Adam Curtis’s documentaries are unwieldy, at times disorientating, and often opinionated (not necessarily a bad thing).
Personally I think they’re great, offering a perspective of our contemporary world well outside the ‘bandwidth ‘ or Overton Window ‘ of the establishment Narrative.
I think they’re obviously far fetched, but encourage you to revise your own worldview. One central theme in them (well before March 2020) is of the existence of the opaque corporate blob, mysterious pulling the policy strings in the background.
It was Curtis that introduced me to this concept. Nowadays it is the only way of making any sense of what has happened globally in the last three years.
All hail Adam Curtis! Incredibly, he is the only free thinking intellectual we have. The only one. Name another who sparkles and teases like him? He has brilliantly deconstructed power and ideology here and abroad. I am sure he is right about the fall of the Chinese and Russian tyrants. Optimism! Yah! But I am eager to know what he makes of the state credos, governance, politics and culture here and now – in a traumatized, post Covid, post end of Zero interest regime UK. He was the first to explain how Blairism saw the expansion of an unelected Technocracy. But this Blob and State is now buckling under the weight of the mega Bailouts & QE. The demon inflation is unleashed and Net Zero insanity is further propelling us into a very dark recession and near collapse maybe. As the elite battle in vain to preserve their self enriching Propetocracy and the labour market disintegrates, the situation looks as bleak as that portrayed in his superb Russia series. Never mind interviewing him. Ask Adam to write a series of articles on the Crisis here and now!!
Agreed. I think they’re great, but hardly anything in his docs stands up to much critical scrutiny. Take his opinions on Tupac, as some kind of radical, in his life and politically. But that only works if you essentially take what he said in a few early interviews entirely at face value and don’t bother to check how he actually lived his life, even three minutes on Tupac’s Wikipedia page essentially debunks that whole theory. There are numerous examples of this, that just happens to be one that I had personal background knowledge of. So yes they are (or can be) great entertainment, but I do not treat anything in there as Gospel and all of it with a heavy pinch of salt.
Agreed. I think they’re great, but hardly anything in his docs stands up to much critical scrutiny. Take his opinions on Tupac, as some kind of radical, in his life and politically. But that only works if you essentially take what he said in a few early interviews entirely at face value and don’t bother to check how he actually lived his life, even three minutes on Tupac’s Wikipedia page essentially debunks that whole theory. There are numerous examples of this, that just happens to be one that I had personal background knowledge of. So yes they are (or can be) great entertainment, but I do not treat anything in there as Gospel and all of it with a heavy pinch of salt.
Well said Adam. I was almost completely unaware of Bernays prior to watching, Century of The Self. So I’m bemused to read Adam Curtis waxing optimistic here, speaking of ‘we,’ when for many people he brought to light Bernays who wrote in Propaganda,
“We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.“
As with Claus Schwab, I think Bernays lived close to power, knew what spoke of, and was surprisingly forthright in his public pronouncements.
Until recently people grew tetchy if you mentioned, “They,” regarding the world order. In light of the work of Bernays, Cas Sustein, etc., and the recent Twitter/State revelations, I see “They” as the proper pronoun and “We” as the suspicious one. I believe Claus Schwab when he declares Xi’s China as the ideal. Particularly post-COVID, I see no such grounds for optimism. So-called mass formation is here and now, and it is not a bug, it’s a feature. I see us as slowly, yet inexorably sliding into a techno-authoritarian global system, supported blindly, wholeheartedly by the well educated laptop class. I’m quite often wrong, and hope I am again here.
I share your pessimism.
I’d never considered the similarities between Bernays and Schwab before and now you have me thinking about episodes of Curtis’ early work Pandora’s Box, particularly The Engineer’s Plot.
I share your pessimism.
I’d never considered the similarities between Bernays and Schwab before and now you have me thinking about episodes of Curtis’ early work Pandora’s Box, particularly The Engineer’s Plot.
