Only An Intellectual Could Believe It

Today we have something so stupid only an intellectual could believe it.

(Reader beware: This is anti-intellectual content, from someone with an almost pathological anti-intellectual streak. It's my forte and guilty pleasure.)

Any-hoop, yesterday my friend was telling me that another friend of his is reading a book about how society is becoming more illiterate thanks to social media. I first saw this topic pop up about a year or so ago on UnHerd. My friend's friend is a Guardian-reading lefty-type person, so I'm guessing the discussion's now filtered into the wider mainstream.

(Having done a quick Google search it appears a book has just been released by the very same writer that appeared on UnHerd. The AI overlord, sorry, overview, tells me that it's bestselling, so this must be the very book. Oh, how predictable. It's also interesting that someone left wing is now, unknowingly, consuming content that's a little bit right wing coded, but we'll leave that for now.)

My friend - who doesn't read books, nor the Guardian - said he thought what his friend was telling him was nonsense. He pointed to social media itself - where everybody, from granny to bratty teenager, is commenting and arguing and communicating in text.

Of course, he's correct. It's a self-evident truth. People have never been more literate.

(As my friend doesn't read books he isn't as easily brainwashed by the ideas they contain. As I've said before, half tongue-in-cheek, books should only be read by anti-intellectuals like myself - i.e. people with the inherent ability to withstand their ideologies.

And I am only half-joking. Just look at religions. They all have their book(s). There are few people more dogmatic and detached from reality than book-readers. Whether it's the Quran or the Communist Manifesto. Or the latest bestseller. This reverence for words on a page. That somehow if something comes from a book it has more authority. It's very backwards. The scientific revolution - the focus on real world observation - should've put a stop to this, but it's barely made a dent. The book remains God.)

Returning to real world observation. How many illiterate people do you know in everyday life? And I don't mean people that have bad grammar or that are a bit dim - but actual illiterates. Be honest, it's basically zero. Every dimwit is on Facebook or Twitter spouting their opinion in English words and letters. As my friend pointed out.

Now, the people making the point will say, "Ah, it's not so much that people aren't reading, it's that they have reduced attention spans and aren't reading books anymore."

"They're not reading big books, like me, an intellectual."

(It's funny that these self-satisfied people are reading a book about how other people aren't reading books. They must have one hand turning the page and the other patting themselves on the back.)

Even this attention span argument is nonsense though.

Firstly, most people were never reading books anyway. Even the minority of people that actually owned a copy of War and Peace never actually read it.

(We still see these people every day online - in left and right wing circles:

"I'm going to read [insert philosophy book]"; "I really want to read [insert ancient text]."

A lot of time talking about books, and having pretty books sat on bookshelves. Not so much actual reading.

"If only I had more time I could read more.. 😢")

Secondly, before the advent of the Internet we had sixty-odd years of television, lol.

People sitting glued for hours. Passively. Zombified. All audio-visual. No text whatsoever.

Just look at TV today. Ant and Dec - essentially children's TV presenters, presenting shows for adults. So tell me again about dumbing down.

(I don't like slagging off TV too much. It can be good and bad. After all, it's just another medium. You can't seriously tell me the Internet is a step backwards for reading though.

In fact, marrying the two, I'm currently watching an old BBC series about chess called The Master Game. I'm rubbish at chess, but I do enjoy watching and playing it. Undoubtedly TV has made some brilliant and informative content, but at the same time I only have the opportunity to watch these old shows from the 70s and 80s because of YouTube. Likewise I can play chess (badly) against people from all over the world thanks to the Internet.)

(A visual illustration of this article for those

that can't read - courtesy of ChatGPT)

Thirdly, (and finally - I don't want to make this too long, quite fittingly).

It's a total myth that people used to have the attention span for long books. It's a romanticised notion that people are projecting back onto some idealised past. Even in the 19th century people would generally read stuff like Dickens in instalments. They'd get Part I of Great Expectations delivered to their home as part of some weekly or monthly magazine, then they'd wait for the next episode the following week. A bit like TV.

No one wants to sit for twelve hours reading something. Not now, not ever.

