Tom Robinson, Author at Womens Post

Book Reviews July 18, 2019

A united future begins as a tangled mess

In trying to explain Donald Trump’s stunning election as U.S. President, Stephen Harper – in his latest book, Right Here, Right Now: Politics and Leadership in the Age of Disruption – identified a divide between “those who live somewhere” and “those who live anywhere”.

The ‘”somewheres,” on the one hand, are the typically common folk in society. They fix boilers, grow food, and drive buses or taxis. They are the ‘locals’ who keep communities ticking over.

The “anywheres,” on the other hand, do not rely on any given place. They work for international businesses, or have university degrees which give them freedom to choose from a pool of nations where they can make their living. Their work, in the long run, helps to integrate nations into the growing global community.

Somewheres, according to Harper, make up the majority of the population in Western countries; but he claims the anywheres have been dominating politics – that is, until the recent shift in political trends, resulting in Brexit, Trump, Boris Johnson, Le Pen, Doug Ford, etc.

Harper believes ‘somewheres vs. anywheres’ (an idea borrowed from British journalist David Goodhart) is the new divide in present day political fault-lines; and he advocates populist conservatism (which, he confesses, is really just conservatism) as the solution.

In regards to policy, he writes:

Conservatives should remain pro-market, pro-trade, pro-globalization, and pro-immigration at heart. Going in a completely opposite direction in any of these areas would be a big mistake with serious ramifications. But being pro-market does not mean that all regulations should be dismantled or that governments should never intervene. Being pro-trade does not imply that any commercial arrangement is a good one. Being pro-globalization should not entail abdicating loyalty or responsibility to our countries. And being pro-immigration should never mean sanctioning the erasure of our borders or ignoring the interests of our citizens.*

In short, being pro-something is not an excuse for ideological tangents.”

With all respect to Harper – I genuinely think that his observations are astute – he seems, contrary to his stance of anti-ideology, attached to his conservative values.

Proposing conservatism as our solution is akin to a commercial with no relevance to the product it is supposed to advertise.

Here’s a fictional example: a Zen master speaks beautifully about what it takes to become a guru; then it is revealed that he is eating a Big Mac.

Similarly to that commercial idea (I’ll be expecting a cheque, McDonald’s!), there is real wisdom in Harper’s reflections; but conservatism, like the Big Mac, is not the answer.

The somewheres vs. anywheres situation feels, to me, like a struggle between the old world and the new world – between the comfortable nostalgia of the past and the potential grandeur of the future.

In resolving this division, it is important to first recognise that somewheres and anywheres actually need each other.

Somewheres need anywheres to provide the Western ideals, and the promise of a brighter future; anywheres need somewheres to keep everyday society going.

There is, then, importance in Harper’s beloved conservative values: in striving for the ideals of the future, we shouldn’t forget where we’ve come from.

In the same way that a flower cannot grow without its roots, our future, globalised society won’t grow without our (already established) foundations. Tearing our roots apart – no matter how tangled and distorted they have become – will create more problems than it solves.

Nonetheless, we are experiencing what is, arguably, the greatest revolution in the history of civilisation: the digital revolution.

The lifestyle – and potential – of the human race has evolved enormously in a miniscule amount of time … and the changes we have seen could yet prove to be the tip of the iceberg.

The new, seemingly infinite world of the internet, and the rapidly improving technology at our disposal, is not something that can be governed by the traditional nation states that populist conservatives are so fond of.

And while Harper acknowledges the need to be pro-globalisation, he is also dismissive of the global community’s relevance, describing it as “a mere notion.” But, similarly, all nation states also started out as abstract concepts; and in a world where the internet/social media are so relevant, the global community is more real than ever.

There must have been something in pre-historic times that forced tribes to work together; and our current situation as separate nations mirrors that in a number of ways.

These circumstances hold the potential to deliver an exciting future; but they also hold the potential of a frightening one. For that reason, it is vital that such delicate times are dealt with intelligently and carefully. There is no point of reference in history for how we might fare in this digital/technological age, so traditional conservatism alone is not the answer.

We need an eclectic, innovative approach. It’s true that we should conserve and protect our roots; but we should also actively nurture our global community, because there are too many problems that nation states cannot solve alone.

Still, these divisions stand stubbornly in the way of such sensibilities. It is becoming increasingly important for people and countries to listen to each other: but are humans capable of that? I’m still not sure.

_____________________________

* Right Here, Right Now: Politics and Leadership in the Age of Disruption (2018).

Business June 7, 2019

Brexit – What’s the big deal?

