" ‘Damp gingerbread puppets’ were to him the persons who lived and thought and felt and acted only as was expected of them.'"
"No man, in fact, was ever less inclined to take anything at second-hand. The root of all originality was in him, in the shape of an extreme natural vividness of perception, imagination, and feeling. An instinctive and inbred unwillingness to accept the accepted and conform to the conventional was of the essence of his character, whether in life or art, and was a source to him both of strength and weakness. He would not follow a general rule—least of all if it was a prudential rule—of conduct unless he was clear that it was right according to his private conscience;"
THE LETTERS OF ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON TO HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS
SELECTED AND EDITED WITH NOTES AND INTRODUCTIONS BY SIDNEY COLVIN
Is it not fascinating that only authors, Dickens, Stevenson, Swift, Orwell, and others, are capable of dissecting human behaviour observed by all but understood by few.
I wasn't aware of this from Robert Louis Stevenson's letters, but I have found them online. It ties in with a theme I mention from my book review from Saint-Exupery's Wind, Sand, and Stars. I've written this down for a future article. Thanks!
Such a great piece! May I quote this too? "For violence has nothing to cover itself with but lies, and lies can only persist through violence. And it is not every day and not on every shoulder that violence brings down its heavy hand: It demands of us only a submission to lies, a daily participation in deceit—and this suffices as our fealty. And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal nonparticipation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not through me!" Live not by LIes, by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/live-not-by-lies
I was thinking about Solzhenitsyn while reading this piece. Now, there was an 'influencer'.
It perplexes me that no one seems to understand that the gulags of yesteryear have become obsolete. We have shown ourselves to be willing to imprison ourselves the moment a frenzy of fear takes root. We gave up our liberties that quickly.
We do not need to wait around for the trains to take us to camps. Those who believe that they rule us -- because our agreement makes it so -- have pressed 'pause' for a moment, but there is little doubt in my mind that it is only for a moment, only for so long as we do not inconvenience our overlords.
Except that was not the view - Right *or* Left. Both concluded they were *defending* people's rights, not abandoning them for "totalitarianism" (see my other comment to this article for explication). That is my problem with this article. People weren't 'deluding' themselves - ie weren't 'Iying' to themselves - about what they were doing. "We" (Right and Left) believed they were acting like proper police officers *protecting* rights.
"Those who believe that they rule us"
In the first three months of Covid, a national survey reported that 80% of the entire US population (Right and Left) *demanded* (and got) *some* form of wholesale violation of rights (mask mandates, lockdowns, vaccine mandates, etc) by the State. So it is not a "those who believe that they rule us" issue. It is an "us" issue. As Charles accurately put it, it is a "society wide" issue. "We" "enable despots to flourish with power". And "we" do so because "we" (Left and Right) hold *false* views of rights.
Simply put, 'Others' are *not* our "overlords". "WE" (Right and Left) are our own "overlords" - which was, in fact, the entire point of your second paragraph.
It is "we" who must change. Only then will there cease to be "overlords".
The assent, even panicked conformity, to 'official' messaging, without questioning the wisdom of doing so, allows messengers to accrue power, ultimately becoming overlords.
Agree 100% that change must originate within the citizenry. Those who are enjoying wielding power will not relinquish it of their own accord.
"The assent, even panicked conformity, to 'official' messaging, without questioning the wisdom of doing so..."
This is where I think you go wrong. You presume those who "assent" to an idea have *not* actually put any thought into what they were assenting to. As I noted, this is false. They considered the ideas and considered the alternatives ('Grandma being murdered' etc) and concluded that the 'official' ideas were correct and better than the alternatives.
In other words, you presume mindless drones when the facts indicate the opposite.
"allows messengers to accrue power, ultimately becoming overlords"
When the "messengers" are preaching and practicing the principles of their society, they are *not* "overlords" (ie they are not forcing an unwilling populace to conform to principles they reject). They are *representatives* (ie they are acting in accord with the wishes of the populace). Thus, what must change is not, as you would have others believe, the populace's supposed 'unquestioning conformity', but the populace's *false* view of rights.
