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?
“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!
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.
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.
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.
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.😢
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.
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?
“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!
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.
I couldn’t help but notice how many of the 8 principles of Fascism as described seemed close to policies espoused by the left
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.
In concert with "This Week in Doom " as well
spot on, all
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.
bravo
Outstanding read and insite as always, thank you!
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!)
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!
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.😢
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.