All hail Adam Curtis! Incredibly, he is the only free thinking intellectual we have. The only one. Name another who sparkles and teases like him? He has brilliantly deconstructed power and ideology here and abroad. I am sure he is right about the fall of the Chinese and Russian tyrants. Optimism! Yah! But I am eager to know what he makes of the state credos, governance, politics and culture here and now – in a traumatized, post Covid, post end of Zero interest regime UK. He was the first to explain how Blairism saw the expansion of an unelected Technocracy. But this Blob and State is now buckling under the weight of the mega Bailouts & QE. The demon inflation is unleashed and Net Zero insanity is further propelling us into a very dark recession and near collapse maybe. As the elite battle in vain to preserve their self enriching Propetocracy and the labour market disintegrates, the situation looks as bleak as that portrayed in his superb Russia series. Never mind interviewing him. Ask Adam to write a series of articles on the Crisis here and now!!
Well said Adam. I was almost completely unaware of Bernays prior to watching, Century of The Self. So I’m bemused to read Adam Curtis waxing optimistic here, speaking of ‘we,’ when for many people he brought to light Bernays who wrote in Propaganda,
“We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.“
As with Claus Schwab, I think Bernays lived close to power, knew what spoke of, and was surprisingly forthright in his public pronouncements.
Until recently people grew tetchy if you mentioned, “They,” regarding the world order. In light of the work of Bernays, Cas Sustein, etc., and the recent Twitter/State revelations, I see “They” as the proper pronoun and “We” as the suspicious one. I believe Claus Schwab when he declares Xi’s China as the ideal. Particularly post-COVID, I see no such grounds for optimism. So-called mass formation is here and now, and it is not a bug, it’s a feature. I see us as slowly, yet inexorably sliding into a techno-authoritarian global system, supported blindly, wholeheartedly by the well educated laptop class. I’m quite often wrong, and hope I am again here.
Adam Bacon
1 year ago
Adam Curtis’s documentaries are unwieldy, at times disorientating, and often opinionated (not necessarily a bad thing).
Personally I think they’re great, offering a perspective of our contemporary world well outside the ‘bandwidth ‘ or Overton Window ‘ of the establishment Narrative.
I think they’re obviously far fetched, but encourage you to revise your own worldview. One central theme in them (well before March 2020) is of the existence of the opaque corporate blob, mysterious pulling the policy strings in the background.
It was Curtis that introduced me to this concept. Nowadays it is the only way of making any sense of what has happened globally in the last three years.
Jonas Moze
1 year ago
”Nineties Third-Way consensus back through the midcentury advertising industry to the birth of psychoanalysis, could be interpreted as “a crystal perfect piece of neoconservative ideology, domestic neoconservatism,”
I do not see that at all. Critical Theory, Frankfurt School, were the basis of Post-Modernism, and thus most of the Ills in the modern world and are Liberal/Left
The Frankfurt school never had much influence. Even on the left, the cultural turn of Marxism never caught on. Also, Marxists and Postmodernists were mortal enemies. During the Cold War, the CIA promoted Postmodernists in literary magazines and such, precisely to suck the oxygen out of the room to silence Marxists. Some Postmodernists were even drawn to right-wing politics, such as fascism. It’s beyond imagining how all of that somehow as the basis of “most of the ills in the modern world and are Liberal/Left.”
The Frankfurt school never had much influence. Even on the left, the cultural turn of Marxism never caught on. Also, Marxists and Postmodernists were mortal enemies. During the Cold War, the CIA promoted Postmodernists in literary magazines and such, precisely to suck the oxygen out of the room to silence Marxists. Some Postmodernists were even drawn to right-wing politics, such as fascism. It’s beyond imagining how all of that somehow as the basis of “most of the ills in the modern world and are Liberal/Left.”