You can get a sense of this if you read Shakespeare. Again, like TV, plays would've been an evening's entertainment. They were short. So when you buy a paperback version of a Shakespeare play they're really tiny - way tinier than a novel - and over half of that is the introduction and commentary on the text. If it was literally just the play it'd be a pamphlet (a quarto).

So the long novel is something of an aberration. It's not suited to the natural human attention span. Plus, long-form text is generally junk or waffle anyway. Like the long guitar solo. The beard-stroking intellectual may feign some appreciation of it, but most other people have better things to do.

The true Shakespeare is in the three-minute pop song.

Now yes, I get it, when you watch young people endlessly flick through TikTok videos it's a bit despairing, but they're basically just flicking through the TV channels looking for something to watch. It ain't much different to that.

They're certainly not as brainwashed as intellectuals that believe they're entering a "post-literate" age ..as they sit there surrounded by humans that are texting each other constantly.

Oh, it's bigger than Mr Manchester

And here was me thinking it was just about football and Mr Manchester.

I've had one of those, "Oh, I might be ignorant" moments.

The truth is, I don't really know that much about the UAE. I just kind of assumed they were the good Muslims. Islamo-capitalists, not Islamo-communists. But beyond a stereotypical view of Dubai as the wealthy place where expats go I don't really know that much.

So if we're talking purely football I'm right and everyone else is wrong. Manchester City should be able to spend whatever they like ..you destructive communists. However, if we're talking geopolitics, I'm out of my depth.

Should a foreign state effectively own a British football club? I don't know. I don't know much about the actual state in question, so I'm clearly not qualified to judge.

Obviously, the UAE is just across the strait from Iran. So it's that part of the world. It's going to be a bit muddy.

I tend to operate on instinct. In the course of my Twitter debates on the topic I've noticed a heavy overlap between hating Man City and having a Palestinian flag in your bio. (One guy even had a terrorist-looking Palestinian as his profile picture, lol.) Given Palestine flag-wavers tend to lean to the communist side of things, and given those demanding punishment for City are basically advocating anti-capitalist Premier League rules, I naturally assumed it was black and white.

Perhaps it's more complicated than that though. Perhaps the UAE is a bit statist too. Perhaps destroying the Premier League with communism is in the national interest after all.

I've made my point about free markets in football, so now I'll sit back. It's reminiscent of the ousting of Abramovich from Chelsea. I didn't like that either, but I likewise had a poor grasp of the geopolitics at the time too.

So, is it purely a football issue this time round? Is it a national politics thing? An international politics thing? I don't know.

Again, going back to instinct, all the right (or rather wrong) people seem to be gunning against City. All my natural enemies ..Palestine flag-wavers, Irish Republicans (there are a lot of Manchester United fans in Ireland, so that's probably coincidence), bureaucrats, Piers Morgan, Terry Christian (another United fan, also a remainer - the whole Premier League spending cap thing is a bit of a UEFA/Euro-coded import), lefty football writers that want the "fans to own the club," lefties in general. It's a long list.

(They're not really my enemies. I love them all really ..they're just wrong about everything.)

You can't rely solely on vibes and instinct though, you do need a bit of knowledge. Which I'm lacking. Plus, I've kind of found myself on the side of Andy Burnham on this one too, which should be something of a vibe check. Though, to be fair, I think he probably knows even less about what's going on than I do.

Oh, it's about Mr Manchester

And here was me thinking it was about football.

The Manchester City imbroglio is now being used to put pressure on Andy Burnham. In a "Did He Eat Cake?!" ousting Boris sort of way. What did he know? Who did he meet?

Man City, Manchesterism, Number 10 North, it's all in the same place. (How did I not see this one?) As mayor of Manchester he must have had some dealings with the very naughty City owners. So it looks fishy ..but in that way that always looks fishy whenever you put politicians in the same room as billionaires. They could literally be doing something as innocent as eating birthday cake, but when you're looking for an axe to grind that's generally enough. Next all you need is some kind of technicality - an uncrossed t or undotted i. Better get the fine tooth comb out.

It's hard to imagine yet another prime minister being made to walk the plank, but it is the land of eternal clownery at the moment, so I thought I better make a note of it.

