Archive for July, 2020

Jane Jacobs and the Dark Age Ahead.

July 7, 2020

In her book Dark Age Ahead, Jane Jacobs explores the likelihood of a coming dark age. Not all collapses lead to ‘dark ages’, Sometimes empires collapse and something new is born. This blog post is just about Dark Ages.

Jacobs starts off by pointing out that cultural dark ages are not rare.
Historically we tend to think of The Dark Age between as occurring between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance. As she says:

So much had been forgotten in the forgetful centuries: the Romans’ use of legumes in crop rotation to restore the soil; how to mine and smelt iron and make and transport picks for miners, and hammers and anvils for smiths; how to harvest honey from hollow-tile hives doubling as garden fences. In districts where even slaves had been well clothed, most people wore filthy rags.

Many historians have pointed out there were islands of civilisation and some technological advancement during this period, it was not all cultural loss, and quite possibly humans did not realise there was much decline while they were living through it. Nevertheless this was a time of wandering in ruins, loss of skills, loss of life span, plague and famine.

Similar events have occured all over the world, all through history. Many cultures have disappeared in the face of conquest, genocide and slavery, and enforced destruction of culture – we can easily think of indigenous cultures which have disappeared, or have had to be recreated and reborn. A dark age for one culture, does not have to be a dark age for another, even if the victors are barbarous to the losers. However, there are plenty of pre-historic civilisations which just appear to have more or less vanished over a short period of time: the cave painters of Lascaux, Norte Chico, Çatalhöyük, Easter Island, the Maya, and so on.

Mass amnesia, striking as it is and seemingly weird, is the least mysterious of Dark Age phenomena. We all understand the harsh principle Use it or lose it…. People living in vigorous cultures typically treasure those cultures and resist any threat to them. How and why can a people so totally discard a formerly vital culture that it becomes literally lost?

Discovering the causes of loss of ability to transmit culture is an important research topic, and we may be on the verge of facing this loss as a problem. As with the Library of Alexandria the problem may not just be fatal blows, but an ongoing decay which removes resilience and value. The causes of such decay have to be uncovered so that we may possibly avoid them.

She points out that people may be blase about this happening in our current world because information is everywhere. But there are problems.

The first is that information is irrelevant if people do not try to find it, do not value it, do not know how to use it, have too much information to detect what information is the best, get confused by conflicting information, destroy knowledge of the information through social loyalties, or have a dominant group which opposes looking after the knowledge.

The second is that use of culture depends precisely on active use and emulation. As she says

[C]ultures live through word of mouth and example. That is why we have cooking classes and cooking demonstrations, as well as cookbooks. That is why we have apprenticeships, internships, student tours, and on-the-job training as well as manuals and textbooks.

Culture also works through exemplars, and through imitation of exemplars and through ‘mentoring’. If our cultural exemplars feel no need for our cultural riches then neither will those who imitate them, or classify themselves as belonging together with them. Information, awareness, and even wisdom will decline.

Thirdly culture comes through experience. If you don’t experience the culture then you will not understand it. If you haven’t been through the initiation rituals you loose experience. If you have not had an experience of the divine in the right circumstances, then social religion will probably not make sense.

Fourthly, culture depends on context, or on other aspects of culture, and behaviour. Not having the right cultural background, will make reading Aquinas, Shakespeare, Plato, Hume, Burke, Newton, Einstein, Freud, Confucius, Lao Tzu, the Vedas, or even basic textbooks, too difficult. There will not be enough connection to other knowledges for the information to be decodeable, or even interesting. Imagine trying to read an engineering textbook with no knowledge of construction in the world, or attempting to learn computer programming without a computer.

If we do not have a society in which people habitually interact, and reinforce a togetherness which builds on the past, then we lose access to information in books.

Jacobs suggests that in the US, cars and roads build disconnection, as in many places it is impossible, or difficult, to walk and build ties or recognition with people in your neighbourhood. You are all, more or less, strangers, and strangers tend to be wary of each other.

Fifthly, culture always changes. In some situations it is possible to build a new culture which is destructive of connections with the past, or with elite knowledge, with exploration, or with ‘civility’. People may try and reconstruct past cultures but, as Jacobs argue, reconstruction is never the same as the original. Sometimes the divergence can be useful, sometimes not.