Jonas Moze
1 year ago
”Nineties Third-Way consensus back through the midcentury advertising industry to the birth of psychoanalysis, could be interpreted as “a crystal perfect piece of neoconservative ideology, domestic neoconservatism,”
I do not see that at all. Critical Theory, Frankfurt School, were the basis of Post-Modernism, and thus most of the Ills in the modern world and are Liberal/Left
Really, 1960s – Hippies were the Modernist individualist, Left/Liberal
Wile the Politics were Neo-Con. military Industrial, Right wing, Conservative rather than individualistic.
But then I want to de-construct a lot of things in this piece – but go on too long in all my comments… so off to bed.
Tony Price
1 year ago
Gosh, 11 comments (so far) and no use of that ridiculous, overused and now meaningless word ‘woke’! Am I alone in thinking that ‘left’ and ‘right’ are becoming somewhat pointless, with the ‘hard right’ calling the BBC ‘left’ while the ‘hard left’ call the BBC ‘right wing’; and the ‘right’ in the US call the Democrats ‘radical left’ (wow – how is that?). Also I was brought up (very middle class conventional) to think of ‘progress’ as a good thing, but ‘progressive’ (and ‘woke’) is now an insult flung about by the ‘right’, while ‘nazi’ is an insult flung about by the ‘left’. Here I am, thinking of myself somewhere in the middle batting off the dingbats as they fly overhead, some crashing down like a stray missile in Poland.
Please folks, have some thought for the real meaning of the words you use and lift your head up to at least consider that the ‘other’ side might have some justification in what they think, believe and say.
Gosh, 11 comments (so far) and no use of that ridiculous, overused and now meaningless word ‘woke’! Am I alone in thinking that ‘left’ and ‘right’ are becoming somewhat pointless, with the ‘hard right’ calling the BBC ‘left’ while the ‘hard left’ call the BBC ‘right wing’; and the ‘right’ in the US call the Democrats ‘radical left’ (wow – how is that?). Also I was brought up (very middle class conventional) to think of ‘progress’ as a good thing, but ‘progressive’ (and ‘woke’) is now an insult flung about by the ‘right’, while ‘nazi’ is an insult flung about by the ‘left’. Here I am, thinking of myself somewhere in the middle batting off the dingbats as they fly overhead, some crashing down like a stray missile in Poland.
Please folks, have some thought for the real meaning of the words you use and lift your head up to at least consider that the ‘other’ side might have some justification in what they think, believe and say.
polidori redux
1 year ago
“This period of change will be tough but something new and better is being birthed.” Really?
Life is simply a sequence of random events that is beyond our control. I appreciate that journalists have to make a living, and that whilst just telling us what happened to whom, and maybe why, no longers pays the rent, that is not a good reason to pay attention when they start “thinking in quite a radical way….” or hogging the joint as we used to say.
I have a huge fear of AI and transhumanism…..and so seeing your first line, Yeats came to mind…
”And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”
polidori redux
1 year ago
“This period of change will be tough but something new and better is being birthed.” Really?
Life is simply a sequence of random events that is beyond our control. I appreciate that journalists have to make a living, and that whilst just telling us what happened to whom, and maybe why, no longers pays the rent, that is not a good reason to pay attention when they start “thinking in quite a radical way….” or hogging the joint as we used to say.
martin logan
1 year ago
Given what we’ve continually seen in past history, I very much doubt that Curtis’ hope for a “better” future will ever bear fruit. Seems just warmed over Marxism.
Mankind doesn’t fundamentally change. There may be blips like the Reformation, Marxism and post-Modernism. But on a macro level, things always revert to the mean.
The best we can hope for is a renewal of current institutions, or creation of new institutions that accomplish the same goals.
We see how humanity across both space and time still settles on certain similar things. Been doing that since the Paleolithic period.
And that won’t change.
Curtis seems rather un-Marxist, maybe even anti-Marxist. He has more of a conservative-style postmodern feel to his skepticism. What he entirely lacks is a Marxist or Marxist-like analysis of material structures and systems.