I am not interested in engaging in a battle of who is "right" and who is "wrong," and will not be responding further to any comment you may wish to leave.
I'm sorry you are uninterested in distinguishing fact from fiction. I myself am concerned with knowing right from wrong, as you put it, since I live in reality and understand that knowledge of actual *facts* (as opposed to one's fantasies) is necessary to *live* in reality. Good day sir.
I would say that the response to Covid was *not* a "lie" people "deluded" themselves into accepting. In fact, I would say that people *honestly* believed they were *defending* the individual's rights.
That was certainly the Left's argument - ie that you don't have the right to 'murder Grandma'. In other words, the Left's argument was that the individual's right to his very existence ("life") was inviolable. No one had the right to take it from the individual. Unfortunately, instead of responding to and refuting the Left's 'murder' claim by pointing to the issue of consent (which is *the* principle of rights) regarding human interactions (ie interactions with Grandma et al), the Right declared that rights naturally conflict with one another. As such, the Right concluded one must (somehow - usually by appealing to some Collectivist premise) 'balance' Grandma's right not to be 'murdered' against the health of the economy (ie the right of trade), or the rights of 'The Children', etc. In other words, the conflict between the Left and the Right was not a conflict between totalitarianism and freedom. It was a conflict between supposedly different ways of 'defending' rights (*both* of which were wrong).
In other words, *no* one - Left or Right - was trying to dismiss rights for a philosophy of brutal slavery by the State. Both were trying to have the State defend the individual's rights (as *they* each 'understand' them). The problem is that *both* sides were *wrong* about the concept of rights. *Both* ignored the issue of consent - and thus *both*, in the name of rights, were *unknowingly* actually demanding, not the defense, but the violation of rights (more 'knowingly' on the Right, since their premise is that rights naturally conflict with one another - ie that one cannot help but violate one right when defending another right).
Thus I have to disagree with the premise of this article, along with the idea that "the madness is behind us". These (false) competing views of rights *still* exist on both sides, and are still applied *daily* in nearly *every* aspect of State action, regardless of whether it is the Left or Right doing the acting. Put simply, the preaching and practice of these erroneous philosophies was not "a long time ago". They *do* 'really happen' - every - single - day - and at - every single - level - of human interaction. They are happening right *now*. And they will *righteously* continue to happen until "society" (Blue and Red) stops believing in *false* views of rights.
I agree they thought they were defending rights. I agree they were wrong. I agree that the madness is not behind us. That statement was stated tongue-in-cheek, followed by how quickly it had been forgotten that we were choosing to do it all over again with the same people.
"followed by how quickly it had been forgotten that we were choosing to do it all over again with the same people."
Since neither the Left nor the Right were *ever* disabused of their ideas about rights, nothing has been "forgotten" about Covid. And that's because neither the Left nor the Right feels ashamed of the *principles* they practiced then. Sure, they may hem and haw over particular *practices* of those principles, saying they can do 'better' in the future. But all that means is that they will do 'better' at employing those *exact* same principles. That's *why* they continue to preach and practice those principles *today* with moral *righteousness*.
That's my point and where we *disagree*.
Neither the Left nor the Right have the view that "it was a long time ago and it never really happened anyway". They do *not* try to distance themselves from defending 'Grandma from being murdered' or 'balancing Grandma's rights against the rights of others'. They do not "Iie" to themselves about their view of rights - ie they do not secretly *know* they are violating rights but try to "rationalize" that violation to themselves. As you admit, "they thought they were defending rights". And that *never* changed. To this day, they *still* believe they were and are "defending rights" - meaning they have had *nothing* to "forget". Nothing to "Iie" about regarding their principles. They *remain* as they were. And that means they *continue* to act as they have always acted - "forgetting" nothing and proudly *continuing* to practice (with no cessation or pause) the (false) philosophy of rights they have always upheld and always demanded be practiced.
" ‘Damp gingerbread puppets’ were to him the persons who lived and thought and felt and acted only as was expected of them.'"
