latest
The Internet as Mob Rule
The ancient Greeks believed political constitutions repeated in a pattern called kyklos (“cycle). The idea first occurs in Plato’s Republic, gets elaborated by Aristotle in his Politics, then reaches its apogee in Polybius’ Histories.
Unlike modern theorists of cyclical rise and fall of civilisations, such as Oswald Spengler, the kyklos doesn’t have a zenith or golden age. It’s rather a waxing and waning of stable society types, followed by unstable society types. What characterises a stable society is that the ruling class and citizens both strive towards the common good, conceived as the objective purpose of human beings, which results in their happiness and flourishing. Society becomes unstable when its members stop having the common good in mind, and instead strive after their selfish private interests to the detriment of other citizens.
Kyklos then presupposes several things. First, it isn’t culture specific. Its objectivist outlook means it applies equally to all political human groups, always and everywhere. Second, the engine that drives history is human virtue and vice, and not economics, class struggle, or war. These are secondary factors resulting from the characters of human beings. Healthy economies, contented class structures, well-won peace and just wars all result from virtuous people. Third, the stable government types are various. Kyklos defends neither monarchy, nor aristocracy nor a republic exclusively. It isn’t a Whiggish or utopian theory of history, that says if and only if a certain group are in power all will be well. Rather it claims that whatever group are in power, they must be virtuous to rule well. Vice immediately leads to disorder.
Simplifying in the extreme, the kyklos model runs as follows. Rule can be by one person, several, or many. When these rule for the common good, they are just, and are called monarchy, aristocracy and republican respectively. When they rule for their private interest to the detriment of society, they are tyranny, oligarchy and democratic respectively.
It’s important to note that by “democracy” I don’t mean here a system of popular representation or voting. The virtuous form of this is called a polity or republic in classical thinking. In the latter, bonds of authority and specialised expertise remain. In the former, absolutely everything is sacrificed for the sake of equality of the masses (see below).
A good monarch rules with benevolence. His successors are unjust and become tyrants. The nobility removes them, creating an aristocratic state. These in turn degenerate into oligarchs as they grow decadent and self-interested and begin to oppress the poor. The people rise up and remove them, creating a republic where all citizens have a say. But the mass of citizens loses the bonds of political friendship, grows selfish, and the republic becomes a democracy. Democracy eventually deteriorates to a point where all bonds between people are gone, and we have a mob rule. The mob annihilates itself through infighting. One virtuous man seizes power, and we return to monarchy. The cycle begins anew.
With these preliminaries out of the way, I come to my point. I believe the present age we are forced to live through is highly ochlocratic. Of course, it’s not a pure mob rule since we have non-mob elites and a rule of law. I also think our age is oligarchic (dominated by elites swollen with pleasure). But it’s more ochlocratic, I contend, than it was a few centuries ago, and enough that mob behaviour characterises it.
The defining trait of unstable regimes, as I’ve just said, is vice. However, vice doesn’t just happen spontaneously as though people awake one morning deciding to be selfish, spoilt, and cruel. Evil people, as Aristotle notes, often believe they are good. Their fault is that they’ve mistaken something which is bad for what is good. For example, the man who hates the poor falsely believes money is the same as goodness. The man who mocks monks and sages for their abstinence believes all and only pleasure is good. Even when we know what is good for us, ingrained habit or upbringing might make the illusion of goodness overpowering. A lifetime of cake-gorging can condition one to the point it overrides the knowledge that sugar is bad for health.
I think the Spanish thinker Jose Ortega y Gasset in The Revolt of the Masses (1930) unwittingly echoes Plato when he points to the faults of the democratic “mass-man” of the twentieth century. All human societies need specialised minorities to function. The more demanding and specialised a field, the more those who do it will be a minority of the population. Further, all societies, to function, need sources of authority which aren’t decided by a majority vote. Modern democracy has created the illusion that the unspecialised mass is sovereign and has no reliance on anybody. It has achieved this mirage through artificial liberation: creating unnatural freedoms through constant government intervention and technocratic engineering.
This in turn has supported vices out of unthinking habit. The mass-man accepts his lack of qualifications and is proud of this absence. He isn’t one deluded about his knowledge. Quite the opposite. The mass-man is someone who openly declares he knows nothing but demands to be listened to anyway because he’s a member of the sacred demos. In short, according to Ortega y Gasset, the ideology of the mass-man is: “I’m ordinary and ignorant, and so I have more of a say than those who are specialised and learned.”
The internet is a democratic medium par excellence. This isn’t to say that its members are all egalitarian and individualist, rather, its very construction assumes egalitarian and individualist ideas, and these force themselves onto its users whether they be willing or not.
Here we can extend the criticisms that Neil Postman makes at television in Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985) to the web. On the internet, all information is available to everyone. Anyone can create it, and anyone can opine on it. The medium doesn’t distinguish for quality, so the greatest products of human civilisation sit alongside the basest, on the same shelf. There are no filters online for expertise or experience, indeed, any attempts to create such filters are decried as “gatekeeping”. As a result, the internet has no difficulty settings (to use a metaphor). Getting through the easier levels isn’t mandatory to reach the harder ones. You can skip ahead, so to speak, and mingle with the pros as their peer.