It's a slightly odd one, as you'd think people on the right would be more on the City side of the argument. I've commented elsewhere on the rules that City are being hoisted by. 'Smashing A Beautiful Blue Sportscar' It's all a bit communist. (Actually, I shouldn't say communist, that's very lazy, I'm not on Twitter. It's more just general lefty overregulation type stuff.) Either way, I've had a bee in my bonnet about it for a while.

I think they should just let clubs spend whatever they want. Like in the old days.

There's an argument for socialism and "fairness" when it comes to important things like healthcare. However, no one's going to die if a football club goes out of business. It's just football. For a start, even clubs that do go into administration rarely crash out entirely. Usually some wealthy saviour steps in. Even when they do hit the rocks they don't truly disappear, as if there's a catchment area for support that void will always be filled by a club one way or another. Look at Darlington.

I mentioned in the above linked-to article that these rules were originally brought in to stop clubs going out of business (wrongheaded in of itself), but have since become about imposing "fairness."

"Man City cheated, they spent too much money! It's not fair!! 😢😢"

It's barmy.

What on earth is wrong with these people?

How can you not have unfairness in the world?

If Arsenal play Accrington Stanley in the FA Cup it's inevitably going to be unfair. One is a title-winning Premier League side with a global brand, the other is Accrington Stanley ("Who 'r they?" - Exactly). But so what? As long as the referee treats all the players the same and they're playing by the same rules on the pitch, what's the problem? It's part of the fun of football. That the underdog might beat the giant.

Likewise, if Elon Musk decides to buy Accrington Stanley and then takes them to the Champions League, what's wrong with that either? Are Accrington Stanley fans not even allowed to dream of that happening?

You can see I'm still more concerned about the football than the politics, lol. Although I care about the football so much because it's a perfect illustration of the politics. English football is incredibly successful. It's competitive. It's entertaining. It attracts investment. Yet, here we are, potentially ejecting a successful club from the league, just like we eject our prime ministers. All to satiate the same silly activists that ruin everything with their endless bureaucracy.

Human Reservoirs

I'll try to keep this quick, as I just want to make some notes, but don't really have the energy to pen an entire article. Though, saying that, it takes real effort to be concise and lazy writing tends to wander.

(Oh no, I've already wrote a paragraph and still haven't said anything.)

Focus.

Unemployment - Three Points

The First.

We need to start accepting it as a reality - a natural part of the economy - not a cancer upon it. In the modern world there will always be a wedge of unemployed people. It may be bigger, it may be smaller, but it'll always be there. Its existence isn't the consequence of some moral failing on the part of government or society at large. It's a feature of modern economies, not a bug. And it doesn't care about your moral or political arguments, be they from the left or the right. Yes, these things will affect the size of the wedge, but they will not remove it. The wedge doesn't exist because people on the other side of the aisle have done "bad things" to bring it about.

(It's similar with our empty highstreets. The simple reality is we don't need as much shop space anymore. It's a consequence of technological change. It's not someone's fault. Town centres aren't half empty because someone did something immoral. It's just the way it is now. Accept it. Knock one third of the high street down and plant some pretty flowers or something.)

So, anyway, we need to view that unemployed wedge as a resource; a blessing. A reservoir of untapped potential. Something there if we need it. Not, "Oh my God, what a curse it is to have all these feckless people milling about."

Point Two.

If we're going to lower immigration we need to pre-emptively make it clear to employers that there'll be a dividend to tapping this natural reservoir. For the last 30 years companies have grown dependent on immigration, so haven't needed to train, entice and retain native reservoir workers.

"Look, there are people there, you just have to go and get them."

Yes, it's a bit harder, but it'll be harder still when the tap of immigration is turned off and your company hasn't adapted to this.

Point Three.

This is slightly more abstract, but it needs to be added to the conversation.

Imagine two situations.

Sit. 1

There are two 23 year olds. One works 40 hours a week, the other is unemployed. The employed one has self-confidence and self-worth. However, as they have little spare time they don't take part in other aspects of society: local politics, charity and community work, etc. Whereas the unemployed person has the time, but they're so demoralised and lacking a sense of purpose they don't use it. "How can I help others when I can't even help myself?" they think.