"No man, in fact, was ever less inclined to take anything at second-hand. The root of all originality was in him, in the shape of an extreme natural vividness of perception, imagination, and feeling. An instinctive and inbred unwillingness to accept the accepted and conform to the conventional was of the essence of his character, whether in life or art, and was a source to him both of strength and weakness. He would not follow a general rule—least of all if it was a prudential rule—of conduct unless he was clear that it was right according to his private conscience;"
THE LETTERS OF ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON TO HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS
SELECTED AND EDITED WITH NOTES AND INTRODUCTIONS BY SIDNEY COLVIN
Is it not fascinating that only authors, Dickens, Stevenson, Swift, Orwell, and others, are capable of dissecting human behaviour observed by all but understood by few.
I wasn't aware of this from Robert Louis Stevenson's letters, but I have found them online. It ties in with a theme I mention from my book review from Saint-Exupery's Wind, Sand, and Stars. I've written this down for a future article. Thanks!
Such a great piece! May I quote this too? "For violence has nothing to cover itself with but lies, and lies can only persist through violence. And it is not every day and not on every shoulder that violence brings down its heavy hand: It demands of us only a submission to lies, a daily participation in deceit—and this suffices as our fealty. And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal nonparticipation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not through me!" Live not by LIes, by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/live-not-by-lies
I was thinking about Solzhenitsyn while reading this piece. Now, there was an 'influencer'.
It perplexes me that no one seems to understand that the gulags of yesteryear have become obsolete. We have shown ourselves to be willing to imprison ourselves the moment a frenzy of fear takes root. We gave up our liberties that quickly.
We do not need to wait around for the trains to take us to camps. Those who believe that they rule us -- because our agreement makes it so -- have pressed 'pause' for a moment, but there is little doubt in my mind that it is only for a moment, only for so long as we do not inconvenience our overlords.
"We gave up our liberties that quickly."
Except that was not the view - Right *or* Left. Both concluded they were *defending* people's rights, not abandoning them for "totalitarianism" (see my other comment to this article for explication). That is my problem with this article. People weren't 'deluding' themselves - ie weren't 'Iying' to themselves - about what they were doing. "We" (Right and Left) believed they were acting like proper police officers *protecting* rights.
"Those who believe that they rule us"
In the first three months of Covid, a national survey reported that 80% of the entire US population (Right and Left) *demanded* (and got) *some* form of wholesale violation of rights (mask mandates, lockdowns, vaccine mandates, etc) by the State. So it is not a "those who believe that they rule us" issue. It is an "us" issue. As Charles accurately put it, it is a "society wide" issue. "We" "enable despots to flourish with power". And "we" do so because "we" (Left and Right) hold *false* views of rights.
Simply put, 'Others' are *not* our "overlords". "WE" (Right and Left) are our own "overlords" - which was, in fact, the entire point of your second paragraph.
It is "we" who must change. Only then will there cease to be "overlords".
I think that you over-read the comment.
The assent, even panicked conformity, to 'official' messaging, without questioning the wisdom of doing so, allows messengers to accrue power, ultimately becoming overlords.
Agree 100% that change must originate within the citizenry. Those who are enjoying wielding power will not relinquish it of their own accord.
"The assent, even panicked conformity, to 'official' messaging, without questioning the wisdom of doing so..."
This is where I think you go wrong. You presume those who "assent" to an idea have *not* actually put any thought into what they were assenting to. As I noted, this is false. They considered the ideas and considered the alternatives ('Grandma being murdered' etc) and concluded that the 'official' ideas were correct and better than the alternatives.
In other words, you presume mindless drones when the facts indicate the opposite.
"allows messengers to accrue power, ultimately becoming overlords"
When the "messengers" are preaching and practicing the principles of their society, they are *not* "overlords" (ie they are not forcing an unwilling populace to conform to principles they reject). They are *representatives* (ie they are acting in accord with the wishes of the populace). Thus, what must change is not, as you would have others believe, the populace's supposed 'unquestioning conformity', but the populace's *false* view of rights.
