More Paranoia: Elites and Media in the USA

July 12, 2020

Real Elites

The Real Elite in corporate society is the wealth elite. These are the people who can buy anything, including favourable legislation, regulation and politicians. However, it would be dangerous for them if ordinary people realised this, therefore they pretend the real elite are those people, especially intellectuals, who disagree with their use of power. They can easily buy this idea, as they control most of the media.

In this view, the intellectuals who justify free markets and rule by wealth don’t count as elite at all, just those who challenge them. Billionaire business families, like the Trumps, do not officially count as elites. The only billionaires who count as elite, are those who try and argue that capitalism is not everything, and who might try to help people, or who occasionally promote liberty for all, rather than liberty of wealth.

As this implies, we don’t have to assume the real elite is completely unified. If they are human they won’t be. They will have different approaches to the same interests. There is an obvious political split, some of the rulers may not like Trump, others realise there is a market for non-proTrump stories, but always he gets off, or they end up excusing him, or moving to the next story, leaving people without a coherent understanding of what is going on, or we get told both sides are absolutely the same and politics is completely corrupt. Often it seems that the media rushes into praise Trump whenever he does something relatively minor, like make a speech that does not attack half the country, or appears to take the pandemic seriously. He is acting like a real president, we get told, no matter what he has done in the past.

Trump gets a tolerance Obama never gained, and never would gain if Obama had displayed Trump’s outbursts and ‘unpresidential’ behaviour, and driven splits in the US, that attempted to make the left angry with the right, and ready to take up arms against them.

Some of the ruling elites who went with Trump, could now be appalled at the choice they made. This would explain why he got such positive coverage during the election and does not get such a uniform praise coverage any more. The President’s tweet aggression, itself, could explain whatever hostility he encounters, and there is plenty of evidence that he stiffed business competitors who will probably not forget, even if he does unashamedly support their agendas of more wealth for the wealthy and more eco-destruction.

With Trump, the only thing the wealth elites might object to is the tariffs but that is temporary. If he wasn’t helping them they would be doing their best to get rid of him, but he seems to be useful, so they leave things alone, or largely support him.

Media

We get told the “left wing”, “elite”, or “liberal” media persecutes Trump, by that very same mainstream media. But there is almost no left wing media. All the media is corporately owned, or owned by billionaire families, and they default to being Right or centre Right, and they usually support the neoliberal order of corporate domination. There is no way that Fox cannot be seen as mainstream, ‘elite’, and owned and controlled by a billionaire family. Same with Breitbart, owned and controlled by billionaires. And the media has not been that opposed to Trump.

For example, despite all the fuss about the Epstein case, almost no one is talking about the fact that Trump is the only politician for whom charges of raping underage girls, has been brought. Unlike many such cases, you do not have to go to loopy youtube channels to hear the allegations. You could have found them reported in the back pages of the mainstream media during the last election, just nobody made a fuss. Only minimal reporting and No Headlines. If a Democrat had been accused of such rape, it is extremely improbable there would be such downplaying or silence.

We can see this as most people do not seem to know about Trump’s alleged crime, and that is significant. Prince Andrew and various other people are in the headlines over similar allegations. Even Bill Clinton has had more written about his flying with Epstein than Trump has about his alleged rape, and Clinton is not president – and of course there was the whole fictional pizzagate thing which got massive coverage, and was widely treated as true, or plausible, and believed to be true. Various churches have been attacked in the media for child rape and protecting rapists. Churches and accused priestly rapists have been defended in some of the media, particularly that media which supports Trump. While the churches are not part of the Epstein case, the open discussion shows there is not a general protection of child rapists going on any more – just Trump.

One extraordinarily significant thing about the Trump case is that it was not one person’s word against another. There was another witness who was essentially self-convicting. And of course Epstein died in mysterious circumstances, so he is never going to threaten Trump and his circle, which he almost certainly would have done, if he had remained alive. This does not mean that Trump had him killed. Trump has plenty of allies who might do this for him, or perhaps Epstein was convinced it was the best way out.

The quietness of the media on this issue shows that the anti-Trump face that some of it presents, is likely a complete deception – a false flag if you like. Even if the story was fake, it wouldn’t normally inhibit them from remarking on it.

