Excellent. I now look forward to reading Pitchfork Papers as much as I do Doomberg. If the Right would drop abortion as an issue (I know, their Religion won't let them) they'd win a lot more elections. But maybe now that it's a states-rights issue they can, and the world can reunite behind the idea of individual rights?
Well that is praise indeed. Thank you. I suspect we get small state liberty only as a result of big state exhaustion and decay and it will be a hard fight. But I have kept all my old Asterix books as inspiration…
“And so the question is, does the integral standard of living of humanity matter to you? Is that a trade-off? Can we make do with less in your view? OK, well who gets to decide that and who has to make do with less? […}”
The very first thing that popped into my mind was the video from a day or two ago of the teenaged girl interviewed during the school walkout, protesting the environmental impact of people taking trips……she had just gotten back from Fiji with her parents…..so I guess they are the ones who get to decide!
Oh, my wife's working as a teacher, and just told me about a discussion with her teenagers this week. "So, last summer you've participated in the demonstrations 'Fridays for future' in Germany." - "Yes, of course!" - "Why?" - "Because it is good, isn't it?" - "Ok, but why is it good?" - <Blank stare as answer> - "What did you change in your lifestyle after the demonstrations?" - "Well, nothing!"
I saw that on Twitter but couldn't bring myself to watch it. Of course we know who thinks they have the right to decide and so far they have made all the running (on every single one of the topics I listed with very clear preferences for this particular one), but that is only because energy availability has never been seriously at risk in the past two decades. It is now, so that changes everything.
Correct! But you owe it to yourself to listen to the exchange….the interviewer starts laughing uncontrollably……apparently the girl’s mother joined the fray today to make matters worse….”they” will do what they want, when they want…..and we, well……
Magnificent piece Steven, thank you. I’ve long contended that there is only one difference between Fascists and communists. Fascists always have better uniforms and Communists always have better PR. Otherwise they are the same foul breed. Flynn’s definition is probably more useful and definitely illuminates how many of our ‘liberal’ institutions are anything but (looking at you Ursula).
Have you read ‘Woke Inc’ by Vivek Ramaswary? It’s on my reading list, though I can’t seem to find the podcast I heard about it on for you.
Thank you. I am going to hazard a guess that you heard Ramaswary talk about his book on the Tom Woods Show. I heard him there and ordered it immediately and have it lying on my desk although I can’t quite bring myself to read it.
Yes, but we are not allowed to point that out. I think rather than a binary tick or cross approach, it is instructive to score each point on a scale from 0 to 10 whilst supplying a few specifics to illustrate. The US might score higher than the EU because it does maintain a huge military capability and a military-industrial oligopoly in deep cahoots with the State and maintains hugely powerful Agencies who direct and co-ordinate industrial policy where deemed necessary, but those are only elements and they are neither fully formed nor intentionally "fascist". However I do believe that all the elements are in place - both in the EU and in the US - for that to evolve quite rapidly if circumstances were to become more challenging. If you have a tank in the barn, eventually someone will want to drive it.
That has been my constant fear with the EU. Not that there is anyone there in power now who is overtly dictatorial (even though they may often sound it), but the apparatus has been built that would make it easy for someone of malignant intention to "repurpose" the instutions far enough away from democratic scrutiny. I am also not saying it will happen, but the tank has been built.
2 - Excellent article. Populist is another term that to this day I don't really understand. A populist is what, someone who is popular with the people? The wrong people? Why is one person a populist and another isn't? Pinning down a precise definition is like trying to grab an eel.
3 - Several times I've noticed that you use lengthy sentences that have a tendency to fall down the rabbit hole of convolution. Take this one, for example. " So when you hear someone being described as “fascist” all you know is that that person has dared to voice an opinion or represent a position that has not quite caught up with the sanctioned narrative train hurtling at terrifying speed towards the ultra-left, collectivist margin, a group that includes more or less everybody except the intellectual class (who probably believe it) and the mandarins ruling the fiefdoms of bureaucratic agencies (who probably don’t) plus the Silicon Valley master manipulators (whose malthusian self-delusional nihilism suggests that they really do believe it, God help us.)"
By the time you reach the point where you say "a group that includes" it's no longer fully clear which group you're referring to. I would gently suggest that when possible, try to simplify sentences. Hemingway wrote beautifully and his prose is almost caveman in its simplicity.
At any rate, loved the piece as usual. I always read these as soon as they hit my inbox.
