My dad told us a story about when he joined the army in 1942, everyone had to get a tetanus shot. They called it the Hook, and there was all this hype about. Before you’d get the shot, you’d hear the people who’d already got it warn you: “Watch the Hook!”
Hmmm, am I remembering this correctly? Let me do some googling . . . ok, here’s something:
I looked up the author of that book, Leo Bogart. He had a long career and at one point was president of the American Association of Public Opinion Research. He taught at Columbia! Amazing the things you can learn by googling.
Anyway, the Hook story came to mind after I came across this story about a TV personality who said that “The point of mandatory vaccination is to identify the sincere Christians in the ranks, the freethinkers, the men with high testosterone levels, and anyone else who does not love Joe Biden and make them leave immediately.”
Jeez . . . Needles are scary, huh?
In the immortal words of Queen Latifah: Everybody everybody look for the hook!
P.S. The juxtaposition of “Christians” and “freethinkers” in the above quote reminded me of this famous line from the 1930s:
What is still more important [than cultural homogeneity] is unity of religious background, and reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable.
So what is it—is it bad or good to be a “freethinker”? These fascist-sympathizing culture heroes should get their stories straight!
“Freethinker” has become a synonym for “believes the mainstream media is all lies”.
Have to love the inclusion of “high testosterone levels” in that quote. The synonym there is “unsure of their own masculinity”.
> So what is it—is it bad or good to be a “freethinker”? These fascist-sympathizing culture heroes should get their stories straight!
This probably reflects the decline in religion in most western areas. We are rapidly reaching a point where religion is the minority and the “counterculture”.
The shift over the past couple of decades in America has been surprisingly fast.
https://twitter.com/ryanburge/status/1429166191566901251 is extremely striking.
Ethan:
Interesting point, and this relates to our recent discussion of what it means to be an outsider.
Often it seems that proponents of an established religion want it both ways: they want their religion to be a dominant part of their culture, but they also recognize that their extremism makes them a sort of counterculture. For example, I get the impression that one thing that T. S. Eliot liked about his orthodox religious positioning was that it made him part of an elite group, but, as his famous quote illustrated, he also wanted this group to be dominant. Similarly with the modern-day fascist sympathizers who on one hand like the idea that expressing Christian religious beliefs makes them freethinkers but at the same time they want their religion to be dominant.
Freethinkers are resisters. It’s all a question of what you’re resisting.
Perhaps they should hire him at the Hoover Institute, or would that be a step down?
I guess it’s fun to make fun of (ideological) minorities, but I am convinced that “let’s make fun of the stupid rubes who cannot express themselves intelligently” will be remembered with a similar reverence to fox tossing. It’s obvious to anyone who has any contact to the covid-19-vaccine-skeptic group that “fear of needles” is not what this is about.
It’s also obvious that “getting the vaccine” has become a bizarre marker of group-participation, and I don’t fault anyone who feels like the push to vaccine mandates is fueled by the fact that the prospective mandaters think of those their mandate will coerce as the outgroup. I don’t see a conspiracy to “identify” noncompliant people, but this will certainly be an effect. Tucker Carlson is speaking to a different audience from a different culture, but it is not hard to steelman his point.
>These fascist-sympathizing culture heroes should get their stories straight!
It’s hard to fault the “juxtaposition” when the post itself contains a bizarre juxtaposition of Tucker Carlson and “facist-sympathizer” T.S. Elliot.
Not that sympathize with Carlson; but it’s rather insensitive of you to trivialize facism (and by extension, the Holocaust, I guess…) by a comparison like this \s
Matty:
Neither Eliot nor Carlson are killers. They are both, in their way, fascist sympathizers. There have been many fascist sympathizers over the years. The Nazi party got 30% of the vote. It’s a political view. There have been many prominent communist sympathizers as well. I don’t think it trivializes fascism to talk about prominent sympathizers of that movement anymore than it trivializes communism etc.
Regarding your first comment regarding “stupid rubes who cannot express themselves intelligently”: actually the person I was quoting is a well-paid TV personality, not a rube at all.
>Regarding your first comment regarding “stupid rubes who cannot express themselves intelligently”: actually the person I was quoting is a well-paid TV personality, not a rube at all.
I know who Tucker Carlson is, but I also know that he tailors his message to an audience. I don’t see any conflict in him being a well-paid TV personality, and him expressing himself, and indeed acting like, a rube. Whether he “is” a rube or just speaks like one does not make a difference, does it? You are after all mocking his statements, not the person.
>Neither Eliot nor Carlson are killers. They are both, in their way, fascist sympathizers.
I see you going fast and loose with the word “fascist”; so what fascist state or ideas is Carlson sympathizing with? Not early 20th-century Italy certainly. Maybe I’m being uncharitable, but I suspect that more or less anyone is “in their way” a fascist sympathizer if we expand what is being referred to as “fascism”.
Orbanism is essentially soft fascism and Tucker openly praises the Orban regime. To anticipate an objection, yes, Fidesz is missing some features of most of the classic fascist parties but it also shares… quite a few of them.
Matty,
As I (and others) have pointed out previously on this blog, ‘fasicst’ is more of a fuzzy logic type of concept than either/or. One can be kinda fascist. Take Viktor Orban, for example: he promotes nationalism and intolerance of foreigners, and suppresses political dissent, sometimes through violence. He’s kinda fascist…and Carlson is a vocal supporter and (if I recall correctly) appeared at an Orban campaign rally.
Ah, funny, doing some searching I find that Carlson also seems to be fine with Russia invading Ukraine. I dunno what’s up with that guy.
In any case: I think there is some merit to your slippery-slope argument, but hey, if Carlson sides with authoritarian nationalists who imprison dissenters etc. etc. then surely we can call a spade a spade and say that, in his way, he is a fascist sympathizer.
Matty –
I’d like to read your answer to Phil’s comment. Follow in from that.
> Maybe I’m being uncharitable, but I suspect that more or less anyone is “in their way” a fascist sympathizer if we expand what is being referred to as “fascism.”
What would be your inclusion/exclusion criteria for being a “fascist sympathizer?”
Below I reply to anon e mouse, Phil, and Joshua.
Replying to anon e mouse:
>Orbanism is essentially soft fascism
Well “soft fascism” comes close to being an oxymoron.
> Yes, Fidesz is missing some features of most of the classic fascist parties but it also shares… quite a few of them.
But the same kind of vagueness, so does every other government ever.
Replying to Phil:
I’m not convinced. By your logic, is Joe Biden a fascist? Or do your fuzzy categories only extend conveniently far out? After all, Biden suppresses political dissent (cf. Julian Assange, Snowden, or the pressure from the white house on social media companies to censor), promotes nationalism (quote: “We are by far the greatest, powerful, decent nation in the world.”),and expulsion of immigrants (Title 42). I’m not familiar with Orban suppressing political dissent through violence; but Biden was president and (previously) vice-president of the largest army in the world; the one that frequently uses violence to safeguard “US interests” around the world. Is this not a form of suppressing dissent by violence?
I don’t see how the Russia-Ukraine situation has anything to do with fascism. I say this as a strong condemnation of Russia, but Russia is acting – and sees itself as acting – quite close to the precendents set by the US and her allies during the past 50 years.
> if Carlson sides with authoritarian nationalists who imprison dissenters etc
No! Fascists are not just “authoritarian nationalists who imprison dissenters”. If they were, we wouldn’t need a category for “dictatorship”. And I don’t think Orban meets even this definition clearly. This is not a “slippery slope” argument, I think you’re already wrong even if you go no further on the slope.
Replying to Joshua:
>What would be your inclusion/exclusion criteria for being a “fascist sympathizer?”
Someone who literally sympathizes with regimes that are (fully) fascist. I don’t see the need to widen the definition further than that. I mean I think we can agree that Hungary < Russia on some level of "closeness to fascism". Now I don't think even Russia is "fascist" (did Mussolini's Italy have a Novaya Gazeta?), and it's completely ridiculous to claim that Hungary is.
Funny, you claim that no ‘slippery slope’ argument is needed but in the same breath you invoke it with “is Biden fascist?” Make up your mind!
I’m no expert on Orban. Wikipedia says “The 2011 constitutional changes enacted under his leadership were, in particular, accused of centralizing legislative and executive power, curbing civil liberties, restricting freedom of speech, and weakening the Constitutional Court and judiciary.” It also says…well, you can read it yourself. Also https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-conservatives-around-the-world-have-embraced-hungarys-viktor-orban
Merriam-Webster defines ‘fascism’ thusly: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
How does Orban’s regime do on these?
“exalts the nation and often race above the individual”, that’s a bit ill-defined but I’d give Orban a 5 out of 10.
“centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader”, 7 out of 10
“severe economic and social regimentation”, 3 out of 10
“forcible suppression of opposition”, maybe this score depends in part on how you define ‘forcible’. If this includes using economic or political force (as distinct from police or military force, for example) then this is clearly a high score; but if we reserve lower scores for ‘soft’ force and high scores for ‘hard’ force then maybe it’s 5 out of 10.
To answer your question: I’d say Orban is less fascist than Mussolini, but much, much more fascist than Joe Biden. Do you disagree?
Martty –
> Someone who literally sympathizes with regimes that are (fully) fascist.
Hmmm. That seems kinda like a duck. What is the line of demarcation between partially/fully fascist? If a country is by some standard 99.9% fascist are they not fully fascist?
Basically, you’re reserving the right to say that if by your estimation, a given country isn’t 100% fascist in every single possible measure of fascism, it isn’t fascist.
I’m not necessarily saying that Hungary is fascist, but your standard seems totally arbitrary and basically you could argue that no country has ever been or will ever be fascist because on one single metric you determine they’re “only” 99.9% fascist.
This is a game that someone like Tucker plays. He can pick one metric to triangular so as to shirk off a given label, let’s say by declaring “I don’t want to discriminate by race,” so that he can then say that the label of “racist” can’t legitimately apply.
I think this is all a problem. Is Tucker a fascist or a “fascist-sympathizer?” I think if you’re going to say that then you need to be able to quantify your assessment – preferably based on a definition previously stipulated.
But in the other hand, I don’t think it’s legit to say he isn’t a fascist sympathizer if you’re not willing to actually explicate your standard.
Replying to Phil:
>Funny, you claim that no ‘slippery slope’ argument is needed but in the same breath you invoke it with “is Biden fascist?” Make up your mind!
Reductio ad absurdum is not a “slippery slope” argument. My claim is that *your* reasoning can likewise be applied to people who you a-priori would never classify as fascist, like Biden. The implicit claim is that your reasoning is motivated, not that Biden is fascist.
>I’m no expert on Orban.
Neither am I, but he is obviously not a fascist even though he may have authoritarian tendencies. Hungary is in the EU ffs. They have open borders with the rest of the Shengen area, good luck instituting fascism with that.
>Merriam-Webster defines
Here we go, why not take Wikipedia’s definition that start with “Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by…” ?
> “exalts the nation and often race above the individual”, that’s a bit ill-defined but I’d give Orban a 5 out of 10.
Given that you’re no expert on Orban, I don’t see the utility of this exercise. Why not 2 out of 10? What do these numbers even mean, how many until you get to call them fascist? I have yet to see an argument for Orban being explicitly racist, as required by this definition.
>To answer your question: I’d say Orban is less fascist than Mussolini, but much, much more fascist than Joe Biden. Do you disagree?
I think the question is meaningless, and the answer will depend on how you define fascism and how you define “much,much more”. One some measures’s Orban surely has more in common with Mussolini than Biden. But on some measures, my dog has more in common with a cow than my fish. Does this make my dog a cow?
> Hmmm. That seems kinda like a duck. What is the line of demarcation between partially/fully fascist? If a country is by some standard 99.9% fascist are they not fully fascist?
I’m not sure where the line between “fully fascist” and “not fascist” lies, but Orban is certainly not a fascist. I mean let’s turn this silly line of questioning around: if a country is by some standard 1% fascist, does that make them fascist?
>Basically, you’re reserving the right to say that if by your estimation, a given country isn’t 100% fascist in every single possible measure of fascism, it isn’t fascist.
No, I reserve the right to say that if a country is not fascist, it is not fascist. And not be goaded into stupid argument like “well look, this country does some things that are in the same category of things as some things Mussolini did, I guess we can call this non-fascist country fascist now”. Just like Clever Hans is not a mathematician, Hungary is not a fascist country.
>But in the other hand, I don’t think it’s legit to say he isn’t a fascist sympathizer if you’re not willing to actually explicate your standard.
Yes it is. But I find it hard to call a country fascist that does not censor the internet, kill dissidents, or forbid criticism. We have the word “dictatorship” for the rest.
Phil, Joshua: I’m sorry, my replies to Joshua are included in the above.
Matty –
> I’m not sure where the line between “fully fascist” and “not fascist” lies, but Orban is certainly not a fascist.
But here you go back to vague hand-waving again, as if these are just binary distinctions that hinge entirely in your unexplained feelings and arbitrary determinations.
>… if a country is by some standard 1% fascist, does that make them fascist?
No, and that’s exactly my point. You have to do something more than just hand-waving to some opaque and arbitrary standard. Well, you don’t *have* to, but I don’t consider that to be legit.
> No, I reserve the right to say that if a country is not fascist, it is not fascist….
And not be goaded into stupid argument…
Goaded? I’m asking you to explain your reasoning. I’m sorry you think that’s “goading” you.
But I find it hard to call a country fascist that does not censor the internet, kill dissidents, or forbid criticism. We have the word “dictatorship” for the rest.
So now you’re beginning to explain your criteria, which is what I was asking for. I would use the term authoritarian rather than dictatorship…but regardless, even still I think you employ a fairly useless binary standard.
Anyway, it doesn’t seem like I’ll get much anywhere here despite teats attempts to get you to be more specific. So I’ll give my view. There is a large set of criteria where there’s a range that leads towards fascism. Hungary inclines towards the fascist end of the spectrum for many of those criteria. It falls farther towards the fascist end of the spectrum than basically any other EU country, for example. You’ve been on here decrying the restrictions on “freedom” with COVID, and Hungary has declared and extended a state of emergency in response to COVID that I would imagine you’d find very fascistic, relatively speaking.
When Tucker goes overseas to appear meet with, and offers prise to a leader who, among all the EU countries institutes policies that align significantly towards the fascist end of the spectrum, it seems reasonable to me to say that Tucker is fascist-sympathetic even if I wouldn’t call Tucker a fascist nor say that Hungary is “fully fascist.”
>Well, you don’t *have* to, but I don’t consider that to be legit.
The default state of a person is “innocent”, not “guilty”; I don’t think it is neccessary to defend Orban from an accusation without the accusation having been made clearly.
> I would use the term authoritarian rather than dictatorship…but regardless, even still I think you employ a fairly useless binary standard.
I’m not wedded to the “fascist” – “not fascist” dichotomy provided that fascist means “authoritarian” and anyone who meets with a non-democratic leader is equally tarred a “fascist-sympathizer”.
>Goaded? I’m asking you to explain your reasoning. I’m sorry you think that’s “goading” you.
Your “asking” feels like you’re trying to teach me something with the Socratic method, not actually hold a conversation. If I write e.g. “Hungary is not fascist because it is not like Mussolini’s Italy by any stretch of the word, see e.g. freedom of press” I expect you to be able to fill in the dots in this argument or provide a counterexample, not ask me an open question in philosophy such as where the boundary between “like” and “not like” is exactly.
> It falls farther towards the fascist end of the spectrum than basically any other EU country, for example.
What’s your point? I think you just don’t like the fact that Orban is (relatively) authoritarian and part of the EU, not that Orban is absolutely speaking particulary authoritarian (e.g. compared to even a place like Egypt that the US supports militarily).
>Hungary has declared and extended a state of emergency in response to COVID that I would imagine you’d find very fascistic, relatively speaking.
Lots of European countries have done this. It’s authoritarian and stupid, but you have yet to show me evidence of fascism.
Matty –
> Your “asking” feels like you’re trying to teach me something with the Socratic method, not actually hold a conversation.
