The liberal illusion

@wwaycorrigan

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

'Yes, we shall set them to work, but in their leisure hours we shall make their life like a child's game, with children's songs and innocent dance. Oh, we shall allow them even sin, they are weak and helpless, and they will love us like children because we allow them to sin.

'Freedom on our terms.' 

We shall tell them that every sin will be expiated if it is done with our permission, that we allow them to sin because we love them, and the punishment for these sins we take upon ourselves. And we shall take it upon ourselves, and they will adore us as their saviours who have taken on themselves their sins before God. And they will have no secrets from us.

We shall allow or forbid them to live with their wives and mistresses, to have or not to have children — according to whether they have been obedient or disobedient and they will submit to us gladly and cheerfully ... and we shall have an answer for all. And they will be glad to believe our answer, for it will save them from the great anxiety and terrible agony they endure at present in making a free decision for themselves. And all will be happy ... except the hundred thousand who rule over them. For only we, we who guard the mystery, shall be unhappy.'

As some of you will be aware, the above passage is from The Grand Inquisitor, a mini-story in Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov.

One would like to think that most will see its relevance to today's world.

A "safe" and sorry lot

Considering everything we've witnessed over the last couple of years, it would appear many are indeed happy to submit to those who rule over us. 

Why worry about having to make a 'free decision' for oneself when the powers that be can take care of all that? One is given certain wriggle room, a modicum of freedom 'to sin', no more, no less.

What's really wanted — not unreasonably so — are safety and security, not freedom. Thus, it's not quite 'better be safe than sorry'. It's more a case of 'better to feel safe in the hands of a greater power than to be free.'

'Such "liberals" must have to perform some spectacular mental gymnastics.'

In this light, it explains why many people who describe themselves as liberals went unquestioningly along with lockdowns. 'Oh, nobody likes them but they're for the greater good.' That was the gist of the mantra that was sold to the masses and the majority bought it without the merest of critical assessment.

Surely genuine liberals would have wanted to be as certain as one could be that such an attack on liberty was worth the significant sacrifice. 

It became obvious early on in the pandemic, to those still thinking soundly in any case, that covid-19 was a severe and potentially deadly infection for only a small percentage of society.

What wasn't fully known was the cost of extensive lockdowns — not just economically but in all aspects of life and death — although there were numerous dissenting voices telling us to tread carefully, this blog included.

In this context, 'playing it safe', liberal style, surely should have meant doing our best to keep life as normal as possible. Yet governments across the world, with consent from many of their citizens, did the opposite. (In slight mitigation, the minions were constantly fed worst-case scenarios.)

'As we should all know, however, identifying as one thing is quite different from actually being that thing.'

It's a similar story with the covid-19 vaccines. It was clear that a not-insignificant number of the population had robust natural immunity to the infection.

So again, one would have thought that those of a supposedly liberal persuasion would factor this in before endorsing, punitively, vaccine mandates. Nothing of the sort was forthcoming. (The slight mitigation here is that at the start of the vaccination rollout hopes were high that the jabs would be something of a silver bullet for all. It soon became clear that this wasn't the case.)

Then there's the response to mad Vlad's (Vladimir Putin that is) decision to send his troops into Ukraine.

That the West's hawkish right-wingers have jumped at the chance this war has presented to denounce all of Russia and its evil ways is no surprise.

What is surprising, though, are the efforts of many of our so-called liberals to outdo the neoconservatives in this regard. It seems some want to remove Russia and its people from the planet completely.

On the flip side, Ukraine and Ukrainians can do no wrong whatsoever. And they never have done any wrong. To suggest otherwise is blasphemous. I guess I was missing that day in religion class when we learnt all about the saintly, chosen people of Ukraine.

'If I say it, it's true'

These "liberal" double standards are nothing new, of course. I recently happened upon a 2002 interview with the late writer Christopher Hitchens where he spoke of such mental gymnastics performed — 'liberal illusions' as he called them — in the minds of his liberal contemporaries.

He explained how such types had to ignore many glaring illiberal practices of three fêted liberals who had been his chief targets, calling out what he considered their hypocrisy, so to put it. These individuals were Mother Teresa, Princess Diana and US President Bill Clinton. (Watch the video at https://youtu.be/93vTib-WWvs. The part relevant to this text starts around the 27-minute mark.)

One assumes that many who call themselves liberals do so because it sounds virtuous. It has non-threatening connotations.

