23 April 2014

trouble at the palace

● That the ethos at Westminster is increasingly dominated by boorishness, financial fiddles and sexual shenanigans should surprise no one. Some would blame democratic failings, but for once I would argue this is not about the shortcoming of democracy. MPs are only acting out the value system everyone else has decided is the one to be embraced and promoted.
Principles (e.g. the idea that one should behave honourably, irrespective of available incentives) are now seen as faintly bourgeois and inauthentic – hence to be rejected in favour of basic human urges, which are ‘honest’, and supposedly ‘sympathetic’ to the proletarian viewpoint.
Mediocracy dislikes principles, with the possible exception of ‘equality’, i.e. that people should be regarded as identical. A principle is too much like a statement about objective reality. The idea that something might be important, independently of current fashionable thinking, conflicts with the consensus model of reality. A principle implies something which might need to be fought for, and this is inconsistent with mediocratic indifference. (p.141)
● It’s exasperating that none of the millionaires or multi-millionaires reading this blog (of whom there are at least a couple) bother to send financial contributions. A few thousand would be no skin off their noses. But I suppose, as usual, complacency – one of the main reasons the mediocrats are able to keep moving things in their preferred direction – rules.
If a donor didn’t want to be identified, I am sure he or she could find a way to make a contribution anonymously.