Maggie's Farm

I am an avowed Anglophile.  I spent 2 semesters studying there, visited 6 times, and am now listening to the British History Podcast.  Britain and its history is just something with which I'm fascinated.  I've never been a fan of the monarchy.  The Queen, over time, I've come to respect.  I'm not trying to say the monarchy is 'good' or that any monarch is special and should be deified or otherwise held in high regard.  As Americans, it's hard to square how we could hold the British (or any) monarchy with any good feeling - we cast them off for plenty of reasons.

On the other hand, there are people who dislike the monarchy, and the Queen in particular.  Mostly their reasons that aren't very good, because they don't understand the monarchy.  The dislike I've seen is related more toward envy or general distrust of the institution.  These people usually don't understand the role, the history, the value, etc.  Few people know the Royal Family brings in far more than it receives from taxpayers.  It's estimated, that the Sovereign Grant costs roughly $1.30 per citizen annually.  Of course, this doesn't account for the amount of tax revenue the Royal Family itself generates from the taxes it pays, the revenue generated from tourism to see 'their' holdings, or just money spent marketing them as a 'brand'.  They are as much a draw and benefit as it is a glorified 'welfare family' (a joke I used to make when I was younger and spent time there) - they actually pay for themselves when all is said and done.    The monarchy's history is messy, ugly and sometimes difficult to fathom based on modern ethical standards.  That has more to do with the differences in eras than ethics, though. 

I saw a commentary on the Queen's passing. "Despite the colonial injustices perpetrated by the British Monarchy against Indigenous people, I would still like to wish her majesty Queen Elizabeth II — a blessed journey."  Since I saw this particular one, I've seen several that are far, far worse (one from a linguistics professor at Carnegie Mellon, which was horrendous and had Sunny Hostin of The View defending.  I will skip that one.  It was so bad I'm amazed anyone with half a brain defended it.  Some people are just truly awful and hateful.  So I'll stick to this one comment, because it is more a backhanded compliment than outright hate.  Even so, it's still misplaced.

I would like to say I'm sorry for disappearing for so long.  Not that I'm essential to the inner workings of Maggie's, but I've seen a few people (specifically Doc Mercury, who pulled me in) simply vanish.  I'd prefer to not just disappear.  But it's been a strange time for me the past 7 months.  I'll share more on that at another time.  I am writing specifically because I finished the podcast "Revolutions" which, frankly, is worth the time and effort if you have it.  I listened on the train every morning and evening - and then at the gym when there was no train.  As it turns out the most interesting revolutions were the French and Russian.  Which were also the longest portions, by far.  

There was a lot to consume, but it did leave me with many thoughts.  Not the least of which is that the U.S. is bordering on its own French Revolution, of sorts.  The Woke/Cancel/BLM/CRT crowd are aligned in one thing.  Eliminating what they view as injustice and privilege - which is, in essence, the elimination of liberty.

Mikhail Bakunin:
"Liberty, without socialism, is privilege and injustice. But socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."

The founders of Marxist revolutions were acutely aware that Socialism/Marxism was unworkable. Even Bakunin knew it - though he couched his 'reality' by saying it "might" work with liberty.
The problem is, of course, socialism cannot work with liberty. It's unworkable. Once people can do as they please, the system reverts to a mad form of crony capitalism - basically fascism. If you're not doing what the government wants, what's the point? In a weird way, fascism IS socialism "with" liberty...

And there's the rub. While I do not believe liberty is privilege and injustice (far from it, I do believe liberty is whatever you want it to be and if you fall into the realm of permanent victimhood, then so be it. Don't blame the system, blame your world view and yourself), I understand the nature and value of how a system of liberty makes things better for everyone. Even if some privilege and some injustice sneak in. Because the alternatives are, frankly, far, far worse.

So it's always fun to hear someone say "I'm a trained Marxist."  Because Marx left no blueprints.  Unlike most other economic systems, which follow some basic laws or guidelines, Marxism has none and never did.  It was just an ideal propped up by bland sayings which pulled at heartstrings, morality, and a general feeling of what is "fair" and "just".  I like to say that "fair" means different things to different people.  There is no "fair".  "Fair" is what a 5 year old says when it wants what it wants.  "It's not fair." 

The sad part is, even as Leftists push for "fair" they are the first to invoke "life isn't fair" as they destroy people along the way.

Ironic, and sad.  But Eric Hoffer was wise to all that... 

As I wrote my piece on Wokism, I stumbled on a quote from Algernon Sidney.  Few know that Jefferson mentioned Sidney as a source and/or inspiration for the Declaration of Independence.  Here is the quote which resonated with me: "We live in an age that makes truth pass for treason, and as I dare not say anything against it, so the ears of those that are about me will probably be found too tender to hear it. This my trial and condemnation do sufficiently evidence."  It can hardly be more true today, as "credible" news sources spread lies masquerading as truth based on nothing other than these sources own claim that they, themselves, are "credible."  Credibility is in the information, not the source - and we have precious few truly credible sources of news today.  

Sidney was a supporter of the Roundheads during the English Civil War, and a member of the Long Parliament.  Despite his opposition to the king and support for the forces opposing him, Cromwell found it necessary to have Sidney removed, as Sidney had become critical of Cromwell's authoritarian nature.  His refusal to leave his seat led to Cromwell ordering the parliamentarians removal and Sidney fled England.

I've not been contributing since about September, and I apologize for the long gap.  I apologize only because it's rude to disappear without letting people know where you're going and I do my best to avoid being rude.  In a nutshell, I've been overwhelmed at work, which is a good thing.  After not working for many months, I managed to land a (much lower level) position which is working out very well for me and my long-term prospects have improved dramatically in the last few weeks.  Of course, improved opportunity means additional responsibilities.  Which means more time at a desk, at least in my current role.  At my age (pushing 60), that's something many others cannot say.  They're either at or near the pinnacle of your career, or winding it down.  As I have done 4 other times in my life, I'm winding up again and feeling great.

One thing I do is try to go for a walk each day for at least an hour.  Fresh air and exercise enables me to be nimble of body and mind.  I'll listen to history podcasts while I walk, or just think.  Recently, after a particularly difficult conversation with a friend who has gone full-on Woke, I chewed the mental cud and began to wonder where all this Wokism is headed.

It suddenly struck me what the essential problem of Wokism and Cancel Culture represent.  In the name of creating and expanding opportunity, these people are limiting it severely.  I wondered what history would look like if Woke and Cancel mindsets had been in place for a longer time than just the last decade or so.  Not that we need another discussion on Wokism, but I felt this was a good mental exercise.