We have spoken at length on these hallowed pages about what we call “The Narrative” when we’re talking politely.
Be seeing you!
Obviously, it means different things to different people and as it evolves over time it is quite hard to define what it is and what it isn’t made up of. Yet, it can be diagnosed quite easily: it is an attempt to make the facts fit the fiction. Or in other words: a lie.
Whether “The Narrative” qualifies as a “white lie” is neither here nor there. I’m not terribly interested in the morality of people who ostentatiously and ostensibly claim to have only my best interests at heart, you see. It’s not just that I don’t trust them but I also trust myself a good deal more when it comes to taking good care of myself. So thanks, but no thanks.
Some would call me obstinate, even cynical, because of my character. I tend to think that I’m being very realistic in saying that as a rule, I wouldn’t believe in any motive that cannot be substituted for a baser one. And yes, I do think that when I mistrust people, they’ve got only themselves to blame for it.
For some, this might become a predicament. To judge from the childish and churlish histrionics the social justice brigade has been throwing on our streets and our public and private mass-media again, some people do seem to have an awfully hard time in dealing with rejection. But of course, growing up in safe spaces where everybody gets a prise (even if it’s just for trying) won’t have anything to do with this. No, not at all.
And now for something completely different. I think we’re all agreed on the current crisis of the establishment being down to an entrenched “elite” forcing unattractive policies on an ever more reluctant electorate.
And it makes not one iota of difference whether the “ancien régime” is centre-right or centre-left as the overall establishment policy by now has become very much about offering the same pudding in three different tins: it is available in faux-conservative, in eco-lunatic and in more honestly socialist flavours.
Social-democratic utopias, nanny and welfare states, are quickly running out of road all over the world. Except in the EU, where they are being held in place by the powers-that-be, and not by the free will of the people. Please make no mistake: the state propaganda brigade and its “democratic” arm in parliament will walk over dead bodies if needs must. And they’re the ones who get to make this decision (we’ll come back to this later).
The deep state (public bodies, Quangos, NGOs) are quite used to treating the public purse as their party-political (and sometimes personal) entitlement grant. When in fact these people are not supposed to own public monies as they’re simply here to make the best, i.e. the most intelligent, use of them.
Money allocation is the blind spot of social-democratic welfare states. They do (almost by definition) not realise the dilemma they’ve put themselves in with their redistributive policies. This leads, quite simply, to money being wasted on feel-good projects yielding no return on investment and in a loss of public capital.
What’s more, the social-democratic establishment (of which today’s Tory party is largely a part) seem incapable of realising that there is indeed a stringent connection between policy and reality (and vice versa). For an outsider looking in, the current political crisis would appear to be a consequence of neglectful, idiotic or downright vicious action and inaction. But then again that would be termed “populism” by the powers-that-be and flatly refused to be taken seriously.
All this may be an attempt to create conditions under which socialism could finally be working. Venezuela, Bolivia and North-Korea beckon, because it cannot end well in a real world that exists wholly independently of bubbles of hot air being pushed around by a bien pensant “elite” at dinner tables across the country and by other useful idiots when even a six-year-old can understand that there won’t be any cookies when the cookie jar is empty.
The idea that monetary resources are limited is treated with utter disdain and disbelief by a political establishment finding it all too easy to ramp up the tax rate for financing their latest follies, whether these be windmills or undeserving pseudo-refugees posing as “children” for the cameras. These are two extremely stupid (and also malevolent) forms of money allocation because the tax payer will never see a decent return on his or her investment. On the contrary: we’ll all have to foot the bill for the resulting losses and damages, or so it’d seem.
Still, the many feel-good fetishes of the progressive mind are pushed through against any and all public resistance with a quasi-religious fervour not too unlike the belief in Immaculate Conception and Eternal Life. It is as if someones existence depended on establishment policies being sacrosanct – as indeed it does.
Progressives are used to being above and beyond all earthly criticism. They rather arrogantly seem to assume themselves being infallible, unassailable, irreproachable, unimpeachable but above all irreplaceable – when in fact they are not. Yet, if things go wrong (which they tend to do in a world of entropy) then it’s quite conveniently “other people’s fault” and never the Left what’s to blame.
Establishment policy is a man-made set of beliefs treated much the same way as the religious ideas of former times or today’s Islamic ideology. But what’s worse: this is a dilemma for a world that truly has enough problems to solve without politicians artificially creating new ones just to keep themselves amused and in the comforts they’ve come to expect.
