“I can’t believe how this is being spun. It’s mindblowing…” Thus spake Jordan B Peterson, the Canadian psychology professor, as the United Kingdom’s vast and mighty opinion factories – the dark, Satanic mills of William Blake’s fevered imaginings – began to vomit forth their responses to a Channel Four interview which had covered the gender pay gap, free speech and for some reason the neurobiology of lobsters. It took about forty-eight hours for the First Response Team’s idea that wisdom had met waffle and vanquished it to be buried beneath a thousand tons of hysterical shrieking nonsense, in which JBP had apparently perpetrated a live-on-air hate crime and basically incited violence against Channel Four and its blameless, quivering employees. From St George to dragon in two days. Welcome to Britain.
It may not be so obvious to North Americans – we are, after all, small and distant and our time is mostly taken up with tea-based self-medication for the depression occasioned by our cuisine and climate – but Britain’s culture wars are as intense as anything on offer in the New World. We have a thousand-year head-start on our former colonies, and long practice has enabled us to entrench our battle lines at every frontier where such lines are capable of being drawn, from the old classics like class, religion and political affiliation to more recent favourites such as sex, race, profession, which way you voted in the EU Referendum, broadband speeds in your local area and your views on the Atkins diet. Remember that Thomas Hobbes, the seventeenth century philosopher who assumed that society was a hellish and eternal war between everyone and everyone else, was an Englishman: ‘nuff said. Read more
Following our brief hiatus, we return to normal service by marking the death of the late Lord Bannside, better known as the Reverend Dr Ian Paisley, whom history seems determined to remember as a half-crazed and dangerous reactionary from the seventeenth century, a throwback to the radical Protestantism of Cromwell’s time who, mellowing a little in his old age, came to see the light, or at least a glimmer thereof, and finally agreed to the sort of compromise which would naturally appeal to the squishy Anglican sensibilities of the smug and unremarkable English people for whom compromise is not merely a means but an end in itself.
Leaving aside the interesting question of whether many Ulstermen, be they Catholic or Protestant, were successfully brought to believe that being governed by a coalition of Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley constituted progress in the conventional sense of the word, we think it at least worth considering the contribution which fundamentalist Protestants – for all their intolerance and inflexibility, the two attitudes most guaranteed to make you a pariah in the twenty-first century – have made over the centuries to the development of the free political institutions, commercial progress, and scientific innovations which constitute modernity, as well as to the meteoric rise of the English-speaking peoples from the seventeenth century onwards, which made what we think of as modernity possible. Read more
The good fellows over at @ClimateRealists, linking to this article in the Guardian which basically advises us all to head for the hills before the weather gods smite our sorry behinds, asked if the Guardian is a secret religious cult. This is perhaps a shrewder question than they realised, as the great historian of religious thought Sir James George Frazer nailed down the superstitious origins of political coercion more than a century ago. In The Golden Bough, he wrote:
“We have found that at an early stage of society men, ignorant of the secret processes of nature and of the narrow limits within which it is in our power to control and direct them, have commonly arrogated to themselves functions which in the present state of knowledge we should deem superhuman or divine. The illusion has been fostered and maintained by the same causes which begot it, namely, the marvellous order and uniformity with which nature conducts her operations, the wheels of her great machine revolving with a smoothness and precision which enable the patient observer to anticipate in general the season, if not the very hour, when they will bring round the fulfilment of his hopes or the accomplishment of his fears. Read more
We have come across a rather eccentric debate which is exercising the minds of the great and the good in the run up to the hundredth anniversary of the First World War later this year. It began when British politician Michael Gove, somewhat belatedly spotting that the commemorations will inevitably be the usual kind of anæmic and ahistorical rubbish on the model of the 2005 Trafalgar anniversary, decided to put a column about it in the Daily Mail, a tabloid which runs features on celebrity diets and conspiracy theories about the late Princess of Wales. In it, he made the case that the Great War was “a just war to combat German aggression” rather than, as commonly portrayed, “a series of catastrophic mistakes perpetrated by an out-of-touch élite”.
Britain being a complete stranger to such things as a sense of proportion, there followed a series of more or less hysterical rebuttals and counter-rebuttals involving everyone from academic historians to people who once appeared in a BBC sitcom set in the trenches. Bizarre as these antics may be, there is in fact a real intellectual question here. It can not, however, be answered by reference to Sarajevo or the Schlieffen Plan or Pan-Slavism or the Kaiserliche Marine: rather, the origins, nature, and significance of the conflict can only be properly understood within the much broader perspective of western history over the last several centuries. As it happens, this year is also the anniversary of quite a few other historical events which illustrate that perspective rather well. Read more
We promised not to add anything to the tsunami of pointless and predictable punditry which followed in the wake of the Parliamentary vote last week, like a flock of shrieking herring-gulls behind an insanitary fishing trawler, and we stand by that. Ten years from now, Syria will still be a wretched quagmire run by dangerous psychopaths whether we (a) leave it alone, (b) lob a few expensive fireworks at it, or (c) sell it to an international consortium of hydroponic pot farms.
We were interested to note, however, the emergence of UKIP as the principal voice of non-intervention within the framework of British party politics, not counting George Galloway’s Self-Promotion and Anti-Israel Party. With burgeoning support in the Tory shires, the urban north and among campus libertarians, it is interesting to consider where, if anywhere, they fit on the political spectrum; and whether, as with Ron Paul’s idiosyncratic amalgam of pacifism and capitalism, we should reconsider some of our modern assumptions about that spectrum. Read more