Wrong Way's Loser and Winner of the Year Awards

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

Yes, it's that moment you've all been waiting for, the Wrong Way Corrigan Loser and Winner of the Year Awards 2020. We've had plenty of contenders for the former, the latter has been much more difficult to choose. Basically, we've had a dearth of outstanding candidates.

Our Loser of the Year brought about our Winner of the Year. (Photo from Facebook.)

Amazon high

It has, of course, been a year that most people will probably want to erase from memory. Not everybody, though. There's Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, for example. He's had a bumper 12 months. Ditto for those holding the purse strings at Facebook, Netflix and Zoom.

Also, a fair few folk in the First World's comfortable classes — their public mutterings of enduring an annus horribilis aside — have seen their lot actually improve, from a financial perspective in any case.

OK, it's not all about money. I've certainly had to keep on telling myself that this last while in any case. Alas, it doesn't tend to wash with many Colombian women. 'Instead of that fancy restaurant, how about a litrazo of Poker in the barrio tienda? No? Really?!' They'll come round, they will.

Anyway, let's get to the awards, starting with our Loser of the Year.

Xi's the man

The obvious choice for many here is outgoing US President Donald J. Trump. He certainly, um, trumps the lot for sore loser of the year. Indeed, he didn't actually lose the presidential election so he and many of his supporters tell us. 

Whatever the case, he won't be residing at the White House after 20 January, we can be pretty sure of that. Thus, he is a loser, but it's not enough for him to take our gong.

No, the Wrong Way Corrigan Loser of the Year Award is going east, to China to be precise. As the head of a country that initially buried its head in the sand when news emerged of a novel, easily transmitted and somewhat lethal virus at large, Xi Jinping is our top failure.

Not only that, but once coronavirus was let out of the bag (or is that lab? Or wet market?) and reached the four corners of the globe, Xi did what the Chinese Communist Party does best at home: suppression. 

Thus, contagion was curtailed in China while it flourished outside, aided and abetted by a dithering World Health Organisation kowtowing to Beijing.

'Our Loser of the Year and other world leaders did much to ensure Alan scooped the top prize, but credit where credit is due.'

This dithering behaviour proved to be as contagious as coronavirus itself, as governments across the world followed suit. Cue pandemic pandemonium and cures more damaging to society as a whole than covid-19, the infection coronavirus can bring about.

For all that, together with China's backfiring wolf-warrior diplomacy which is only serving to deepen mistrust abroad about the CCP's intentions, Xi Jinping is a worthy Loser of the Year.

Crowning glory

And now for the big one, our Winner of the Year. Many have waxed lyrical about the darling of world leaders, New Zealand's Jacinda Ardern. She's done well in some areas for sure, but in terms of being a global champion, that's stretching things.

There can really be only one winner. Some will accuse me of picking this individual simply because he appeared on my podcast.

For sure, I was delighted to have him on as a guest, but it's disingenuous to say this played a part in my decision. I'm far more balanced than that.

So, our Winner of the Year 2020 is — no, not Niall Ferguson — it's "Alan", aka coronavirus.

For sure, our Loser of the Year and other world leaders did much to ensure Alan scooped this accolade, but credit where credit is due. It may have been an open goal of sorts, but he still had to tuck it away. And that he did with gusto.

He has, quite literally, touched the hearts and minds of millions of people across the planet. At the risk of being facetious, his modus operandi hasn't been to everyone's liking and there are many who certainly wouldn't put him in the winner's enclosure.

Nonetheless, in terms of world dominance in 2020, be that good, bad or indifferent, no one else comes close.

What's more, his emergence may have just given humanity a timely heads-up to get our act together before something far more deadly comes along.

In a divided world, one doesn't hold out much hope that we'll take great heed of this warning.

_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz". 

It's war alright, but not as we know it

*Click here for an audio version of this blog entry.
In my previous blog entry, I wrote about the possibility of the current cold war between China and the US heating up and how it could bring biological warfare to a new, devastating level.

In light of the deep ideological differences between the two superpowers coupled with the almost daily jibes being exchanged, it's not that difficult to imagine a casus belli. 

A more optimistic take is that, as was the case for Cold War I, while they might reach the precipice, neither side will take the plunge to destruction. Not directly anyway.

The front line of today's war; nobody is safe. (Photo by Andri from pexels.com.)

Waging cyberwar

The USSR-US stand-off was characterised by many proxy wars — Latin America saw its fair share of bloodshed in this regard — so at the very least we can expect something similar in Cold War II. Again, though, the shape of them will most likely be quite different from the battles fought in the 20th century.

