Yes, the book of words. The dictionary. An important book, I'd say.
It was one of Neil Kramer's less glorious moments. It hails from a few years back, when I listened to everything he put out, most of which was just what I needed. Anyhow, on this particular day he was in conversation with an interviewer, I've forgotten who, when the discussion turned to words and their meanings. They talked about dictionaries and their importance. It's an online resource now, they agreed, the dictionary. "Who uses a book dictionary nowadays anyway?" almost scoffed Neil, in tones usually reserved for Remainers when they 'talk' about Brexit people.
My ears perked up notably at this point. I use book dictionaries. You know, the ones that stand on the bookshelf. And I feel it is wise indeed to do so. Online resources are all very well, but they are so defined by 'now'. As meanings and nuances change, so will online definitions. Should we wish to understand a word more fully by checking its origins and former meanings, then a book is a far more durable witness to truth and reality than anything to be found online.
There are three dictionaries in our house which regularly come off the bookshelf. There is the English - French dictionary, which is just beginning to look a bit tired around the edges. There is the English - Spanish one which, due to the continued parlous state of my own Spanish-speaking abilities, has recently fallen into three pieces. And there is the New Penguin English Dictionary.
The Penguin is an interesting case. It's big, heavy, hardback. It came my way after my mother died about fifteen years ago. Printed in 2000, it is recent enough to still be current and relevant. Yet it hails from a time when people seemed more at ease to write what they actually thought and felt. The Penguin dictionary comes with a low fear factor.
A feature of this book which caught my attention is that some words are accompanied by 'usage notes' or 'editorial notes'. I came across a couple of these comments recently, which shed bright light on the implications or connotations of words highly relevant to today's human condition.
Part Two: Socialism's little problem
Penguin dictionary, Editorial note, by Professor Peter Clarke on: socialism: 'The social emphasis in socialism is shown by the fact that, in the 19th century, it was contrasted often with individualism rather than with capitalism. The democratic state apparently offered a means of achieving socialism by consent - a strategy to which social democrats adhered, despite electoral setbacks, while Communists instead opted for the shortcut of revolution and autocracy.'
The professor's note is revealing indeed. The primary aim of socialism, according to the editorial note, is the establishment of the socialist state. The means is secondary. If we need to go through this whole tiresome democratic process, so be it. But if the aim can be achieved otherwise, so much the better. The democratic process - the will, the wishes, of 'the people' - is irrelevant. This is the unresolveable paradox of socialist doctrine: that it purports to establish a collective system for the benefit of 'the people', while simultaneously regarding the wishes of those people as unimportant. I suggest that this brings to light the real aim of 'socialism', which is to implement an authoritarian system of collectivism, within which a small number of elites rule the roost over the vast mass of human insignificances.
'Socialism': we're not talking Michael Foot and Keir Hardie here. We're talking anyone who places emphasis on the collective rather than the individual. Who thinks 'Big State' as the means to achieving this end. Who thinks rules and regulations, orders and restrictions, over personal freedom, autonomy, and individual incentive. Interference and control as panaceas. We're thinking 'one-fit' politics where everybody is reduced to the same.
So we're talking about the politics of New Labour as it was, Tony Blair; Obama, Hilary Clinton; Macron, Merkel, the great wet dream of the EU; Nicola Sturgeon, Nick Clegg, now at
Facebook; centrist, 'respectable' members of the British Conservative Party. All fit neatly into this authoritarian mould. None have much respect for the individual's freedoms.
Freedom. Yes, freedom. It should be the most basic of attributes, or aims, of any decent human society. Yet freedom, and its waning mirror image, democracy, is such a fragile little flower. Hard-won, but so easily trampled on. Its erosion, and the lack of respect it gets in some quarters, are what provoke me to write about it in the first place.