Someone might object here that I’m exaggerating, since online communities monitor themselves all the time. I can indeed post my amateur opinions onto an internet space for astrophysicists, but these will mock and exclude me once I become a nuisance. However, this isn’t an answer. The internet is built on the assumption of mass wisdom, and the only way to enforce hierarchies of value on it is by banding a mob together. The space around remains anarchic. Yes, there are communities of wise people online, but these exist in an ocean of communities of fools. The medium presents them all as equally valuable. Which communities grow powerful still depends on the wishes of the mass.
When the internet produces a rare fruit of quality, this is because by sheer accident, the wishes of the mass have corresponded to reality. It isn’t an in-built feature.
The result is that the internet functions like a classic mob regimen or ochlocracy. The medium has no sensitivity to quality, but rather responds to will, provided enough people are behind it. Those who wield influence online do so because the mob will has selected them. They are our modern versions of Plato’s Athenian demagogues, or rabble-rousers of the French Revolution. A mass of ignorant and desperate people swirls around equally ignorant and desperate demagogues who promise them whatever they want. Demagogues rise and fall as the mob is first enamoured then bored of them. As the internet has grown to encompass our whole lives, this ochlocracy has spilt out into the real world.
In this space, truth entirely drops out. It’s a common fault of the ignorant to confuse desire with truth since desires are often hotly felt and what is very vivid seems real. Our egalitarian internet machine therefore is wont to magnify desires rather than realities. And because it magnifies desires, these ever more get confused with reality, until mob wishes would replace the common good of society. I believe a good example of this is how the online demagogue-mob relationship works. When internet personalities, especially political and social influencers, fall from grace, it’s usually because their followers realise they can no longer get what they want out of them (seldom do demagogue and mob cordially separate because each has become wiser). The power lies with the followers and not with their purported leader.
Which brings me back to kyklos. A classic Greek political cycle resets when a virtuous individual takes the reigns from the mob and establishes a monarchy. He recreates justice through his personal goodness. This was more likely, I think, in ancient societies where religion, community and family were stronger, and so the pool of virtuous people never entirely depleted. If our ochlocratic internet is indeed a stage in a kyklos (or a component of an ochlocratic stage), and it ends, I think it will end with one demagogic idiocy imposing itself on the others by force.
A population conditioned by the internet to think mass-appeal as equivalent to truth will readily accept a technocratic whip provided it claims to issue from the general will. Which idiocy gains supremacy is a matter of which can capture the greater part of the mass in the least time, to form a generation in its own image. This is why I don’t think the current trend of the internet becoming more regulated and censored is good. The regulators and censors come from the same debased crop as those they regulate and censor.
Enjoying The Mallard? Consider subscribing to our monthly magazine.
Why We Watch Tucker
I’ll never deny it: I enjoy watching Tucker Carlson. Granted, if you’re aware of my political inclinations, such a revelation is hardly a revelation at all. However, it is clear that Tucker’s popularity cannot be reduced to conventional political parameters.
It’s far from hyperbole to say Tucker is extremely popular. As far as I know, he’s the only commentator to be universally known by his first name – a testament to the public’s familiarity with and affinity for his work.
Much to the dismay of his critics, and regardless of his abrupt departure from Fox, Tucker Carlson Tonight remains the most popular cable news show.
You don’t get those numbers by appealing to half or less-than-half of the US electorate. Even left-leaning and/or liberal-minded individuals are occasionally forced to admit a passing fondness for the paleoconservative pundit. The overarching question is: why?
For decades, Tucker has been part of the corporate cable network in America, giving him a great deal of exposure, both to American people and to the wider world, yet it’s evident he’s managed to retain a kernel of ideological independence.
In addition to opinions which are standard in such circles (trans women aren’t women, Democrats are bad, free speech is a good thing, etc.), Tucker has voiced opposition to displacement-level immigration, expressed scepticism about American foreign policy, criticised ‘neoliberal’ economic orthodoxy, attacked the shortcomings of the GOP establishment, and taken aim at liberal presuppositions about the nature of politics – all of which have a mass cross-ideological appeal.
He’s also complained that the Green M&M’s new shoes aren’t sexy.
Yes, Tucker’s reputation is something of a double-edged sword; the guy pushing the boat out on subjects that people actually care about (at the very least, subjects that need more attention than they’re getting) is associated with some of the weirdest segments of commentary.
For many, this is enough to dismiss Tucker entirely. Such people tend to be disgruntled by Tucker’s comments on other – that is, more serious – topics, so will latch onto anything that can be used to belittle those that admit to liking his content.
Then again, it’s worth remembering that the ridiculousness of such moments isn’t exactly Tucker’s fault. For every case of “CRAZY CONSERVATIVE CULTURE WAR BACKLASH”, there’s an utterly bizarre, but completely earnest, decision made by PR shitlibs beforehand.