It's much better than labelling oneself as a radical leftist — even if that shoe appears to fit well. Or saying, on the other hand, one is a libertarian or a neoconservative.

As we should all know, however, identifying as one thing is quite different from actually being that thing.

One's constitution and actions are what really count. Many, though, like to illude themselves on this. And as long as their conduct and values fit inside the accepted framework, they'll never be truly challenged on it.

A win-win for all. Except for the free-thinkers.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

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

'We can do better on visas for Colombians' — Irish Deputy Prime Minister Leo Varadkar

@wwaycorrigan

Ireland's Deputy Prime Minister (Tánaiste), Leo Varadkar, has said he wants to make the visa process easier for Colombians who want to study and work in the country.

Leo Varadkar at the Irish ambassador's residence in Bogotá, with Colombia's Vice President Marta Lucía Ramírez (top left).

Speaking at a St Patrick's Day reception at the Irish ambassador's residence in Bogotá, the Tánaiste stated that he would 'love to see more Colombian students coming to Ireland to study in our universities, to learn English, to work if they want to.'

However, he acknowledged that the current visa regulations are rather restrictive for Colombians compared to those from other South American countries such as Argentina and Brazil.

Following the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding with Colombia's Ministry for Education aimed at greater collaboration in higher education, Varadkar admitted that Ireland 'can do better' on visas but it is something he intends to address. 'Colombians need a visa to come to Ireland, (they) have to pay for that visa, that's not the case from a lot of other countries in Latin America, so that's something I'll try and improve or change and I've been in contact with Minister McEntee (Ireland's Minister for Justice) about that already.'

The Tánaiste, who also serves as Ireland's Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, said that while trade between the two countries is small, 'there is scope for expansion'.

Deputy Prime Minister Varadkar officially opened Ireland's embassy in Bogotá this week, an office that began operating in 2019, the same year that Colombia opened an embassy in Dublin.

Before visiting Colombia, Varadkar was in Chile where Ireland also has a new embassy. During his stay in Santiago, he attended the inauguration of the country's new president, the leftist Gabriel Boric. 'Potentially, he represents a new generation of left-wing leaders in South America. Even though he comes from the student protests, the radical left, he has been very clear on Venezuela and Nicaragua. To a certain extent that gives me some encouragement,' Varadkar said of the Chilean president.

Click on the following link, https://youtu.be/3XgauTqKJOw (or see video below), to listen to the full interview with Leo Varadkar where he also speaks about Russia's war in Ukraine and the cocaine trade.

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

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

In awe of the strongman

@wwaycorrigan

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

We've seen plenty of ire directed at those who haven't completely condemned Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine or shown unconditional support for the under-siege locals.

Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping: Leaders with real conviction? (Photo from Wikipedia.)

Super Zelenskyy

Even some expert analysts on the region, that is to say, people who actually have a fair idea of what they're talking about, whilst speaking out against Putin's actions, have come in for criticism in some quarters for merely suggesting the reasons behind the attack.

The simplified narrative for most of the media, politicians and those who like to be told how to think right now is: Russia and everything Russian evil; Ukraine and everything Ukrainian, good.

As discussed previously here, one should tread carefully when there's such widespread agreement.

Of course, many of us have a tendency to plump for the underdog, hence the support for innocent Ukraine against bully-bear Russia. Indeed, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is being portrayed as some sort of superhero saint. For sure, from what we've seen he has been impressive, but we can assume he has a few flaws.

'We have two "excellent" examples of such types right now. One is currently running amok in Canada, the other in New Zealand.'

Nonetheless, he is the perfect strongman counterweight to Putin over which the West can idolise. For as much as some of us may think Western democracies have moved on from salivating over strongmen figures, there still seems to be an innate desire for a patriarchy of sorts.

Gentle tyrants

In fact, this could be why some actually view, or at least did view, Putin as a likeable rogue.

What's more, on the global level, the Russian president has been the underdog against Nato and the West in general, a West in which many of the agenda-setters appear to be nothing more than self-righteous, often hypocritical virtue signallers.

With a dearth of impressive leaders to look up to at home and tired of being constantly patronised, a no-nonsense Putin — we can also include Xi Jinping here — appeals. There's a feeling, à la Donald Trump, that these men rule with conviction rather than pussyfoot around, trying to please everybody but achieving very little.

In functioning democracies, such types do have their place. They can take on the technocrats. It could be said that the European Union is in dire need of one.

