making these people vehement, so quietly fanatical. Let’s not call them brainwashed or automatons because that gets us nowhere. I want to know why they so vehemently persist.
Looking back to my young Fabian days, I think it was because we were given from above, i.e. our teachers whom we looked up to, that such was the way. We were exposed to the social philosophers, none of whom had practicality to them, a full knowledge of human nature and what it responds to. The message was given to us in a “self-evident” manner, i.e. we were shown the wickedness of capitalism and how it despises humans and is only for itself.
That one’s addressed further down.
Young, idealistic, wanting the best for the world – you can read between the lines in this post – it’s still there, that feeling. We had no other inputs, the teachers did not allow Adam Smith or Hayek or Popper or Rand [not that I agree with much of that]. Those things were kept from us and if the teachers were ever quizzed about it – they weren’t, by the way – they could say we were “free” to read whatever we liked.
True but if we’re being woven into a narrative net, then who climbs out of it and where does that person strike out to anyway, not knowing anything? An equal and opposite ideologue?
And so the ideologues have a ready made market, always carefully couching wronghoods in righthoods, making the definitions fair, tolerant, loving, caring, compassionate, mean something specific and meeting hostility to them as hostility to the concepts. Bundling concepts together like the Chinese, listing three or four self-evident truths and bundling in the fourth or fifth of their own making, as if it is part of the others.
Thus if I attack “love is everything”, I have to be attacking love itself, no? Again, this is the cleverness of these people and they have many techniques, from Delphi to neuro-linguistic programming, to get an ambitious person of a certain mindset and political ignorance to embrace leading beyond authority.
Groupthink. Interesting technique.
Rejecting criticism with jingoism. If a woman is taken to task, it’s misogyny, sexism. If it’s the way the blacks play the victimhood game – that’s racism. If we don’t wish for Sharia Law in what was once England, that is also racism. And there is ageism, disablism, it goes on.
Fired with enthusiasm, there is this Procrustean attempt to make one size fit all – the EU disease – at huge cost in compliance. People are employed to make people comply and it costs billions, when they could have left well alone and things would have gone along splutteringly but acceptably. Acceptably to non-ideologues, that is.
The whole point of it is that it has to be a grandiose scheme, costing billions. And everyone must comply. And in the end, as in Soviet Russia, there is only stagnation, suspicion of one’s neighbours and deep self-centredness.
It is local in outlook. People in Russia were encouraged, on pain of being driven away in the middle of the night, to concentrate on things local and leave the governing to the Politburo. It alarms me to see people over here of much the same mindset as me, as maybe you, trumpeting localism but what my colleagues mean by that is direct democracy. What the communitarian ideologues mean by it is federalism, with locals taking care of the day to day but the thought policing still coming down from above.
And what is the nexus, the channel by which the ideologues in high places get their message to seep down locally? Citizens’ juries, local meetings, councils for this and that, committees for this and that, inviting you to participate for the good of your community.
And who runs those meetings? Why, a chairperson of course, a local lady or man who is actually a Common Purpose graduate and the authority by which he or she uses group techniques to manipulate the resolutions? Leading by authority of course.
Read a local example of this from some years past.
Making the enemy a hydra is how criticism is deflected as well – pass it along to another department, shift the blame, never accept responsibility for once’s actions, blame it on the regulations but never question those regulations. That allows you to paint one foot long double lines on a narrow alleyway.
And dominate the debating space. Have your ideas, your agenda debated, yea or nay, not the opposite. Shut out the oxygen of publicity for the alternative view. Don’t let it get anywhere near the Beeb or if it does because people are asking about it, then bring in Andrew Marr or Mair and mock it to death with the aid of a handpicked audience. Marginalize dissent, claiming the will of the people and the moral high ground.
Mock appeals to sanity, as expressed in thoroughly discredited [the state the ideologues have brought into being] concepts such as the Sermon on the Mount. Call these extremism and hatred – hate crimes.
And if you took an Andrew Marr or Harriet Harman or Barosso into a closed room and tried to get to the bottom of why he or she is doing this, why he or she is so hardwired, it is near guaranteed that they believe, as Svali said, that they are doing “a good work”, that they are helping society and not their own pockets and the agenda of dangerous ideologues. This is what humanity, what our nation is up against.
But by what definition can you defend a view like this:
The purpose of modern art, literature, and music must be to destroy the uplifting—therefore, bourgeois — potential of art, literature, and music, so that man, bereft of his connection to the divine, sees his only creative option to be political revolt. “To organize pessimism means nothing other than to expel the moral metaphor from politics and to discover in political action a sphere reserved one hundred percent for images.”
By what stretch of the imagination can that be seen as ultimately good?
And finally, they read only their own literature, as we do too. So whereas I’ll quote Schiller, Adam Smith, Hayek, Friedman, American Thinker, Pajamas TV and so on, they know nothing of this, having their own completely separate reading list such as the Guardian, CNN, ABC, CBS, the Beeb, the Independent and the media we supposedly follow – the Sun, the Mail, Fox News, Sky News, is so jingoistic in its own way, so melodramatically black and white that it is easily attacked.
The ones the ideologically imbued never see are Bruce Charlton, Julia M, Longrider, the Quiet Man, James Wilson, Scott Ott, Ian Hills, the Slog, Churchmouse, Leg Iron, Raedwald, Tom Paine – I could list my whole blogroll. They’ve heard of Ron Paul, they’ve heard of UKIP, of the Tea Party and see these as divisive figures of hatred, living in fantasy land.
And as the ideologically imbued in all their relativism are in the ascendant in society and as this is in line with the elite’s agenda, then it proceeds apace, with a us a rearguard action that we’d like to think is growing but how do we measure that – by UKIP election results?