Category: Old age of my youth – 2020

THURSDAY, 19 NOVEMBER 2020

Not exactly an advanced political analysis, and I don’t think it would qualify me as a “Deep State Alt-right conspiracy nut”, but here is a thought nonetheless:

Concentric circles, with figures in the middle who may or may not be familiar to the public. These include political leaders who have reached the pinnacle of official power: Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack and Michelle Obama, the Bush family.

Amongst the people in the following circle are those who walk the corridors of the White House on a daily basis: National Security Advisers, some cabinet members, Chiefs of Staff, heads of intelligence services, and so on.

Professional bureaucrats and agents from the FBI, CIA, and other agencies and organisations fill up the third circle.

Then you get super wealthy and influential figures from the world of money and big business.

The circle thereafter sees presidents of top universities, and other respected and influential academics.

And then, after maybe one or two more circles, the spaces that are populated by the general public begin: dentists and teachers, plumbers and small business owners, truck drivers and cooks.

The ruling elite gets the necessary support from the first few circles – the people who usually know what’s really going on, and who decide which direction economic policy, and foreign policy, and so on, will develop.

The ruling elite also has considerable support among the figures of the world of money and big business, and among the most influential academic leaders.

And then comes the support of millions of “ordinary” people – who usually give a Clinton or an Obama or a Bush the feeling that they can legitimately claim to be leaders of the nation.

However, US presidents are not necessarily part of the inner circle of power. Trump is the best example of this. That he became president in 2016 was pure accident, because the inner circles were so stupid as to believe polls and predictions. Because the pressure was great in the first hours after the election results had come out in November 2016, Hillary conceded. But she probably did it because the inner circle – the people who really hold the reins of power in Washington DC – promised her that they had Plans B and C and perhaps even D. Trump won’t rule for long, they probably comforted her, and if he is not ousted within months, he will be severely hampered. And if he manages to survive repeated attacks and conspiracies against him for four years, he will certainly not get a second term in the White House.

FRIDAY 20 NOVEMBER 2020

Twenty-twenty brought lockdowns; closed schools with pupils who had to attend classes at home; businesses that were forced to close by the thousands and which may never open again; national borders closed to most international tourists, with the expected negative consequences for local economies; people who are forced to wear masks, who are even advised to pull the masks over their mouths between bites of food.

Data that is accepted across the spectrum as accurate indicate that more than 99% of people who get COVID-19 survive the disease. Compared to that, the death rate with SARS in 2003 was 9.5%.

There are people who argue that the reaction to COVID-19 has been totally and utterly exaggerated.

My question is, what happens when the next pandemic hit? Are people just going to be obedient again and submit to every decree their governments issue? What percentage of parents who cannot make alternative arrangements for their children who should be in school, of small business owners, of ordinary people who, unlike politicians, won’t continue to draw a salary when they don’t work, will refuse to follow guidelines from governments and international organisations with dubious loyalties?

SATURDAY, 21 NOVEMBER 2020

I saw a video on Twitter last night that simply took the cake. It honestly filled me with hope.

Imagine, somewhere in a parallel universe, there is also a Joe Biden and a Donald Trump. But these two old geezers are not political opponents involved in a bitter struggle for political power. “Joe Biden” sits on a park bench and beats a drum, and “Donald Trump”, in a business suit with a red tie, stands next to his partner and dances while occasionally uttering sounds that might be construed to be a song. This while people in the background enjoy the cooler air of the early evening with a walk along the promenade.

And naturally the picture wouldn’t be complete without the white cat in the foreground jiving along with his nose against the camera.

https://twitter.com/ryan_the_gray1/status/1329014363085299712

______________________

FRIDAY, 17 JANUARY 2020

In my early twenties I had to choose:

Honesty and intellectual integrity, with “permission” to consider results of falsifiable theories exposed to tests and experiments,

OR

continued membership in a community of fundamentalist religious people.

The socio-political community of which I was more or less accepted as a member in my late twenties and thirties, and whose opinions and terminology I found acceptable and promoted myself, could be described as Left-Liberal.

By my early forties, the suspicion had struck me that I was once again approaching a crossroads. I would have to choose again:

Honesty and intellectual integrity, with “permission” to consider the results of falsifiable theories exposed to tests and experiments,

OR

to continue to use terminology and hold political views that are acceptable to a community of people who consider themselves liberal and progressive, but who pursue policies and trends that are the opposite of liberal, and certainly do not improve society nor make it more tolerant.

