My name is John Ward, and I am a 68 year old Brit living in France.
I was educated from 1953-1969 in a free education system that was, for much of that era, the envy of the world.
I studied History & Politics at Liverpool University, and social anthropology during a career in marketing communications research spanning thirty years. This extended education taught me that the vast majority of economists, politicians, civil servants, lawyers, accountants and business leaders prefer belief systems, process, numbers and money to the study of What People Need.
Most commentators eschew an area of great importance these days, and that is insightful observation. I’m pretty certain that they avoid using it as a ‘source’ – or a weapon in debate – because one major lie nurtured by “Progressives” is that no personal observation whatsoever is admissable as evidence: it is ‘hearsay’ (that’s exactly what it isn’t) it is bigotry (not necessarily) or it is ‘sample of one’ tabloid junk. And if all else fails, then of course it’s an ism – racism, fattism, sexism, nationalism – or a phobia: homophobia, islamophobia and so forth. This last group shows up pc for what it really is: a continuation of the Stalinist belief – uniquely recorded by Solzhenytsin and others – that if you don’t believe the correct view, you have a mental illness.
Attacks on personal observation have a sound scientific basis. What you ‘see’ is often influenced by what one has ‘learned’ or been told at school or at home. Indeed, it is a central tenet of good science that interpretation of any event must be rigorously interrogated for evidence of preconditioned conclusions based on prejudice. But the progressive catechism abuses this rule, making it the spurious basis for interpretations that are empirically invalid.
If, over a long period, I interview 800 representative citizens….and then check what they told me against collected, comparable statistics….I will learn that people’s stated attitudes are very often not reflected in their behaviour.
If a gp over many years talks to patients with growing liver damage, he or she will learn that they lie about their alcohol consumption.
If a resident of a ‘rough’ neighbourhood observes during any given year dozens of pimps knocking seven bells out of prostitutes in the early hours of the morning, that resident will note that there is a vice problem in the area, and violence is involved which may involve one or more ethnicities.
Progressives would dismiss all this as Sample of One, but their dismissal is complete bollocks: it is the collection of personally observed behaviour based on multiple examples, and typified by hundreds of individuals. It simply will not do to write it off as emotional bigotry.
It is nothing less than an Establishment desire to make you the Citizen doubt the evidence of your own primary senses. To – again – cast doubt on your judgement and sanity…if you will, to knock you off-balance. In my opinion, the last 100 or so pages of 1984 represent the best fictional debunking of this technique ever written – which is why Orwell’s classic remains a bestseller.
There are many ideologies with their own Establishments. Their one overriding commonality is that they tell and nurture lies. And as such, they are Enemies of Civilisation.
My contention is that any and every attack upon an individual in society offering observed experience of bad behaviour is an attack upon every sovereign Citizen.
It is a full-frontal assault on the liberty of every sane social person’s right to express an experiential opinion.
Progressives anally retaining a discredited ideology and seeking to rubbish, silence or otherwise censor such empirical realities are indivisible and inseparable from delusional knuckle-draggers using terms like chink, nignog, sponger, gyppo, darkie, tree-hugger or jungle-bunny to make their ‘point’.
The things people say are derived from a facility that is at most 600,000 years old. The things we see are informed by a sense going back 40 million years to when we were fish.
If you lose faith in the evidence of your eyes, then the perverted priests will gain control over your brain. Give them power, and they will falsify Wikipedia entries, economic statistics, climate data and photographs.
Question what your hear and read. But do not automatically dismiss what you see.
We are never going to progress as a species until we get clean and off the Class A drug, ideology. Since the last vestiges of religious hokum were chipped away by science and cynicism, Man – this intelligent thug so desperate to beeeleeeeve – has gradually replaced it with ideology.
Ideology closes minds, and closes ranks.
Philosophy opens minds, and stimulates aspiration.
By ‘aspiration’, I don’t mean the braindead socio-materialist claptrap put out by Cameron Conservatives. I mean the thing driven by the best thing any species has in its armoury: the Voyager Gene.
Climb a rugged mountain to marvel at the mellow innocence of clouds. Conquer a vicious phobia to live a life in peace. Reach for the Moon to look back and nurture the Earth.
Ideologies encourage the lifeless rigidity of fear. Philosophies are living things that learn and grow over time.
My philosophy is an update of Jeremy Bentham’s approach. Bentham thought our aim was to maximise social happiness: in the context of his time, he understandably equated happiness with material wellbeing. Now we know more. Today, I believe the purpose of government is to aim for the greatest fulfilment of the greatest number of its citizens. Next year, I might see some new data and change my mind.
What marks philosophies out is a suspicion of Utopian aims, and flexibility in the face of the future. They look at new avenues into the future, not up the backside of the past.
John Ward, November 2016