Dec 26, 2021·edited Dec 26, 2021Liked by Rhyd Wildermuth
Got your back on this. I am pretty much in full agreement. I am a Luddite, and not even on the Liberalism continuum. I agree with the original luddites in that machines are not the answer. I am also a Digger, as in the True Levellers of the English Revolution.
As for the theory of the Flu epidemic of 1918 starting in the US, there is strong evidence that it was a swine flu varient from Kansas that spread east with draftees, and then to Europe. It was never "Spanish" except that Spain was not involved in the war and was not afraid of admitting to the epidemic. Germany, England, US and all their Allies just did not want the "other side" to know about it.
And how frustrating, that this perspective is so to-the-outside of mainstream American politics that it's almost impossible to effectively communicate to anyone who isn't versed in both ecology and political theory. "Conservatism" could be such a useful foundational concept for a person or movement which seeks to live honestly within the means of the land that is local to them; but using that term would get entirely the wrong reaction from one's neighbors at either end of the political spectrum (in the US, at least). I don't know if we have a term to fill that role, which hasn't already been reduced to a hashtag.
Can a natural process, as in the Machine slowing its roll as resources become more scarce across the next few decades, be considered a revolutionary one? Is it only revolutionary as long as it's being done consciously and willfully, humans forcing a change of direction from what had looked like an inevitable historical trajectory? Maybe choosing not to buy bananas and mangoes in the PNW is revolutionary in 2021; will it still be in 2035?
Not really sure where that's going, up there. Just something that comes to mind.
This is a fairly frequent theme of conversation in my house. We would just like things to stop. It's often sparked by fairly trivial things: why did they update this website? why does every appliance need to be connected to the internet? why are they remaking 10 year old TV shows? why can't we just get decent investigative reporting instead of 24/7 "news"? why could I buy a shirt in 1997 and wear it for 15 years but a shirt I buy today is lucky to last 2?
The answer to all of these is obvious, of course. And there are hundreds of these trivial things in a week that spur the desire to just stop. We would love to pull the emergency brake on this accelerating train.
I really, really love this last line too, "Instead, the only revolutionary and the only revolution I trust is the one that looks around at its companions, surveys the distance, and says in love, “hey—I think we’ve gone far enough. Let’s go home now.”"
Thanks Rhyd. This is so nourishing for me. In this one, you remind me of Wendell Berry, another of my favorite writers. He said:
"One of the peculiarities of the white race’s presence in America is how little intention he has applied to it. As a people, wherever we have been, we have never really intended to be. The continent is said to have been discovered by an Italian who was on his way to India. The earliest explorers were looking for gold, which was, after an early streak of luck in Mexico, always somewhere farther on. Conquests and foundings were incidental to this search - which did not, and could not, end until the continent was finally laid open in an orgy of gold-seeking in the middle of the 19th century. Once the unknown of geography was mapped, the industrial marketplace became the new frontier, and we continued, with largely the same motives and with increasing haste and anxiety, to displace ourselves [and others] - no longer with unity of direction, like a migrant flock, but like refugees from a broken ant hill. In our own time we have invaded foreign lands and the moon with the high-toned patriotism of the conquistadors, and with the same mixture of fantasy and avarice.
That is too simply put. It is substantially true, however, as a description of the dominant tendency in American history. The temptation, once that has been said, is to ascend altogether into rhetoric and inveigh equally against all our forebears and all present holders of office. To be just, however, it is necessary to remember that there has been another tendency: the tendency to stay put, to say, ‘No farther. This is the place.’ So far, this has been the weaker tendency, less glamorous, certainly less successful. It is also the older of these tendencies, having been the dominant one among the Indians. The Indians did, of course, experience movements of population, but in general their relation to place was based upon old usage and association, upon inherited memory, tradition, veneration. This land was their homeland."
Yes!
Got your back on this. I am pretty much in full agreement. I am a Luddite, and not even on the Liberalism continuum. I agree with the original luddites in that machines are not the answer. I am also a Digger, as in the True Levellers of the English Revolution.
As for the theory of the Flu epidemic of 1918 starting in the US, there is strong evidence that it was a swine flu varient from Kansas that spread east with draftees, and then to Europe. It was never "Spanish" except that Spain was not involved in the war and was not afraid of admitting to the epidemic. Germany, England, US and all their Allies just did not want the "other side" to know about it.
Awesome article as always, thanks Rhyyd
And how frustrating, that this perspective is so to-the-outside of mainstream American politics that it's almost impossible to effectively communicate to anyone who isn't versed in both ecology and political theory. "Conservatism" could be such a useful foundational concept for a person or movement which seeks to live honestly within the means of the land that is local to them; but using that term would get entirely the wrong reaction from one's neighbors at either end of the political spectrum (in the US, at least). I don't know if we have a term to fill that role, which hasn't already been reduced to a hashtag.
Can a natural process, as in the Machine slowing its roll as resources become more scarce across the next few decades, be considered a revolutionary one? Is it only revolutionary as long as it's being done consciously and willfully, humans forcing a change of direction from what had looked like an inevitable historical trajectory? Maybe choosing not to buy bananas and mangoes in the PNW is revolutionary in 2021; will it still be in 2035?
Not really sure where that's going, up there. Just something that comes to mind.
Thanks for writing this.
This is a fairly frequent theme of conversation in my house. We would just like things to stop. It's often sparked by fairly trivial things: why did they update this website? why does every appliance need to be connected to the internet? why are they remaking 10 year old TV shows? why can't we just get decent investigative reporting instead of 24/7 "news"? why could I buy a shirt in 1997 and wear it for 15 years but a shirt I buy today is lucky to last 2?
The answer to all of these is obvious, of course. And there are hundreds of these trivial things in a week that spur the desire to just stop. We would love to pull the emergency brake on this accelerating train.
I really, really love this last line too, "Instead, the only revolutionary and the only revolution I trust is the one that looks around at its companions, surveys the distance, and says in love, “hey—I think we’ve gone far enough. Let’s go home now.”"
Conservative revolution? Are you sure?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Revolution
Thanks Rhyd. This is so nourishing for me. In this one, you remind me of Wendell Berry, another of my favorite writers. He said:
"One of the peculiarities of the white race’s presence in America is how little intention he has applied to it. As a people, wherever we have been, we have never really intended to be. The continent is said to have been discovered by an Italian who was on his way to India. The earliest explorers were looking for gold, which was, after an early streak of luck in Mexico, always somewhere farther on. Conquests and foundings were incidental to this search - which did not, and could not, end until the continent was finally laid open in an orgy of gold-seeking in the middle of the 19th century. Once the unknown of geography was mapped, the industrial marketplace became the new frontier, and we continued, with largely the same motives and with increasing haste and anxiety, to displace ourselves [and others] - no longer with unity of direction, like a migrant flock, but like refugees from a broken ant hill. In our own time we have invaded foreign lands and the moon with the high-toned patriotism of the conquistadors, and with the same mixture of fantasy and avarice.
That is too simply put. It is substantially true, however, as a description of the dominant tendency in American history. The temptation, once that has been said, is to ascend altogether into rhetoric and inveigh equally against all our forebears and all present holders of office. To be just, however, it is necessary to remember that there has been another tendency: the tendency to stay put, to say, ‘No farther. This is the place.’ So far, this has been the weaker tendency, less glamorous, certainly less successful. It is also the older of these tendencies, having been the dominant one among the Indians. The Indians did, of course, experience movements of population, but in general their relation to place was based upon old usage and association, upon inherited memory, tradition, veneration. This land was their homeland."
Thank you so much for this, I teared up at the end.