SATURDAY, 25 JULY 2020

As a student, and after graduation, I thought critical thinking meant you don’t accept an allegation on face value – you examine it as objectively as you can, and only come to a conclusion after proper consideration.

What Critical Social Justice (CSJ) means by critical thinking is something completely different. A CSJ disciple looks at data, or at a situation, or at something that happened in the past, and apply their “critical theory” to work out how the conclusion they have already decided on can be reached.

How would a Critical Social Justice detective solve a murder?

The usual way is to look at all the possible clues like DNA and fingerprints, and then see what suspects they lead to. Then the suspects are investigated. Then, after a thorough investigation, it is determined that one suspect is more likely to be the perpetrator of the act than any other person.

A Critical Social Justice detective will “know” who the culprit is from the start, namely the closest person who is part of a group that is historically guilty of criminal acts, regardless of whether that particular individual has an alibi, and despite the absence of fingerprints or genetic material that might connect the person to the case. Facts are therefore less important than the historical “guilt” of the group to which the suspect belongs. If actual clues substantiate the person’s guilt, great. If clues do not substantiate the person’s guilt, they are simply ignored. What’s more, if clues indicate the possible involvement of someone belonging to a protected group of historical victims, it would be considered the correct and appropriate action to reject these clues.

FRIDAY, 4 SEPTEMBER 2020

I wonder why I’m no longer so eager to argue these days. The following thought came to me as a reason:

Unless you can quote from memory passages from authoritative peer-reviewed books, and quote – again, from memory – numbers, dates, names, places and statistics, the confidence you display in argument is merely performance.

How do you argue if you can’t do the above, but you’re still convinced of what your position is? One way is to ask questions, and force the other person to quote from memory passages from authoritative books, as well as numbers, dates, names, places, and statistics. If they cannot, there is no reason to accept their argument, just as there is no reason for them to accept your argument if you cannot do so.

(The only exception is if you can make a logical argument, and can show how a certain conclusion is the only logical one.)

SUNDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2020

01:31

At 24, I wanted to be free and independent – which meant enough money to be able to do what I wanted every day, with no serious responsibilities. And what I wanted to do was write, travel, read, and learn things.

At 32, I wanted to earn a steady income in a stable job. I wanted to get married and raise children. I wanted to live in a three bedroom house in a quiet suburb with my wife and children, and our dog and cat.

Then I started writing with an unprecedented earnestness.

The result is that, at the age of 49, I am closer to the type of life I wanted to lead at 24 than to the one I had been craving for a while in my early thirties.

14:08

(Put differently…)

How did I end up at 49 with the life I dreamed of at 24, despite wanting a very different life at the age of 32? To a very large extent, the writing I produced in 2003 – coincidentally the year I turned 32.

THURSDAY, 1 OCTOBER 2020

Critical Race Theory: Because you’re white, you’re racist. Your individual life story and what you’ve done or have not done doesn’t matter.

Also: Because you’re black, you’re a victim. That means your tests at school and at university should be easier than those of people of other races. It also means you get the job because you’re black, not because you’re competent.

TUESDAY, 13 OCTOBER 2020

A guy on a scooter almost forces me (on a bicycle) off the road – almost as if it’s intentional. Then he blocks the gap where I’m supposed to squeeze past a car around a corner.

I’m instantly pissed. I want to yell at him. I want to confront him and ask him if he’s stupid.

Then I think: Stay in the moment. Don’t go into programmed mode for how to behave in this type of situation.

I ask myself: If I don’t have to act as my programming dictates – or perform my programming as if I’m a character in a play, how then?

Answer: As you choose to respond.

How is that? Shrug my shoulders, and continue the conversation I was having with myself in my head.

______________________

SUNDAY, 1 OCTOBER 2020

What follows is a set of sometimes loaded questions*, but at the very least it should help clarify your positions on a number of issues. I specifically didn’t want to insert a bunch of definitions and explanations. I think the reader knows what is meant by certain phrases in general. Plus, readers can answer, “Yes” or “No”, or they can qualify their answers on their own.

* For the sake of honesty, here is Wikipedia’s definition of a loaded question: “A loaded question or complex question is a question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt). Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to those that serve the questioner’s agenda.”

Question 1. Do you believe long-term lockdowns to be an appropriate countermeasure against SARS-CoV-2, or do you believe lockdowns to be governmental overreach and the start of a slippery slope to long-term authoritarian control of populations?