What makes it more interesting is that you will hear from Trumpites how Trump is at any moment going to expose child sex rings in Hollywood, and that there are going to be prosecutions of their enemies for child sex at any time, or even that these enemies are being tried secretly now. There is no evidence of this of course, but then you would not expect it, just as there are few reports the Queen is a baby eating lizard in the “lame stream” media. So Trump is protected and his possible crimes projected onto others. The point again, is to create the idea that Trump is being inhibited in his Godly actions by evil left wingers who deserve to be punished.

Likewise, during the last presidential election, the New York Times spent more space on the imagined crimes of Clinton than on the real crimes of Trump. No one really bothered to pursue Trump’s denial of an ecological crisis – perhaps because the corporate sector welcomed lessening of restrictions on ecological damage and on their ability to poison people. The fossil fuel sector undoubtedly welcomed Trump’s promises to support them and increase their activities and profits. The media gave him endless publicity, did not discuss his crimes, his business practice, or whatever – again the media is on the Republican side by default.

His business practice, is rarely discussed outside the business press as it might give him (and business) a bad look – and we cannot have that.

People talk about growing dissent at Fox, but to me dissent at Fox seems trivial. It is as if, to the right, if you are not 100% in their favour then you are traitors. Trump clearly expects the media to follow him mindlessly. Despite the Loyalty of the Murdoch Empire, he gets vicious when receiving the mildest criticism by anyone on Fox. Again a strategy which leads to portraying the opposition as villainous, and therefore easy to kill.

That the media constantly says the mainstream media always attacks Trump, gives people the sense he is a radical and against the ruling elites, and this act hides his adherence to corporate domination from them. If we were really careful we might wonder if this was deliberate?

However, one of the great things about Trump is that we don’t have to go to the media to know about him. We just have to read his speeches (usually present on the Whitehouse website, or together with videos of the speech online) and his tweets. It is pretty constant, the man is full of self praise, blaming others, whipping up polarisation, spreading false information, and attempting to distract people from major problems. It is clear he cannot take even the mildest criticism or contrary advice.

He is a potential dictator, and there is no guarantee he will not sponsor civil war.

Welcome to the Paranoid world – A new US civil war?

July 12, 2020

Part of the Republican, or righteous movement, seem to be getting ready for civil war. They are declaring Democrats evil, and suggesting that Biden will not only attempt to deprive them of weaponry, but try and kill them….

Generating Civil War

Some evidence from an ‘independent’ Trump supporter.

https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1278316325044056064
https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1278316391603466241
https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1278419099131887616

No mention of republicans driving cars into peaceful protesters, or waving automatic weapons at protesters while screaming at them, or threatening to douse them in petrol and set it alight, no mention of Trump encouraging police to be more violent, or egging his audiences to beat up people who come to his rallies and disagree, and then vowing to pay their legal defences for assault… and this is completely ignoring the way people on the right regularly make death threats against people like the parents of children who died at the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting, or climate scientists or…. I guess this could have nothing to do with their leaders and media telling them some realities are just unreal plots to hurt the USA.

Guess he must live in a news silo.

Lets shift to a more formal source. Tucker Carlson, who reportedly earns 6 million a year for a show on Fox News, (he is one of the media elite, if anyone is), says of Black Lives Matter protesters:

These are definitely not protesters. They’re not even rioters. They’re the armed militia of the Democratic Party. They’re working to overthrow our system of government. They’re trying to put themselves in power.

That’s all obvious now. It’s genuinely sinister. We’re worried about it. We’ve said that. We mean it.

Tucker Carlson: The angry children toppling statues nationwide are not protesters – and are utterly stupid. Fox News June 25 2020.

Obviously people wanting the power to change the circumstances of their lives is bad. Carlson goes on to explain that as they are not genuine protests (by his own proclamation), they are obviously something much worse.

This is not about George Floyd. It’s not about ‘systemic racism,’ whatever that is. America is not a racist country. You are not a bad person for living here.

Who said anyone was bad for living in the US? Although this statement serves to imply those who object to BLM, or who are nervous about it, are the real Americans. Likewise, if there is no racism in the US (other than from black people), then clearly these protests are not about anything straightforward like people being killed by cops because of their race, it has to be much, much worse. It is, we are told, Democrats engaged in armed rebellion against American order, even if the protesters do not seem to be armed – after all this was not a pro-Republican protest.

Fox News itself reported on Carlson, clarifying the issues:

Democratic politicians don’t fear the mob… Why? Because they don’t need to. They control the mob. The mob operates with their permission. These are their foot soldiers. This is their militia. In unguarded moments, Democrats make it very clear that they know this….