Curtis seems rather un-Marxist, maybe even anti-Marxist. He has more of a conservative-style postmodern feel to his skepticism. What he entirely lacks is a Marxist or Marxist-like analysis of material structures and systems.
martin logan
1 year ago
Given what we’ve continually seen in past history, I very much doubt that Curtis’ hope for a “better” future will ever bear fruit. Seems just warmed over Marxism.
Mankind doesn’t fundamentally change. There may be blips like the Reformation, Marxism and post-Modernism. But on a macro level, things always revert to the mean.
The best we can hope for is a renewal of current institutions, or creation of new institutions that accomplish the same goals.
We see how humanity across both space and time still settles on certain similar things. Been doing that since the Paleolithic period.
And that won’t change.
J Bryant
1 year ago
This article reminds me of George Friedman’s “The Storm Before the Calm” which proposes that US history proceeds in institutional cycles and socioeconomic cycles. We are now living through an unusual period when, according to Friedman, these two cycles are synchronized and the socioeconomic structure of the US is changing along with the nature of the institutions that run the country, especially the federal government which is now too cumbersome to serve its function.
Both Friedman and the current article end on an optimistic note: this period of change will be tough but something new and better is being birthed. In the US, Friedman expects this process will likely take a decade, perhaps longer before the new reality stabilizes.
Aris R. quotes Curtis as saying, “the way is open now to actually start thinking in quite a radical way… and that actually, maybe that’s the kind of journalism we should be doing.” Many writers have described the problems that afflict the world, especially the West, but few propose solutions. Perhaps the task is too daunting. If we can’t have solutions, then perhaps we can have imaginative writers who try to imagine a more positive future suited to the needs of humanity in the 21st century.
“Many writers have described the problems that afflict the world, especially the West, but few propose solutions.”
Maybe, first, we have to decide on what we want. Otherwise a solution to what?
“Many writers have described the problems that afflict the world, especially the West, but few propose solutions.”
Maybe, first, we have to decide on what we want. Otherwise a solution to what?
This article reminds me of George Friedman’s “The Storm Before the Calm” which proposes that US history proceeds in institutional cycles and socioeconomic cycles. We are now living through an unusual period when, according to Friedman, these two cycles are synchronized and the socioeconomic structure of the US is changing along with the nature of the institutions that run the country, especially the federal government which is now too cumbersome to serve its function.
Both Friedman and the current article end on an optimistic note: this period of change will be tough but something new and better is being birthed. In the US, Friedman expects this process will likely take a decade, perhaps longer before the new reality stabilizes.
Aris R. quotes Curtis as saying, “the way is open now to actually start thinking in quite a radical way… and that actually, maybe that’s the kind of journalism we should be doing.” Many writers have described the problems that afflict the world, especially the West, but few propose solutions. Perhaps the task is too daunting. If we can’t have solutions, then perhaps we can have imaginative writers who try to imagine a more positive future suited to the needs of humanity in the 21st century.
Adam Curtis’s documentaries are unwieldy, at times disorientating, and often opinionated (not necessarily a bad thing).
Personally I think they’re great, offering a perspective of our contemporary world well outside the ‘bandwidth ‘ or Overton Window ‘ of the establishment Narrative.
I think they’re obviously far fetched, but encourage you to revise your own worldview. One central theme in them (well before March 2020) is of the existence of the opaque corporate blob, mysterious pulling the policy strings in the background.
It was Curtis that introduced me to this concept. Nowadays it is the only way of making any sense of what has happened globally in the last three years.
