The Shrugging of Shoulders

I want to talk about the vandalism of ULEZ cameras today. There's a mini furore as former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith has said he supports this vandalism. It's interesting to me as:

a) it's a moral conundrum

And b) it says quite a lot about where we are at the moment.

a)

It's a moral conundrum for obvious reasons. It wasn't too long ago that I was stating on this very blog that we don't just vandalise the things we don't like in a civilised society. This was in response to the pulling down of statues by BLM agitators. Now however, the boot is on the other foot. Now it's something I don't like being vandalised. I could make the case that the ULEZ cameras are much worse than the statues. After all, regular people are being forced to pay £12.50 a day just for the privilege of using cars they've bought, paid tax and insurance on, paid the petrol and repair costs for - on roads that they've paid for. That they need to use for work/school/business. Then on top of this, that this is just the beginning ..that it will inevitably lead to further costs and incursions. Perhaps eventually leading to the banning of cars altogether.

Whatever my pleading though, I can't escape the hypocrisy.

In my heart I'm very pleased these cameras are being destroyed. Yet, in my head, I can't avoid the simple fact that it is indeed lawless vandalism. I'm torn.

At what point does it become okay to go full Robin Hood? Is there a point?

For the time being I'm going to be a coward and just leave it at that. I can't really say if this vandalism gets a green light from me or not. I'm not sure what side of the fence to come down on.

b)

This leads me very nicely on to (b) though, and the "shrugging of the shoulders," as mentioned in the title. People often think that change occurs when everyone rises up. That there's some revolutionary moment, where everyone starts to boot off. However, in reality I suspect things begin to change when a large chunk of people just start sitting on the fence.

To give an example.

Let's say you have protestors protesting a particular issue. To keep it simple let's just say on the one side of the issue you have left wing people, and on the other right. Now let's say a right wing person turns up and punches a left wing protestor. In normal times what happens is all sides condemn the person committing the assault. Even though the right wing people are on the opposite side of the particular issue, they nevertheless take the side of the person assaulted. Even to the point that they'll want the assaulter prosecuted and jailed. As basic principles are much more important than the particular political issue at hand.

However, when things become very strained, this stops happening. If the people on one side of the divide have went too far - and exhausted the good will of their opponents, then people stop interjecting. They shrug their shoulders.

So now, if a protestor gets punched, they don't raise their voice in condemnation. They don't demand the assaulter gets prosecuted. They just keep quiet. It's not necessarily that they support the assault. They may be very uncomfortable with the idea. They may still believe it's completely wrong. It's just that now they don't care enough to step in. Or that they feel, if not think, that the person deserved to be punched, so conveniently avoid having to make themselves think about it.

Or they think, "Well, these people have went so far, who am I to say violence isn't a justified response? If I step in to condemn this am I making things worse by defending and facilitating these people." That is, they're just not sure anymore.

Again, like myself above, and my indecision as to whether to condemn the vandalism of ULEZ cameras. "I think it's wrong to vandalise things ..but these people pushing these ULEZ schemes really are pushing their luck."

When enough people step back, Robin Hood can step in, safe in the knowledge that the common people won't step in, to hand him over to the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Look The Other Way

I actually saw a tweet earlier from Alastair Campbell. He was commenting on Iain Duncan Smith's comments, and he noted that most the MPs and media had "looked the other way" on it.

This isn't entirely true of course, it has been commented upon and discussed. However, he's right in perceiving that the outcry hasn't been quite as strong as it once would've been.

Campbell puts it down to terrible Tory Britain. I would put it down to people shrugging their shoulders.

Roseberry Topping in August

I was out and about yesterday - went up Roseberry Topping to do some filming. I always like these posts, as all I really have to do is share pictures. It's nice and easy.

(click to enlarge)

We're blessed with some beautiful landscape. I went on Twitter this morning to find debate about the potential pollution that will be caused by the government giving the green light for more housing. The sort of people that scream most about damage to the environment often tend to be the same people demanding hundreds of thousands more in net migration - which obviously requires more housing to be built. Not to mention the added roads, sewers and services.

