Drones

Yesterday morning, my wife and I went for our daily hour's walk in the fresh air.  It was beautiful, in pleasant surrounding, with views across into the surrounding countryside towards Mow Cop and Biddulph Moor in one direction, and up towards Keele in another.  The sky was an unrelenting clear, deep blue, the sun beating down, with a cooling breeze wafting in from across the Cheshire Plain, and the Irish Sea beyond. 

It didn't occur to me at the time that the walk was also marked by an unusual lack of the normal dog walkers, we see on other days, which was odd given such beautiful conditions, and given the fact that, as we know from our own experience, dog walking is something your dog demands no matter how much rain and wind confronts you, on your journey.

When we got back home, it wasn't long before we were ensconced in the garden, my wife embroiler in a battle with Sudoku, and me settled into a day of reading and writing, as the sun continued to shine down still surrounded by the same field of unbroken blue sky.  It didn't occur to me until nearly teatime that my studies had been facilitated by an eerie silence from our surrounds, quite out of keeping with the usual sounds on a weekend, and particularly one of such spectacularly, and unusually good weather, of kids playing in their gardens, usually followed by the sound of crying as joy turns to tears, or the sounds of adults playing music.  Nor, indeed, was there the normal smell of turpentine and burning food from barbecues.

Only then did it occur to me that maybe this was linked to the similar absence of dog walkers in the morning, and that both were linked to the fact that the media had been telling everyone that they should stay in doors, because of the danger from the fact that the sun was going to be giving an impromptu appearance, and as we are all idiots unable to take sensible precautions in response, we had better all just stay locked away in doors, much as people were told to do for two years during lockdowns.

Of course, the strong sun can be dangerous.  As someone with fair skin who only has to think about the sun to get burned, unless I'm wearing factor 50, and preferably also with my skin covered with clothing, I'm well aware of that.  But, really, just how infantilised has the population become?  After all, although the weather was hot and sunny, it was not that hot and sunny compared to other occasions, despite the TV presenters talking about it in the usual apocalyptic terms.  I haven't seen anything exceptional compared to the Summer weather when I was a kid, and we used to spend all day at the local Rec playing football, or down in the fields between Goldenhill and Newchapel playing cricket.  It makes you wonder how generations of humans ever survived without the state and the media telling them what to do.

Compared to the Summer of 1976, when I was doing exams at Cauldon College, and we lived in a small flat, with no garden, and which was, therefore, appropriately sweaty, the current bit of warm weather is nothing to write home about, but the media as with everything can only deal in superlatives, and a description, therefore, of the current few days of projected sunshine as a drama that must now consume our every waking moment, and cause us consternation as much as they told us COVID was to do for the last two years, and which despite that now being a non-story, their continued attempts to present infections as in any way relevant continue.  Even one of the virologists they had on Sky news a couple of days ago, seemed completely bored with the issue, as if to say, rightly, why on Earth are you even asking me about this still?

And, after all, this bit of good weather is rather tepid compared to the sunshine and heat that many are familiar with when they go on holiday to Spain and elsewhere.  We all manage perfectly well then, without dire warnings and advice to stay in doors from the media.  A bit of common sense goes a long way, if you simply ensure that you keep hydrated and don't get overheated, without it all being turned into a drama.

But, the same was true with COVID.  If you were elderly or had underlying medical conditions the common sense to make sure you were not in contact with the virus was all that was required, and assistance from the state to achieve that was what was required rather than a pointless attempt to claim to be locking down the whole of society, the vast majority of whose members were in no danger from the virus whatsoever, and should have been able to go about their business as usual.  As Professor Mark Woolhouse has written in his book the lockdowns were totally irrational and unnecessary, amounting to damaging collective madness.

But, the common thread, here, is that it was a manifestation of this failure to think, and a willingness of people to simply act like drones, following irrational laws and instructions without questioning their rationality.  It is a very bad development in a society where the power of the media is greater than it has ever been, and where both main parties are characterised by jingoism and populism, and have Bonapartist leaders.  The recent downfall of Boris Johnson is itself a manifestation of it.

Johnson was hoist by his own petard.  It was him that introduced the ludicrous lockdowns, and all the attendant ridiculous laws that made having a party in our own home a criminal offence, and that introduce the byzantine series of rules and regulations represented by more bubbles than a large Aero that no one could possibly understand, even if thy wanted to devote the brain cells to it.  There was no logical basis for making meeting people in your own home a criminal act.  If you were elderly, or had medical conditions it may have been unwise of you to do so, but that's a different question.  Its also unwise to smoke or drink alcohol, but neither of those activities have been made a criminal offence, yet.

Johnson introduced the lockdowns and other bits of ridiculous illiberal legislation, because he was responding to a braying mob that had been whipped up by the media, both the mass media, and social media.  As a populist, he did what populists do which is to seek popularity, even if you have to do the most ridiculous things, and justify your actions by the most ridiculous claims.  Starmer does exactly the same thing, and in search of populist support acted only to encourage Johnson into even greater levels of absurdity in the illiberal measures introduced.

But, the illustration of how absurd the criminalising of various social gatherings was is shown by the different treatment of Johnson attending gatherings in Downing Street, and Starmer and Rayner attending similar gatherings in Durham.  The law stated that if you attended such a gathering it was illegal, but, if you could show that it was a work meeting, then it was not illegal, and its on that basis that Johnson was fined, and Starmer and Rayner were not.  But, that is clearly absurd.  The purpose of the law was supposed to be to stop the spread of the virus, and to restrict the number of people being ill.  So, in that case, how was the virus itself supposed to know the difference between a social gathering for work, and any other?

Laws should not be irrational or arbitrary, and where they are its usually a sign that those that produce them are some kind of authoritarian, and their regime is itself illiberal and based upon such irrationality and arbitrariness.  There should be some logical basis as the rationale for any law.  And that provides the basis for ensuring that it is not arbitrary in its application.  We can all see why we have speed limits on rods, for example.  If you are caught doing more than 30 mph, in a 30 mph arae, its not open for discussion, either you were or you weren't speeding, and so breaking the law.  It doesn't say, but you are okay, if you are driving a green car, or if you were late for work.

Similarly, there is no question that both Johnson, and Starmer and Rayner attended meetings.  None of them deny that fact, and the fact that it was up to the police then to decide whether one was okay because it was work related, and the other wasn't, is ridiculous, because it introduces arbitrariness, as well as the irrationality that the COVID virus cannot detect what the purpose of such meetings was, and would consequently infect people in either case!

The same was seen when young people gathered on the beach, and all those clamouring for society to be locked down, demanded the police take action against them, and yet, many of those same people were up in arms when the police did tak action against large numbers of people gathering to protest over the murder of Sarah Everard.  Again what did they believe,  that the virus itself had some kind of moral component to its genome that enabled it to infect people gathered for one purpose, but not for another?  It is both thoroughly irrational, and arbitrary, and that kind of legislation is typical of populism, and of populations that have become infantilised by continually relying on the state to do their thinking for them, and who have become nothing more than drones that then simply do what they are told, unable to think for themselves, or to question authority.