Career bureaucrats in the federal agencies support the Democratic Party. That means they support the mob as well. It’s their militia too

What you’re watching in the streets is an attempt to crush the holdouts,.. Ask yourself who is being targeted for destruction right now? Anyone who’s not on board with their program…

We’ve known for 50 years that much of the poison in our society emanates from the universities. But we’ve done nothing whatsoever to fix that. We’ve continued to fund them…

There has been no meaningful reform of the CIA or the FBI or any of the other terrifyingly powerful agencies that operate independently from our democracy and on the side of the Democratic Party.

Victor Garcia. Tucker Carlson: ‘The mob’ is controlled by Democrats, and ‘this is their militia’, Fox News June 23, 2020

Yes of course, that is why the FBI released the information that they were investigating Clinton’s emails yet again, just before the end of the election campaign. They must have helped Trump through a totally unforeseeable accident. I may be wrong, but I understand him to imply that meaningful reform, means that US institutions must be forced to not, in any way, seem to offend any Republicans.

Carlson is a strong defender of neoliberalism, and of Donald Trump. His programs aim at making his audiences angry. He does not seem interested in people living together, but in people being loyal to the Republicans and their neoliberal policies, and being furious with everyone else.

Opposing Black Lives Matter is part of these tactics. It is reasonable to suppose he does not want people to be curious about what the movement is about, or to develop any sympathies with protesters. The aim is to divide and conquer ordinary people and keep the ruling wealth elites in power. He aims to set up conflicts over relatively unimportant things, while Trump continues his path of eco-destruction and poisoning for corporate profit – and to increase the chance of armed protest, if the ploy fails and the Democrats win an election.

Then there are hashtags like #taketheoath, in which people take the oath of alligence and say God bless our President and lets defend him because we are under attack, etc… Sounds innocent, but the ideas seem to be to pledge loyalty to this particular President as representing the USA, and to imply that people who disagree with him, are not real, loyal, Americans.

Preparation for Civil War is the boosted by the President joining in and saying that the US is under attack by the radical left and the Democrats.

This is from a speech on the 4th July, which is a special day for all people in the USA – a day of unity and pride in the USA.

The PRESIDENT (07:48)… as we meet here tonight, there is a growing danger that threatens every blessing our ancestors fought so hard for, struggled, they bled to secure. Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children.

Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our founders, deface our most sacred memorials, and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities. Many of these people have no idea why they’re doing this, but some know what they are doing. They think the American people are weak and soft and submissive, but no, the American people are strong and proud and they will not allow our country and all of its values, history, and culture to be taken from them.

AUDIENCE:  USA!  USA!  USA!…. [added from the official Whitehouse transcription]

PRESIDENT: (10:24) … In our schools, our newsrooms, even our corporate boardrooms, there is a new far-left fascism that demands absolute allegiance.  If you do not speak its language, perform its rituals, recite its mantras, and follow its commandments, then you will be censored, banished, blacklisted, persecuted, and punished.  It’s not going to happen to us. 

Make no mistake. This left-wing cultural revolution is designed to overthrow the American Revolution. In so doing they would destroy the very civilization that rescued billions from poverty, disease, violence, and hunger, and that lifted humanity to new heights of achievement, discovery, and progress. To make this possible, they are determined to tear down every statue, symbol, and memory of our national heritage….

AUDIENCE: (12:28) Four more years!  Four more years!  Four more years!

THE PRESIDENT: (12:51) I am pleased to report that yesterday, federal agents arrested the suspected ringleader of the attack on the statue of Andrew Jackson in Washington, D.C. — (applause) — and, in addition, hundreds more have been arrested.  (Applause.)

Under the executive order I signed last week — pertaining to the Veterans’ Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act and other laws — people who damage or deface federal statues or monuments will get a minimum of 10 years in prison.  (Applause.)  And obviously, that includes our beautiful Mount Rushmore.  (Applause.)

 (13:54) The violent mayhem we have seen in the streets and cities that are run by liberal Democrats in every case is the predictable result of years of extreme indoctrination and bias in education, journalism, and other cultural institutions. Against every law of society and nature, our children are taught in school to hate their own country and to believe that the men and women who built it were not heroes but that were villains. The radical view of American history is a web of lies, all perspective is removed, every virtue is obscured, every motive is twisted, every fact is distorted and every flaw is magnified until the history is purged and the record is disfigured beyond all recognition. This movement is openly attacking the legacies of every person on Mount Rushmore. They defiled the memory of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt. ….