All hail Adam Curtis! Incredibly, he is the only free thinking intellectual we have. The only one. Name another who sparkles and teases like him? He has brilliantly deconstructed power and ideology here and abroad. I am sure he is right about the fall of the Chinese and Russian tyrants. Optimism! Yah! But I am eager to know what he makes of the state credos, governance, politics and culture here and now – in a traumatized, post Covid, post end of Zero interest regime UK. He was the first to explain how Blairism saw the expansion of an unelected Technocracy. But this Blob and State is now buckling under the weight of the mega Bailouts & QE. The demon inflation is unleashed and Net Zero insanity is further propelling us into a very dark recession and near collapse maybe. As the elite battle in vain to preserve their self enriching Propetocracy and the labour market disintegrates, the situation looks as bleak as that portrayed in his superb Russia series. Never mind interviewing him. Ask Adam to write a series of articles on the Crisis here and now!!
Personally, I love Curtis’ films, but I think of them as films and not documentaries. He calls them films, too.
Agreed. I think they’re great, but hardly anything in his docs stands up to much critical scrutiny. Take his opinions on Tupac, as some kind of radical, in his life and politically. But that only works if you essentially take what he said in a few early interviews entirely at face value and don’t bother to check how he actually lived his life, even three minutes on Tupac’s Wikipedia page essentially debunks that whole theory. There are numerous examples of this, that just happens to be one that I had personal background knowledge of. So yes they are (or can be) great entertainment, but I do not treat anything in there as Gospel and all of it with a heavy pinch of salt.
Agreed. I think they’re great, but hardly anything in his docs stands up to much critical scrutiny. Take his opinions on Tupac, as some kind of radical, in his life and politically. But that only works if you essentially take what he said in a few early interviews entirely at face value and don’t bother to check how he actually lived his life, even three minutes on Tupac’s Wikipedia page essentially debunks that whole theory. There are numerous examples of this, that just happens to be one that I had personal background knowledge of. So yes they are (or can be) great entertainment, but I do not treat anything in there as Gospel and all of it with a heavy pinch of salt.
Well said Adam. I was almost completely unaware of Bernays prior to watching, Century of The Self. So I’m bemused to read Adam Curtis waxing optimistic here, speaking of ‘we,’ when for many people he brought to light Bernays who wrote in Propaganda,
“We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.“
As with Claus Schwab, I think Bernays lived close to power, knew what spoke of, and was surprisingly forthright in his public pronouncements.
Until recently people grew tetchy if you mentioned, “They,” regarding the world order. In light of the work of Bernays, Cas Sustein, etc., and the recent Twitter/State revelations, I see “They” as the proper pronoun and “We” as the suspicious one. I believe Claus Schwab when he declares Xi’s China as the ideal. Particularly post-COVID, I see no such grounds for optimism. So-called mass formation is here and now, and it is not a bug, it’s a feature. I see us as slowly, yet inexorably sliding into a techno-authoritarian global system, supported blindly, wholeheartedly by the well educated laptop class. I’m quite often wrong, and hope I am again here.
I share your pessimism.
I’d never considered the similarities between Bernays and Schwab before and now you have me thinking about episodes of Curtis’ early work Pandora’s Box, particularly The Engineer’s Plot.
“So-called mass formation is here and now, and it is not a bug, it’s a feature.” :-/
Maybe the quote should have been: ‘mass formation was always there, is here now, and will always be with us. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature’.
Maybe the quote should have been: ‘mass formation was always there, is here now, and will always be with us. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature’.
I share your pessimism.
I’d never considered the similarities between Bernays and Schwab before and now you have me thinking about episodes of Curtis’ early work Pandora’s Box, particularly The Engineer’s Plot.
“So-called mass formation is here and now, and it is not a bug, it’s a feature.” :-/
All hail Adam Curtis! Incredibly, he is the only free thinking intellectual we have. The only one. Name another who sparkles and teases like him? He has brilliantly deconstructed power and ideology here and abroad. I am sure he is right about the fall of the Chinese and Russian tyrants. Optimism! Yah! But I am eager to know what he makes of the state credos, governance, politics and culture here and now – in a traumatized, post Covid, post end of Zero interest regime UK. He was the first to explain how Blairism saw the expansion of an unelected Technocracy. But this Blob and State is now buckling under the weight of the mega Bailouts & QE. The demon inflation is unleashed and Net Zero insanity is further propelling us into a very dark recession and near collapse maybe. As the elite battle in vain to preserve their self enriching Propetocracy and the labour market disintegrates, the situation looks as bleak as that portrayed in his superb Russia series. Never mind interviewing him. Ask Adam to write a series of articles on the Crisis here and now!!
