Underlying tactics

I THOUGHT the cartoon chosen for your September 12 edition reader’s letter section with the byline, ‘Did we fail to manipulate your deepest fears and prejudices?’ neatly encapsulates the underlying attitude of the class ascendancy that now runs our system of social administration, to anyone with the temerity to challenge its doctrinally infallible dogma and biblico-historical narrativising.

The underlying tactic is to smear opposition as ‘irrational’, ‘prejudiced’, ‘bigoted’ ‘hateful’, ‘phobic’ and ‘history denialist’. And while there is some of that around, it would never occur to the heresy sniffing neo clerical ‘intelligentsia’ (spare me) that they too might suffer from a lot of those conditions as well, in spades.

Nazis would accuse any ‘Aryan hating’ defender of jews as a Jew ‘Lover’. Southern racists in the US during the civil rights struggles baited opponents as N*****r ‘Lovers’. Political dissenters in the late Soviet era were commonly accused of various pernicious ‘personality disorders’ in order to have them declared criminally insane and ‘restrained’ in asylums.

The implication was that people who held those views were suffering some kind of psychiatric/emotional disorder that would discredit their views to the point that any arguments and evidence these dangerously disordered people might offer up, did not need to be taken seriously or even listened to.

And that is what has happened to all the very tangential replies to my missive of the previous week that carefully skirted it, while applying all the usual noises that is the woke ascendancy line around its ideological sacred sites....and any challenge to them.

It is worth pointing out however, one gets just as little sense or honest engagement out of the fossil fuel lobbies when it comes to climate change and keeping their subterranean mineral sacred sites intact.

Both the neo clerical social ascendancy and their traditional heavy industry opposite numbers who together run the twin pillars of the present regime, suffer the same sustainability, governance and historical narrative delinquencies. Their grim duopoly bodes ill for all of us. Both are as incompetent and malfeasant as the other.

Saying ‘no’ to this wretched referendum may be of as little significance as a steer baulking on its way to the slaughter shed. But I say, ‘Do not go gentle into the good night.....Rage against the dying of the light’....

Christopher Eastman-Nagle, Grantville