I am surprised that there are no comments on this essay. Despite my familiarity with Popper, I was unaware of the abuse of his ideas in service of censorship. Once again, I have learned something important from Yascha. I envy his students.
I can think of no subject more important today than the rise of the censorious instinct. It knows no political party and respects no borders. Most notably, government censorship in the land of Orwell and Mills is a danger to everyone who lives in a liberal democracy. The fact that so many in the press have made common cause with the authoritarians magnifies that danger.
Once again I find myself returning to my hero Orwell and The Prevention of Literature. For those who are unfamiliar with it, or who have forgotten it, Orwell describes a meeting of the P.E.N Club.
« Out of this concourse of several hundred people, perhaps half of whom were directly connected with the writing trade, there was not a single one who could point out that freedom of the press, if it means anything at all, means the freedom to criticize and oppose. »
Ironically, in our age that is drowning in irony, England gave the gift of liberty to Hong Kong, a gift that the dictator Xi stole. Now, British authorities seek to rob its citizens of that same gift, which in England is no less than their birthright.
« Everything in our age conspires to turn the writer, and every other kind of artist as well, into a minor official, working on themes handed down from above and never telling what seems to him the whole of the truth. But in struggling against this fate he gets no help from his own side; that is, there is no large body of opinion which will assure him that he is right. In the past, at any rate throughout the Protestant centuries, the idea of rebellion and the idea of intellectual integrity were mixed up. A heretic—political, moral, religious, or aesthetic—- was one refused to outrage his own conscience. »
Prior to its loss of liberty, the bottom 10% of Hong Kong citizens were economically better off than the top 10% of Cubans. I attribute this to the flourishing of a free people. Now, the Island nation of Great Britain seems intent on joining these unhappy islanders. Will they scour the libraries and burn Mills and Orwell as a danger? Will citizens need to hide their books as in Fahrenheit 451? That is the direction they are headed. In this, they are only at the vanguard of anglophone democracies.
Our consciences are outraged by this. They must be. Like Orwell, we should look to a Revivalist hymn for inspiration.
« Dare to be a Daniel
Dare to stand alone
Dare to have a purpose firm
Dare to make it known »
That so few have commented on this thoughtful and erudite essay reminds me of Orwell, that forgotten P.E.N. meeting, and the need for those who « dare to stand alone. »
I am surprised that there are no comments on this essay. Despite my familiarity with Popper, I was unaware of the abuse of his ideas in service of censorship. Once again, I have learned something important from Yascha. I envy his students.
I can think of no subject more important today than the rise of the censorious instinct. It knows no political party and respects no borders. Most notably, government censorship in the land of Orwell and Mills is a danger to everyone who lives in a liberal democracy. The fact that so many in the press have made common cause with the authoritarians magnifies that danger.
Once again I find myself returning to my hero Orwell and The Prevention of Literature. For those who are unfamiliar with it, or who have forgotten it, Orwell describes a meeting of the P.E.N Club.
« Out of this concourse of several hundred people, perhaps half of whom were directly connected with the writing trade, there was not a single one who could point out that freedom of the press, if it means anything at all, means the freedom to criticize and oppose. »
Ironically, in our age that is drowning in irony, England gave the gift of liberty to Hong Kong, a gift that the dictator Xi stole. Now, British authorities seek to rob its citizens of that same gift, which in England is no less than their birthright.
« Everything in our age conspires to turn the writer, and every other kind of artist as well, into a minor official, working on themes handed down from above and never telling what seems to him the whole of the truth. But in struggling against this fate he gets no help from his own side; that is, there is no large body of opinion which will assure him that he is right. In the past, at any rate throughout the Protestant centuries, the idea of rebellion and the idea of intellectual integrity were mixed up. A heretic—political, moral, religious, or aesthetic—- was one refused to outrage his own conscience. »
Prior to its loss of liberty, the bottom 10% of Hong Kong citizens were economically better off than the top 10% of Cubans. I attribute this to the flourishing of a free people. Now, the Island nation of Great Britain seems intent on joining these unhappy islanders. Will they scour the libraries and burn Mills and Orwell as a danger? Will citizens need to hide their books as in Fahrenheit 451? That is the direction they are headed. In this, they are only at the vanguard of anglophone democracies.
Our consciences are outraged by this. They must be. Like Orwell, we should look to a Revivalist hymn for inspiration.
« Dare to be a Daniel
Dare to stand alone
Dare to have a purpose firm
Dare to make it known »
That so few have commented on this thoughtful and erudite essay reminds me of Orwell, that forgotten P.E.N. meeting, and the need for those who « dare to stand alone. »