Question 2. Do you believe lockdowns will save more lives that would otherwise be ended by Covid-19 than would be ended because of economic costs, increased mental stress, increased domestic abuse, increased substance abuse, and postponed or cancelled medical tests, procedures, or treatment? In other words, do you believe lockdowns will save more people than they would kill?

Question 3. Do you believe climate change to be a natural occurrence, or an unnatural phenomenon driven by human activity?

Question 4. Do you believe unmitigated climate change will end human life on Earth in the next hundred years?

Question 5. Which solution do you believe would be cheaper, cleaner, and more efficient at solving our energy needs in the future: a) renewable energy like wind and solar, or b) Generation IV nuclear?

Question 6. Which country do you consider to be a greater threat to Western-style democracy (for example, political leaders who can be voted in and out of office or be recalled, and media that are responsible to the public for exposing the misdeeds of political leaders): 1) China, b) Russia, c) the USA, or d) the European Union?

Question 7. Do you believe Donald Trump to be a) a fascist tyrant that aims to turn America into a white supremacist stronghold, or b) a political outsider that fundamentally threatens the political and bureaucratic establishment in Washington DC?

Question 8. Do you believe the organisation Back Lives Matter (BLM) to be a) truly concerned for all black people and the quality of their lives (at least in the US), or b) a radical political organisation that aims at disrupting a free-market economy and altering the basic principles of liberal democracy (at least in the US)?

Question 9. Do you believe NATO to be a) a necessary counterweight against Vladimir Putin’s expansionist ambitions, or b) an organisation that provides military muscle for the expansionist aims of the European Union?

Question 10. Do you believe actions launched by the Democratic Party in the United States and by affiliated officials in the intelligence community since 2016, and especially since 2017, amounted to a) an attempted coup against the Trump administration, with the goal of protecting the political and bureaucratic establishment in Washington DC, or b) honest and legitimate attempts at protecting the United States against foreign forces, or c) “black ops”, including the deliberate spread of false and misleading information, aimed at protecting the United States?

Question 11. Do you believe that a) it is appropriate treatment to give certain children (younger than twelve) puberty blockers to prevent them from developing into a gender they feel is not correct for them, or that b) it is irresponsible and even cruel to subject children to such treatment if the children are not mature enough to make decisions about their own bodies (or their identity) that could adversely affect their health for decades to come?

Question 12. Do you believe racism to mean a) prejudice plus power, or b) when someone makes assumptions – often negative – about another person purely based on their skin colour or ethnicity?

Question 13. Is it appropriate in a country with a tradition of free speech and freedom or thought for someone to be prevented from expressing their ideas or arguing their positions, or having their views challenged on a public platform because other people or groups do not condone their ideas or views, or are offended by them?

______________________

Week 29, 2020

MONDAY, 13 JULY 2020

There is a fascinating trend in public discourse. Something is true and correct. Then someone who is classified as on the political “right” points out that the thing is true and correct. Then it becomes a “right-wing talking point” that this something is true and correct. Is the thing then true and correct or not?

Or, something is a good idea, such as drinking enough water, or not consuming too much sugar. Then someone labelled as “conservative” expresses agreement with the idea. Then it becomes a “conservative point of view” that the idea is good. Is the idea now good or not?

TUESDAY, 14 JULY 2020

Telling blacks in poverty that they are victims of capitalism and racism makes it more likely that they remain in poverty.

— Larry Elder (@larryelder) July 12, 2020

(In case the tweet disappears, click here for a snapshot.)

Suppose a young adult man has been a victim of capitalism – say the guy worked for a business where the owner decided labour costs were too high and his profits were too low to make the business worthwhile for him, and he let some workers go. One could argue then that the man was a victim of capitalism. But will it help him to tell him that? Will it help him to put food on the table by hammering it into him and letting the sense of injustice simmer in him until it reaches boiling point? Or would it be better to teach him how to improve himself, how to expand and sharpen his skills, and how he too can thrive in a free-market capitalist system?

A similar argument can be made about a young adult man who has experienced prejudice over an aspect of his person over which he had no choice, such as skin colour or ethnicity. Would it be constructive to cultivate a sense of grievance in him? Would it help him to be successful? Would it help his children to thrive on their own as adults if this grievance is also programmed into them? Or would it be better if he taught his children that some people treat other people badly, but that they are in the minority, and that there are many more people in the world – of all races and ethnicities, and of different cultures and beliefs – who want to see them succeed?