(25:39) No movement that seeks to dismantle these treasured American legacies can possibly have a love of America at its heart. Can’t happen. No person who remains quiet at the destruction of this resplendent heritage can possibly lead us to a better future. The radical ideology attacking our country advances under the banner of social justice, but in truth, it would demolish both justice and society. It would transform justice into an instrument of division and vengeance and it would turn our free and inclusive society into a place of a repression, domination, and exclusion. They want to silence us, but we will not be silenced.

Crowd: (26:43): USA! USA! USA! USA!….

Crowd: (26:43)
We love you!

Crowd: (26:43)
We love you President Trump.

Donald Trump: (27:11)
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much…..

The PRESIDENT: They would tear down the beliefs, culture and identity, that have made America the most vibrant and tolerant society in the history of the earth. My fellow Americans, it is time to speak up loudly and strongly and powerfully and defend the integrity of our country.

Crowd: (33:36): USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!….

The PRESIDENT: we will not be tyrannized, we will not be demeaned, and we will not be intimidated by bad, evil people. It will not happen.

Crowd: (35:12): USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-transcript-at-mount-rushmore-4th-of-july-event

To me this sounds like the President is engaged in a campaign speech, not a national day speech, and is trying to portray people who disagree with him as being enemies of the USA, enemies who are evil – not just opposed to him, but evil. It seems he is setting up a basis for conflict and suppression. It also sounds like he has a dedicated group in the audiences attempting to whip up support and a sense of enthusiasm for his position.

We know Trump had peaceful protesters cleared with tear gas for a photo opportunity outside a Church. Trump’s first defence secretary, retired United States Marine Corps General James Mattis, described these actions as an “abuse of executive authority” and suggested that Trump should be held to account for making “a mockery of our constitution”.

When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens — much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside…

We must reject any thinking of our cities as a “battlespace” that our uniformed military is called upon to “dominate.” 

“The Full Statement from Jim Mattis”, NPR, June 4 2020

Current Defence secretary, Mark Esper, angered Trump by opposing the use of the 1807 Insurrection Act to deploy troops on US streets to stop the Black Lives Matter protests.

With the riots, we can also see videos of cops attacking peaceful people, cops arresting and beating journalists, or selecting black journalists to arrest, videos of cops pulling people out of cars, who could not have been in the protests and beating them, presumably because they were black. We can see the pictures of cops pushing an old guy over, and walking past him despite blood pouring out of his ears, and we can hear the President slander the man as an extreme radical.

We can see all of this, but in the right wing media, and the President’s speech, we merely hear that the USA is under attack by leftists, and that people who bravely oppose the mob are being sacked (not good if true). No reflection at all on the problems people are trying to point to, no reflections on the violence of the State, or the suppression of protest. Just the evil of these protesters. And yes, that does not mean that some protesters might not have got out of hand, but the point is that the official Right line is not to recognise any validity at all to the protests. These protesters are bad and not-Americans, unlike those armed protesters who burst into some Democratic State legislatures.

BLM people are being demonised by the Right, for political purposes. Indeed, that is what we should expect, as it helps build up the anger of their base, and build polarisation. But the polarisation already exists because Black Live don’t appear to matter.

The point of all generating all this hysteria about an evil left, is that if you are Republican and the life of Republicans is threatened, then you can do anything in retaliation. You can suppress votes. You can lie. You can probably encourage some preemptive strikes to help intensify the tension, and lead to some actual violence against people. If a group was wanting a civil war then giving the people who want violence the sense that they are a persecuted minority, is a good way to go.

Background

For some while now Republicans and their media have been cultivating the idea that they and their supporters are the only real Americans, that they are people who should rule, and that people who oppose them are traitors, degenerate and deserve to be defeated in any way possible.

Trump’s whole strategy of life is to rip off others, smear others, abuse others and create conflict. His main drive is to find people to blame and abuse, and to praise himself. I’ve never seen any sign whatsoever of him trying to reach out to all Americans, and bring the nation to work together in peace. He always tries to splinter people. Civil war is the end point of what he wants, and how he behaves.

As ex-marine general Mattis says:

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. 

“The Full Statement from Jim Mattis”, NPR, June 4 2020

While people may want President Trump to be a competent innocent, or a person fighting bravely against the Deep State, there is no evidence of it anywhere.