In fact, online electoral interference by Russian actors, state-sponsored as it is seen to be, gives us an idea of the clandestine proxy conflicts to come.

Rather than directly or indirectly fight each other, the belligerents will attempt to deepen divides in enemy territory to fuel ongoing internal strife and instability. War on the cheap for the instigator. It's also relatively low-risk with potentially high rewards.

In the US particularly, from the outside looking in, it appears not merely a case of the seeds for division having been planted, they've sprouted and are already in bloom in many respects, thanks in no small part to the media. 

For pretty much every issue, consensus is out, contestation is in. An insignificant spark is all that's needed to set off the warring factions.

The media, both traditional and new-age, amplify any divisions by a considerable amount, while in some instances they create them where none really exist. 

On the ground, the differences are often much less pronounced than they are made out to be. This gives some cause for hope. (Take a week's break from Facebook, Twitter and the media in general and there's a big chance you'll become more relaxed.)

Be that as it may, two-form media manipulation is as strong as it's ever been. There's manipulation of the media itself by outside forces as well as the media's own malignant influence on the people it speaks to.

On the first of those, in terms of superpower conflict, we're already in a hot war and have been for some time. 

From a Western perspective, this is relayed to us, as mentioned above, in terms of Russian interference. 

No doubt it's a two-way street, perhaps done more overtly than covertly by the West, as in public denunciations of the dirty tactics from conniving Eastern powers, while at the same time, we must assume, playing them at their own game.

'At this remove, the thinking must be that the West can be crushed by the very things it holds dear — its open society and liberalism.'

However, considering the more muzzled media in the likes of China and Russia compared to the West, interference by the latter on the former in this sphere is unlikely to be too effective.

Now, the fact that we hear dissenting voices and have verbal battles over the best course of action for a given situation is in itself not a bad thing. It's what liberal democracies with a free (in name anyway) press are all about. In normal times, this works fairly well.

Problems arise when our leaders look to unite the citizens behind a cause, especially an emotive one that is, literally, a question of life or death. This is what we're seeing right now with the coronavirus. The divide it has created brings to mind the old aphorism, 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.'

Comedown from a liberal high

In one sense, it's an inevitable product of an open, literate society replete with multiple sources of information available to the masses. If we lived under an authoritarian regime there would really only be one narrative. Thankfully, we're not subject to that — yet.

Moreover, deciphering what is #FakeNews from genuine information isn't easy in this particular conflict. 

There isn't even agreement amongst those best qualified to speak on the matter, so little wonder many lay folk, Google at hand, have serious doubts about debatable decisions being taken for 'our own health and well-being'.

As I wrote about previously, the approach to dealing with coronavirus isn't a simple black-and-white issue. It's not, as some like to make it out to be, a dollars-versus-lives decision. 

It's fair to say most agree that measures taken to stop coronavirus at all costs, to prevent premature deaths due to the virus in the here and now will have knock-on, adverse effects for some time to come.

Thus, while we can unite behind this common microscopic enemy to the extent that pretty much everybody wants it to go away — or, in the likelihood that it doesn't disappear any time soon, that it becomes less a burden on us than it currently is — we're far from united on how best to achieve this. (With such differences of opinion it's easy to understand why controlling the flow of information becomes such an attractive option for those in power.)

We can only assume that this makes for pleasant viewing for the monolithic systems in Beijing and, to a lesser extent, Moscow. At this remove, the thinking must be that the West can be crushed by the very things it holds dear — its open society and liberalism.

So have we given our worker ants access to too much information to the point that they're now harming the system itself?

Answering in the affirmative, it can be said we've already reached peak liberalism and operating at such heights has made us become lightheaded. 

It's far from clear as to the best route down to a safer level, if one exists that is.
_______________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz". 

Forget the novel coronavirus, a novel First World war is a-brewing

An audio version of this blog is available here.
'Your grandparents and great-grandparents had to live through devastating wars, with a bloody end a very real possibility. Today, all you have to do to play your part is stay at home.'

Conventional warfare may be surplus to requirements for the next global conflict.

This has been one of the typical messages levelled at those who have been struggling or unwilling (there's no place for conscientious objectors) to comply with lockdown measures. A case of, 'cop yourselves on lads and stop complaining.'

Uncomfortable home truths

On the face of it, it makes sense. We're not being sent to the battlefields in our millions or asked to work around the clock to do our bit for the war effort. No. To stop the spread of this coronavirus, it's simply a case of adhering to an even more sedentary lifestyle than many had been living heretofore — sedentary in terms of work anyway.

In addition, in the more economically advanced nations, some are getting paid for their efforts i.e. getting money to do nothing.