There are many ways of dealing with a political crisis. Some are functional, others are not. The establishment’s way of conflict resolution by now has become dysfunctional as the political crisis they’re finding themselves in is not getting any better but worse. And it’s not for want of trying, either. But you can only get so far without making contact with the cold hard facts of life even if you’re shielded from them by a cushy job at public expense and the safety only the fashionable opinions du jour can offer.
Interestingly, the political establishment treat their current crisis as a problem of communication. They have not yet understood that their product is wrong, too. Not only have we seen a relentless reinforcement of the battle lines in public and private broadcasting but also a circling of the band waggons by the political class (or whatever passes itself off as such).
Apart from mere defencive reflexes of a wounded political beast we have also seen increasing attacks on the body politic (“Snoopers’ Charter”). This is the self-destructive behaviour of a cornered monster that – incapable of escape and/or meaningful defence – turns on itself.
Stating, even in private, something that is not in the catalogue of approved opinion (or, as Flaubert called it: catalogue des opinion chic) can already cost you your job and with it your livelihood in many places all across the EU. It may get you investigated and prosecuted under modern heresy acts (“hate crime”). We all know that this is political censorship by a different name and by different means.
And we all know, I suppose, what to make of a regime that relies on the curtailing of cherished freedoms and liberties to keep itself in power. The need for a recourse to force ought to have the Left worried whether they’ll likely lose the political argument again, just as they did with the Fall of the Wall.
Yet, the political establishment are quite incapable of admitting they’ve got it wrong on nearly all relevant levels because to do so would mean admitting defeat. Not only have they mal-invested public monies, which is a loss that could be recovered over time. But above all, they have squandered the most important political capital of all: public trust.
This can’t and won’t be recovered easily, especially not by name-calling your constituents or by insulting, pejorative language hurled at them via the establishment’s mass-media (above all the state broadcaster). The establishment’s last remaining hope appears to be dividing people in the name of “unity” and crushing dissent in the name of “peace” (a certain Mr. Corbyn of Labour fame showed us how it’s done; or rather how it’s not done to judge by his party’s standing in the polls). Ultimately, this will mean crushing people too: first symbolically by character assassination but later on also physically, if “needs must”.
If it doesn’t end with either running out of other people’s money or their patience, socialism always ends with concentration camps. It is much the same story that occurred in every socialist regime whether in its “national” or “international” variant and the modern Left are quite the means to this end.
What this means in practical terms:
Don’t help the enemy. Don’t give undue credit to what established voices say or how they say it. They are professional liars and the will lie to you again and again. Because that’s what they’re there for. They’ve done so in the past and they’ll continue to do so in the future because their lives depend on it. They realise now that they are cornered and they will behave like cornered animals: they will trample over dead bodies “if need be”. And they have rather amorally entitled themselves to be the ones that get to decide when “needs must”. But their self-entitlement was given without due consent.
Cut out the middle-men. Go to the source of the news, not the opinion. Starve public figures of attention: listening to “experts” or business people and celebrities talking out of turn is mostly a waste of time (except for the comical relief they offer). The kommentariat, twatterati and Fake Book are an insult to intelligence. If they ban you, it probably means that you’ve won the argument.
Look for alternative information. There is plenty out there, but not all of it may suit your preferences or your purposes. Don’t compromise on who or what gets to make up your mind and with it your opinions. You are in charge of your own mind and wholly responsible for your cognition. If you feel manipulated, it probably means that you are. Always trust your gut instinct of what you know as reality. Otherwise they will sell you a bridge in pink if you let them.
Check for what’s missing. Your empirical reality may not be reflected by the mass-media. In future “The Narrative” may become even less representative of what you perceive as your empirical reality on your way to work, in your job, on your way home or when talking to friends and family. Actively search for news media that are true to your reality and reflect your ideas and opinions.
Talk with people. Don’t be confrontational, don’t proselytise. Everybody has their own limits and sometimes it may be better to stay within the confines of someones mind than to hope for a Damascene conversion in situ. Mostly, meaningful change isn’t achieved by giving the right answers but by asking the right questions. Get to know their reality first before sharing too much of yours. Don’t be fooled.
During my recent foray to visit some elderly relatives in Chemnitz, a place formerly known as Karl-Marx-Stadt (named after that famous German philosopher without whose political theories Herr Hitler would have been an impossibility), and [more…]
Without any particular reason, no round anniversary or that sort of thing, I would like us all to remember Pippa Bacca. “Pippa who?”, I hear you say. Giuseppina Pasqualino di Marineo, a.k.a. Pippa Bacca, was [more…]