Personally, I love Curtis’ films, but I think of them as films and not documentaries. He calls them films, too.
Well said Adam. I was almost completely unaware of Bernays prior to watching, Century of The Self. So I’m bemused to read Adam Curtis waxing optimistic here, speaking of ‘we,’ when for many people he brought to light Bernays who wrote in Propaganda,
“We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.“
As with Claus Schwab, I think Bernays lived close to power, knew what spoke of, and was surprisingly forthright in his public pronouncements.
Until recently people grew tetchy if you mentioned, “They,” regarding the world order. In light of the work of Bernays, Cas Sustein, etc., and the recent Twitter/State revelations, I see “They” as the proper pronoun and “We” as the suspicious one. I believe Claus Schwab when he declares Xi’s China as the ideal. Particularly post-COVID, I see no such grounds for optimism. So-called mass formation is here and now, and it is not a bug, it’s a feature. I see us as slowly, yet inexorably sliding into a techno-authoritarian global system, supported blindly, wholeheartedly by the well educated laptop class. I’m quite often wrong, and hope I am again here.
Adam Curtis’s documentaries are unwieldy, at times disorientating, and often opinionated (not necessarily a bad thing).
Personally I think they’re great, offering a perspective of our contemporary world well outside the ‘bandwidth ‘ or Overton Window ‘ of the establishment Narrative.
I think they’re obviously far fetched, but encourage you to revise your own worldview. One central theme in them (well before March 2020) is of the existence of the opaque corporate blob, mysterious pulling the policy strings in the background.
It was Curtis that introduced me to this concept. Nowadays it is the only way of making any sense of what has happened globally in the last three years.
”Nineties Third-Way consensus back through the midcentury advertising industry to the birth of psychoanalysis, could be interpreted as “a crystal perfect piece of neoconservative ideology, domestic neoconservatism,”
I do not see that at all. Critical Theory, Frankfurt School, were the basis of Post-Modernism, and thus most of the Ills in the modern world and are Liberal/Left
It was a blending of Marxism, Freud, and existentialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
Really, 1960s – Hippies were the Modernist individualist, Left/Liberal
Wile the Politics were Neo-Con. military Industrial, Right wing, Conservative rather than individualistic.
But then I want to de-construct a lot of things in this piece – but go on too long in all my comments… so off to bed.
“to sleep—perchance to dream. Ay, there’s the rub!
For in that sleep…….”
The Frankfurt school never had much influence. Even on the left, the cultural turn of Marxism never caught on. Also, Marxists and Postmodernists were mortal enemies. During the Cold War, the CIA promoted Postmodernists in literary magazines and such, precisely to suck the oxygen out of the room to silence Marxists. Some Postmodernists were even drawn to right-wing politics, such as fascism. It’s beyond imagining how all of that somehow as the basis of “most of the ills in the modern world and are Liberal/Left.”
“to sleep—perchance to dream. Ay, there’s the rub!
For in that sleep…….”
The Frankfurt school never had much influence. Even on the left, the cultural turn of Marxism never caught on. Also, Marxists and Postmodernists were mortal enemies. During the Cold War, the CIA promoted Postmodernists in literary magazines and such, precisely to suck the oxygen out of the room to silence Marxists. Some Postmodernists were even drawn to right-wing politics, such as fascism. It’s beyond imagining how all of that somehow as the basis of “most of the ills in the modern world and are Liberal/Left.”