Two recent-ish events stand out. Firstly, post-Brexit vote. Some 'Remainers' have shown their own true, rather ugly, colours in its wake. They haven't got their own way, and are not happy. This in itself is fair enough. But when people attempt to overturn the majority vote, or demand a re-run, or even simply dismiss all Brexit people as idiots or old fogeys, then they are playing the dark socialist game, where democracy can happily take second place to the more important end, that of staying in the EU. It is the crass arrogance of the 'socialist liberal elite', who are so certain of their superiority, that they will ride roughshod over the majority verdict if they can only find a way.
Part Three: No more words
Then, as well as Brexit, there is social media. The Thought Police, necessary for any jolly good authoritarian society, have been out in force. We knew it was going to happen. While the internet has facilitated the sharing of information and ideas in ways that were previously unimaginable, still it was inevitably going to be used to filter and shape what people receive and believe to be true. Especially once most of the world has, rather foolishly, become dependent on a small number of organisations as its source of nearly everything.
What started as a trickle has become, just recently, a Niagara. Banning, censoring, 'deplatforming' are the order of the day. The first high-profile critic of the mainstream to be taken down was Alex Jones. Tommy Robinson has followed, and there will be more. Anybody even bold enough to express support for these miscreants is at risk: Swedish independent journalist Katerina Janouch was recently suspended from Facebook after simply expressing support for Tommy Robinson's stance in an article on freedom of expression. It is ridiculous, laughable, and scary. 1984 in overkill. It's sometimes difficult to believe that this is happening right now....
This is the socialist mindset in feeding frenzy. Remember: democracy, freedom of expression, are optional; the end justifies the means. And if that means shutting people up, so be it. Nowadays people are not 'disappeared' by a knock on the door at dawn and a meeting with the firing squad: this does not bring in votes, people take exception. Instead, the authoritarian righteous ones feel fit to silence them by attempting to remove them from the public realm. Silenced, tongues cut off, those speakers of words and opinions inconvenient to the bigger programme.
Pressure from politicians and similar seems to often be behind much of this modern-day censorship. In the UK, various ne-er-do-wells from the Labour Party are especially zealous. 'Thug' (a word often used in the mainstream before Mr. Robinson's name) Tom Watson, deputy Labour leader, is one such, believing he has the right to decide for the population at large who they can listen to and who is forbidden.
Those under the cosh are invariably people of a populist, nationalist frame of mind. This is the big giveaway. People who dare to point out that the multicultural global society (read 'one-world socialism') comes with its problems. That it is not automatically for the benefit of all. Any other point of view is tolerated on mainstream social media; this is the one and only exception. It is being dealt with ruthlessly. Do you get the picture?
A particularly touchy subject is Islam. Just mention it and you will be deleted from Facebook tomorrow. It is Tommy Robinson's main crime, to criticise some aspects of Muslim religion and society. You don't do that any more. It's actually one of the weird things. Before 9/11, nobody really cared too much. Then, two apparently opposing things came into being. Firstly, we were informed that there were a whole number of terrorists attacks in and on western societies, all committed by Islamic terrorists. Simultaneously, it became increasingly bad to criticise or question anything about Islam, to the point where today it has acquired the status of a protected religion. While it is absolutely fine to have a go at Christianity, you utter a word of reservation about Islam at your peril. Can you get your head around this contradiction? It's just surreal. But people seem to get away with it.
To be yawningly clear, once more. This is not about whether Tommy Robinson is a good guy, or whether Islam is the perfect religion. It's about freedom to communicate, and by implication the dignity of the individual. There are those who consider themselves in a position to tell others what they can say, and by implication think. Which facts and opinions the public at large is permitted to hear. And there are other people who are not happy with this authoritarianism. Not at all.
And to be yawningly clear yet again: I am not suggesting that everybody who considers themselves a socialist, liberal progressive, whatever, adheres to the advancement of 1984 as I have outlined it. But it is a factor, and you can't get away from it.
That's it for now. Back with another juicy word shortly.....