There are arguments both ways, and I feel a little bit selfish saying I want to keep this landscape for myself. However, I wish the people screaming would be more honest and a bit less muddle-headed. You can't have it all ways. You have to strike a balance. If you want more people that means more incursions into nature.

Gold Standards Don't Work

The other week I had the flu - well, a cold - but it was enough for me to sit around for a few days doing nothing. As it happens it was something of a blessing, as in my lazy, snotty boredom I ended up watching videos about the history of money. This clarified in my mind why gold isn't a good currency, and why gold standards aren't a good idea.

A currency is something that helps lubricate the economy. An oil that helps people trade their time and goods.

So a good currency isn't just something that gives people confidence that it's a good store of value. It also has to be readily available enough that everyone has access to it. The peasant paying his landlord, the old woman buying her loaf of bread, the businessman making his trades.

It's something that balances these two things. Rare enough to be worth something, but common enough to be readily utilised.

This is why gold isn't good as a currency. It's too rare. Too precious.

It's a great store of value, but not a great currency.

It's similar with Bitcoin. That too, like gold, is more a store of value than a currency. It is scarce, therefore people value it. Therefore people are reluctant to let go of it.

An Example

For instance, let's say you're someone who owns gold and/or Bitcoin, and you want to buy something that costs £10. You'll be more than happy enough to spend £10 in pounds sterling to buy it, however if someone suggests you use your gold or Bitcoin, you'll balk at the idea. As you believe over time your gold will increase in value relative to other things, and you believe your Bitcoin is "Going to the Moon."

So as gold is a very, very good store of value, you're very, very reluctant to let go of it. You'd much rather use something less precious for daily transactions.

Gold, Silver and Copper

Historically it was generally silver that was used as a standard, not gold. This makes sense as silver is less precious, and it's a natural intermediary between gold and copper. People would generally use copper and silver coins for normal trade.

Supposedly, gold only really began being used as a de facto standard around 300 years ago by Britain. It probably worked quite well for Britain because Britain was the ascendant power, and the rest of the world still used silver - so it was a luxury position. However, when everyone else jumped on the gold standard in the 19th century that appears to be when things started going a bit haywire, and when gold decoupled from silver.

This makes sense, as pegging an entire economy to one commodity - especially the most precious and rare commodity - is asking for trouble. People are always going to want to hold on to gold, and especially so when things start looking dicey. How can you lubricate everyday trade with something no-one wants to let go of?

Again, even in the days of silver standards, things were much more organic, and people used multiple other things as currency too. They had a degree of freedom to trade and barter without every transaction being watched and taxed by government - and the tax needing to be paid in the specific state issued currency.

The modern world with its monolithic governments, taxes and standards is really the straightjacket that's locked everything in to one universal money measure - whatever form it takes.

Fiat-philia

Personally, I actually like fiat currency. This won't be popular, but as an actual currency - an oil for trade - it's much better than something pegged to a specific commodity. Of course, they're open to abuse by governments and banks that are in a position to inflate them, but this also makes them flexible enough to function. If you want a store of value get some gold, but if you want a gold standard then you want something that simply won't work. Appreciate gold for what it is, not what you want it to be.

Masks and Hygiene ..Bad Hygiene

We've entered full fathom five. I've finally finished my work of fiction. I still have a few tweaks to do, plus I'll have to revise it a good few times, but all that can come at leisure. It's a labour of love, so I'm not in a rush. The main endeavour was getting it down - from brain to page. Now that's done I can leave fiction and focus once again on reality. Posts on here will now become more frequent.

Today it's masks. There seems to be a flurry of calls for masks and mandates at the moment. It's like the communists have decided now is the time for another counterinsurgency into normality.

Obviously, I'm wholly against masking. This time my line of attack on Twitter has been:

"Masks are smelly!"

I've been arguing that the people who wear masks tend to have poorer hygiene in general. It's a little bit underhanded - and also mean. However, I think there's a large element of truth to this idea. Here in the UK the only people you really see wearing masks now are very elderly people - who have presumably been brainwashed (read terrified) by their TV screens and carers into doing it. Or teenagers - usually of the mosher or activist variety; black hoodie, tattoos, piercings, rainbow-coloured hair, body odour, face mask.