Consider this: Mars could’ve saved themselves a lot of trouble if they’d just taken a step back and realised that trying to pass-off anthropomorphic chocolate as civil rights advocates is, in all actuality, a really stupid idea.
Nevertheless, on the whole, Tucker can be credited with casting light on various issues of fundamental importance, simultaneously articulating sentiments which, although largely unrepresented in mainstream or elite circles, resonate with swathes of ordinary people.
Considering this, we can put to rest the idea of Murdoch’s media empire as a right-wing propaganda factory. The views accrued by Tucker’s show, whether fans or haters, aren’t insignificant to say the least. No thoroughly ruthless media mogul would so willingly – or temperamentally – get shot of one of the organisation’s major assets.
The plain reality is that Murdoch & Co. were prepared to get rid of Tucker for financial and political reasons. Despite the viewership, advertisers weren’t scrambling to fill the evening slot as quickly as Murdoch would’ve liked; that and Tucker’s willingness to give the slightest amount of oxygen to figures on the dissident right, as well as providing pushback against the dominant Western narrative of the Russo-Ukrainian war.
However, it’s apparent that opponents wanted to twist the knife, with Media Matters for America (a left-wing media organisation) feeling the need to leak ‘off-camera’ footage of Tucker complaining about the Fox Nation website.
This supposed Gotcha, like Tucker’s departure, seems to have only made things worse for his rivals. Why would the public care that the candid man on the TV speaks candidly? Besides, the fact he seems to behave the same way in private as he does on the air works in his favour.
If anything, Tucker’s forthrightness is part of the reason he’s landed in hot water (at least, with MSNBC viewers). Details published during Fox’s defamation battle with Dominion revealed that Tucker had (God forbid) called someone a cunt. Far from an expose, this detail was left unredacted at his request.
In addition to his use of Anglo-Saxon, Tucker was reprimanded for being acute to the opinions of his “postmenopausal” fans (finally, a man that acknowledges the input of women!) and having the sheer audacity to be funnier than every striking late-night host.
Tucker was also frustrated by the producers’ insistence to adopt a more casual dress code. Too right! The expectation to be relatable is endemic and trying to make the son of Dick Carlson an average dude is short-sighted at best.
Every major outlet, in one form or another, has produced something explaining in a smugly matter-of-fact way that Tucker isn’t your average joe; that he is from a relatively comfortable, well-connected background – completely unlike themselves, of course!
Unfortunately for them, nobody cares. Nobody cares that he’s a yuppie, nobody cares that he wore a bowtie back in the day. By his own admission, Tucker is an elitist, not a populist, and intuitively understands the implications of a dissatisfied populous.
For a Fox News host, he’s shown more ‘class consciousness’ than any leftist politician, commentator, or intellectual in recent history.
An aristocratic project from the outset, nobody in the United States seriously expects the people on TV, just as with people in Hollywood movies or the White House, to be ‘just like them’.
What matters to the American people is that they have a voice; what matters is that someone, somewhere, at the apex of their society, acts as an avatar for their hopes, aspirations, and interests.
In this regard, Tucker is to mainstream media what Trump is to mainstream politics: their imperfect, but sufficient, representative in a world which they otherwise cannot access.
Just as America’s media and politics has been globalised, so too has this principle, encompassing those of us that cannot rely on our domestic media apparatus to get ideas and concerns into public circulation.
Even if the cynics are vindicated, even if Tucker is just another opportunist, running the circuit of American media for his own private benefit, at least their concerns may be articulated as a consequence. In a world run by gangsters, the best you can hope for is a gangster that offers security.
Enjoying The Mallard? Consider subscribing to our monthly magazine.
The Surrogacy Question
Are we owed a child? Is it a human right to be able to have one?
In a recent Instagram piece, Olympic diver Tom Daley posted a picture of himself, his husband Dustin and their toddler son with baby Phoenix Rose, the new addition to their family. It’s a variation of the same family picture we’ve seen thousands of times. The comments were full of excited congratulations from friends and fans alike. Again, something we’ve seen thousands of times.
What some pointed out however, was the lack of the person who had given birth to the little one: the surrogate.
Such images are common online. New parents show off their new child, but they do not show the surrogate. Some may mention her, but she is now shown. In a move that irks many, the parent or parents may sit in the hospital bed, holding the baby as though they have given birth to it.
It begs the question: is surrogacy acceptable?
What is surrogacy?
Surrogacy is the act of a woman carrying and birthing a child for another person or couple. There are two types of surrogacy:
Gestational Surrogacy: the surrogate is biologically unrelated to the baby. The eggs come from the intended adopted mother or a donor.
Traditional Surrogacy: the surrogate’s eggs are used. She is biologically related to the baby.
There are two types of surrogate services. One is altruistic, in which the surrogate is doing this as a favour and without payment. Commercial surrogacy allows payment and it can include medical fees or even more than that.
Who uses it?