What we see from him is the neoliberal war for power in its final stages. The ultimate sacrifice of people to the gods of money. Trump is the Right’s perfect demagogue and apparently without any principle other than gaining victory. He delivers almost exactly what this Dark Right want. He is one of the real wealth elite that rules the US for its own interests.

Conclusion

There is every indication that Trump was prepared to help the Republicans claim the last election was stolen if he lost, and he seems to be doing the same again. This inability to take loss fundamentally means civil war, and the memes and speeches, we began with, are preparations for it.

If it was just Trump trying to ramp up civil war if he looses, I would worry, but the subjective evidence suggests that the Party as well as the usual neoliberal forces are also in favour of civil war in response to loss – and that is very worrying. However, they may change their minds. I guess part of their problem is that Trump has been so incompetent that he has almost given media respectability to the left again, and to mild attempts to reign in corporate supremacy in the Green New Deal.

From an environmentalists point of view the Green New Deal is not enough action and too late, but from the neoliberal wealth elite’s point of view it could foreshadow a beginning of the end for ecological destruction, and provoke some kind of more equitable distribution of wealth and power. It could restart what they saw, in the 1970s, as the Crisis of Democracy; that is the participation of ordinary people in government.

If it takes civil war to stop that, they may well feel war is justified.

A denial diagram

July 8, 2020

I think this diagram is quite neat and useful… Hopefully I can say more about it tomorrow

From:

William F. Lamb, Giulio Mattioli, Sebastian Levi, J. Timmons Roberts 2020. “Discourses of climate delay”. Global Sustainability 3, e17, 1–5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.13. Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2020.

The Diagram can help you avoid your own resistances, and forms of delay, by simply inverting it….

  • 1) Take responsibility now – do what you can, don’t pretend its some one else’s job to go first. Going early will make transitions easier and quicker. Be generous – don’t expect rewards or praise
  • 2) Human nature is pretty flexible. That something is hard does not mean it is impossible. If we act now we can at least stop it getting maximally bad, which is a really good thing.
  • 3) We don’t have to be perfect, just act as best we can. Accept what you are offered by the politics and take it further. Fossil fuels are poisons, lets get healthy. Burn as little as you can. Climate chaos will affect everyone, but poor people much worse, so help them out. Just stop doing things which harm the environment directly. By stopping, you support all our lives.
  • 4) While we support research, we need to solve the problem, as best we can, with the tools we have now. We can’t depend on fantasies that we will develop wonderful super-tech, or that everything will turn out ok, because Murdoch tells us so. We may need to penalise those who would destroy the lives of the rest of us, by continuing emissions. They might need warning, and gradually increasing penalties and costs, but that will help them change. Conversely we can reward those who do well.
  • 5) Doing the right thing is not always easy, but we do it anyway.

On Nuclear Energy – again

July 8, 2020

Nuclear energy is frequently brought forward as a solution to the climate problem.

Let us assume that there are indeed only few problems with nuclear energy. That costs do not commonly over-run, that nukes do not produce massively expensive energy, that there are no problems with waste, that while they are much safer than coal fired energy the possibility of catastrophic breakdown is of no concern, that private insurance is easy to obtain, and so on.

Let us assume that everything the nuclear advocates say in favour of nuclear energy is correct, and that there are no drawbacks.

Then the question remains: Who in government or industry [that is amongst people who can actually do something] is actually seeking to build nukes in Australia?

The answer appears to be “no one”.

There is no evidence I know of, that any one reputable in Australia with the capacity to build nukes, is seeking to build them. Hence it is unlikely that nuclear energy is going to be built, or built in time, or built in sufficient quantity to have a useful effect on Australia’s emissions.

No matter how many good people, who cannot actually implement the project, think it is a good idea, nothing will happen in time to make a difference.

Given the lack of desire to build then what is the point of agitating for them?

To me, the whole point of the argument appears to be to propose a fantasy which prevents action from happening on doable fronts, as something super great is going to happen sometime in the future. The idea of nuclear energy functions like carbon capture and storage. It is a distraction from the problems and soothes people into thinking they are doing something, and showing climate activists to be hypocritical hysterics. (This seems to be such a major part of the pro-nuke movement’s rhetoric, that I assume it is essential and not accidental.)

In other words, imaginary nukes seem to be another way of persuading people to stay with Greenhouse Gas emissions for longer, and allow the current decline to continue and the crisis to get worse.

Another factor in the transition is that we use coal and oil for many non electrical processes. To make the transition, nuclear or renewable, we have to electrify as much as we can. Strangely the pro-nuke people rarely mention this cost and difficulty, while renewable people do.

