Why does one get an impression that countries of the European cultural circuit, commonly held to be the ones most progressive in providing civic and political freedoms, now, in the course of the Corona upheaval, ended up as also being the ones most progressive in limiting of civic and political freedoms? KT offers one possible answer.
The apocalyptic predictions of "globalist takeover" in the midst of the COVID19 crisis seem to focus on the so-called "Great reset", a new "agenda" for changing the world in few weeks time. We on KT, however, are not that impressed with this new episode of the sustainable development soap opera that's been running for decades now, written and directed in, as it seems, rather ad hoc manner and would rather see Greta Thunberg episode again. For this reason we give a brief rundown on what the idea of sustainable development entails and reference our previous work on the subject, notably the analysis of the 1992. Agenda 21 document, which is, more or less, a blueprint for this, as it seems to us, by now largely failed doctrine.
We all heard so much about infantile masses, of an ability to hide in the anonymous mass - in a word: the first association we tend to get when we think in terms of mass man is irresponsibility. However, rarely do we hear anything about equally deprived mass responsibility; rarely, of course, except on Kali Tribune.
In this podcast we'll address the subject of the flip side of popular power - popular responsibility as exemplified by idea, prevalent among the masses, that every problem and indeed everything occurring in this world is due to man or, more precisely, average man.
To demonstrate the absurdity of this notion and some of its possible roots, we'll employ the help Joseph de Maistre, with the special focus on ideas from his essay On the Generative Principle of Political Constitutions, most eminently his insight into impossibility of creating the a priori legislature and the inferiority of written, i.e. systematized, laws and the impossibility of sovereignty coming from below.
One noticeable characteristics of various kinds of "new normal" measures implemented in developed Western democracies in response to COVID19 is that they seem to be the more harsher and radical the more the country in question is developed. One could say that, in contrast to more autocratic polities, Western democracies begin to display an eerie signs of openly totalitarian policing of their citizenry. In this podcast we'll try to analyze how underlying metaphysics of individualistic freedom could just be the cause of that and how we could end up with the seeming paradox: totally collectivized politics based on totally individualized principles.
In the second part of his take on current crisis, which is now apparently fading out into something repeatedly named "new normalcy", Mihai addresses the wider issue at stake: the technocratic, automatic, reaction it provoked and its implications for every day life. Technical approach is conditioned by its inherently limiting nature which necessarily produces a reduction of plentitude of the real to isolated aspects of it, that can ultimately be controlled or, at least, be confined into controllable context. While this may be a sound approach for the specialist, dealing with special problem, it certainly becomes ominous when it takes on metaphysical reach. The ensuing result can be understood in terms of the rejection of hierarchy of reality, which Mihai exemplifies with examples from everyday life both of individual and the society at large.
Also, as a bonus you get some weight loss advice (no fat shaming implied).
It had to happen. Until now we managed to avoid giving our account on global pandemic, without giving away the depth of our heresy at the same time; to wit, that we actually do not belong to overwhelming majority that knows absolutely everything there is to know about it. Yet as not knowing anything is as impossible as knowing everything, Mihai Marinescu volunteered to give his survey of the social effect of the lockdown in his country and to point out some rather ominous symptoms of the political and social shifts it could produce in the future.