* * *

And this:

KKK: Whites are the superior race, and we pride ourselves in accepting it.

CRT: Whites are the superior race, and we hate ourselves for accepting it.

— James Lindsay, knows kung fu (@ConceptualJames) July 14, 2020

(In case the tweet disappears, click here for a snapshot.)

Isn’t there some truth in this? After all, disciples of Critical Race Theory believe that regardless of the talent, intelligence, entrepreneurial ability, creativity, and support of friends and family, no black person in a society where they are in the minority can ever rise above a certain level of success. Why not? According to CRT disciples, because white people are simply too powerful, and all who are not white are oppressed in a white-dominated system because … Why exactly? Because it’s somehow bad if everyone hustles and makes money and finds happiness and success?

WEDNESDAY, 15 JULY 2020

The central idea of Mark Douglas’ book, Trading in the Zone, is that powerful thoughts, including beliefs and phobias, are like bundles of electricity are in your brain – almost like charged batteries. Every time a certain thing happens, or when someone says something, it’s as if someone connects the wires to the battery, and it then “shocks” you into a particular response or behaviour.

Everyone gets programmed from an early age with certain beliefs, or it is made clear to you that you have to react in a certain way to certain stimuli, or you are exposed to things that scare you, which drives home the association that this particular thing is dangerous and wants to harm you. All of these beliefs, fears, and behavioural associations are, according to Mark Douglas, like bundles of electricity in your brain.

Here’s the important thing: It is possible to deactivate these bundles of electricity, to flatten the “battery”, as it were. It will always be in your brain, but as with any flat battery, if you reconnect the wires, the shock will become lighter and lighter, until you finally don’t even feel it anymore. This is how fears become tame. This is how beliefs become less important. And this is how bad behaviour that has become a habit can be changed, with the expected positive results.

What used to be a bad influence on you is still there, but the effect is virtually zero.

THURSDAY, 16 JULY 2020

According to the National Museum of African American History and Culture, and a PDF linked to from their website, these are some “Common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time”:

• Rugged individualism

• The nuclear family

• Emphasis on scientific method

• Hard work is key to success

• Planning for the future

• Delayed gratification

• Action orientation

• Decision-making

• Written tradition

• Politeness

I came across a similar list some months ago, and I was reluctant to believe it was an actual document used by people hoping to be taken seriously. When a nicely done infographic started doing the rounds on social media this week, I again found myself wondering: Can this possibly be for real?

I followed a link … and there it was: a full explanation with the infamous graphic on the page, at the website for the National Museum of African American History and Culture.

It has some other items that I would honestly consider too ridiculous to post on a public forum – that “most white people believe most of the time” things like the wife is subordinate to the husband; that white people have a preference for steak and potatoes because “bland is best”; that white people’s sense of female beauty is “Barbie” – blond and thin; that emotion shouldn’t be shown, and that personal life shouldn’t be discussed. And most white people display “aggressiveness and extroversion”? Seriously?

Then there are the things where you would say, “So what?” before remembering that “whiteness” is supposed to be bad, and that people are expected to distance themselves from these things:

• White people’s holidays are based on the Christian religion … Why wouldn’t it? White people originated from Europe, where this religion held sway for two thousand years!

• Individuals are assumed to be in control of their environment. Aren’t we to a large extent? Is it politically wrong to think a clean, tidy environment might be conducive to better performance? I mean, nobody controls weather systems or earthquakes, but are you not at least in control of the kitchen, the fridge, the living room, and your bedroom?

• Apparently most white people believe they must always “do something” about a situation. Some people – of all races, colours, and creeds – certainly have this tendency, but most white people? How the heck did they establish this? This is, after all, a very particular personality trait!

• Justice is based on English common law, and aesthetics is based on European culture? Why wouldn’t justice in societies developed originally by European people, specifically from England, not be based on English common law, and why wouldn’t their aesthetics be based on European culture?

I have been living in Northeast Asia for half my life, and many of the characteristics ascribed to white people I recognise in the Taiwanese people I work with, and socialise with, and that I converse with for hours at a time in my job. The people who write this asinine propaganda for a cultural revolution that has zero chance of succeeding on the long-term must really look beyond their tiny little worlds!

UPDATE:

It seems someone at the National Museum of African American History and Culture was alerted that people outside their inner circle have been looking at the infographic, and that the consensus was not positive. The above-mentioned link to the PDF has also been removed (the PDF is still available at the website of Cascadia College). One Twitter user posted a copy of the graphic, and if that is eventually removed, I’m sure more copies can be found in other corners of the Internet.