You can be pretty sure that when a sentence of Thomas Mann like proportions (a s sort of inverse Hemingway) ends up in the letter (and there are three in this one) then it is a sign that I have not had time to do more than cursory editing. My deadline is more important than perfection and - this being Substack - I have the luxury of going back and editing at leisure. I appreciate the feedback - the good and the critical though, really.
I listened to the Palisades interview yesterday and Grant’s conversation with Doomberg this morning at 430am. The {SoL/C02 Emissions} formula is pure genius.
I just finished listening to Ol' Doomy an hour ago. What a banger of a podcast. I loved hearing Grant take the gloves off and express a few strong opinions.
I have only recently discovered your work to my embarrassment but this is another wonderful piece of writing and thinking. Thankyou for the chance to share in your thoughts.
Good afternoon Bruce, I am not quite sure what might cause the embarassment, but I am sure that I am deighted that you are on board and I will endeavour to keep you engaged and will always glad to hear from you.
Thank you Steven for another thought-provoking piece.
I agree with Flynn that the thing called fascism (as instantiated in the historical examples of Mussolini, Franco, Antonescu, Hirohito et al) was not a pure and indivisible political philosophy but was in fact a mixture of several characteristics that can come apart and be mixed with other things at other times. His list is un-necessarily long, though. For 1930s/1940s fascism I suggest the following characteristics were present:
1 authoritarian statism
2 merging of corporate and state power
3 militarism
4 extreme ethno-nationalism
5 very baggy trousers tucked into knee-high boots
What we have now in The West is the first three, while the fourth has been fully reversed into an extremely anti-localist globalism and the last has been quietly dropped without anyone discussing it. We now have:
- authoritarian statism
- merging of corporate and state power
- militarism
- extreme anti-localist globalism
If there is a catchy name for the above combination of characteristics I am not aware of it. Any suggestions?
The word 'fascist' has simply become a playground insult, rhetorically equivalent to 'stinky-bum' so it is best avoided. It is much clearer separately to identify the ingredients of the above list where and when they arise.
Great piece. There is just one more option you did not consider when looking at "carbon emissions," by which you mean, I assume, the amount of atmospheric CO2 humans emit. There is a fourth option: forget the entire anti-C02 project, with the understanding that atmospheric C02 is life-giving; that more C2 will green the earth while using less water; that our current levels are well below geologic historical norms; and that atmospheric C02 has caused exactly zero human deaths. We need more C02, not less. We should concentrate on the harmful emissions, not the beneficial ones.
Brilliant.....You, Me, Doomy, Grant W, M Moss, A Mcleod......the list goes on and on and on. We are many. How can we not prevail? Oh shit I have just identified a possible answer to my question.😢
Yeah me to bro.....and the answer to my question of 'how could we not prevail' is. Those in our pool club have no interest gaining power. It is becoming evident that those that are in power or craving such positions are the wrong people to be in those positions.
Good point about hyperbolic language - ‘Hitler’ is another one. Funny how we’ve gone from ‘nanny-state’ policies - which has a soft, comforting tone - to fascism. I’ve been puzzled at the seemingly lack of interest among those elected officials tasked with national energy strategy to truly try to understand energy, how it’s made, it’s role in our lives, etc. I’m new to the area but courtesy of Doomberg and other writers feel I understand better the ‘big picture’ considerations of energy than our green politicians (who, by definition, should run on practical, implementable thinking, not fear-based green politics which serves no one and nothing). Being frugal and conservative with all Earth’s bounty should be a given and I reckon the majorly of peoples would back that. No one talks about one of the fairest and effective ways of reducing emissions is to bring the poor countries out of poverty - move them up the energy ladder. As for a song for your playlist - Highway to Hell.
Yes and amen to all of the above. My understanding of how to think about all tbis has been helped immeasurably by Doomies’ formula {SoL/C02 Emissions} as a way to optimize the trade-offs. That framing allows all of us to have a discussion around priorities. Current policies as we are now witnessing are, as Jamie Dimon testified to Congress “the road to hell” (which they say is paved with good intentions.) Here is the link to the as yet small playlist, with your excellent addition https://open.spotify.com/playlist/6KpWIQObQyR2tjdhcstbzS?si=xyZFFimzQT68aXYMi77w0A
Excellent. I now look forward to reading Pitchfork Papers as much as I do Doomberg. If the Right would drop abortion as an issue (I know, their Religion won't let them) they'd win a lot more elections. But maybe now that it's a states-rights issue they can, and the world can reunite behind the idea of individual rights?
