The internet is making life difficult for ‘progressive interventionists’

By Mustela nivalis
Ever since the launch of the World Wide Web, people have been predicting that the internet will change politics for ever. See e.g. ‘The Sovereign Individual’ by James Dale Davidson and William Rees-Mogg (1997). It wasn’t until the start of ‘Web 2.0’ (personal blogs, YouTube, social media etc.) that this prediction began to come about. See e.g. the ‘Ron Paul Revolution’ and the success of ‘Tea Party’ candidates against the US-Republican establishment. And now the vote in Parliament which frustrated the plans of the British subsidiary of the US-UK military-industrial-media-complex, which has had and is still having repercussions all the way to their HQ in Washington, DC (among LRC circles aka as ‘Mordor’).
It’s the internet wot won it. I’ve been wanting to write up something along these lines for some days but have been busy. Thankfully Sue Cameron of the Telegraph has done the job for me. I slightly disagree only with one quoted statement: ‘And the vast amounts of online information mean that people are sceptical of what governments tell them and check up on it instantly.’ No: People have been sceptical of politicians for a very long time. The internet allows them though to find out much more easily than ever before that their scepticism is well founded. And it allows them to communicate this to each other and to the politicians themselves.
This means that in particular ‘progressive’ politics are in trouble. As the highly intelligent arch-interventionist Dan Hodges conceded straight after the vote: This is a catastrophe for progressive interventionism. (I’m inclined to think he has a decent streak: he didn’t use that deceitful oxymoron ‘liberal interventionism’.) Quite. And the internet is going to continue to be a catastrophe for people of Hodges’ ilk. Because with scepticism abounding and having an already and increasingly powerful communicative tool at its fingertips, progressives will have to make an increasingly better case than hitherto as to why what ain’t broke needs to be fixed. Or why we need to fix other people’s problems. Or they will need to explain much more clearly where we have the knowledge and skill from with regard to solving other people’s problems.
The internet is making life increasingly difficult for progressive interventionists. That’s the good news. The bad news is: It’s not enough to stop them. A necessary condition maybe, not a sufficient one.

7 responses to “The internet is making life difficult for ‘progressive interventionists’

  1. I keep asking myself what would have happened in July 1914 if we’d had the Internet. One thing for sure is that the idiots in charge wouldn’t have had such an easy ride to Armageddon.

  2. I am known to be a pessimist, but I entirely agree with this article. Of course it is easy to believe in false dawns, but I feel (and I think I said here at the LA) that it seems something has genuinely changed in a qualitative sense.

  3. Peter W Watson

    Praise God (as we who believe in Him do) – nation shall indeed speak unto nation (and bypass the MSM in the process). The face of true Democracy must terrify the politicians who preach it.

    • That’s why the bastards want to “regulate” it – and, by the way, use “other excuses that will wash with families and hard-working children”, to censor it.

      “We need to do this, for the children”, to “protect them”.

      In the Third Reich (sorry to keep coming back to it, but it does represent a very-highly-developed example of what we all thought classical-liberalism was trying to purposefully-avoid becoming) “mothers” were awardable a Silver Cross for having “eight children or more” (each). I bet you all 50p (each) that they need mothers to produce children in North Korea, at the rate the State is eliminating people in deathcamps.

      I wonder how they persuade people even to shag?It’s well-known that if you are seriously depressed, then you “can’t get it up” – at least, as a male.

      Does anybody know how it is inside there, on this sort of matter? Or, how are the Kim-Dynasty-Nazis actually managing to prodice “more human resource”? Or…are the even running out?

  4. Fine. I know all about bunches of stuff I have no practical use for in my everyday life, so what? So *how can they be stopped*? Democracy never stopped these psychopaths doing anything – in fact “spreading democracy” is one of the tools of their trade.

  5. A bit previous, but direct democracy must be somewhere down the line.

  6. Pingback: The Internet as Result of a Negative Feedback Loop Against Centralisation | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG