Reflections on Episode One of The Existential Reader Podcast
In what tone should our response to Fascistic provocations be?
A few days after recording episode one of this publication’s podcast I began to have serious doubts on the wisdom of releasing it into the public domain. Before recording the episode I got into the frame of mind where I would just let go and be myself, meaning that I wouldn’t hold back in the way I express my views, talking as if I were talking to mates. This made the actual recording much easier. There wasn’t the constant stopping and starting brought about from reading of a script and trying to sound all proper. It was, however, a bit of a rant.
My big mistake, I feel, was allowing myself to get riled up and to then let rip. In my defence, this is currently easier said than done. I should have thought the episode through, though, and given it a rigid structure that would have kept the argument bound to a semblance of reasonable decorum!
Luckily, not many people have listened to it. But I still have a mild sense of embarrassment about it, even though I largely stand by what I said. It’s more the way I said it that has been bothering me. For those who haven’t listened (and please don’t take this as a cue to listen!), I decided that instead of going ahead with the original plan of covering the topics explored in the newsletter, particularly how existentialism relates to sense of place, I would instead talk about free speech. This decision was made on the back of JD Vance’s speech in Munich, in which he lectured Europeans on free speech, distorting the facts behind cited examples.
Like all MAGA dogma, Vance’s speech was hypocritical, biased, misinformed, and mostly just plain stupid. And I know most people would refuse to get wound up by this, seeing it as a needless waste of energy and time. But I would argue we have a duty to refute this stuff, and that politicians, particularly those in high positions like Vance, should be held to a higher standard. Whether elected or not, politicians have, or should have, a responsibility to the truth, which is why I argued that Vance, in a sane world, would have been interrupted and, if the lies persisted, be escorted off stage.
I can see how this might seem contradictory, or as being against free speech. Well, as outlined in a previous article, as well as in the podcast episode itself, free speech is not the freedom to say whatever we want, whenever we want, and, arguably most important, wherever we want. We are in the strange situation now, thanks largely to social media, that free speech is actually seen to be just that. And the many groups that have popped up dedicated to defending free speech all cite the kind of nonsense and distortions listed off by Vance in Munich.
Essentially, and what is painfully obvious but infuriatingly ignored or placated, is that these examples are all geared to the promotion of an agenda - one that aims to push back against so-called “progressive” or “woke” ideas that do not fit in with their own world-view. For Vance in his speech, this was to promote the idea that Christianity is under threat, that a Christian man cannot even pray in public anymore, and that abortion is wrong.
For people like Vance, who seek to push the agenda, as opposed to those who believe him and spread his gospel, the idea is to point out micro-issues, such as a man arrested for refusing to leave a buffer zone outside an abortion clinic that has been put in place for specific reasons, and by law (which is relevant as Vance is, apparently, all for law and order), or someone investigated for things said on social media (which by Elon Musk’s own rhetoric, is the new town square). These people would have us believe that the police are monitoring social media accounts or sat watching abortion clinic buffer zones, rather than responding to a call or complaint, as is the reality. They would also have us believe that the police can read minds, and are able to tell and if we are praying or not in our heads.
In discussing this in my podcast, I let my emotions take control. I was in combative mindset. Don’t get me wrong, I believe there is an ideological battle to be won. I believe the ideologies of Trumpism, Reform UK, and AfD are an existential threat, not just to our progression towards a better society, but to us as a species, brought about by their policies towards climate change, capitalism, and AI. Rather than realise capitalism has been stretched to its limit, they want to continue to pull it, refusing to seek, or recognise the need for, an alternative.
But even if I’m wrong about capitalism or my own world-view, there is still something disagreeable about politicians lying or, at best, being uninformed. A politician in Vance’s position should, and in all likelihood does, know the full circumstances of a situation they are intending to address. It was this dishonesty, or stupidity (we can only speculate as to which one), that really riled me. The self-importance in the delivery of Vance’s words, the sense of entitlement, all spoken with an assuredness of truth.
As mentioned, it is difficult to talk about this in a non-emotional way ie without anger. No amount of votes should allow a politician to manipulate the public. No amount of votes should give authority to stupidity. If that sounds dangerous, or undemocratic, then I would ask that you consider the consequences of being led by people who are either dishonest or stupid, or who have set agendas.
Of course, I am open to criticism on this. Who am I to judge what is and isn’t a stupid opinion. Who am I to judge if someone is lying or not. Well, I have no right to judge that. It is why we should all ensure we are well-informed. It’s why there should be no government secrets. In regard to Vance, I know his opinions shared in his Munich speech are incorrect, not through a gut feeling but by simply living in one of the countries singled out for his accusations and of also being aware of the examples pointed to.
As a society, I often feel like we have lost the ability to think critically, with an awareness of complexities and nuance. We don’t look at things on a case-by-case basis. Everything is sensationalised. Weaponised, even. This leads to the heightened sense of emotion we feel that lowers the level of public discourse to one influenced by identity politics.
In hindsight, then, I see that recording my podcast episode in a state of anger led me to go off one one in a way that I wouldn’t have done otherwise. Again, I don’t think I necessarily said anything wrong, more that it denigrated into a personal attack on Vance and people who support his political views.
Is there actually anything wrong with that, though? I think there might be. As much as I don’t like the guy, how much time should I spend on saying that. What effect do personal insults have? Will they change people’s opinions or serve to reinforce them? Also, is it the tone I wish to present as the voice of The Existential Reader?
Going forward, my podcasts will be themed and will be recorded for the purpose of navigating this increasingly difficult world. There will also be book and film reviews at the end of each episode. In the near future, I will also open reading groups and writing classes. As a soon-to-be PhD in Creative Writing, I have a lot to offer in this field.
I do remain in two minds, however, as to how I voice my political opinions. In our time, politics are near impossible to ignore. Or should be, considering what is at stake right now. I would love to hear people’s thoughts on this. As we have just passed 60 years since the assassination of Malcolm X, I’ve been thinking about his approach to politics. I am not comparing our situation to that of oppressed black people in Malcolm X’s America, by the way. I am just pointing to a revolutionary thinker of great importance, wondering how he would navigate today’s world. I don’t even agree with everything Malcolm X stood for, especially during his Nation of Islam years and the idea that all white people are devils! But the things I disagree with him on are, on the whole, things he also changed his opinions on, mostly on his Hajj to Mecca.
Yet even these racialised ideas are understandable in their context. They come from a place of deep anger, righteous anger, and resentment. So even though our struggles are different, people today have a fight on. Do we conduct that fight through reasoned, polite debate, or do we go on the front foot, on the warpath, so to speak, allowing our emotions to rise to the surface. The danger with that, of course, is that emotions can bubble over. For myself, I will try to manage my anger in a positive way, honing it to enforce an argument as opposed to fixating too much on one example.
Episode Two of The Existential Reader Podcast will available towards the end of the week, and will be themed around sense of place and how it relates to existentialism. I will talk about what I call shifts in sense of place, and how these shifts affect us.
There will be no JD Vance talk. Hopefully.