The problems arise when there are no checks on the strongmen, when there's no one to challenge them. This generally happens when they've been around for too long. They do usually self-destruct but not before causing a lot of collateral damage on their way out.

Yet, the strongman is usually easier to comprehend than, let's call them "gentler" leaders. The latter is often more pernicious. They claim to be forces of good. Indeed, they are so convinced that they are morally right that they don't see the harm they do.

We have two "excellent" examples of such types right now. One is currently running amok in Canada, the other in New Zealand. 

It could be said that Justin Trudeau and Jacinda Ardern are like terrible twins of one Sir Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, aka former UK prime minister Tony Blair. One can only hope that, like Putin's, their respective regimes are coming to an end.

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

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

 

The West "woke" to its demise

@wwaycorrigan

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

'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.'

That's one of many maxims from Mark Twain. Were he to be with us today, it's safe to assume that he would be siding with the majority when it comes to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Dark days for the West. Is it capable of recovering its vigour? (Image from Pexels.)

Russian, rush out?

Personally, having become accustomed to being against most of the legacy media in much of their reporting and their general stance as regards the coronavirus pandemic, that I find myself largely in agreement with them now in terms of the anti-Putin coverage seems rather strange.

Reading the full translated text of Vladimir Putin's speech as he outlined his reasons for the assault, looking at things from a distance and being far from an expert on the subject, his pretext for war really does seem absurd.

For sure, as it is for most things in life and as history has repeatedly shown us, it's not a case of one side utterly evil, the other side without any fault whatsoever.

However, while Putin speaks of neo-Nazis in Ukraine who would love nothing more than to see Russia obliterated — of which there perhaps are such types at some level — it has been his own Adolf Hitler-esque utterances and actions that lead one to the conclusion that he has lost it.

'Decisively is the operative word here. Deranged and miscalculated as it may be, Putin has acted. He's not a ditherer.'

Had this been a preemptive hit one could understand it more so. Strike before being struck. Yet, from the perspective of facing an actual military invasion, Moscow's move was unprovoked.

Of course, those defending Putin's actions say that a gradual squeeze has continuously been put on Russia from the West, in various ways. The Kremlin's ability to push back has been getting weaker.

Also, Europe's dependence on Russian gas, a powerful card as it is for Putin, isn't going to stay in his hand forever. So, the thought process must have been, 'act decisively now, or never.'

Betwixt and be Twain

Decisively is the operative word here. Deranged and miscalculated as it may be, Putin has acted. He's not a ditherer.

OK, when one is a dictator of a relatively powerful state, one doesn't have to worry about following everyday rules and regulations, never mind international law. 

The West, on the other hand, with all the caveats in viewing it as one united bloc in mind, is often hindered by its own well-meaning but at times pernicious laws.

What's more, whilst Western leaders are quick to talk up the virtues of their democracy, freedom and pluralism, they tend to suffer from long-sightedness. That is to say, they come out fighting — in word if not in deed — where they see such values under attack afar, but do little to address falling standards at home.

Over the last few years, it's almost as if many in the West have felt the end of history actually has been reached. 

The agenda-setting comfortable classes and elite in high-income nations, rather than concern themselves with deadly issues such as actual war and vast inequality, have focused on what at best can be described as fringe issues (read identity politics in its various forms here).

Instead of being liberating forces, they've been putting up barriers where none had really existed. (See https://wwcorrigan.blogspot.com/2020/08/forget-novel-coronavirus-novel-first.html and https://wwcorrigan.blogspot.com/2021/06/hold-tight-worst-is-yet-to-come.html for more context here.)

Seen in such a light, Putin's decision to invade Ukraine and his threat to those in the West who may dare to physically counterattack makes some sense.

Politically, the West has been weakened on the alter of irrational wokeness. One could go as far as to say that many of the policies that leaders from Warsaw to Washington have been implementing of late go against the very values they claim to uphold.

In this sense, whilst condemning Putin's actions one can also take the time to, as Twain put it, 'pause and reflect' and ask what exactly our own camp is trying to achieve. Beware of that majority mob.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

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

 

Sanitising to death our future generations

[Click here for an audio version of this blog entry.]
George Orwell's dystopian classic, Nineteen Eighty-Four, while a work of fiction had, as most in the genre do, a basis in the reality of the time when it was released.

Covid-19 and the new rules of engagement: Are they here to stay?