Brexit is arguably the U.K’s biggest political event of our generation – its ripples continue to shake, and the nation is more divided over it than it has been over anything in decades.

So: is Brexit really such a big deal? This article will attempt to unpack that question.

What is Brexit?

Brexit is the motion for Britain to leave the European Union (E.U).

When the British electorate voted in the 2016 referendum, the result shocked the world of politics – not so dissimilarly to Donald Trump’s election as U.S. President.

From over 33 million voters (a 72% turnout), those who voted to ‘Leave’ made up 52% of the vote; whereas those who voted to ‘Remain’ amassed 48% of the vote.

Due to such fine margins, the referendum has not ended the debate – not by a long shot. Here in Britain it is virtually impossible to go anywhere without overhearing a conversation, or glimpsing some headline about Brexit.

And, 3 years on from the referendum, Brexit has still not been implemented.

There are a number of reasons for this – such as the refusal of so-called ‘Remainers’ to accept the result. (https://www.bollockstobrexit.com/ )

Furthermore, U.K Parliament – equally as divided as the population – hasn’t managed to agree on how to implement Brexit.

Parliamentary conflicts triggered Theresa May – a Remainer prior to the referendum – to resign as Prime Minister. (https://www.ft.com/content/082d16f8-7dfd-11e9-81d2-f785092ab560)

I’m sure you heard about this service https://realcasinoscanada.com/. It’s a new Canadian casino. They have already won a fairly extensive clientele.

What’s Happening Now?

Disputes as to whether or not the majority of the population is still in favour of Brexit are ongoing.

There is a claim that, leading up to the referendum, the Pro-Leave campaign lied to the electorate – Boris Johnson, Conservative MP, has been summoned to court to answer for those claims. (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/29/boris-johnson-appear-court-eu-referendum-misconduct-claims )

However, there are examples of lies from both campaigns – and in this era of ‘post-truth’, where the authority of ‘facts’ is open to interpretation, it seems unlikely that Johnson will be prosecuted.

In another display of post-truth, the U.K’s results in last week’s European Parliament Elections imply different things depending on who you listen to.

Remainers argue that clearly Pro-Remain parties collectively outperformed the Pro-Leave parties clearly in favour of a so-called ‘hard Brexit’ (leaving the E.U with or without an E.U trade deal). Remainers, therefore, believe there is a mandate for a second referendum, where the electorate will have an opportunity to change its mind. (https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/05/27/european-elections-remain-triumphant )

But Nigel Farage, the leader of the Brexit Party, dismissed these claims as ‘absolute tosh’. He, along with the other ‘Leavers’, point out that 75% of activists in the Conservative Party (currently in government) are Pro-Leave, and taking their numbers into account proves that the appetite for Brexit still exists.

Judging the true message of these results is challenging; but the country is certainly still divided.

What will happen next?

Following Theresa May’s failure to deliver Brexit, pro-Leave candidates are dominating the race to replace her as Prime Minister (the current favourite is Boris Johnson). https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/next-prime-minister-uk-odds-candidates-boris-johnson/

It seems likely, then, that Brexit will finally go ahead on the 31^st October – with or without a deal.

Will the U.K be better off?

It’s hard to say for sure whether or not the U.K will be better off.

‘Euroscepticism’ (anti-E.U feeling) is not only present in the U.K – it is spread all across Europe.

Euroscepticism also transcends the traditional politics of ‘left and right’ – the pro-Leave Brexit Party, as well as the pro-Remain Change UK, are made up of former supporters and members from both the Conservative and Labour parties.

Here are some basic arguments to LEAVE:

The E.U is undemocratic and adds a needless layer of bureaucracy.
Freedom of movement encourages immigration, adding strains to services like the NHS.
It has treated member states badly when in economic crisis (particularly Greece).
Industries, including the fishing industry, have suffered.
Calls for a ‘United States of Europe’ and a European army possess a dystopian flavour.

And here are some basic arguments to REMAIN:

The E.U has succeeded in keeping peace between European countries.
Global issues can’t be tackled without cooperative organisations such as the E.U.
The E.U provides checks and balances, preventing governments from getting too powerful.
Some supporters actually prefer E.U politics to their own national politics.
Freedom of movement is a two-ended stick, providing opportunity and improving economy.

There are counterarguments to the arguments from both sides of the debate, and it seems unlikely that either side will convince their opposition any time soon.

Nobody truly knows if the U.K will be better off or not.

So what’s the big deal?

From a democratic standpoint the referendum has been won, so Brexit simply must go ahead.

But the debate won’t go away.