We have listened to public sentiment and have removed a chart that does not contribute to the productive discussion we had intended.

The site’s intent and purpose are to foster and cultivate conversations that are respectful and constructive and provide increased understanding.

— Smithsonian NMAAHC (@NMAAHC) July 16, 2020

FRIDAY, 17 JULY 2020

I am considering suspending this project I started thirteen weeks ago. Reasons include the following:

• I thought I was going to write about a variety of topics, but since the beginning of June I’ve been writing almost exclusively about politics – important to be sure, but it’s becoming monotonous.

• The political opinions I express are seen by short-sighted commentators as “conservative” or “right-wing”, despite the fact that one of the high priests of Woke, Don Lemon of CNN, expressed exactly the same type of sentiments seven years ago, with his characteristic “Listen to me, I know …” attitude. Was it wrong then, or has the view of “left” and “right” dramatically shifted over the past few years? In any case, I prefer a position above political divides. In the current electrified atmosphere, I’m being grouped into a political tribe by people who seemingly cannot see past tribes.

• I’ve been focusing almost exclusively on short pieces. I’d like to again write a piece of longer than three paragraphs. Not only the subject of my writing these days, but also the format is becoming monotonous.

• I have other projects I want to work on – probably still have a dozen or more pieces from last year and early this year I still have to edit. And then there are two more volumes in my series from three years ago that I have to finish.

• The experience of forcing myself to write something every day was enlightening. I’d be curious to see what I would conjure up if I could spend an hour a day on something that is not so limited in format or topic.

What have I learned in the last thirteen weeks?

• I didn’t know how long I would be able to sustain such a project. I now have the answer.

• If you force yourself to publish something every day, you think of stuff to write about. Time and time again, I found myself threading a few thoughts together for my own entertainment on the way to buy dinner, or on the way back from the supermarket, only to remember that I was still looking for something to write about that day. Like the idea of coming up with ten things to be thankful for every day that focuses your brain on noticing exactly such things, so your brain grasps for topics if you need to write something.

What am I going to do now?

I’m going to make sure all the pieces of Bundle 8: On writing and the writer have had a last read through, then I’m going to put together the documents that will become the physical and digital books. Then there are a few more paragraphs I want to review in Thirteen Minutes – Notes, half-truths and a few incidents – which I already published in 2013 (still struggling to let things go). And who knows, maybe I’ll write a little more about politics.

Here are links to all the pieces in the project that will end today:

New project, taking risks, Chinese identity, rhymes and dreams

Groceries, annoying characters, books, being slow, and a model of an old town

Too dumb or too smart, arguments, old cities, heavy lyrics, and the virus reading list

Simulation, things change, two brothers, self-confidence, and a peasant war

Funny people, life in Taiwan, full version of yourself, dream scenes, and old photos of my neighbourhood

Favourite shop, the Ngo brothers, war documentaries, and some other thoughts

Protests and riots, dutiful adults, Taiwanese independence, buying and selling

Fashion, nonsense, groceries, facts and science, and skills

Submission, ideological viruses, and programming of the psyche

Racist movements, identity, questions, and reasons

Important days, modern anti-racism, promised lunch, and a visit to Taipei

Helplessness – avoid the plague – be a good person

______________________

Week 28, 2020

MONDAY, 6 JULY 2020

Learned helplessness is when a person or animal is repeatedly exposed to a stimulus they are unable to escape at that moment. Ultimately, the thought settles in the subconscious of the human or animal that they have no control over the situation. Their behaviour manifests an acceptance that there is nothing they can do to get away from the discomfort or to improve their situation.

Even when there is an opportunity later to escape the source of their discomfort, or a way to improve their situation, this learned helplessness prevents them from seizing the opportunity.

Because they expect something bad to happen and because they believe they are powerless to do something about it, they do nothing. They simply endure the pain and discomfort. This is despite their ability to at least reduce the pain and discomfort, or even to escape from their situation.

The fact that they do not have to endure pain and discomfort, even that they can create an environment and situation where they can be mostly happy and satisfied, does not permeate the haze of helplessness.

The person who had the potential to be happy and content, and even help other people to deactivate their learned helplessness and be happy and content, remains helpless, unhappy and dissatisfied. The potential remains unfulfilled.