Surrogacy can be used by heterosexual couples, same-sex couples and single people. Those who use surrogacy may do it for a variety of reasons. Reasons include:
● Unable to carry a child
● Single person
● Same-sex couple
● Unable to adopt
● Older person
● Does not want to be pregnant
● Worry about pregnancy
● Medically required
Celebrities that have used surrogates:
Heterosexual Couples:
● Grey’s Anatomy star Ellen Pompeo and husband Chris Ivery
● Jonas Brothers member Nick Jonas and actress Priyanka Chopra
● Rapper Kanye West and reality star Kim Kardashian
● Actor Matthew Broderick and actress Sarah Jessica Parker
● Fast and Furious star Jordana Brewster and producer Andrew Form
● Frasier star Kelsey Grammer and reality star Camille
● Actor Courtney B. Vance and actress Angela Bassett
● Star Wars creator George Lucas and wife Mellody Hobson
● Actress Nicole Kidman and singer Keith Urban
● Actor Robert DeNiro and model Toukie Smith
● Model Tyra Banks and photographer Erik Asla
● Twitter owner Elon Musk and singer Grimes
● Actor Alec Baldwin and yoga instructor Hilaria Baldwin
● Actress Cameron Diaz and singer Benji Madden
LGBT Couples:
● Modern Family star Jesse Tyler Ferguson and husband Justin Mikita
● Actors Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka
● Singer Elton John and filmmaker David Furnish
● Singer Ricky Martin and artist Jwan Yosef
● Glee creator Ryan Murphy and husband David Miller
● NSYNC singer Lance Bass and husband Michael Turchin
Single Parents:
● Pitch Perfect star Rebel Wilson
● Talk show host Andy Cohen
● Journalist Anderson Cooper
● Actress Lucy Liu
● Blogger Perez Hilton
● Footballer Cristiano Ronaldo
● Singer Michael Jackson
● Actress Amber Heard
What’s the Law?
Laws vary country to country. Altruistic surrogacy is more likely to be legal than paid surrogacy as it’s believed there is less exploitation. Laws may restrict access to non-nationals or non-married straight couples.
UK: Surrogacy is legal in the U.K., but a surrogate is not allowed to be paid beyond reasonable expenses. Contracts are not legally binding. Surrogates are automatically regarded as the legal parent, whether or not she is biologically related to the baby. It is a criminal offence to advertise your search for a surrogate, advertise that you wish to be one, for a third party to receive payment, and to broker a surrogacy agreement. This means commercial surrogacy is banned.
USA: Surrogacy laws vary from state to state. Surrogacy is totally banned in Michigan. Only straight married couples using their own eggs can use surrogacy in Louisiana, but commercial surrogacy is banned. California allows both altruistic and commercial surrogacy to all and allows pre-birth orders to establish legal paternity.
Australia: Altruistic surrogacy is legal across all states and territories.
Canada: Altruistic surrogacy with reasonably paid expenses is allowed everywhere except Quebec, where all surrogacy is banned.
France: Surrogacy is illegal.
India: Surrogacy is legal for married heterosexual Indian couples who meet certain criteria such as age and length of marriage. Certain single women are also permitted to use surrogacy. India previously allowed foreigners to use surrogates. This was limited to straight couples in 2013 before it was banned for all foreigners in 2015. Prior to 2015, India was a hugely popular destination for fertility tourism due to easiness and relative cheapness.
Iran: Surrogacy is totally legal and is a popular destination in the Middle East for heterosexual couples.
Russia: Surrogacy is legal for Russian couples. The lower house of government has passed a bill banning foreign parents from using surrogacy.
Ukraine: Surrogacy is legal for heterosexual married couples. As it’s easy to get and often relatively cheap, Ukraine is a very popular destination for fertility tourism.
Popular destinations for surrogacy include the United States, Ukraine, Colombia, Georgia and Mexico.
Religious Perspectives
Religious views on surrogacy vary even within the same faith. Different denominations have different views on the accessibility of surrogacy and the conditions that merit it.
Catholicism opposes surrogacy and all other types of reproductive assistance. One paragraph of the Catechism of 1992 states: ‘Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral.’ The Church believes that conception cannot and should not be separated from the sexual intercourse between a married, heterosexual couple. As surrogacy uses an outside source, it is deemed immoral by the Catholic Church.
The Church of the Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) still disapprove of surrogacy and strongly discourage it, but believes it is down to the individual married couple. One of Mitt Romney’s sons has used surrogacy and three have used IVF, both of which the church disagrees with.
The Russian Orthodox Church strongly opposes surrogacy. They will not baptise children born of surrogacy unless the biological parents repent.
Judaism has not got a clear line on surrogacy. The worry is the child would belong to the surrogate mother and as Judaism tends to be matrilineal, it’s an issue if the surrogate is not Jewish. Couples are usually urged to seek the help of their rabbi. Some rabbis and scholars believe it is exploitative. It’s recommended that there’s a list of Jewish surrogates to ensure there are no accidental sibling marriages. Some authorities prefer that the surrogate is not a blood relation of the father and that she is not married.