I won’t second-guess that I could be considered responsible for not communicating in such a way as to make it clear that wasn’t my intent, but that was never in any way a part of what I was doing.
I was asking you because I’m interested in interrogating this kind of issue in discourse – in this particular case whether it’s valid to say that Tucker is “fascist sympathetic.” I find these kind of questions interesting and important. And views on these issues almost always hinge in ideological orientation and I’m interested in how to get past that. So I engage in dialog with people who have a different ideological orientation to see if I can do that.
Unfortunately, I found your answers unhelpful, because imo they’re based on an arbitrary and opaque (and thus imo useless) binary – and that’s why I kept pressing.
> The default state of a person is “innocent”, not “guilty”; I don’t think it is neccessary to defend Orban from an accusation without the accusation having been made clearly.
That seems irrelevant to me (and authoritarian). Andrew made a statement and I wondered if it’s valid. You said it isn’t but gave no way for me to understand your reasoning for declaring so. Just stating that in your view there’s some default state of innocence, which I think is a dubious proposition anyway, seems like a non-sequitur to me. I’m interested in how you assess the validity of the statement Andrew made.
> and anyone who meets with a non-democratic leader is equally tarred a “fascist-sympathizer”….
That looks to me like unhelpful minimizing for rhetorical purpose. Tucker has done more than just meet with a non-democratic leader here. He has singled out a leader who is more authoritarian than any others in the EU, by a significant margin, for praise he hasn’t offered to others. Yes, imo, that leans towards fascist sympathy (certainly as opposed to leaning away from fascist sympathy). So then how is it determined whether it means he is fascist sympathetic?
> What’s your point?
My “point” is to interrogate the question. Thus far your answers haven’t been helpful in that regard.
> I think you just don’t like the fact that Orban is (relatively) authoritarian and part of the EU,..
Sure. I don’t like that. But that’s WHY I am interrogating the question of whether that makes someone who praises him,and his relatively authoritarian government, as fascist sympathetic. I want to know whether such a view should only be seen as a function of one’s ideological orientation.
> not that Orban is absolutely speaking particulary authoritarian (e.g. compared to even a place like Egypt that the US supports militarily).
That’s a total non-sequitur. However, (1) I think it’s entirely reasonable to consider whether praising authoritarian Egyptian leaders could legitimately be called fascist sympathetic and, (2) in no way do I support the US supporting authoritarian leaders, as in Egypt.
> Lots of European countries have done this. It’s authoritarian and stupid, but you have yet to show me evidence of fascism.
From what I’ve seen they haven’t done it in the same manner that Orban has. But again, I’m trying to figure out why, in my view, you overreact when other EU leaders take action on COVID through emergency powers yet seem (to me) to minimize it when Orban does it. I’d imagine you might ask the inverse question of me. I find that interesting. That’s why I’m trying to break it down beyond vague handwaves and opaque binary authoritarian statements.
I think the biggest disagreement here is: is fascist a yes/no thing, like being pregnant? Or is it more like socialism, where there is a wide spectrum from “not at all” to “totally”? Matty takes the yes/no view: if you don’t “censor the internet, kill dissidents, or forbid criticism” then you aren’t fascist at all. Whereas I would say that if you punish dissidents but don’t kill them, and if your government has taken over many of the country’s media outlets and uses them to air stories that favor you and disfavor your opposition, then you’re tending towards the fascist end of the spectrum.
I don’t see a way to resolve this question: it doesn’t hinge on facts but on an interpretation of the word “fascist.” A word means whatever most people think it means, but it’s hard to know what most people think this word means.
Matty:
T. S. Eliot and Tucker Carlson are, in their own ways, culture heroes. If they express themselves unintelligently, that’s on them. I don’t know what your take is on Eliot, but it seems that you’re saying that Carlson is an entertainer, playing the role of someone who would say stupid things, so that criticizing him for saying something stupid would be like, I dunno, criticizing the Three Stooges for being clumsy.