I am not interested in engaging in a battle of who is "right" and who is "wrong," and will not be responding further to any comment you may wish to leave.
I'm sorry you are uninterested in distinguishing fact from fiction. I myself am concerned with knowing right from wrong, as you put it, since I live in reality and understand that knowledge of actual *facts* (as opposed to one's fantasies) is necessary to *live* in reality. Good day sir.
"deluded" "a lie we tell ourselves"
I would say that the response to Covid was *not* a "lie" people "deluded" themselves into accepting. In fact, I would say that people *honestly* believed they were *defending* the individual's rights.
That was certainly the Left's argument - ie that you don't have the right to 'murder Grandma'. In other words, the Left's argument was that the individual's right to his very existence ("life") was inviolable. No one had the right to take it from the individual. Unfortunately, instead of responding to and refuting the Left's 'murder' claim by pointing to the issue of consent (which is *the* principle of rights) regarding human interactions (ie interactions with Grandma et al), the Right declared that rights naturally conflict with one another. As such, the Right concluded one must (somehow - usually by appealing to some Collectivist premise) 'balance' Grandma's right not to be 'murdered' against the health of the economy (ie the right of trade), or the rights of 'The Children', etc. In other words, the conflict between the Left and the Right was not a conflict between totalitarianism and freedom. It was a conflict between supposedly different ways of 'defending' rights (*both* of which were wrong).
In other words, *no* one - Left or Right - was trying to dismiss rights for a philosophy of brutal slavery by the State. Both were trying to have the State defend the individual's rights (as *they* each 'understand' them). The problem is that *both* sides were *wrong* about the concept of rights. *Both* ignored the issue of consent - and thus *both*, in the name of rights, were *unknowingly* actually demanding, not the defense, but the violation of rights (more 'knowingly' on the Right, since their premise is that rights naturally conflict with one another - ie that one cannot help but violate one right when defending another right).
Thus I have to disagree with the premise of this article, along with the idea that "the madness is behind us". These (false) competing views of rights *still* exist on both sides, and are still applied *daily* in nearly *every* aspect of State action, regardless of whether it is the Left or Right doing the acting. Put simply, the preaching and practice of these erroneous philosophies was not "a long time ago". They *do* 'really happen' - every - single - day - and at - every single - level - of human interaction. They are happening right *now*. And they will *righteously* continue to happen until "society" (Blue and Red) stops believing in *false* views of rights.
I agree they thought they were defending rights. I agree they were wrong. I agree that the madness is not behind us. That statement was stated tongue-in-cheek, followed by how quickly it had been forgotten that we were choosing to do it all over again with the same people.
"followed by how quickly it had been forgotten that we were choosing to do it all over again with the same people."
Since neither the Left nor the Right were *ever* disabused of their ideas about rights, nothing has been "forgotten" about Covid. And that's because neither the Left nor the Right feels ashamed of the *principles* they practiced then. Sure, they may hem and haw over particular *practices* of those principles, saying they can do 'better' in the future. But all that means is that they will do 'better' at employing those *exact* same principles. That's *why* they continue to preach and practice those principles *today* with moral *righteousness*.
That's my point and where we *disagree*.
Neither the Left nor the Right have the view that "it was a long time ago and it never really happened anyway". They do *not* try to distance themselves from defending 'Grandma from being murdered' or 'balancing Grandma's rights against the rights of others'. They do not "Iie" to themselves about their view of rights - ie they do not secretly *know* they are violating rights but try to "rationalize" that violation to themselves. As you admit, "they thought they were defending rights". And that *never* changed. To this day, they *still* believe they were and are "defending rights" - meaning they have had *nothing* to "forget". Nothing to "Iie" about regarding their principles. They *remain* as they were. And that means they *continue* to act as they have always acted - "forgetting" nothing and proudly *continuing* to practice (with no cessation or pause) the (false) philosophy of rights they have always upheld and always demanded be practiced.
This is a memorable essay. It ought to be required reading, if only today's students were taught to read.