The views between the two main sects of Islam, Sunni and Shia, vary. Sunni Islam explicitly prohibits surrogacy as it is introducing the sperm of a man who is not married to the surrogate. Islam has very strict views on lineage and blood, hence why adoption in the Western sense is not permitted. Shia Islam generally permits surrogacy, and the Shia nation of Iran is actually one of the leading pioneers in fertility treatment.
Hinduism has not got a particular stance on surrogacy. Whilst there is no prohibition, the use of surrogacy by Hindus is generally quite rare. India was a popular destination for surrogacy for many years before the ban on commercial surrogacy came in, so many surrogate mothers are members of the Hindu faith.
Buddhism has not spoken out about surrogacy, but it’s generally approved of. It can be seen as an act of charity and kindness that gives one good karma.
What is right?
Few issues unite left-leaning feminists and the religious right like surrogacy does. They are united in their condemnation of the practice that they say exploits women, children and the poor. Their reasons may be different but they ultimately join together. To them, and perhaps those who don’t even subscribe to either ideology, surrogacy is wrong.
Surrogacy seems to be everywhere. As stated above, many celebrities seem to be using surrogacy in order to start their own families. The language used when reporting it does nothing to bring attention or praise to the surrogate. One article reported that Paris Hilton ‘gave birth with the help of a surrogate.’ No, Ms. Hilton did not give birth. The surrogate did. Instantly, the non-surrogates are proclaimed to be the parent. Legally that is not always true. Ethically? It’s a bit murky.
The immediate concern is for the surrogates themselves. Long have women wished to be parted from the notion that they are a walking womb, yet the role of surrogate seems to push them into that box. She may be given money and expenses and lavish items, but they are not for her, but for what she can do. The care is ultimately for the baby or babies she is carrying. Her value is what is in her womb.
Surrogacy is not without risks. Pregnancy in itself can be a danger. Pregnancy and childbirth are two very taxing, tiring things that can do a number on one’s mind and body. That is not to say that the end result is not one of joy, but it is not an easy thing to enter into. The surrogate is giving birth to a child that she is biologically attached to but will be given away almost as soon as possible.
There’s also somewhat of an obsession with perfection within surrogacy. Parents want the perfect baby. They’ll refuse a child seen as ‘defective.’ Plans are made so that the baby will look a certain way. Paris Hilton even edited her baby’s fingernails on Instagram. That is not true of all surrogate parents, but your child should not have to be perfect.
She is also bound by agreements. Whilst they are not legally binding in some places, the contracts can reward the prospective parent a lot of power over the woman’s body. It is possible for them to even control any medicine that she needs. In one episode of Chicago Med, a young surrogate comes in and ends up needing to deliver early. She refuses, as the parents won’t accept the baby or pay if she delivers before forty weeks. If the baby is disabled or the wrong gender, then they may even ask for an abortion. The woman is poor and desperate and has agreed to these terms.
This is what it all circles back to: exploitation.
India banned all foreign couples from using surrogacy in the country over concerns about the treatment of surrogates. The Indian surrogates were generally poor women who were desperate to make money for their families. These women, often uneducated and living hand-to-mouth, are giving up so much. Despite getting paid, the expenses often aren’t enough. Most of the money paid by parents goes to agencies, not the surrogate. They are often shafted. They are no given what they are due for the service they are providing. India is known for having crushing poverty so it’s no wonder these women offer themselves.
Surrogacy is not cheap. In the USA, it can cost between $100-200K. That’s not pocket money. That is money that very few people can easily spend. The costs are so astronomical which is why so many go abroad. Some even turn to loans. This means those who pursue surrogacy have means. Contrast this with the surrogate. Surrogates are more often than not much less wealthy than the parents. This creates a case of wealth buying a baby.
Once the pregnancy is done and a baby is born, the woman is disposable. The baby will be given to their new parents immediately and separated from the woman who gave birth to them. That’s hard for a woman who has just given birth- it’s a haze of hormones and feelings. Is there aftercare?
Surrogacy has not been without its scandals and controversies. One popular fertility clinic in Ukraine saw its owner and its head physician locked up for human trafficking. In places where surrogacy is less regulated, there can be cases of abuse that fly freely. It’s not an uncommon connection. Human trafficking is something that horrified any good person. Whilst even critics of surrogacy may not go as far as to compare it to human trafficking, the potential for the two to be linked is great.
Unrestrictive policies allow abuses to happen. One Japanese man gained thirteen children through surrogacy and was given custody of them by courts. The children had been found in Bangkok, attended to by nannies. Commercial surrogacy in Thailand is banned, yet this was allowed to happen.
Thailand was in the spotlight in 2014 regarding a very contentious surrogacy. An Australian man named David Farnell and his wife Wendy went to Thailand and got a gestational surrogate. When it turned out that one of the twins their surrogate Pattaramon Janbua was carrying had Down’s Syndrome, the Farnells told her to abort him. Pattaramon did not wish to and gave birth to both children. The other twin was born healthy and was given to the Farnells. Miscommunication meant that the Farnells went back to Australia with their baby daughter Pipah, whilst Pattarmon kept baby Gammy.