I don't really need to illustrate the second situation. Obviously, what I'm getting at here is that if they both worked 20 hours instead, you'd have two much more productive people. As each would have the self-confidence and spare time to contribute to wider society in other ways, on top of the combined 40 hours of work.

Yes, this is idealistic. People generally work 40 hours a week because they need the money. Plus, you'd have to train both people to do the job, etc, etc, etc. There are countless practical holes. Still, if people are genuinely concerned about living in a society where half the people work to support the other half, we need to start envisioning something different. Even if we just make baby steps towards such ideas.

We need to start looking for the upside. The opportunities that are presenting themselves. A glass half full view of what's on the horizon. We can't go into this viewing vast swathes of humans as valueless. There really is the potential for a better world somewhere in this. A better quality of life. We just need to orientate ourselves better.

I really am meandering now. These definitely aren't bullet points. I'm lost in grey clouds, but at least reaching for the light.

[This is what chatgpt came up with when I asked it to turn the post into an image. It looks fittingly communist lol.]

Goldilocks and the Three Metals

Just over a week ago I did a post titled: Why Gold Standards Don't Work (refresher)

It was the capstone for a little PDF I've put together. Basically a collation of all the articles I've posted on the topic.

The pdf can be downloaded for free here: Goldilocks and the Three Metals

I'll list the links for the articles as well (including a couple of extra ones that weren't included in the pdf). Effectively making this the home page for the topic.

Gold Standards Don't Work

Gold Standards Don't Work: Part II - Goldilocks Knows

Anything Can Be Currency In A World Without Tax

I'm Off The Gold Standard

Why Gold (and Silver) Standards Don't Work: Part III - Human Meddling

Why Gold Standards Don't Work (refresher)

Metals, Markets and Digital Jewellery

Bitcoin: Currencies Are Backed By Cultures

A Money Tree on a Desert Island

The two unincluded ones:

Note To Self: Buy Shares In Stonehenge

Invest in Our Culture

The Retreat into Ethnicity

This was an easy trend to spot.

I'll put it simply (and a little crudely): Ethnicity is for loser cultures.

It's harsh putting it in these terms, but it's the harsh truth. An "ethnicity", particularly in political terms, is a group of people reduced to the status of pandas. A protected group. A relic that needs preserving as one would preserve an old book or decaying building.

A weak and dying relic culture.

Healthy cultures grow, expand, change, innovate, absorb, explore. Dare I say it, conquer. They're an active force in the world. Not relics. Not wholly defined by the past. Not living museums.

The classic example of the living museum is perhaps the Native American reservation. Like a wildlife reserve. That tourists from the dominant culture visit. To see the natives in their tipis and traditional dress. As they would a grey elephant or orangutan. Again, it's harsh, but it's true. You've lost, but instead of adapting and changing to positively embrace the new world that's eclipsed the old, you retreat into ethnicity. Pleading for a space - a little reserve - carved out with lenient benevolence by the dominant culture. Where you can endlessly repeat the traditions of your ancestors. Singing and preserving their songs, but never writing new ones of your own.

A flesh and blood museum display. Surviving on the state charity the "protected" status affords. Along with money from tourism. As you drink alcohol and watch TV in between performances.

Of course, I'm exaggerating slightly. It's not quite that black and white, in reality it's more of a sliding scale. Yet still, it is something of a binary choice.

Scotland and Wales

Closer to home we have a prefect example of it. For decades and centuries Scottish and Welsh people have had a choice. Embrace their Britishness - an ever-changing, living/breathing, world power culture. Or eschew it and retreat into ethnicity.

Naturally the retreat into ethnicity comes with all the hallmarks of the museum. Victimhood, protected status, a picture postcard preservation and performance of the past. The traditional dress and song - especially clear in the Scottish example with the kilt and bagpipes. And, of course, the endless focus on historic grievances.

[Again, to be fair, it isn't this cut and dried, and you don't have to completely abandon every notion of Scottish or Welshness. You don't have to completely abandon the kilt. But if the kilt comes with an antipathy to Britishness, or a hatred of "The English", then that is coming down hard on one side of the binary.]

Anyway, Back to the Easy-To-See Trend

As immigration has rocketed and the once dominant English/British* culture is feeling threatened we're seeing a similar retreat. A retreat into English ethnicity.

