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".

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". 

Conservative liberalism: The new 'cool'?

'I'm blue, da ba dee da ba daa ...' Those of a certain vintage will remember that pop hit from the late 1990s. What exactly the blue referred to in the song, I'm not sure, but with the passing of a generation since it was a chart-topper, it could be well worth re-releasing today.

Is where their paths cross the key to progress and the new cool? (Image from iqoncept.)

This time around the blue, from a UK and Ireland (don't mention the Blueshirts) perspective in any case, would refer to conservatism. Or conservative liberalism if you will — you can insert the appropriate colour these political philosophies mean to you.

The tune could become an anthem, cheesy as it is, for those of us growing increasingly tired of the noisy, disproportionately influential comrades of, what we'll call here for simplicity's sake, the radical left and the many otherwise centrist folk who seem spellbound by it.

Not-so-free radicals

These radicals claim to represent balance, fairness, free speech and freedom in general — broad liberal values as they are — yet they are doing anything but that. 

The discourse that dominates mainstream media and much of social media, particularly Facebook, as well as academia across the greater English-speaking world is one which aims to consign much of our essential history to the rubbish bin while encouraging malignant groupthink with its associated identity politics.

This either reinforces racism where it may exist or creates it where it doesn't, under terms dictated for the most part by middle-class whites, ignorant of the racism in their very own conduct.

To go against this implies that one is a racist, white supremacist, homophobe or what have you. 

If you're not part of the witch hunt, ergo, you are a witch. I guess 'non-whites' who also speak out about or merely question the motives of the denounce-and-destroy brigade are seen as some sort of choc-ices — if one is allowed to refer to such a term these days. 

The list of proscribed phrases and views grows by the day. Anything can be twisted to fit the 'you're a racist, etc.' narrative. As one commentator put it, 'being colour-blind is now being racist'.

Indeed, much has been said and written, with good reason, about the Orwellian nature to all of this. There is only one accepted line and woe betide all those not following it, the Thought Police are watching. Room 101 for correction awaits or face being cancelled. In practice, both tend to be the fate for nonconformists.

Thankfully, however, the Party isn't in total control just yet. Dissenting voices of reason, of openness, of inclusiveness, still have a platform, ever smaller as it is becoming.

'Where once there were no limits on the "coolness" of being left, especially for the under-40s, now it's becoming cooler to be right.'

That being said, all but the complete ignorant accept that we have many inequalities to overcome. While equality of opportunity may be an impossible ideal to achieve, much more can be done to close the large gaps that continue to exist.

Conserving the centre

The broad central motorway of dialogue, learning, understanding and tolerance is the safest route to travel to arrive at a fairer society. Veering too far to the left or right, as history has shown us on umpteen occasions, only leads to catastrophe.

Considering the highjacking of the centre-left by radical, intolerant elements and their practical dominance in the humanities at universities and, by extension, mainstream media, it's in the more conservative- and liberal-leaning quarters where the conditions for progress appear to lie. The middle ground has held firmer there.

Rather than capitulate to the extremes as has often happened, now more than ever we must defend our position. 

As George Orwell put it, 'If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.' Diverse opinions now appear to be accommodated more so in old-school liberalism than on the left and its many cheerleaders these days.

For sure, far-rightists are equally as dangerous but they don't get the same sort of adoration as their counterparts on the other end of the spectrum.

What's more, we now have people from minority groups who are running scared of these radical leftists, the very people who claim to represent them. 

For example, a number of gay friends have told me they've become embarrassed by the militaristic factions 'fighting their cause'. They've told me it was better back in the day when 'what they got up to' was a more clandestine affair. There's also some pushback from a number of prominent African Americans.

So where once, apparently, there were no limits to the coolness of being left especially for, to put a rough age bracket on it, the under-40s, now, I like to think anyway, it's becoming cooler to be right.

To do so means you're swimming against the tide, a rebel very much with a cause — to stand up to the leftist mob that is hellbent on destroying free speech and independent thought.

The blue moon is rising. Sing it loud and sing it proud.
___________________________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

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