Controversy further arose when it was discovered that Farnell had been convicted for child sexual offences. In the 1990s, Farnell had been jailed for molesting two girls under ten and had further assaulted three women. Thai law said that the birth mother of a child was the mother, yet little Pipah was allowed to go home with this man. The courts eventually ruled that Farnell was not allowed to be alone with Pipah. He would eventually die in 2020.
That is not to say that every parent who has children the traditional way or adopts is perfect. The adoption process has seen its fair share of issues. That being said, adoption does have more restrictions. Adoption can be so strict and time consuming in the US that many go abroad to adopt in places like China.
I cannot begrudge a person or persons for wanting children. It has been the natural order of things since time immemorial. Infertility is a desperately sad thing for those who want to have a family. It circles back to the question of whether a baby is a right or a privilege. Not everyone who uses a surrogate is infertile either. It can come down to simply not wanting to be pregnant.
At the end of the day, somebody has to be pregnant in order to have a child. The question is: who should it be?
Madness and Spectacle: The Yellow Vest Suite (Magazine Excerpt)
At the time my personal motivation in doing a whole suite of works was the aesthetic superseding the political. I was captivated by the sensuous images of darkness and colour shades that I tried to capture in these paintings and drawings. Multitudes of people wearing a loose uniform of greenish yellow starkly contrasted with the burning embers of street fires, and thick black smoke from various car chemicals and building materials being immolated, darkening the sky. So many monuments to France’s history are contrasted by a new revolutionary fervour. I was attempting to create a sort of protest impressionism, colour swatches in the darkness of smoke and the light of fire.
But perhaps this is too a sort of romanticism, an aesthetic expression of a yearning for political possibilities outside of the confines of Globo-liberalism, because the political-aesthetic picture of current times produced by Globo-liberalism is so bland, Kitschy, its regime-approved protest art so vulgar and dehumanising, from flat design humans to Banksy. In other words, it sells you empty left-liberal sentimentalism. But my paintings are not meant to create a new counter political-aesthetic. In hindsight, these works are merely cartographic, depictions of a historical moment done as faithfully as I could. Art as a dramatic record of events, a window into vivid scenes that didn’t quite seem real.
Since the petering out of the Yellow Vests, and the periodic riots and public demonstrations in France, over everything from climate change to changes in pension law, there seems to be a jadedness and morose character to the “active politics” of the French. Each one seems to devolve into a public dance party, a more spectacle-driven and violent form of the same cynical and exhausted symbolic politics that lurches forth in most of the Western world. The same people smashing windows and lighting cars on fire went right back and voted for Macron again.
This calls into question the nature of a true syncretism between fringe left and right political coalitions that meet in the middle of society through public political rituals of demonstration and protest. Perhaps it is true that these sorts of protests and public events are merely vanities, and real politics in globalised liberalism is far away and above the direct means of resistance ordinary citizens have. In other words, managerialism, more than tyranny and ideological millenarianism could ever dream of, did away with the concerns and whims of the crowd.
But in the end, the Yellow Vests provided striking images, and for a time, provided an aesthetic politics which could provide a template for further populist movements which cross-cuts ideological and cultural boundaries. The Yellow Vests were very much of the times we are living in now, because it is the image, the aesthetic more than anything, especially in the online world, which informs and contorts the political.
This is an excerpt from “Blast!”. To continue reading, visit The Mallard’s Shopify.
A Factory for Mediocre Leadership
“Hero-worship exists, has existed, and will forever exist, universally, among mankind.” – Thomas Carlyle, ‘On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History’, 1841.
I often read history through the lens of ‘Great Men’*. The term ‘Great Men’ refers to ‘Great Man Theory’. Originating from Thomas Carlyle’s lectures on heroism in 1840, later being published as ‘On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History’ in 1841, the theory alleges that history is dictated by those men who possess a remarkable ability to inspire, lead, operate, and execute. These men often find themselves climbing the ladders of power with haste, winning decisive battles or reinvigorating policy and therefore dictating the future of their people for generations to come. Furthermore, these men are rare to come by.
Most notably, Great Men most often rise to power after periods of struggle and disdain. This is no coincidence, of course, as it is during these times when those seeking power find the cracks to reach it. Napoleon Bonaparte, Julius Caesar, and Caesar Augustus all rose to power sometime after periods of national crisis, and afterwards pursued a relentless set of reforms. It makes one wonder, as the United Kingdom struggles and toddles along with little direction, how long it will be before another Great Man makes our nation his own. I am not going to write yet another list of everything that is wrong in the United Kingdom in 2023, as this has become rather cliché, but it is worth saying that in such bleak and despairing times, people will seek a Great Man to worship.
