5 ms·
I find it phenomenal that people in the U.K. are so caught up in the Johnson narrative - whether you’re for or against him, it seems absolutely everyone is with
by madaxe_again 4y ago
I find it phenomenal that people in the U.K. are so caught up in the Johnson narrative - whether you’re for or against him, it seems absolutely everyone is within his thrall - talking about him, thinking about him, to the exclusion of all else.
Now, it’s not about “stick your head in the sand”, so much as it is realising that on both sides of the aisle you’re reading from the same script - the same paradigm, the same dichotomy of stay or go, the same stage and set dressing. Your protests are expected, appreciated, and necessary, as they further the narrative, and deepen his power - because power flows from narrative, from the ideas which you accept as “just is” within the story, as it doesn’t make sense without them - never mind that it’s all a fantastical fabrication.
This is how kings are made. Johnson has been telling a particular story for a while now, in which he becomes king. It gave him vast popularity in the run up to the mayoral election (apt control of narrative is commonly called charisma), and from there, he’s been punting the same can down the road whilst we all chase it like rabid dogs.
This only ends when a better, stronger narrative comes along - and nobody in any position to challenge him has it.
Labour own a narrative in which they stumble onwards, tripping on their scabbard as they scramble up the dusty ramparts of Fort Johnson, and are stuck in it, as they mistake their narrative for their reality.
For instance, they initially approached the antisemitism debacle by treating it as a valid issue - they played whackamole with the press on it, and it kept the story (“Labour are antisemites”) prime in the public mind. The whole thing has been rather quiet lately, because they changed tactics, are are hiding from that narrative and are hoping it will wither away. It might - but it only takes an ember to rekindle a bonfire.
Rather, they should be getting ahead of the story, and should pick on, oh, I don’t know, the greens, kick off a rumour that they’re a Masonic cabal of drag queen drug lords and make them defend it, and drag the Tories into that mess. The crazier and broader the accusations the better - grapeshot gives a lot of holes to patch, and distracts from the one which hit below the waterline. Play it right and you make everyone remember that it was the Tories that started it, as labour smearing the greens makes no sense. Punching up and doing minor damage makes you look weak and petty, punching down and demolishing an innocent makes you look strong. Children understand this - the world is a schoolyard.
I wrote a little while back about narrative control as being the thing which divides the ruling classes from the consumer classes - I went to a similar school to Johnson, and the main thing you’re taught, albeit largely unwittingly (you have to follow the lessons which aren't spoken), is how to dominate narrative.
So, you want Johnson gone, you need either events to run roughshod over his constructed reality, and that would take something very substantial - or you need a greater master of human reality.
Thing is, as long as the techniques of narrative control remain the domain of the elite, passed on to their children through expensive institutions and family neuroses that spread mimetically through the affected population, the leaders will continue to be from the same caste. Occasionally someone from the outside stumbles over the alchemy of mind control, and they do things with it, often involving gas and guillotines, but it’s the exception, not the rule, and from the perspective of the entrenched ruling classes reinforces the need to gatekeep.
So. Johnson will likely one day go, but the disease that allows Johnson will remain until the next revolution.
- jl6 4y ago> absolutely everyone is within his thrall I really think this is a media bubble perspective. Most people aren’t engaged with politics - certainly not to the extent that they become obsessed with the prime minister. The media constantly talk about him because that’s just what they do. And I also think the voting population aren’t the sheeple you’re painting them as. They don’t vote Tory because they love Boris. They vote Tory knowing that the personal failings of the leader have very little bearing on getting the policies that they want passed. “Hold your nose and vote conservative” works both sides of the Atlantic.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- zasdffaa 4y ago'narrative' is a fancy word that sounds important. It seems a pretty good rule of thumb that the more someone uses it, the less they have to actually say. You've used it 11 times. Also it comes with a package of other nebulous abstract words and phrases, as you've exemplified "the domain of the elite", "that spread mimetically", "the alchemy of mind control", "entrenched ruling classes reinforces the need to gatekeep". This is just bad writing. If you have said anything it's embedded in so much verbal dross I can't be bothered to extract it. I suspect it could have been said in a few sentences.
- krona 4y agoOP is probably explaining that the UK, like the US and most western democracies/republics are actually oligarchies, and have been for some time. It's hard to state simply since 'oligarchy' conjures images of super-yachts and old men, but that's not what is meant by the term in a classical sense, and no sensible oligarchy would ever speak its name.
- refurb 4y agoNo “narrative” is not a fancy word, it’s a word that has a definition and meaning. Maybe you don’t come across it in your day to day, but anyone who makes public statements knows exactly what it means. It’s basically the story being told. The way to understand it is that politicians and the media have a millions things they could discuss that are relevant to the voters. What’s interesting is NOT what they talk about. It’s what’s they don’t talk about. And if you actually follow what they say over time it’s starts to become clear pretty quickly. And it’s not a conspiracy or some secret - I’ve been in the room of a Fortune 50 PR meeting where they discuss the “narrative”. It’s usually “we only want to talk about X which makes us look good. We don’t want to talk about Y. Y makes us look bad, so if someone mentions Y, use this response to steer it back to X”. A good narrative example was the Hunter Biden laptop. The narrative was "this is suspected Russian disinformation". Absolutely zero proof it was, but that didn't matter, just keep dropping phrases like "this has all the signs of a Russian operation". Instead of the content in the laptop or hell, even the story about the laptop, the news covers the Russian conspiracy side. That entire narrative was spun out of thin air, the laptop was Hunter Biden's. There are often good example of narratives being broken, and what you see is suddenly a narrative is dropped entirely and another takes it's place. If you're paying attention you'll suddenly notice some news story has completely disappeared from public discussion almost as if it never happened. The one big benefit of the internet is how easy it is to follow public statements now. It's much harder to say something at a press conference, have it on Twitter, then deny it the next week. Doesn't stop politicians from trying though.