On the other hand, the renewables transition will be difficult, and will require changes to life styles, and industrial arrangements (which happens all the time), but it has started.

We do have people interested in building renewables, more in fact than can currently be accommodated, even with massive discouragement at all levels of government. We have people all over the country installing solar panels on their rooftops, even if the government is striving to make it less economic. We don’t have to pretend there is active interest. However the government would rather spend the money on destructive gas pipelines, than on renewable-adequate grids.

There are also plenty of studies suggesting that it is possible to do a close to 100% renewables transition in Australia, relatively quickly with the right preparation and work. We happen to be blessed with the climate that makes this possible.

The transition to nuclear energy is not happening. Is not being considered by companies or government. Is massively capital intensive, and faces other problems that appear to be unsolved. No party has campaigned on putting nuclear energy in people’s backyards. It is clearly never going to happen in my life time, if ever.

Hence, unless the pro-nuclear advocates can show that there is any real, rather than purely rhetorical, interest anywhere in Australia in building nukes now, there is no point in pretending such a transition will, or could, happen. Lets get on with the renewable transition, without pretending it will be enough to solve all our problems – more needs to be done.

Continued in: More on nuclear energy again

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.

Pandemic Comparison 4

June 28, 2020

Time for the roughly monthly comparison between Australia and the US on the coronavirus pandemic….

The population of the US is about 13 times greater than that of Australia. So if all things are equal, US figures should be 13 times greater than Australian figures.

Today’s figures 27 June 2020:

  • Australia, confirmed cases: 7593
  • USA confirmed cases, 2.51m (despite official reluctance to test)

The pattern over time is as follows:

  • 10 April 77 times as many cases as Aus
  • 29 April 130 times as many cases as Aus
  • 29 May 246 times as many cases as Aus
  • 27 June 330 times as many cases as Aus

The confirmed cases are increasing more rapidly than in Australia.

The US had 127,000 deaths and Australia 104.

The pattern is as follows

  • 10 April 309 times as many deaths as Aus
  • 29 April 673 times as many deaths as Aus
  • 29 May 1000 times as many deaths as Aus
  • 27 June 1221 times as many deaths as in Aus

The Death rate is continuing to increase more rapidly than in Aus – although the rate of increase is perhaps slowing down.

There are no figures for those left incapacitated by the virus….

COVID and CO2

June 1, 2020

We have heard a lot about how you can see now see the Himalayas and air pollution has gone down markedly.

However a few stats from the Guardian’s “Green Mail”:

Weekly average CO2 readings

1) 1 March 2020: 413.84 ppm
Last year: 411.91 ppm

2) 29 March 2020: 415.74 ppm
Last year: 412.39 ppm

3) 18 April 2020: 416.27 ppm
Last year: 413.62 ppm

4) 25 April 2020: 415.88 ppm
Last year: 413.71 ppm

5) 16 May 2020: 416.79 ppm
Last year: 415.31 ppm

6) 23 May 2020: 416.97 ppm
Last year: 414.72 ppm

Despite the reduction in economic activity and visible pollution, CO2 readings are still up on last year.

Pandemic Comparison 3

May 29, 2020

The third comparison between the US and Australia. This is being made at random intervals…

It is a response to those who think that Australia should be more like the US economically and politically.

The first case of coronavirus in the US was announced on the 20th Jan.
The first case in Australia was announced on the 25th Jan. This is pretty comparable.

The US population is about 334,000,000 and the Australian population is about 26,000,000. So the population of the US is about 13 times greater than that of Australia. So if all things are equal, US figures should be 13 times greater than Australian figures.

Current confirmed cases in US: 1,760,000 (precise figures not available to me)
Current confirmed cases in Australia: 7,155

The US has 246 times as many confirmed cases as Australia. This is up from 130 times as many on 29 April 2020, which is up from 77 times as many on 10 April 2020.

Current deaths in the US: 103,000 (exact figures not available to me).
Current deaths in Australia: 103.

The US now has 1,000 times as many deaths as Australia. This is up from 673 times as many deaths on 29 April 2020, which is up from 309 times as many on 10 April 2020.

The trend is clear: the US is getting significantly worse than Australia.

I think the Trump example is probably not one we need to follow.

Yet there are signs the Australian government does not want to be thought of badly by the US and it might become a bare chest grunting match, rather than a considered phase out, as they start returning to the hard-line neoliberalism they are renown for….