Tea at Trianon: The Left Needs to Find Itself

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Saturday, October 28, 2023

The Left Needs to Find Itself

From The Brownstone Institute:

It is tiring to be accused of being ‘far-right’ by people doing the bidding of the corporations and investors who recently made a killing on Covid. It is particularly irritating that such people, whilst deriding low-income workers and the ‘uneducated,’ have convinced themselves that they are somehow being virtuous. They call themselves ‘left,’ but so do I. We either need to rethink or ditch these outdated epithets, or be more honest about our positions.
As explanation, the following is a list of some actual ‘left’ policies I have always supported. They lean towards public health issues, as this is relevant to the times. They include:
An emphasis on human rights, bodily autonomy and freedom of movement.
An effort to limit inequality in wealth distribution.
Decolonization (i.e., large rich countries and the corporations in them (or that run them) should not dictate to, or extract wealth from, smaller and poorer countries.)
Community-based influence or control on local policy and resources, particularly healthcare.
A publicly funded health system that ensures reasonably equal access to good basic care.
Free and equal opportunity for education, to reduce poverty and improve gender equality.
Constitutional democracy, where governments exist on the will of the people, and inviolable rules protect minorities.
Free speech (essential to stop dictators from entrenching themselves, and to ensure progress)
Willingness to stand your ground for the above principles, even at some personal cost.
The list could go on, but generally this is where I was, and remain. This is why, ignorantly or not, I have always voted that way. Working in global health, I had thought that was where most of my colleagues were, though I was fine with those that differed. However, with notable exceptions, nearly all have actively supported the following list of antithetical policies during the past few years:
Mandated face coverings and injections, and vilification and exclusion of individuals and minorities who refused (Note: “exclusion” is the opposite of “inclusion,” so the opposite of DEI)
Desperation to defend the largest concentration of wealth in the history of humankind, with ‘left-wing’ media lauding the recipients (and incidentally sponsored by them).
Imposition of global policies geared to ensure broad uptake in low-income countries of Western health products to address a Western problem (i.e., “No one is safe until everyone is safe”), at the cost of deterioration of the health issues that actually impact low-income countries most.
Increasing centralization in international public health policy, with the World Health Organization (WHO), ‘philanthropists’ and a parrot-like sponsored media pushing the same policies on young mothers in Nigerian villages that they push on aged-care centers in Seattle.
Restricting healthcare access across much of the globe, from chemotherapy for NHS cancer patients in Britain and basic birthing support for young mothers in Kenya.
Advocating for school closures that will ensure increased poverty for the next generation, widening gender inequality, promoting child marriage, and child labor.
Rule by emergency decree, because the public may choose differently from the government. Then planning for a transfer of powers to the WHO for any health event, or even the threat of one, that WHO staff in a comfortable Swiss city deem to call an “emergency.”
(Read more.)