Brexit is a topic which people have identified with far more than they ever identified with the traditional ‘left vs. right’ politics – and when Brexit is finally delivered, it is likely that the debate will still be relevant.

And that’s the big deal. Brexit engages people.

It may seem obvious that the U.K has more pressing concerns than E.U membership – like poverty, the environment, and its own government’s flaws (which will still exist after Brexit).

Still – for better or worse – that will all have to wait.

News September 16, 2018

Elon Musk: A glimpse into the future

Elon Musk has made headlines last week for smoking cannabis live on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast. But what those headlines missed out is what happened in the other 150 minutes of that interview (a sorry reflection of today’s click-bait reporting culture). That interview revealed a portrait of Musk which is simply fascinating.

What I’ve discovered in my own studies of Musk is that he is as close to the definition of ‘genius’ as anybody alive and in the public eye. His achievements with Tesla Inc., revolutionising the quality of and attitude towards electric cars, are truly special. Also his SpaceX project, which intends to improve the cost and reliability of access to space, has made public interest in space exploration as significant as it has been in years. Musk, in fact, is well-known to be an advocate of colonising Mars, as well as (eventually) other planets. He believes that it is a plausible idea, that it is a good idea, and Musk has announced that SpaceX plans to send humans to Mars by 2024.

While I myself have my scepticism about the necessity of landing man on Mars, Musk sees it as necessary for human preservation. In his interview with Joe Rogan, he described the colonisation of other planets as a beautiful dream — a future that, logically speaking, we should seriously consider (with overpopulation issues looming, and the climate changing in ways that we don’t really understand).

Strange, given his stance on space travel, is Musk’s existential outlook on life. He said during the interview: “Enjoy the journey! Even if we sort of existed as humans forever there’d still eventually be, like, the death of the universe … eventually it’s gonna end. It’s just a question of when … so it really is all about the journey!” Knowing that the end of humanity is inevitable, it seems paradoxical that Musk is so passionate about striving to survive the human race via ‘planet hopping’.

Another of his projects, The Boring Company (which apparently started as a joke), is currently implementing Musk’s idea to build a tunnel under Los Angeles in a bid to improve traffic. That such a project has been approved so easily demonstrates one of two things: that Musk is super-rich, and super-rich people can do whatever they want; or that the authorities have so much respect towards him that they believe whatever he touches will turn to gold. In any case, Musk is clearly an extremely powerful man — probably much more powerful than any politician.

Yet, behind that mechanical and scientific brain of his, there resides a genuinely emotional and vulnerable individual. “I don’t think anybody wants to be me,” he told Rogan, when the MMA commentator described him as having a super power. This degree of self-depreciation brought to mind an Uncle Ben quote from the 2002 Spider-Man movie: “with great power comes great responsibility.”

I happen to believe that Musk feels deeply responsible for the future of the human race. He declared throughout the interview with Rogan that he “loves humanity,” and on the dangers facing the species at present, he seemed extremely affected. He appeared emotional when speaking about the high-profile issue of carbon emissions:

“We’re taking vast amounts of carbon, from deep underground, and putting this in the atmosphere. This is very dangerous […] The bizarre thing is that, in the long term, we know we’re going to run out of oil […] It’s tautological. We must have sustainable energy transport and infrastructure in the long term, so why run this crazy experiment?”

He seemed just as emotional when discussing the dangers posed by AI. “Nobody listened,” he mourned when explaining how he told as many people as he could about those dangers — including former President Barack Obama. Musk, though, has thought long and hard about solutions to the AI problem, and declared that another of his companies, Neuralink, will have something to share soon regarding the merging of AI with the human mind. It sounded rather creepy, actually! One of the possibilities for the future he described verged on dystopian sci-fi: “if your biological self dies you can probably upload it into a new unit… literally.”

This possibility didn’t seem to creep out Musk, however, who believes that the universe is probably a simulation. However, Musk himself is talented at using the resources of the simulation in a more productive way than most other people. It seems like a paradox that someone who understands what we call the real world so deeply believes, in fact, that reality is not strictly ‘real’. What an interesting thought.

It also seems paradoxical that someone like Musk so openly encourages, above everything else, something as abstract as love. “Love is the answer!” he declared at the end of the podcast. His self-described “fatalistic” world view seems a whisper away from nihilism; yet, he is still emotionally involved with humanity, and has an honest desire to help people. His ideas are intended to literally help humanity to better itself. Perhaps he is simply rich and bored — perhaps his eccentric ideas will cause more harm than good; but maybe we should be thankful that such power has found itself in the hands of someone like Musk.