TUESDAY, 7 JULY 2020

A father tells his children, “Don’t bother. You won’t make it anyway.” Considering the enormous negative effect this could have on the children’s lives, one could argue that the father is a wicked person.

If someone – especially someone in a position of authority – tells people that positive self-esteem and a good degree of confidence are problematic, that they should rather knock their self-esteem a few ticks down and lower their self-confidence, an argument can be made that this person has a toxic influence over others, and that he or she should be avoided like the plague.

By the way, individuals commit crimes, not communities or groups. Individuals study hard and get good grades, not communities or groups. Individuals work hard, and get good jobs, not communities or groups.

Here, then, is today’s educational lesson, compliments of Twitter (click on the tweet to read the thread):

The City of Seattle held a training session for white employees called “Interrupting Internalized Racial Superiority and Whiteness.”

So I did a public records request to find out exactly what this means. Let’s go through it together in this thread. 👇

— Christopher F. Rufo (@realchrisrufo) July 6, 2020

WEDNESDAY, 8 JULY 2020

Any reasonable person knows crying wolf is a bad idea. You want to save your warnings for real danger.

A warning is certainly what James M. Masnov gives in the introductory paragraph of his article, “History Killers: The Academic Fraudulence of the 1619 Project”. He speaks of the beginning of a new dark age, in which people who believe in liberal values wage an existential struggle with dark powers.

In the remainder of the article, he discusses the controversial 1619 Project, in which the author, Nikole Hannah-Jones, argues that slavery lies at the real foundation of the United States; that 1776 was not the beginning of the United States, but rather 1619, when the first slaves arrived, and that the American War of Independence was waged against Britain to protect the institution of slavery.

Masnov explains why the central idea behind the 1619 Project is historically false. He also argues how liberalism provides better answers to what is still wrong with America than what the so-called Social Justice movement and organisations like Black Lives Matter can offer.

But the first paragraph definitely hits the hardest. And unless you have buried your head in the sand, you should be able to see the outline of the wolf he warns about.

“History Killers: The Academic Fraudulence of the 1619 Project”

THURSDAY, 9 JULY 2020

A significant proportion of Western political, educational, intellectual and cultural figures in dominant positions want non-black people to think of themselves as racists. To me, thinking of myself that way is simply not valuable. Such a way of thinking holds no practical value for me.

What is of practical value to me, however, is to think of myself as someone who does not judge someone on his or her skin colour or ethnicity, but rather on the content of their character. From years of experience I have learned that people respond well to this, and that it leads to positive and constructive social and professional relationships.

Also from first-hand experience, and from what I can gather from other people’s experiences, it seems to be an approach that works for many other people on both sides of the social interaction. So it makes sense for me to keep doing what works.

FRIDAY, 10 JULY 2020

At one point in my life, I was idealistic and held on to romantic ideas of a more ideal world. I also believed that I would never abandon my idealism.

Disenchantment struck when I learned that the German Nazis were also seen as romantic in their belief in a pure Aryan Germany, without Jews or other nasty non-Germans. Same reaction when I read that the Taliban in Afghanistan, and later ISIS in Iraq and Syria, were similarly viewed as idealists who believed in a romantic ideal of men with beards and women who obeyed their men, in a society that looked like eighth-century Arabia, and governed by similar laws and regulations.

Obviously, romantic and idealistic had meanings other than giving flowers to your girlfriend on Valentine’s Day, or cherishing dreams of becoming a writer.

There was also a time when I believed “left” meant to be interested in justice for all, especially for society’s underdogs, and that leftists cared more about their fellow human beings; also that “conservative” was applied to people who wanted to push religion down people’s throats, and who believed big corporations should have a bigger say in how society is governed than the ordinary man or woman on the street.

I also had naive ideas about revolutions, and about socialism. A few books on Mao and Stalin, and on Red China and the Soviet Union, did manage to spell out the reality of communist states quite clearly. I was also aware that I was attracted to socialism because I was bad at hustling for more money in a free market system.

Finally, it should be mentioned that at one point I was impressed with the idea that philosophers, and other academics, should not only study the world, but change it. People want their lives and their work to matter. Who would be happy analysing the world if they can do so much more? The idea that academics cannot be activists and still be faithful to the objective study of their subject was not so clear to me at the time. After all, if you are an activist, how can you look at numbers and names and other clues and go where they take you if you’ve already decided where you want to go? The same goes for journalists.

That’s all I wanted to say. Good day.

______________________