Yet, if history is so full of Great Men, then where are the Great Men of today? Some present the argument that history is written and read through the lens of nostalgia, and that perhaps these Great Men of the past were not vastly different to the leaders we have today. While nostalgia will always tilt perceptions of history to some degree, it would be unfair to discredit the Great Men of history due to it. Or perhaps, the leaders of today simply do not have as much opportunity to prove their ‘greatness’. While Bonaparte, Caesar, and Augustus could ride into battle on horseback, wielding swords and witnessing stunning victories before their own eyes, the leaders of today can only really prove their greatness via oratory and data. However, this isn’t to say that a leader cannot be ‘great’ post 19th century. Winston Churchill may not have rode into battle on horseback, but he can be considered a Great Man nonetheless.
However, the greater point here is that modern democracy simply isn’t built to elect Great Men. It is impossible for the electorate to understand the character of candidates to any considerable degree if information is only presented to them via snappy slogans, 60-minute debates on Channel 4, and vague five-point policy plans. Not only do we rarely understand what it is the candidate wants to do, but we know nearly nothing about the candidates themselves. A 30-minute interview with Andrew Neil, however great of an interviewer he may be, will not accurately inform us of the deeper character of the interviewee. If one wishes to elect Great Men, you must know them personally, or at least be aware of their faults and goods to some deeper level. The modern electorate simply cannot elect Great Men, and not for a fault of their own. You could call it a factory for mediocrity.
Compare this to older processes of election, and the story is different. Richard D Brown talks of the system of election soon after the United States was birthed in his article titled ‘Where Have All the Great Men Gone?’, and says:
“The key process of nominating candidates was dominated by layers of local, state, and national elites. Candidates were selected by their peers, people who had witnessed them in action for years and who knew first-hand their strengths and weaknesses. Whatever the office in question, relatively homogeneous groups of incumbents and their associates selected candidates from among their own number. While the system was open to new men, and choices required approval at the polls, it had a distinctly oligarchic flavor. High esteem among the peer group was a prerequisite for major elective offices.”
The likes of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were elected because the electorate knew them. The electorate trusted them. They assumed the presidency because those voting for them could trust that they had the guts, the character, and the bottle to lead this newly born nation. Furthermore, as Brown later says, these men were elected on the basis of “private, personal virtue as a prerequisite to public virtue”, and on the basis of possessing “superior wisdom, energy, initiative, and moral stature”. One could say that this system intended to elect Great Men. Moreover, this certainly is not an advocacy for the implementation of the electoral system of the early years of the United States. Instead, it tells us that our current electoral system is flawed, and that we should seek to implement electoral systems with the potential to fight off mediocrity. Electoral systems featuring some form of meritocracy and aristocracy appear to do this best.
Moreover, it was said earlier that a modern leader cannot ride into battle on horseback. Therefore, how do we identify Great Men in the modern world? Such a man should not be judged by the endless quest for progress, nor should they be wholly judged by however much of a percent our GDP rises by each quarter. If we are to identify Great Men, we need to search for the correct metrics to find them. This requires hefty research, and it wouldn’t be proper of me to claim to know how to identify Great Men in the modern world in this short article. Yet, having the capability to identify Great Men is central to moving past mediocrity.
However, as a final point, it is worth noting that the Great Men of history often have common personality traits. We have already talked of energy and charisma, but initiative, principle, and confidence are personality traits often found, and these traits should be a starting point when attempting to identify a Great Man in the modern world. Moreover, these personality traits remain massively important. While a Great Man of today may not have access to swords, bayonets, and rifles, reform and reinvigoration remains as important as it ever has. Only a master statesman is capable of successfully reforming and reinvigorating a nation. The likes of Bonaparte, Caesar and Augustus all had the vigour to do just that, and all three understood that politics is about winning.
*Today, ‘Great Men’ are sometimes referred to as ‘Big Beasts’, and the purpose behind this is to include great female leaders under the term. While I rarely like to modernise language (and haven’t done so in the article above), I do believe it is worth writing this note here, for there have been many great female leaders of whom possessed many of the same traits as Great Men.
They’ll Hate You Regardless
Well, that’s that then. It definitely could’ve been better, but I was expecting much worse; I was expecting slam poetry about the Windrush Scandal from an NHS nurse, followed by a breakdance exhibition from Diversity, a ‘witty’ monologue about gay sex from Stephen Fry, topped off with a ‘modernised’ version of God Save the King.
The concert was thoroughly mediocre though – I’d be surprised if anyone under the age of 25 could name more than half of the line-up. When will the palace learn that glitzy American pop stars are not fit for royal celebrations?
In retrospect, it’s clear that the worst aspect of the coronation wasn’t the subversion of pomp and circumstance, but the commentary which overlaid it.
Once the more lavish aspects of the procession had subsided, along with the smattered allusions to Modern Britain, and the royals assembled on the balcony of Buckingham Palace, Bridgerton actress Adjoa Andoh, who had been graciously invited to commentate on the King’s coronation, said:
“We’ve gone from the rich diversity of the Abbey to a terribly white balcony. I was very struck by that.”