Maybe you’re right. Political speech is often parodic. I guess I’d say that the point of this post was not to make fun of Carlson’s statement but rather to notice some intriguing aspects of it. To me, one intriguing aspect was the idea that mandatory vaccination was aimed at removing “sincere Christians” from the ranks, given that this didn’t seem to come up in WW2 at all. You say that fear of needles is not what this is about, but I’m not sure: there did seem to be a lot of fear of needles in 1943. The other intriguing aspect is that he was presenting “freethinkers” as a good thing, which reminded me that the conservative Christian take used to be that freethinking was bad. I wrote the post in a jocular way, because it’s fun to write that way, and I think it’s fun to read too, but it turned upon those two points.
> I don’t know what your take is on Eliot
I have no take on Eliot.
>seems that you’re saying that Carlson is an entertainer, playing the role of someone who would say stupid things,
No, that is not what I’m saying. I’m saying that that Carlson is a pundit, playing the role of someone who says things his audience thinks sound good. I dislike Tucker Carlson because I think he is insincere, I don’t think he believes what he pushes. But I wouldn’t be surprised if he runs focus-group tests. Now Carlson’s audience is red-tribe America, skews high age and (probably) low education. He’s mixing a number of tropes popular with his target group, in the same way that the following AOC tweet does, for a different target group:
“COVID deaths are disproportionately spiking in Black + Brown communities. Why? Because the chronic toll of redlining, environmental racism, wealth gap, etc. ARE underlying health conditions. Inequality is a comorbidity. COVID relief should be drafted with a lens of reparations.”
Carlson’s statement sounds less intelligent because it is directed at people from a different culture with a different education level who have different memes to you and I. But it hits at a real fear, which is that vaccine mandates will be used to marginalize certain groups that tend to oppose the vaccine. These groups, according to Carlson are:
a) those who oppose the vaccine on religious grounds, e.g. due to the use of (aborted) fetal cell lines during development, or because their pastor tells them to (“sincere Christians”)
b) those who independently have researched the issue and come to a different conclusion to the government (“freethinkers”)
c) those who do not conform to progressive gender roles, and for whose identity are invalidated when they are denied choice over their bodies (“men with high testosterone levels”)
d) political dissidents who view the government with mistrust (“anyone else who does not love Joe Biden”).
> there did seem to be a lot of fear of needles in 1943.
Not really supported by your article, which is about someone expecting something worse than a needle, and getting just a needle. Again, if you think “fear of needles” is what motivates vaccine hesitancy, then you do not understand vaccine hesitancy.
>he was presenting “freethinkers” as a good thing, which reminded me that the conservative Christian take used to be that freethinking was bad
You sure? I mean there has been some of that, but nobody ever thinks of themselves as someone who does not think. Especially not in the last 100 years or so, cf. e.g. Christian apologetics which has very much been in vogue for quite a while.
Alternatively, “The point of voluntary vaccination is to identify the sincere Christians in the ranks, the freethinkers, the men with high testosterone levels, and anyone else who does not love Joe Biden and make them leave gradually.”
If everyone’s out to get you, it doesn’t matter what they do, they’re still out to get you.
>P.S. The juxtaposition of “Christians” and “freethinkers” in the above quote reminded me of this famous line from the 1930s:
>What is still more important [than cultural homogeneity] is unity of religious background, and reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable.
>So what is it—is it bad or good to be a “freethinker”? These fascist-sympathizing culture heroes should get their stories straight!
I don’t see why you would expect Tucker Carlson to get his story straight with T. S. Eliot – even if Carlson were a fascist sympathizer. I don’t see why you would expect any two people who sympathize with the same ideology to get their story straight on anything.
Maybe you’re attacking Carlson for this because the mainstream story on “freethinkers” isn’t straight? Because we value free thinking abstractly, but concretely want people to do what they’re told and get vaxxed?
Amadeus:
I’m not attacking Carlson, just quoting him. Also I’m not sure why you say that “we” value free thinking abstractly. T. S. Eliot didn’t value free thinking even in the abstract. From the other direction, nobody in 1943 seemed to think there was any contradiction between thinking freely and being required to be vaccinated. That’s the point of my post, that these things seem to have changed over time, somewhere between the 1930s-40s and today. It’s not that I would “expect” Carlson to get his story straight with Eliot; I just find it interesting to see how things have changed. Perhaps Eliot would despair to learn that even a conservative such as Carlson now seems to think of free thinking as a positive rather than a negative thing.