”Nineties Third-Way consensus back through the midcentury advertising industry to the birth of psychoanalysis, could be interpreted as “a crystal perfect piece of neoconservative ideology, domestic neoconservatism,”
I do not see that at all. Critical Theory, Frankfurt School, were the basis of Post-Modernism, and thus most of the Ills in the modern world and are Liberal/Left
It was a blending of Marxism, Freud, and existentialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
Really, 1960s – Hippies were the Modernist individualist, Left/Liberal
Wile the Politics were Neo-Con. military Industrial, Right wing, Conservative rather than individualistic.
But then I want to de-construct a lot of things in this piece – but go on too long in all my comments… so off to bed.
Gosh, 11 comments (so far) and no use of that ridiculous, overused and now meaningless word ‘woke’! Am I alone in thinking that ‘left’ and ‘right’ are becoming somewhat pointless, with the ‘hard right’ calling the BBC ‘left’ while the ‘hard left’ call the BBC ‘right wing’; and the ‘right’ in the US call the Democrats ‘radical left’ (wow – how is that?). Also I was brought up (very middle class conventional) to think of ‘progress’ as a good thing, but ‘progressive’ (and ‘woke’) is now an insult flung about by the ‘right’, while ‘nazi’ is an insult flung about by the ‘left’. Here I am, thinking of myself somewhere in the middle batting off the dingbats as they fly overhead, some crashing down like a stray missile in Poland.
Please folks, have some thought for the real meaning of the words you use and lift your head up to at least consider that the ‘other’ side might have some justification in what they think, believe and say.
There is what is to the left and right of the media, economic, and political elite. Then there is what is to the left and right of the general public. But the most important point is that the center of the ruling elite is far to the right of the center of the general public, at least in the Anglo-American world, specifically the United States.
American Leftist Supermajority
Polarization Between the Majority and Minority
Fox News: Americans are the ‘Left-Wing’ Enemy Threatening America
Wirthlin Effect & Symbolic Conservatism
Political Elites Disconnected From General Public
There is what is to the left and right of the media, economic, and political elite. Then there is what is to the left and right of the general public. But the most important point is that the center of the ruling elite is far to the right of the center of the general public, at least in the Anglo-American world, specifically the United States.
American Leftist Supermajority
Polarization Between the Majority and Minority
Fox News: Americans are the ‘Left-Wing’ Enemy Threatening America
Wirthlin Effect & Symbolic Conservatism
Political Elites Disconnected From General Public
Gosh, 11 comments (so far) and no use of that ridiculous, overused and now meaningless word ‘woke’! Am I alone in thinking that ‘left’ and ‘right’ are becoming somewhat pointless, with the ‘hard right’ calling the BBC ‘left’ while the ‘hard left’ call the BBC ‘right wing’; and the ‘right’ in the US call the Democrats ‘radical left’ (wow – how is that?). Also I was brought up (very middle class conventional) to think of ‘progress’ as a good thing, but ‘progressive’ (and ‘woke’) is now an insult flung about by the ‘right’, while ‘nazi’ is an insult flung about by the ‘left’. Here I am, thinking of myself somewhere in the middle batting off the dingbats as they fly overhead, some crashing down like a stray missile in Poland.
Please folks, have some thought for the real meaning of the words you use and lift your head up to at least consider that the ‘other’ side might have some justification in what they think, believe and say.
“This period of change will be tough but something new and better is being birthed.” Really?
Life is simply a sequence of random events that is beyond our control. I appreciate that journalists have to make a living, and that whilst just telling us what happened to whom, and maybe why, no longers pays the rent, that is not a good reason to pay attention when they start “thinking in quite a radical way….” or hogging the joint as we used to say.
I have a huge fear of AI and transhumanism…..and so seeing your first line, Yeats came to mind…
”And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”
I have a huge fear of AI and transhumanism…..and so seeing your first line, Yeats came to mind…
”And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”
“This period of change will be tough but something new and better is being birthed.” Really?