Published in 1949 when the world was still coming to terms with the true horrors of Nazi Germany — not to mention those of Stalin's Russia — the idea of an all-powerful, one-party state brainwashing its people, exerting almost complete control over the media and (continuously) rewriting history to suit its narrative wasn't quite fiction. 

The technological means of doing this portrayed in the novel were somewhat far-fetched for the period, but the concept certainly wasn't.

Not quite Orwellian, but it doesn't bode well

Seventy-one years later, the all-seeing telescreen depicted in Nineteen Eighty-Four seems rather primitive. 

For sure, the surveillance under which we find ourselves in the twenty-first century may appear less obvious, less personal — although the likes of Alexa and other artificial intelligence talking directly to us is, in a way, now happening — and less centrally controlled, yet only the naïve believe that we're not being profiled. 

It may be mostly by private companies for purely marketing reasons rather than a sinister state, but it's taking place nonetheless.

In a democratic society with free elections, that this happens isn't inherently the worst thing in our lives. We can, after all, opt out, even if the practice of actually doing so is a tad more difficult than the theory. Some of us are in too deep. 

What's more, not having at least a smartphone these days puts one at a distinct disadvantage in practically every corner of the world across a range of diverse sectors, both socially and professionally.

Nonetheless, the hope is that as long as we allow free speech, robust debate and ensure that we clearly know the sources of the content we engage with in our virtual world, we can avoid an Orwellian-style manipulation of the masses. (As alluded to above and noted in a previous post, we're well into this battle.)

From a Western perspective, the lack of meaningful independent regulation of the not-quite-so-innocent FANG (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google) aside, I am — believe it or not — on the optimistic side that we can preserve our somewhat free society.

'The result will be an overly sanitised population of hypochondriacs, where our own natural defences will be rendered practically useless. And our actual lives will be numbed to the point of nothingness.'

I take this view in relation to my peers and older generations, where there appear to be sufficient numbers of sceptics and critical thinkers to thwart would-be brainwashers. You can't teach an old dog new tricks and all that.

One is less optimistic, however, for the younger generations. 

Indeed, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, it was the children who were shown to be most loyal to the Party. They would even go as far as to rat out their own parents to the Thought Police if they displayed even the slightest disrespect to Big Brother, the omnipotent, omnipresent, unquestioned leader.

Snowflakes all around us

Watching how many of today's children appear to have taken gung-ho to the biosecurity measures aimed at combatting the spread of the coronavirus, one can't help but think of the over-zealous youths in Orwell's classic. 

For sure, it can be said they're simply mimicking, harmlessly, the adults closest to them. There are, though, some worrying points to note.

Should, as seems likely, the new health protocols remain in place for some time, children may come to accept them as normal. 'What's wrong with that?', you ask. Well, for one, considering there's much debate in the scientific community as to the efficacy of mask-wearing in controlling viral contagion, it's unsettling to think that their use will become widely accepted.

Ditto with the over-the-top use of alcohol gel and sprays in public. (Although, I must admit, before coronavirus arrived I had something bordering on addiction to using alcohol-based gels where they were available solely because I love the smell.)

The net result is that we're killing the good with the bad in terms of microorganisms on our bodies, in the same way that those who overuse antibiotics can do more harm than good to their internal defences.

Effectively wrapping ourselves in cotton wool means that when we inevitably face a threat, viral or otherwise, our bodies — and minds — are at risk of simply submitting. 

We're taking the fight out of our species. But hey, whaddya know, there's medication available, at a not-too-extortionate price, that will see you right.

On top of this, social distancing is instilling in our children the idea that a fellow human is a potentially lethal viral infection personified. Thus it has ever been, of course. 

Where there are humans there are diseases to be spread, from a mild cold to a deadly flu and everything else in between. Yet, we got on with our business and took the risk to socialise. The current approach being enforced upon us amounts to 'stop living in order to live'.

We appear to be well on the way to creating an overly sanitised population of hypochondriacs, where our own natural defences will be rendered practically useless. And our actual lives will be numbed to the point of nothingness. 

That virtual sex scene between Sandra Bullock and Sylvester Stallone in the 1993 movie Demolition Man doesn't seem so ridiculous now.

It's not quite a dystopia in the strict sense of the word. We could call it, sticking to the Greek origin, a ukalostopia — a no-good place. 

Our misinformed do-gooders at the wheel are driving us to an insipid future. It's time to take back control while we still can.
__________________________________________________________
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".