Well that is praise indeed. Thank you. I suspect we get small state liberty only as a result of big state exhaustion and decay and it will be a hard fight. But I have kept all my old Asterix books as inspiration…
“And so the question is, does the integral standard of living of humanity matter to you? Is that a trade-off? Can we make do with less in your view? OK, well who gets to decide that and who has to make do with less? […}”
The very first thing that popped into my mind was the video from a day or two ago of the teenaged girl interviewed during the school walkout, protesting the environmental impact of people taking trips……she had just gotten back from Fiji with her parents…..so I guess they are the ones who get to decide!
Oh, my wife's working as a teacher, and just told me about a discussion with her teenagers this week. "So, last summer you've participated in the demonstrations 'Fridays for future' in Germany." - "Yes, of course!" - "Why?" - "Because it is good, isn't it?" - "Ok, but why is it good?" - <Blank stare as answer> - "What did you change in your lifestyle after the demonstrations?" - "Well, nothing!"
I saw that on Twitter but couldn't bring myself to watch it. Of course we know who thinks they have the right to decide and so far they have made all the running (on every single one of the topics I listed with very clear preferences for this particular one), but that is only because energy availability has never been seriously at risk in the past two decades. It is now, so that changes everything.
Correct! But you owe it to yourself to listen to the exchange….the interviewer starts laughing uncontrollably……apparently the girl’s mother joined the fray today to make matters worse….”they” will do what they want, when they want…..and we, well……
Magnificent piece Steven, thank you. I’ve long contended that there is only one difference between Fascists and communists. Fascists always have better uniforms and Communists always have better PR. Otherwise they are the same foul breed. Flynn’s definition is probably more useful and definitely illuminates how many of our ‘liberal’ institutions are anything but (looking at you Ursula).
Have you read ‘Woke Inc’ by Vivek Ramaswary? It’s on my reading list, though I can’t seem to find the podcast I heard about it on for you.
Thank you. I am going to hazard a guess that you heard Ramaswary talk about his book on the Tom Woods Show. I heard him there and ordered it immediately and have it lying on my desk although I can’t quite bring myself to read it.
I couldn’t help but notice how many of the 8 principles of Fascism as described seemed close to policies espoused by the left
Yes, but we are not allowed to point that out. I think rather than a binary tick or cross approach, it is instructive to score each point on a scale from 0 to 10 whilst supplying a few specifics to illustrate. The US might score higher than the EU because it does maintain a huge military capability and a military-industrial oligopoly in deep cahoots with the State and maintains hugely powerful Agencies who direct and co-ordinate industrial policy where deemed necessary, but those are only elements and they are neither fully formed nor intentionally "fascist". However I do believe that all the elements are in place - both in the EU and in the US - for that to evolve quite rapidly if circumstances were to become more challenging. If you have a tank in the barn, eventually someone will want to drive it.
That has been my constant fear with the EU. Not that there is anyone there in power now who is overtly dictatorial (even though they may often sound it), but the apparatus has been built that would make it easy for someone of malignant intention to "repurpose" the instutions far enough away from democratic scrutiny. I am also not saying it will happen, but the tank has been built.
A few thoughts.
1 - Song recommendation: The The Heartland. Absolutely prescient, written in 1986 but they predicted the Pound's collapse!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPSO8pdAX6c
2 - Excellent article. Populist is another term that to this day I don't really understand. A populist is what, someone who is popular with the people? The wrong people? Why is one person a populist and another isn't? Pinning down a precise definition is like trying to grab an eel.
3 - Several times I've noticed that you use lengthy sentences that have a tendency to fall down the rabbit hole of convolution. Take this one, for example. " So when you hear someone being described as “fascist” all you know is that that person has dared to voice an opinion or represent a position that has not quite caught up with the sanctioned narrative train hurtling at terrifying speed towards the ultra-left, collectivist margin, a group that includes more or less everybody except the intellectual class (who probably believe it) and the mandarins ruling the fiefdoms of bureaucratic agencies (who probably don’t) plus the Silicon Valley master manipulators (whose malthusian self-delusional nihilism suggests that they really do believe it, God help us.)"
By the time you reach the point where you say "a group that includes" it's no longer fully clear which group you're referring to. I would gently suggest that when possible, try to simplify sentences. Hemingway wrote beautifully and his prose is almost caveman in its simplicity.
At any rate, loved the piece as usual. I always read these as soon as they hit my inbox.
Thank you for your comment and helpful critique.
You can be pretty sure that when a sentence of Thomas Mann like proportions (a s sort of inverse Hemingway) ends up in the letter (and there are three in this one) then it is a sign that I have not had time to do more than cursory editing. My deadline is more important than perfection and - this being Substack - I have the luxury of going back and editing at leisure. I appreciate the feedback - the good and the critical though, really.
In concert with "This Week in Doom " as well
spot on, all
I listened to the Palisades interview yesterday and Grant’s conversation with Doomberg this morning at 430am. The {SoL/C02 Emissions} formula is pure genius.
I just finished listening to Ol' Doomy an hour ago. What a banger of a podcast. I loved hearing Grant take the gloves off and express a few strong opinions.
I have only recently discovered your work to my embarrassment but this is another wonderful piece of writing and thinking. Thankyou for the chance to share in your thoughts.
Good afternoon Bruce, I am not quite sure what might cause the embarassment, but I am sure that I am deighted that you are on board and I will endeavour to keep you engaged and will always glad to hear from you.
bravo
Thank you
Outstanding read and insite as always, thank you!
Thanks Greg.
Song rec - "Love letters to God" from Nahko and Medicine for the People:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdQB6EIb-I8
Thank you Steven for another thought-provoking piece.
I agree with Flynn that the thing called fascism (as instantiated in the historical examples of Mussolini, Franco, Antonescu, Hirohito et al) was not a pure and indivisible political philosophy but was in fact a mixture of several characteristics that can come apart and be mixed with other things at other times. His list is un-necessarily long, though. For 1930s/1940s fascism I suggest the following characteristics were present:
1 authoritarian statism
2 merging of corporate and state power
3 militarism
4 extreme ethno-nationalism
5 very baggy trousers tucked into knee-high boots
What we have now in The West is the first three, while the fourth has been fully reversed into an extremely anti-localist globalism and the last has been quietly dropped without anyone discussing it. We now have:
- authoritarian statism
- merging of corporate and state power
- militarism
- extreme anti-localist globalism
If there is a catchy name for the above combination of characteristics I am not aware of it. Any suggestions?
The word 'fascist' has simply become a playground insult, rhetorically equivalent to 'stinky-bum' so it is best avoided. It is much clearer separately to identify the ingredients of the above list where and when they arise.
song recommendation: "When The Fuel Runs Out" by Executive Suite (1973!)
On the playlist now. Thank you. I can just see us bopping to that in our Saturday Night Live suits in the cattle truck....
Great piece. There is just one more option you did not consider when looking at "carbon emissions," by which you mean, I assume, the amount of atmospheric CO2 humans emit. There is a fourth option: forget the entire anti-C02 project, with the understanding that atmospheric C02 is life-giving; that more C2 will green the earth while using less water; that our current levels are well below geologic historical norms; and that atmospheric C02 has caused exactly zero human deaths. We need more C02, not less. We should concentrate on the harmful emissions, not the beneficial ones.
Another excellent piece. I simply admire your courage to call a spade a spade. It is truly inspiring. Thank you!
Or a pitchfork a pitchfork. Thank you for your comment and your engagement
Brilliant.....You, Me, Doomy, Grant W, M Moss, A Mcleod......the list goes on and on and on. We are many. How can we not prevail? Oh shit I have just identified a possible answer to my question.😢
That sounds like a crowd I could play pool with...
Yeah me to bro.....and the answer to my question of 'how could we not prevail' is. Those in our pool club have no interest gaining power. It is becoming evident that those that are in power or craving such positions are the wrong people to be in those positions.
Good point about hyperbolic language - ‘Hitler’ is another one. Funny how we’ve gone from ‘nanny-state’ policies - which has a soft, comforting tone - to fascism. I’ve been puzzled at the seemingly lack of interest among those elected officials tasked with national energy strategy to truly try to understand energy, how it’s made, it’s role in our lives, etc. I’m new to the area but courtesy of Doomberg and other writers feel I understand better the ‘big picture’ considerations of energy than our green politicians (who, by definition, should run on practical, implementable thinking, not fear-based green politics which serves no one and nothing). Being frugal and conservative with all Earth’s bounty should be a given and I reckon the majorly of peoples would back that. No one talks about one of the fairest and effective ways of reducing emissions is to bring the poor countries out of poverty - move them up the energy ladder. As for a song for your playlist - Highway to Hell.
Yes and amen to all of the above. My understanding of how to think about all tbis has been helped immeasurably by Doomies’ formula {SoL/C02 Emissions} as a way to optimize the trade-offs. That framing allows all of us to have a discussion around priorities. Current policies as we are now witnessing are, as Jamie Dimon testified to Congress “the road to hell” (which they say is paved with good intentions.) Here is the link to the as yet small playlist, with your excellent addition https://open.spotify.com/playlist/6KpWIQObQyR2tjdhcstbzS?si=xyZFFimzQT68aXYMi77w0A