Life is simply a sequence of random events that is beyond our control. I appreciate that journalists have to make a living, and that whilst just telling us what happened to whom, and maybe why, no longers pays the rent, that is not a good reason to pay attention when they start “thinking in quite a radical way….” or hogging the joint as we used to say.
Given what we’ve continually seen in past history, I very much doubt that Curtis’ hope for a “better” future will ever bear fruit. Seems just warmed over Marxism.
Mankind doesn’t fundamentally change. There may be blips like the Reformation, Marxism and post-Modernism. But on a macro level, things always revert to the mean.
The best we can hope for is a renewal of current institutions, or creation of new institutions that accomplish the same goals.
We see how humanity across both space and time still settles on certain similar things. Been doing that since the Paleolithic period.
And that won’t change.
Curtis seems rather un-Marxist, maybe even anti-Marxist. He has more of a conservative-style postmodern feel to his skepticism. What he entirely lacks is a Marxist or Marxist-like analysis of material structures and systems.
Curtis seems rather un-Marxist, maybe even anti-Marxist. He has more of a conservative-style postmodern feel to his skepticism. What he entirely lacks is a Marxist or Marxist-like analysis of material structures and systems.
Given what we’ve continually seen in past history, I very much doubt that Curtis’ hope for a “better” future will ever bear fruit. Seems just warmed over Marxism.
Mankind doesn’t fundamentally change. There may be blips like the Reformation, Marxism and post-Modernism. But on a macro level, things always revert to the mean.
The best we can hope for is a renewal of current institutions, or creation of new institutions that accomplish the same goals.
We see how humanity across both space and time still settles on certain similar things. Been doing that since the Paleolithic period.
And that won’t change.
This article reminds me of George Friedman’s “The Storm Before the Calm” which proposes that US history proceeds in institutional cycles and socioeconomic cycles. We are now living through an unusual period when, according to Friedman, these two cycles are synchronized and the socioeconomic structure of the US is changing along with the nature of the institutions that run the country, especially the federal government which is now too cumbersome to serve its function.
Both Friedman and the current article end on an optimistic note: this period of change will be tough but something new and better is being birthed. In the US, Friedman expects this process will likely take a decade, perhaps longer before the new reality stabilizes.
Aris R. quotes Curtis as saying, “the way is open now to actually start thinking in quite a radical way… and that actually, maybe that’s the kind of journalism we should be doing.” Many writers have described the problems that afflict the world, especially the West, but few propose solutions. Perhaps the task is too daunting. If we can’t have solutions, then perhaps we can have imaginative writers who try to imagine a more positive future suited to the needs of humanity in the 21st century.
“Many writers have described the problems that afflict the world, especially the West, but few propose solutions.”
Maybe, first, we have to decide on what we want. Otherwise a solution to what?
`¬¬
“Many writers have described the problems that afflict the world, especially the West, but few propose solutions.”
Maybe, first, we have to decide on what we want. Otherwise a solution to what?
`¬¬
This article reminds me of George Friedman’s “The Storm Before the Calm” which proposes that US history proceeds in institutional cycles and socioeconomic cycles. We are now living through an unusual period when, according to Friedman, these two cycles are synchronized and the socioeconomic structure of the US is changing along with the nature of the institutions that run the country, especially the federal government which is now too cumbersome to serve its function.
Both Friedman and the current article end on an optimistic note: this period of change will be tough but something new and better is being birthed. In the US, Friedman expects this process will likely take a decade, perhaps longer before the new reality stabilizes.
Aris R. quotes Curtis as saying, “the way is open now to actually start thinking in quite a radical way… and that actually, maybe that’s the kind of journalism we should be doing.” Many writers have described the problems that afflict the world, especially the West, but few propose solutions. Perhaps the task is too daunting. If we can’t have solutions, then perhaps we can have imaginative writers who try to imagine a more positive future suited to the needs of humanity in the 21st century.