The problem is, this just-stay-at-home thinking assumes people have no issue in doing so. Yet even the most misanthropic individual can suffer from cabin fever. 

A change of scenery every now and again, however unremarkable, is needed for one's mental health. Or at least the reassurance that you can move relatively freely about without fear of retribution. Simply knowing you are allowed to do something can be good enough in itself, you don't actually have to do it.

What's more, while there's been a cautious return of sporting events that have long served as catharses for many, seeing games played at empty venues has rendered them as exciting and emotionally useful as President Iván Duque's daily coronavirus updates. Indeed, both tend to leave us just more depressed.

'In the past, we could "rely on" a wide-scale war or two to give a raison d'être to the restless, fighting-fit, sexually frustrated (read incel here) men.'

Added to this is the increase in already existing worries amongst our younger generations about a financially insecure future, especially for those who have been struggling to find a meaning to their lives. 

To repeat myself for the umpteenth time — the pandemic appears to have inhibited foresight in some folk, if they ever had the faculty at all that is — the collateral damage from the stop-coronavirus-at-all-costs approach could be very high and long-lasting.

While some academics, though not all, say that previous pandemics played a part in reducing inequality, today's viral enemy will most likely do the opposite. 

For one, covid-19 is not a fatal infection for the working-age population, bar a very small number of exceptions. So it won't be the case that it will be an employees' market when we get through this. Job insecurity and lack of opportunities will most likely be worse, not better.

Such an environment is a perfect breeding ground for discontent.

In the past, to counteract this, we could rely on a wide-scale war or two to give a raison d'être to the restless, fighting-fit, sexually frustrated (read incel here) men, with most of the women providing backing support on the home front or tending to the wounded in field hospitals.

Of course, we can never rule out another conflict where our First World nations get involved en masse — it is, after all, in the so-called developed regions where we tend to have more discontented young men.

However, today's modern warfare requires fewer infantry soldiers than previously. (In emerging-market countries such as Colombia, to highlight but one difference, it could be argued that criminality absorbs at an early age those who otherwise might have become lost, thus giving them a purpose with more pressing concerns to worry about than the meaning of life.)

'Our best "hope" might be for Mother Nature to strike first with her own deadly attack, by whatever means she deems necessary.'

So as much as there may be sufficient numbers of willing young men ready to take up arms for a cause, our next global conflict involving the advanced nations is likely to be less in-your-face than those that humanity suffered in the 20th century.

Nonetheless, by that very fact, it could prove to be much more pernicious. As we're seeing with coronavirus, when you're fighting a microscopic enemy it's rather difficult to pinpoint exactly where to strike a telling blow.

So imagine a more lethal, indiscriminate killer than covid-19 at large amongst the populace. We're talking 21st-century biological warfare. 

In such a scenario, mobilising our frustrated young men — those who managed to avoid death from the initial wave of disease that is — would be of little use, save for sending them in as foot soldiers to tidy up and, perhaps, repopulate enemy territory if and when the belligerents have been defeated.

Bet on Beijing

It might sound far-fetched, but with a belief amongst a number of shrewd analysts that the US and its allies are already in a cold war with China, heating this up doesn't require an actual military battle.

If this current pandemic happens to be an unplanned test for something far uglier to come, China's leaders must surely be confident that having tight control over their people gives them a distinct advantage over the West, with its disenchanted, disunited, undisciplined youths. 

In fact, Beijing mightn't be far off the mark if it feels the West has hit the self-destruct button. In a zeitgeist of cancel culture and wokeness, a slight nudge is all that's needed to send it over the edge.

Our best hope might be for Mother Nature to strike first with her own deadly attack, by whatever means she deems necessary. The problem with this is that it most likely wouldn't sufficiently deal with the issue at hand in the way conventional warfare would i.e. disproportionately take out those disenchanted young men. 

It would, or at least should, however, make us all, wherever we're from and whatever we believe, appreciate our precious, privileged time on this planet. It's certainly going to take something more threatening than this novel coronavirus to achieve that in any case.

Having said that, it is an insult to all those who died in the world wars, not to mention the Spanish flu, to compare them to this current pandemic. Mercifully, covid-19 is a discriminate killer and at that, not a terribly lethal one.

Nonetheless, for those of you who feel coronavirus is our defining war moment right now, you might want to start building that bunker while you still can. To borrow from the 1970s rock hit, 'You ain't seen nothing yet.'

Total war, 21st-century style, might be the only way to give a dose of much-needed reality to incel and virtue signaller alike.
___________________________________________________________
Click here to listen to an audio version of this blog entry.

Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".