(*For confident British people these words are basically interchangeable outside of football and Englishman, Scotsman, Irishman jokes.]

It's painful to see and it comes with the exact same self-pity and victimhood. The exact same demand to be treated as a protected subgroup. The reduction of the once-living culture to a postcard of the past. You'll even hear these people complain that white populations in Europe aren't given the same special "indigenous" status that the Sami people of Finland have been afforded. A people that were given that recognition as they're basically the Native Americans of Europe. So my earlier comparison wasn't even especially farfetched. Ethnats really do see themselves through this victim lens. They desperately desire the United Nations to come and give them a little badge saying they need their own special space. Again, it's painful to witness. That a few decades of Blair-level immigration has reduced British people - British people - to this. Crybabying.

Needless to say, this is why this retreat into English ethnicism needs to be stopped. We can't have these people working with their self-pitying counterparts in Wales and Scotland to undermine Britain.

[In another moment of charming synchronicity my mam just gave me a Rabbie Burns £2 coin that she got in her change. As I've noted before, my nanna on my mam's side was from Scotland. She always used to carry a little book of Rabbie Burns poetry in her handbag. So don't think these things aren't close to my heart.

(Yes, I have the handwriting

of a twelve year old)

Now isn't the time for sentimentality though. I do not want to see my island divided into three sad sack nations.]

Communism everywhere, except where it's needed

I feel I need to comment on the Andy Burnham proposal to reallow drinking alcohol in football stands. As it's just crazy to me. Not so much the idea itself - there are arguments for and against that, which I'll get to later. But the very fact that he's proposing it is insane.

This was my response on Twitter.

Here we have a Labour government that loves regulating things. (Part of a uniparty in general that loves regulation - just look at the recent Tory plans to dictate what people on benefits can and can't buy.) Yet, on this one issue they're taking the libertarian route.

It's so weird. I don't want to be overly negative, I'm sure Andy Burnham means well, but it's one of those decisions that makes you think, "These people just don't have a clue."

Normally I tend to come down on the libertarian side of things. My instincts are always to give adults the freedom to make their own decisions, as free from government as possible. (Just look at some of my recent blog posts on here.) However, on this issue, as much as I think it's a bit petty that grown men can't be trusted to have a beer whilst watching a football match, I know changing it will make things worse.

This is one issue where restrictions have clearly made things better. Back in the 1980s we used to have appalling hooliganism at English football games. We were notorious the world over for it. Today that isn't the case. Today it's a family-friendly environment. Perhaps slightly more raucous than a trip to the cinema. Safe for children, pensioners and women. (Sorry if that sounds a bit sexist, but women generally don't want to spend 90 minutes sat next to some random lout sloshing a pint about. Especially if they've paid £30 or £40 for a ticket, or they've brought their young children along.)

And this is the thing with the way things are now. People can still have a drink at the game. It's not like they can't. They can do it in the concourse. They can do down for a pint at halftime or before the game. Libertarian leanings aside it's perfectly fine and no one's really complaining about it. Sure, some fans would like to drink in the stands, but many others would not like the change.

A few months ago I was at a match and there was a fairly drunk guy sat a row behind us. He'd somehow managed to sneak his drink past the stewards and was drinking in the stands. Not only was he annoying, as he was loudly repeating himself over and over - as drunks do - but he also managed to spill his pint and soak the shoes of the people in front.

And it's not just the behaviour and wet feet that's annoying, but the fact that other people get annoyed in turn. So you're having to say, "Leave it, he's just a guy whose had a few too many drinks," to stop a confrontation from escalating. This is how fights start.

Again, it seems crazy. They regulate everything, but they want to repeal this. The people that don't want gambling ads on football shirts in case it has a bad impact on society are suddenly libertarian here.

I saw a quote from Andy Burnham where he said it wasn't "fair" that people at Rugby matches could drink when football fans couldn't. He also used the word "discrimination" lol. It's another reality meets idealism issue. Ideally football fans shouldn't be stopped from having a pint by the state, but realistically football isn't rugby. The rest of Europe don't dread and fear English rugby fans. The police don't have to line the streets on high alert when Yorkshire play Durham at cricket.

Even I can't make the argument that freedom is better here.