One point to be distinguished here is the forgetfulness of acute trauma, which tends to be gradually overcome as people move back into normal life, and the chronic forgetfulness, or loss, which gradually becomes permanent. The gradualness possibly leads to a sense that ‘greatness’ is still here, when it is being lost. We are not aware of what we are forgetting, or don’t care. Perhaps we feel we have more urgent concerns, like survival. Perhaps we are violently displaced, without connection to our past or to people with similar backgrounds.

We know that without the depths of culture and connection to the past and others, people can sink into meaninglessness. They ‘disappear’, they can sink into despair and hopelessness – the world makes no sense, their fragments of understanding make no sense. Life seems fragmented and pointless. People can try to move on and embrace another culture which does not accept them, and does not gel with their past. People don’t, or become unable to, support each other – perhaps they don’t know those who they are with?

In this kind of situation conservers of tradition, or makers of innovation get lost. The culture radically simplifies, gets stripped back, and all previously valued technical skills start to decline.

Authorities may try to fix this problem by decrees, by force, by taking administration away from the locals, compelling forms of behaviour – saying that the people are barbarous or uneducated, but all this makes the situation worse. The ‘natural’ culturally evolved controls and interactions of their previous functional society, get weakened further, the control, or education, is remote from their life. It is rare for top down organisation to work, unless it aims at eradication (it is much easier to destroy than to build), or the leaders have a direct connection with people’s lives, or the reform removes some true obstacle from people’s lives like crippling disease.

The historical stories people tell may devolve to them being losers, or sinners, or somehow deficient. Resentment or lack of care may become the governing culture, leading to more fragmentation.

Encounters with more militarily succesful cultures is not the only cause of decay. As Toynbee recognised years ago, all cultures face new challenges as the world changes, and the societies themselves change. Sometimes the societies fail these challenges internally. The dominant groups are unable to respond, or they are so ingrained in their response they cannot do something new as that could threaten their culture, their world view, or the power they exert, or the habits they have gained.

People can have the most favourable conditions for life and destroy them. Jacobs examples the ‘fertile crescent’ which was the fount of world civilisation, yet lost it’s lead completely, and is now no longer fertile. They appear to have cut down their forests faster than they could regenerate, domesticated goats which ate new growth, and soil was lost, salt accumulated, water flowed through too quickly, drought got worse. The problems compounded and the ecology changed for good. This has happened to many cultures. Not being in a relatively harmonious relationship with their ecology, is probably a primary cause of collapse.

Leaders of cultures can retreat from the world, to try and preserve themselves from challenge, rather than face the challenge, this only leads to deadening. China had vast fleets exploring the world, but gave it all up and destroyed or diminished the knowledge they had of the non-Chinese world, as they had the supreme culture. The culture retreated and ossified, and was forcibly incapable of dealing with problems, such as the Europeans, when they arrived. They deliberately knew little about what they were facing.

Losers are confronted with such radical jolts in circumstances that their institutions cannot adapt adequately, become irrelevant and are dropped.

This is what is happening today. We can see it throughout the world. Climate change and ecological destruction are ignored, or denied (maintaining the economy and corporate power is more important), or enmeshed in fantasy solutions. The serious problems are not faced, or are to be faced at some time in a relatively distant future. The Coronavirus is dismissed, people deny it is serious, people assert the economy is more important, and that all will be ok, quite magically. In the US, people on either side of politics cannot discuss things, they just abuse each other and fear each other. A growing Republican meme asserts that if Joe Biden wins he will kill them all. This meme is possibly reinforced by attempts to ignore the pandemic.

Education is often divorced from life and tradition, people cannot see the importance of the past or, if they do, refuse to accept that anything modern and critical of that past, can be of value. Education is nowadays about providing credentials for jobs and being ‘job relevant’, not about wisdom or meaning. Even at university people are pressured into teaching for work, not for discovery or life proficiency. Indeed, this is what many students seem to want. They have no time for ‘high culture.’ Culture and the learning of the past is jettisoned to continue corporate profit and wage labour. Sometimes this arises because the past of science and technology is seen as irrelevant to the current day. As one conservative blog, which is kind of reviewing Jacobs, remarks:

Many middle-class or wealthy people don’t consider themselves barbarians at all. But if they see the passing on of wisdom and knowledge of higher culture not as the heart of education, but rather as a useless appendage, then they are barbarians, no matter how nice their lawn looks.