Anyone brushing this off as a stray comment from the WOKE (!!!) Liberal Metropolitan Elite clearly hasn’t been paying attention. As we saw with the death of Elizabeth, a vast chunk of the ‘criticism’ directed at the British monarchy is pure racial resentment. Don’t pretend you don’t remember.
The anti-white rhetoric of the monarchy’s critics isn’t some exceptional tendency or blip, it’s the logical conclusion of an inherently republican understandings of representation and legitimacy.
As Britain undergoes historic demographic change, primarily due to mass immigration (in other words, the result of government policy) an increasingly large subsection of the population, conscious of their distinctness to the heads of state, will likely pursue the dismantlement of what they perceive to be an arbitrarily (that is, oppressively) white Christian political structure, in order to better reflect (at the very least, better accommodate) Britain’s newly ‘diverse’ population.
If you’re scratching your head as to why the monarchy is unpopular with younger voters, I suggest you take a gander at the demographic composition of younger voters – and younger people generally.
Of course, institutions by their very nature cannot be diverse; people identify with them because they reflect a fundamental homogeneity which underpins the group from which they emerge, and by extension, seek to sustain.
Differences may very will exist within them, but none of these differences will constitute diversity in the contemporary sense, as they don’t aim to breach the underlying unity required to make them recognisable.
This is definitively true of monarchy – a role defined by a sole person, restricting any metric of difference from being, nevermind represented.
In any case, it would be simply unjustifiable, within the parameters of republicanism, for a state to have an unelected white Christian as its head, especially when the citizenry is both minority-white and minority-Christian.
Given this, the monarchy risks following the course of Parliament; a battle ground for fragmented groups with increasingly little sense of essential or collective being – antithetical to the monarchy’s imagined role as a constitutional lynchpin to counter-balance the enmity of domestic politics.
Even if the institution is defanged to the point of mere ceremonialism, as has been the case over recent decades, much to the delight of so-called “progressive patriots”, it has been maintained that even if Britain’s monarchy ceases to be politically problematic in a functional sense, it remains politically problematic in a representational sense.
The overarching point is that, as Britain’s monarch, it doesn’t matter if you permit politically motivated investigations into obvious questions or if you commit to protecting all faiths as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. It doesn’t matter if you declare your support for Our NHS or opt to include Black Gospel in your coronation ceremony.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion matter for zilch: your enemies will hate you regardless.
Just as Scottish and Welsh separatists are prepared to devolve the union out of existence, modernisers and republicans are prepared to reform the monarchy out of existence. No amount of capital-C Compromise is going to fundamentally change their defining position.
Moreover, just as Scottish and Welsh separatists evoke a sense of ethnocultural distinctness whilst pursuing policies to undermine Celtic culture, modernisers and republicans evoke Cromwell, Roundheads, and the English Civil War, even though Cromwell would’ve absolutely despised them, they possess the prudence and restraint of Cavaliers, and have nothing but contempt for Englishness – often proudly declaring they’re not English whatsoever.
“You will never be a real Roundhead. You have no God, you have no purity, you have no zeal. You are a narcissistic degenerate twisted by leftism and secularism into a crude mockery of English revolution.”
When the British republic comes, assuming it does, I doubt we’re going to get Cromwell 2 or Lord Protector Nigel. Indeed, Farage himself has suggested we’ll end up with some moth-bitten mandarin: “some duffer… Neil Kinnock, or somebody.” – a failed politician with the shameless desire to be remembered as a Bismarck-esque elder statesman.
Although, as circumstances present themselves, it’s completely plausible that we get a ‘respectable’ long-standing representative of the so-called anti-racist coalition… His Excellency, President David Lammy.
As far as we know, British republicanism is a team effort; a team disproportionally comprised of (exceptions accounted for) post-colonial grifters from BAME and non-Christian backgrounds, White leftists and liberals, many of whom lay claim to permanent victim credentials, with others are eager to affirm their ‘Otherness’, whether to worm their way out of discussions about colonialism or revitalise some feud the Anglo has long forgotten.
In which case, who supports the monarchy? Exactly who you’d expect. Again, accounting for notable exceptions, it’s White English conservatives, especially those living in rural areas and with Anglican heritage. In simpler terms: the sort of people that gave us Brexit, but I digress – the pivot away from memes about royal ethnic make-up to an unabashed proxy war for ethnic grievance won’t end well.
Given this, if Charles knows what’s good for him, he’ll reject any and all further attempts at ‘modernising’ the monarchy and reverse any that have been undertaken since the end of WW2, rather than counter-signalling policy that slightly, if barely, edges towards defending the interests of his realm, his post, and especially of his dwindling (in part, rather old) number of core supporters.
After all, given the transcendental nature of kingship, should a monarch violate the spirit of their post, no monarchist would feel conflicted about withdrawing their support, if not for the benefit of a hypothetical republic, but for the benefit of the institution itself.
Enjoying The Mallard? Consider subscribing to our monthly magazine.
Photo Credit.