> Also I’m not sure why you say that “we” value free thinking abstractly.
By “we” I mean people in the west today.
> From the other direction, nobody in 1943 seemed to think there was any contradiction between thinking freely and being required to be vaccinated.
Surely there were antivaxxers in 1943, and surely they thought of themselves as thinking freely.
Adrew writes: “That’s the point of my post, that these things seem to have changed over time, somewhere between the 1930s-40s and today.”
I don’t think that is quite right. The Anti Vaccination Society of America was founded in 1879. There have been waves of anti vax movements. The most recent prior to the pandemic started with Andrew Wakefield’s fraudulent research. I grew up in the religious part of America where people rountinely speard stories about corporations being run by Satanists or some other crazy views. There was no anti vax movement in my youth, but such fringe ideas could quickly spread in those religious communities, and these religious groups have taken up the anti-vax views. I think that difference today is that social media have made it possible for everyone to know that these groups are not really that fringe. Millions of Americans can become convinced that Democrats eat babies or Soros is chipping them. The difference today is that mainstream culture is finally aware of these groups.
Didn’t soldiers also get cigarettes in their rations in 1943? Isn’t science grand?
“Didn’t soldiers also get cigarettes in their rations in 1943? Isn’t science grand?”
I don’t know if they actually were given them in their rations–perhaps. But at the very least they were readily available and provided, if not for free, at heavily subsidized prices not just during WWII but continuing well into the 50’s and beyond.
As for science being grand, everything should be seen in the context of its times. During WWII, the perils of smoking were only just beginning to be suspected. The first serious studies were in the late 1940’s. And it really wasn’t until the 1960’s with the Surgeon General’s Report that a consensus began to form even in the medical profession that smoking was harmful to health. In fact, in the 1950’s, most medical doctors were smokers!
If you want some entertainment regarding the old Tucker Carlson, that is when he wore a bow tie and looked to be fresh out of prep school, have a look at how Jon Stewart dealt with him in 2004:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GooQwKDMqcI
For detail comments regarding the video, see
https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/crossfire-intern-recalls-jon-stewart-tucker-carlson-interview-everyone-was-shocked/ar-BB1goamN
I am half German, half Bosnian, which informs my view on this considerably. I’m trying hard not to use the term “fascist” anymore as it so often just means “something I don’t agree with”.
When I read the Eliot quote I thought it to be true and at the same time sad. What I learned in the past two years is that Germans (same holds for other western countries, I think) share less values than previously thought. And I think the decline of Christianity is indeed the main reason. On my first visits to the US 20 years ago I was amazed how Christian the society was. I remember a crowded church in NYC in the afternoon with police men attending mass, construction workers having Christian stickers on their equipment, people preaching in the streets, radio and TV shows with Christian themes; stuff I never encountered in Germany. Before that I believed it must be mostly atheists in the US because of its fondness of commerce, individualism, science, money and entertainment. I have to chuckle when I now think of that. What happens in the West now is that the religion of science is on the verge of dominating (which is also kind of Christian but instead of original sin->redemption->salvation it is ignorance->research->progress but lacking other aspects like forgiveness, humility). A political adherent of this emerging religion is Justin Trudeau when he says that people who don’t want to get vaccinated are anti-science, anti progress and then he asks if one has to tolerate these people showing the lack of the idea of imago dei, which is so inherent in Christianity and thus western civilization.
Dostojewski said this in the late 19th century, anticipating the regimes in Germany and Russia:
“When faith in Christ is adulterated and confused with the purposes of this world, then the meaning of Christianity is lost. The mind succumbs to unbelief, and instead of the great ideal of Christ, only a new Tower of Babel will be erected. While Christianity has a high view of the individual human being, humanity is only viewed as a large mass. Under the cloak of social love nothing will thrive but blatant misanthropy.”
I hope I don’t sound too pious but the prediction was a good one and I’d be willing to bet a large amount of money that he also correctly identified the cause.