Thoughts from the Broken Society

By Robert Jameson

A collection of angry, but hopefully thought-provoking moans about the degenerative and anti-intellectual tendencies of the society we live in.

Warning: This book contains very strong language and provocative opinions that many people are very likely to find offensive.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Robert Jameson
• Release date: Jun 4, 2013
• ISBN: 9781507039687

Book preview

Warning/Disclaimer

This book is not for people who are easily offended. Indeed, if you're even remotely concerned about being offended, you should seriously consider not reading any further. If you don't like bitter, angry and forthright opinions or if you object to frequent, crude and unimaginative swearing, this book is probably not for you.

Furthermore, this book is for people who are grown-up enough to enjoy having their views challenged. It is for people who enjoy reading potentially thought-provoking opinions even if they don't agree with them. If you don't want to be challenged and just want to have your pre-existing views confirmed, this book is extremely unlikely to fulfil that function.

Please also note that this is a book of ideas. Nothing in this book is intended to be read as a statement of fact.

Introduction

Do we live in a broken society? It certainly seems like it sometimes. This book is a collection of angry, but hopefully thought-provoking moans about the degenerative and anti-intellectual tendencies of the society we live in. They do not necessarily reflect my personal views. I just hope that you find at least some of them interesting, entertaining and, most importantly, thought-provoking.

Anti-Fascism

I turned on the radio to hear there had been this protest by a supposedly 'anti-fascist' group who had been rather busy that day jostling and shouting to stop a right-wing political organisation from holding a press conference.

Asked by a surprisingly on-the-ball journalist whether their actions weren't perhaps rather at odds with the ideals of free speech, some spokeswoman for this 'anti-fascist' group replied, with not the slightest sense of irony, We don't believe in freedom of speech for fascists.

No - if you don't believe in Freedom of Speech, you are a fascist - you brainless fucking cunt!

Books

It is depressing to think of the many people who don't ever read a book - at least, not voluntarily. They only read what they have to read - mainly just for work. Perhaps it is even more depressing, however, to think of the majority of avid readers who do read and enjoy books, but who have little or no intention of ever learning very much from them.

The plain truth, unfortunately, is that most people, when they buy and read books, don't read books to change them, to challenge their attitudes or to bring them new ideas. They read books to fulfil their expectations - not to set them thinking, but so they don't have to think. They read books, not to challenge their ideas, but to reaffirm the ones they're already wedded to.

Some such readers will be interested in new knowledge, but not new ideas. The discovery of new ideas, the exploration of challenging opinions - these are the last things they want to get involved in. Are such people any less of a bunch of morons than the people who don't read at all?

Exampleitis

In the case of most people, when they are asked about their opinions in regard to a particular point of principle, what they do is simply think of an example, think which side of the debate they are instinctively minded to support in that particular example, and then decide their 'principles' accordingly. It's a condition we might refer to as, 'exampleitis.'

For example: Should the law allow someone to be tried twice for the same crime - or should we have a rule against 'double-jeopardy'? The example our typical person would probably think of in their minds would be that of a criminal who really has murdered someone. He's been tried once, but 'got away with it' - on some sort of 'technicality' - and has since been going around bragging about the murder he committed to anyone who would listen.

So, should the law allow someone to be tried twice for the same crime? Yes, says our typical person - but they're just thinking of a particular example, not the principle involved. They're not even going to concern themselves with the possibility of miscarriages of justice. One example is allowed to overrule all thought of principle. In fact, it's doubtful if they even understand what a principle is. They probably don't actually comprehend the concept of a principle - it's beyond them.

Ask them if they should be tried twice and they then get in a muddle explaining how that's different; Yeah, but I'm innocent!

Yes, you reply, but how do we tell the difference between someone who is guilty and someone who is innocent if they've both been on trial and both been found not-guilty? But it's pointless; they just stay firmly entrenched in stupid zone and don't ever want to leave.

Even when the principle is clearly explained to them and even when you've got them to grudgingly admit that some circumstances demonstrate their position to be unfair and unreasonable, their opinion is still stuck fast, anchored to the single, unrepresentative example by which they originally set their 'opinion.' Is it an 'opinion' or is it just a prejudice? It's a prejudice. Calling it an opinion gives it a status it does not deserve.

Appreciation

Sometimes I listen to book reviews on the radio (I know - I'm my own worst enemy!) and I find myself getting annoyed when the insipid eulogies start pouring out when they review 'worthy' books - you know; the ones where the author is clearly at pains to illustrate