PLUS ÇA CHANGE, PLUS C’EST LA MÊME CHOSE , BRIAN HAW AND BESTRIDING TIMES.
Untangling Cognitive Dissonance. Pt 1 Notes
To untangle Brexit you have to disentangle everything else.
The Main Theme of dominant narratives of the 21st Century since 2000, 9/11
war on terror, Climate Beliefs and Haulocaustianity, Denialist Thoughtcrime and thought crime denunciation, Political Correctness, Identity politics, Divide and Rule, Media, Social Media, Censorship, Self-censorship. Peer Pressure Peer review, Star Worship, Cults of personality,
With that list, this list of Wells’s from The fate of Mann quoted in My poem Globalisation Unentangled.
Cabalists, Gnostics, Manichaeans, the Old Man
of the Mountains, Knight Templars, Satanists,
Rosicrucians, Illuminati, Freemasons, Rousseau,
Voltaire, Cagliostro, Madame Blavatsky, Mrs. Besant,
Trade Unions, Anarchists, Socialists, Theosophists,
Communists, Those Bolsheviks, a frightful horde
all plotting and getting hold of power and handing
it on and doing down Christianity and the Christian life
Wells The Fate of Man.p.259
Untangling Cognitive Dissonance Part 2.
Chapter III p.109 –War is Peace
The splitting up of the world into three great super-states was an event
which could be and indeed was foreseen before the middle of the twentieth
century. With the absorption of Europe by Russia and of the British Empire by
the United States, two of the three existing powers, Eurasia and Oceania, were
already effectively in being. The third, Eastasia, only emerged as a distinct
unit after another decade of confused fighting. The frontiers between the three
super-states are in some places arbitrary, and in others they fluctuate according
to the fortunes of war, but in general they follow geographical lines. Eurasia
comprises the whole of the northern part of the European and Asiatic land-
mass, from Portugal to the Bering Strait. Oceania comprises the Americas, the
Atlantic islands including the British Isles, Australasia, and the southern portion
of Africa. Eastasia, smaller than the others and with a less definite western
frontier, comprises China and the countries to the south of it, the Japanese
islands and a large but fluctuating portion of Manchuria, Mongolia, and Tibet.
In one combination or another, these three super-states are permanently
at war, and have been so for the past twenty-five years. War, however, is
no longer the desperate, annihilating struggle that it was in the early decades
of the twentieth centary. It is a warfare of limited aims between combatants
who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause for fighting and
are not divided by any genuine ideological difference. This is not to say that
either the conduct of war, or the prevailing attitude towards it, has become less
bloodthirsty or more chivalrous.
25:55
statues going on at the moment which says only people who are moral
26:00
by today’s standards should still have their statutes shall we just stand with
26:05
our backs to the national gallery in london in trafalgar square and contemplate what we see
26:12
what we see is this on our right hand there is a statue of
26:17
james ii who’s dethroning and driving out of the country in
26:24
1688-89 first of all establishes the final rule that a monarch must not
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayden_White
Metahistory (1973)
See also: Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe
In his seminal 1973 book Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe, White claimed that the manifest historical text[jargon] is marked by strategies of explanation, which include explanation by argument, explanation by emplotment, and explanation by ideological implication.[10] He argued that historical writing was influenced by literary writing in many ways, sharing the strong reliance on narrative for meaning.[11] Therefore, White contradicts the view that “historiography can be objective or truly scientific in itself, unaffected by anything.”
White mentions two figures who have enabled people to ask questions about history’s objectivity: Marx and Nietzsche. According to White, these thinkers both use their philosophy to consider history which “not only makes us know something about the historical process but know how it knows it.”[12] They focus on the problem of history. Marx regards the problem of history as the problem of the mode of explanation, while, for Nietzsche, the problem is the problem of the mode of emplotment.[13] Thus, history is recorded differently depending on which mode the historian chooses. As a result, ‘a value-free history’ cannot be existed.[14] By showing Marx’s and Nietzsche’s argument, White once again emphasizes the importance of the philosophies of history, and history as a well-made or well-constructed narrative.
He insists, in particular in chapter 7, that philosophies of history are indispensable elements in historiography, which cannot be separated from historiography. For him, history is not simply a list of chronological events. [15] White also argued, however, that history is most successful when it uses this “narrativity”, since it is what allows history to be meaningful.[16] Emphasizing history as a narrative using language, he argues that true history should contain both characteristics of synchronic and diachronic. [17] This view is contrary to historians such as Eduard Fueter [it] George Peabody Gooch, and Bendetto Croce, who tried to distinguish between historiography and philosophies of history. [18] He ended his career as University Professor Emeritus[19] at the history of consciousness department of the University of California, Santa Cruz, having previously retired from the comparative literature department of Stanford University.
Lawsuit against the LAPD
White figured prominently in a landmark California Supreme Court case regarding covert intelligence gathering on college campuses by police officers in the Los Angeles Police Department. White v. Davis, 13 Cal.3d 757, 533 P.2d 222, 120 Cal. Rptr. 94 (1975). During 1972, while a professor of history at UCLA and acting as sole plaintiff, White sued Chief of Police Edward M. Davis, alleging the illegal expenditure of public funds in connection with covert intelligence gathering by police at UCLA. The covert activities included police officers registering as students, taking notes of discussions occurring in classes, and making police reports on these discussions. White v. Davis, at 762. The Supreme Court found for White in a unanimous decision. This case set the standard that determines the limits of legal police surveillance of political activity in California; police cannot engage in such surveillance in the absence of reasonable suspicion of a crime (“Lockyer Manual”).