Added to this there's also the random neighbourhood oddball you often see still masking-up.

In fact, there's a guy who sometimes gets on my bus. He always wears the same face mask - the only person on the bus wearing one ..and he always has really bad body odour. You think, "..please, not next to me." It's a horrible thing to think, and I would never complain or raise the issue in real life. Nor would I mock someone for it. After all, not everyone has the same degree of personal competency. Plus, you never know what an individual's circumstances are. "There but for the grace of God go I," as they say. However, in the round, we all understand that some people have higher hygiene standards than others.

Public transport (that is, communal transport) gives a good education in this.

It's no surprise to me that masking would be associated with poor hygiene. If there are two people and one is happy to allow the government to overrule them in matters of personal hygiene, and the other is fastidious enough to balk at that thought, then you'd suspect the former to be more slob-like.

Communism means everyone eating at the same trough. Capitalism allows you to go off and prepare your own meal.

After wearing a mask for a few hours, and experiencing the damp, the warmth, and the discomfort, a basic disgust response kicks in. You have to be pretty docile (or very zealously invested in the narrative) to not be aware of this.

Imagine how dumb someone must be to want their government to be able to force this upon them. How poor must the instincts of that person be.

Three years ago I had the logic to understand this would be the case. Now three years later I have the real world evidence to back it up.

All the covid measures have made people poorer and smellier.

[It's also worth noting that we once again see the results of the conflicting ideologies I mentioned in my last post.

These people have filled the world's oceans with face masks in their quest for 'public hygiene'.

Yet, these are also the same people telling you to shower less to save the environment.

They're very, very confused people. It would be funny were we not constantly held hostage to them.]

Half-Man, Half-Machine - All Monbiot

Yesterday we had this article in the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com

Where George Monbiot once again argued for the reintroduction of wolves to the British landscape. I'm not going to discuss the idea itself - I think it's quite silly. What I do want to comment upon though is the mindset that led to this.

The mindset of the educated elite class is quite a confused one; and at the heart of it is a fundamental contradiction.

On the one hand their progressivism leads them to chase technological progress - see their worship of Science with its capital "S", and their technocratic tendencies.

On the other hand, however, they have their environmentalism. With its belief that man is a destructive force upon the earth. That nature is best left "unspoilt" and completely untouched by the selfish presence of man.

Obviously, these two worldviews don't quite meld.

And instead of tempering these ideologies to find some kind of harmonious balance, they've hit upon a novel and zany solution. A solution that only a schizophrenic mind could come up with.

That is:

Humans will live in Star Trek-like cities, where we'll have all the things the technocratic mind can dream of: big data; mass surveillance; AI; advanced medicines and therapeutics that extend the human life span - perhaps indefinitely; virtual worlds; the metaverse; robots and Judy Jetson.

Meanwhile, outside of these cities, we'll have nature completely untouched. Rewilded. As it once was. Before man turned up and ruined it all. Replete with wolves and every other savage beast that once roamed it. Humans (except for the chosen few) will be forbidden from entering these vast zones of Earth sans man.

Two worlds, completely segregated, completely different.

Something akin to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, - or Hunger Games, or Logan's Run. That is, something akin to fantasy and science-fiction. But this is what these people believe. They want to have their cake and eat it, and their minds are so entitled that there is zero room for compromise.

George Monbiot wants his face masks and free Covid tests. He also wants his wolves.

He wants nature untamed by man. Yet he also wants all flu viruses to be eradicated.

Net zero to preserve nature from deadly man. Zero Covid to protect man from deadly nature.

Two forms of ideological extremism, that can only be accommodated in the mind by literally drawing a line across the muddy earth and saying, "On this side nature, on this side man." It's obviously barmy. I don't know why they don't just go the whole hog and advocate bringing back dinosaurs. We can all live like the bubble-boy in our pods as raptors roam Yorkshire.

Two hundred million people, refugees an' all, crammed in a dome-covered London. whilst the rest of Britain is like Jurassic Park. The irony is George Monbiot probably sees himself as Jeff Goldblum.

"God creates Man, God creates wolves. Man destroys wolves, Man destroys God. Man creates wolves."