Featured September 7, 2018

Jordan Peterson: Irritatingly impressive

When I first encountered Dr. Jordan Peterson, I was put off by him almost immediately—he appeared a cold, cynical, even angry figure. I thought he misunderstood many of the concepts that, while I was critical of them myself, I was fascinated by. And I felt, in a way, like he was attacking my own stance; therefore, (in my arrogance) I reckoned his research must have missed something!

But the more I listened, the more I was convinced that he knew what he was talking about. He spoke about issues from various perspectives, and with a nuanced understanding. There remains a number of significant topics that I disagree with him on; however, his influence on today’s zeitgeist is significant enough that I believe he is worth talking about.

Looking for inspiration and essay help online to write a paper about personality? Why not totry these out and get all the info and professional writing help? Improve your grades easily!

Peterson’s rise to fame/infamy began in September 2016, when he posted a series of YouTube videos criticising Bill C-16—a law passed which added gender expression and gender identity as protected grounds under the Canadian Human Rights Code. He claimed that the bill was an infringement of free speech, and that it would become a cause of compelled speech.

His upsurge has received mixed reviews. While he has amassed an enormous online following, and sold millions of copies of his new book, 12 Rules For Life, there remains a substantial number of people who disagree with his views on Marxist philosophies, postmodernism, religion, and (of course) who don’t share his opinions on gender. Instead of embracing the ‘progressive’ notions, which promote gender fluidity and non-binary gender, Peterson argues that gender is limited by biological truths, which Bill C-16 ignores. During a presentation on ‘The Rising Tide of Compelled Speech in Canada‘ at Queen’s University, Ontario, he criticised the bill’s use of the term ‘gender spectrum’: “I don’t know what that means, and I don’t believe the people who wrote it know what that means either.” At one point during the event, two protestors—quite perfectly summarising the opposition to Peterson’s alleged defence of free speech—came on stage holding a sign that read: “Freedom to smash bigotry.”

Peterson has attracted the acclaim of many people, as evidenced by his book sales. His audience, however, is observed as being mostly young men, and there is an accusation of Peterson that his stance encourages alt-right, Neo-Nazi thought. In a scathing article on Macleans.ca, Peterson was described as being “The Stupid Man’s Smart Person.”

Personally, though, I feel like there is a misunderstanding between Peterson and his critics. This was well demonstrated in an interview he had on Channel 4 with Cathy Newman, which now has more than 10 million views on YouTube. There was a theme in this interview where Peterson’s words were twisted to paint a picture of him that was quite inaccurate.

Moreover, the article I referenced on Macleans.ca seems to misrepresent his message, while bringing attention to factors that are out of his control (such as the people who listen to him).

Peterson’s message is a very basic, almost cliché encouragement. His 12 Rules could be summarised, in my reading, by one simple expression: “Buck up, bucko!”

It’s hardly a radical or original message. But his book does dress that message up in an impressively academic way; thereby it acts as a kind of self-help book for intellectuals. There are many other factors (less noble factors, too) that the book is celebrating success—Peterson is by no means a messiah! Criticism of him, though, has so far lacked genuine substance, or reference to his actual words. I think that is a shame.

One thing that is worth praising Peterson for is his success in attracting people with polarized views, and from different ends of the political spectrum, into the same discussion. His presence is known, one way or another, by both radical Feminists and Neo-Nazis (as well as everywhere in between). I think it’s rare that people from these two opposite poles meet, and I believe that a civilized dialogue between them (as unlikely as that seems) would be enormously beneficial to human consciousness.

In the name of progress, it is important to remember that humanity will not progress without the so-called alt-right, nor will it progress without the so-called ‘Social Justice Warriors’. Humanity can only progress in unity with itself. In such a crucial time, evolutionarily speaking, it is more important than ever that people talk openly, honestly, and reach some sort of understanding. The reluctance to accept each other’s differences—even those that are misled – and to work towards a logical compromise could have devastating results.

I would love to see Peterson debate thinkers along the lines of Peter Joseph or Roxanne Meadows, whose futuristic and technological points of view he seems not to have considered so deeply. Perhaps a meeting with leftists such as Abby Martin, or even an academic behemoth such as Noam Chomsky, would yield interesting results—maybe these debates would challenge Peterson in such a way that hasn’t really happened yet.

But what is true of Peterson, in my opinion, is that he has built a platform on which people can express their thoughts honestly and unashamedly. Whatever your view of Peterson may be, you can’t deny that there’s something impressive—even decent about what he has achieved.