American Conservative

Commercialisation of culture may also be a problem. This may encourage cultural production, but it also can lead to a loss of the past, because it is not referenced, or it is not successfully profit generating. Much of this new art is to be consumed and thrown away, rather than act as places of reflection. Or it may select the lives of the wealthy, the vulgar, or sports people, as being the lives to emulate – the supposedly ‘self made.’

We can also see organised politicisation of knowledge. ‘Science’ is identified with a particular politics and then dismissed, irrespective of the evidence. People can come to see knowledgeable people as part of their oppression, part of what holds them back from success, and thus to be overthrown – and sometimes they can be correct, as with neoliberal economics, but it is in the interests of the leaders to only encourage certain ‘ directed skepticisms‘ [1] which correspond with retreat from disruptive problems, and thus lowers the chance of solving them. Once a ruling elite gets separated from the people, say by massive divergence of wealth, they will have no hesitation in going for the ‘noble lie’ and attempting to dismiss and suppress the most knowledgeable people around. They may well declare them enemies of the state or enemies of the people. This way knowledge gets lost in fantasy, or in people attempting to avoid being denounced.

Politics itself is now an elite occupation with people largely not drawn from those who experience people’s daily lives. They seem largely committed to maintaining the destruction of their culture. Taxes tend to be used to subsidise the wealthy, or stripped away from productive areas. Infrastructure, important for daily life (such as roads, bridges, rail, sewage), is allowed to decay, increasing the expense of operating and leading to technical failures. Supervision of the powerful is stripped back, or allowed to decline, so they get away with fraud and deceit, and social trust decays. People may come to think there is nothing professionals can teach that is worth learning, or moral to learn. Neoliberal politicians tend to argue that wealth is the primary virtue and that if something cannot make a profit, it should die, unless it is a wealthy influential business which should be bailed out by taxpayers. Neoliberalism easily becomes rapacious and ready to sacrifice everything to money.

In the US, President Trump seems committed not just to maintaining the destruction, but to increasing it, putting tools of the dominant elites in all important positions, increasing elite power and wealth, increasing ecological destruction and poisoning, stacking or ignoring courts, decreasing supervision of the corporate sector, and increasing the fractures between his supporters and everyone else, even to the point of civil war, or furthering distrust of the whole US system. Trump is a personified vector of collapse.

There is possibly a sense that Trump could only be defended by people who fundamentally had lost touch with their guiding culture, or a sense of responsibility. In this world, interference with justice, suppression of evidence, corruption, pandering to enemies, and so on, are simply said to be something everyone does. Consequently, there are only immoral exemplars or extremely good liars.

There is often an easy optimism that the pendulum will swing the other way, but that only happens in a functional culture. In a dysfunctional culture this rebalance may not occur. This seems especially so, when the dominant groups seem to see their solutions in terms of preventing a rebalance, or engage in pretending that the pendulum is actually swinging the other way from which it is, so as to keep it swinging in their direction.

[P]owerful persons or groups… have many ways of thwarting self-organising stabilisers – through deliberately contrived subsidies and monopolies for example. Or circumstances may have allowed cultural destruction to drift to the point where the jolts of correction, seem more menacing than the downwards drift.

Different factions attempting to secure their own sense of wellbeing may sabotage the well being of others, or even themselves. They can prevent the ending of ecological destruction for example. In the Fertile Crescent, there would have been those who opposed tree conservation because of needs for fuel, others could have opposed limits on the use of goats. China quickly lost the knowledge of ship building, the ways of financing the fleet, and ceased to allow the expression of curiosity about the rest of the world.

So dark ages come about, in part, because:

  • The ruling groups fail the challenges the culture is faced with.
  • Powerful interest groups demand that destructive behaviour continues.
  • Rulers withdraw from interacting with the world into self-obsession, obsession with religious, or cultural, purity, or military expansion against their neighbours.
  • The culture and people are displaced by massively superior and indifferent force.
  • Continuing environmental destruction, no matter how good the reason
  • Change happens too quickly to adapt to in meaningful ways.
  • Local community interaction and integration declines, so there is no community resilience, bounceback or mutual support. People do not know their neighbours.
  • Education moves away from life, moving away from the contemporary to the past, or focuses too intently on a particular domain of life, excluding all others, including tradition.
  • Government’s cease to spend on the people, or protect the people, and only work for the power elites. Taxes are not spent on public goods, or keeping roads, bridges, sewers, cables, knowledge, etc functioning, but on protecting those dominant elites who are the supposed source of general wealth.
  • People who are models for emulation appear overtly corrupt, immoral or deceitful.
  • Acceptable knowledge becomes dependent on profit, or on sticking to the religious or party line.
  • People, previously of the same culture, are separated into mutually non-communicating, and likely warring, factions
  • Loss of knowledge and culture, and loss of the supports of knowledge and culture.
  • Increasing gaps between the elites and the people. In power, wealth, military proficiency, education etc. which in turn increases the power, wealth etc of a smaller and smaller number of people.

Hypothetical outline of the decline of the library of Alexandria, and the decay of knowledge.

July 6, 2020

The decline of the famous Library of Alexandria in the Ancient World, could tell us something about civilisational and cultural decline, and the loss of knowledge. Many contemporary scholars mourn the loss of the library, because so much of our knowledge of the Mediterranean world and its philosophy and literature has been lost. We have only a tiny fraction of what was supposedly stored in the Library, and much of that in fragments. It’s loss seems heavy.

However, even a cursory glance at the historical materials will show that dating the famous destruction of the Library of Alexandria is not easy…. There are multiple dates and much dispute as to what date it was finally over.

But then, most of what we ‘know’ about the library, seems to be informed guesswork. We don’t even know when the library was built. Most people guess somewhere between between 320 to 270 BC. Neither do we know how many texts it stored during its height – estimates vary wildly, and I mean wildly I’ve seen figures from 40,000 scrolls (not whole works) to 500,000 works!

Neither do we know how many rooms stored scrolls; if we did, then this might allow some kind of real limits to the scroll estimates. We do know that they liked to have different versions of the poems of Homer. So much of the content may have been duplications of famous texts, and perhaps not as varied, or complete, as we might hope.

From a rather cursory investigation, I suspect there was not final date for the library… I’m not a historian so what follows is all conjecture, but it’s possibly something like what happened. Its ‘plausible’.

Sociology and physics of decay

Importantly, libraries require money to preserve buildings, acquire new texts, salvage old texts and pay staff. Even with sealed buildings you get pests, and in places like Alexandria, with no possibility of sealing buildings, there would have been problems with rats, mice, cockroaches, insect larvae, fungus and so on. (I’ve been told that birds can be a problem once they get in, and start shitting on everything, which then brings more vermin). One source I read suggests that ventilation to reduce fungus probably helped fires spread. So scrolls decay, and we need constant financing of copying to keep the scrolls intact. That could well involve the gradual accumulation of error in texts.

I don’t know much about ancient libraries, but I’d imagine the cataloging system required the memory of librarians. (There is some evidence texts were grouped by first letter of the author’s name and, at some time, Callimachus compiled the Pinakes, a 120-book catalogue of various authors, using various subdivisions – this as usual is lost other than a few fragments. There is a story that Aristophanes of Byzantium managed to remember where some texts were stored and this was so impressive he was awarded the head librarian’s job). This arrangement might also mean that texts were moved around and did not have a permanent order.

Keeping everything together would require constant labour and finance.

The larger the library the more money is required to just keep it going, and the less likely they are to be able to support themselves through user fees, or selling scrolls – they have to support the copiers, and books would be truly expensive without printing – a small market at best.

So libraries require constant bequests or taxpayer subsidies. Given the irregularities of investment in the Ancient world, you are basically needing taxpayer subsidies – which means those who pay tax have to value what is being subsidised. I’d suggest that scholarship is amongst the least valued of occupations. Bread and circuses and military subsidy are far more necessary. I suspect that cuts in monies for the library were easily made, and the more decrepit the library became the easier it was to make cuts, not do roof repairs, not clear out the vermin, sack the staff, lose texts or even sell scrolls to raise monies.

This of course decreases the value of the library and its stock. So the library could easily have been reduced long before it ‘vanished’.

Reading and so on, is an easily lost social skill, especially if only relevant to a learned class, and if Alexandria decayed as a society, which seems likely, then the level of interest in preserving the library and out of date archaic literature may have declined rapidly.

History of Accident

On top of that we have such things as the purge of philosophers by Ptolemy VIII Physcon in 145 BCE, because he thought they supported the previous ruler. The head librarian, Aristarchus of Samothrace, fled to Cyprus. Other scholars fled elsewhere. That would probably leave the library to decay even faster. If few people use it, it apparently needs fewer staff to support it, and decay does not stop.

I don’t know if scholars returned, although there is some evidence they did not for a long while; there were other libraries in the Ancient world, and places temporarily more hospitable.

In a way, just focusing on the Library of Alexandria, distracts us from wondering what happened to all these other libraries. It was not as if “all our eggs where in one basket.” We are looking at a general set of events here – a sociology of decay, not a single catastrophic event.

Anyway, as time went on, the rulers of Alexandria became much more interested in suppressing unrest and dealing with other problems than with the libraries. At one time a palace guard was appointed head librarian.

One hundred years after Ptolemy VIII, Julius Caesar probably burnt the library down by accident, along with the docks, although it is hard to tell how damaged it was by the fires. Plutarch says it was destroyed, others (more dependent on the Caesars), play the damage down. Strabo visited the building which housed the library complex but did not mention the library. It is possible, given the way things work, that surviving stones from the library would have been used to help rebuild the docks.

Later on Alexandria become more of a provincial town of the Roman Empire, and membership of the library may have become ceremonial. The known later members did not show much interest in books, and we can guess more decay, more lack of interest.

Another battle in Alexandria in the 270sAD is also thought to have damaged the library, as Emperor Aurelian is said to have destroyed the quarter of the city in which it was housed. Diocletian also put the city to seige in 297, which may well have damaged the libraries still further.

The Library’s offshoot, the Serapeum, was destroyed or cleared out, along with many other pagan buildings, after a battle between Pagans and Christians in the time of Pope Theophilius of Alexandria. This Pope is also reptuted to have killed 10,000 monks who disagreed with him. We don’t know if the Serapeum had any books at this time, it probably had a few as pagan philosophers lived there, but they may well have been more interested in oral tradition and dialectic than texts. The nature of this Pope and the Christians at this time, does not lead us to expect they would respect any texts remaining in the Library proper.

There is also talk that Muslim conquerors burnt the books in the library again, but we don’t know how much extra damage this would have done, or what number of scrolls were stored there. The library may well have been largely lost long before this, or the whole thing maybe a story.

Conclusion

Cumulative decay, lack of interest, low funds, wear, accident and war probably reduced the library, much more than any single calamitous event. There were other libraries in the Ancient world, so if it were just a matter of us not having the texts because of the Destruction of Alexandria, we should still have books from the other Libraries. That we do not, suggest that the problems were more widespread than just a few acts of violence. It is a whole collection of social events that are likely responsible.

Remember this is conjecture…. but it suggests that knowledge can fade even without deliberate attempts to purge it. If people cannot read it, replicate it, or get hold of it, or be taught it as relevant to their lives, it will be lost.

Contemporary Politics and the role of disinformation

July 5, 2020

1) The first point is to really identify the power elites, and not to be diverted into attacking scapegoats.

2) In corporate neoliberalism, the power elites and the wealth elites (and those dependent on them), are pretty much the same.

3) Neoliberal media, politicians and ideologues usually pretend the elites are not the power elites, but that they are relatively powerless people, such as ‘intellectuals’ or ‘cultural marxists’. For example, in this view, Trump’s family is not an elite, neither are the owners of major corporations, nor the intellectuals who support ‘free market’ neoliberalism, or occupy roles in corporate sponsored think tanks, and help justify the real power elites… A moment’s reflection will show this is misdirection. How many people pay attention to cultural marxists or even know whether they really exist, and what power do such intellectuals have other than persuasion?; they do not command armed police for example, they cannot buy legislation or regulation.

4) For the last forty years, in the US, the Republicans have been dedicated to furthering the success of the wealth and power elites. The part of the party which is not dedicated to completely supporting the power elites is devoted to furthering the power of pro-corporate and authoritarian Christians. In either case, deliberate democracy is not high on the list of priorities, neither is improving general prosperity, other than via ‘trickle down’, which is nearly always the favoured policy of the wealthy elites (aristocratic or corporate).

5) The Republican elites, or supporters of the wealth elites, are no longer conservatives; they are dangerous radicals who wish to strip away all traditional checks, balances and restraints on the corporate sector’s wealth and power. They appear to act as if they wish society to become a monoculture of rulers and ruled.

6) The same is generally true of the Conservative party in the UK and the Coalition in Australia. With the possible exception that the Conservative party still has some conservatives in it.

7) While the Republican elites are 90% pro-corporate, the Democrat/Labor elites are about 60% pro-corporate, but generally agree that most people should not be sacrificed for corporate power. They also tend to think that people should not be suppressed because of their race, gender, sexuality or religion. They are more humanistic pro-corporates. This is not great, but it’s all we have to work with.

8) As nearly all media is owned and controlled by the corporate sector or by billionaire families, it tends to support the corporate establishment. There is no left-wing media in the US, just media that is denounced by the hard line pro-corporate authoritarian media as ‘left’. If some media do not like Trump that does not mean he is upsetting all of the ruling elites, just some of them.

9) There are factions in the corporate elite. There are for example those who are happy that Trump is delivering tax cuts to them, removing regulations that give the people any control over the corporate section, allowing them to poison people, allowing them to despoil the environment, spending heaps of money on the military, destroying public health and so on. There are others who think an impoverished population is dangerous, or who realise that climate change and ecological destruction could be a problem. Neither factor is to be thought of as enough of a problem to challenge corporate power and economics, but they can be recognised as problems. They may also fear war with US trading partners, as if you are not in the arms business then you are likely to lose out. There are also occasional genuine believers in free markets, who notice that Trump is destroying such markets, and they think this will lead to disaster.

10) The main aim of elite propaganda is to get people to either support corporate power, or to ignore corporate power.

11) The best way to achieve this, is to intensify already existing hatreds and discriminations. Thus its good to blame baby boomers for being selfish, black people for being racist and not knowing their place, women for suppressing men and so on. This helps people who’s power has been stripped away, feel that they are better because they are young, white, male or whatever. It gives them an enemy to hate which they can despise, and which is not more powerful than they are. They can pretend Trump is not one of the elite, and is trying to help ordinary people, even though it is clear he is supporting the corporate elite, and stirring hatred, or practicing ‘divide and conquer’. Encouraging these hatreds also tends to separate people from more humanistic, mildly anti-corporate politics. The media can also try to pretend that any anti-corporate movement is treacherous, violent, or authoritarian, even as the movement calls for people to be liberated. They can easily misrepresent the claims of movements and slip them into their preferred patterns of support for the corporate elites, or ignore corporate elites. They can pretend Joe Biden is as bad as Trump, when he might be just a little better. They can pretend recognising climate change and the ill effects of eco-destruction stems from socialist conspiracy. They can even pretend that thinking that humans are not part of the earth, or cannot disrupt ecologies, is radical thinking, when it is another pre-copernican set of of ideas….. However, their main step is simply to ignore ‘left wing’ protests for as long as possible, unless they can be reported as violent, while highlighting right wing protests even if they attract tiny numbers in support. Given that the media is right wing, this is to be expected.

12) That something is a media channel on youtube, does not mean it is not pro-corporate, or corporately sponsored, even if it pretends otherwise. It can claim to be leftish, while spending most of its time ignoring the actions of the right elites or the President, and focus on criticising those challenging that power, or attempting to moderate that power. This is one way of helping to destroy the opposition to corporate power.

13) As many people have argued before, thinking, and information acceptance is social. It is not, completely, about understanding the world, but about gaining an orientation to that world, and the world includes social and group processes, and belonging. Information acceptance can be based in issues of identity – of what other people we identify with, and identify against, both in terms of conflict and culture. If people we value, also value some information we like, or seems essential to our identity, we are more likely to count that information as true. If people we don’t value, value information that we (or our groups) don’t like, the easier it is to dismiss that information as false. In other words, knowledge can function primarily as a marker of identity, and as a way of fitting in to a group. So one way of reinforcing acceptance of information is to intensify social differences, or social contempt, or social fear. This is what the right elites have been trying to do for forty years, it is why their ‘news’ tends to be so angry, rude and dismissive of opposition. It is why they insist that they, and their supporters, are the real folk of the nation. They want to create a situation in which opposed groups just abuse each other, or fear each other, rather than talk. This process now seems entrenched, as the left is now almost as rude and intolerant as the right. The process may no longer be able to be challenged.

14) The main aim is to confuse and fragment ‘the people’ so that they are more easily persuaded that the real problem is somewhere else, or that they are busy fighting someone else, and the corporate elites can keep on with their power grab.