Solution, reaction, problem

Turning the tables on tyranny

Another brick in the wall of totalitarianism in Australia was laid this week, with the mortar of hand-ringing faux concern for the ‘safety’ of our children troweled on in generous quantities. At some point in the next year or so it will be illegal for children under 16 years of age to use some social media apps. Which means all users will have to clear this age hurdle, somehow, when our Priestess of Permitted Pronouncements gets around to writing, and maybe publishing, the ‘guideliness’ referenced in the legislation.

There’s no defined measure by which the success or failure of this new legislation will be judged. So there will be no limit on how far this inch of restriction will be translated into miles of oppression in the future, again in the name of ‘safety’. A single real (or fabricated) case of bullying leading to suicide would be more than enough for the government of the day to claim a mandate for ratcheting up the level of restrictions for access to the internet.

[I’ve had an idea for a condition for all new legislation - there must be a measurable goal, which if not met, would cause the legislation to be automatically repealed, and not doubled-down on. Good in theory, but of course vulnerable to corruption, through sleight of hand in measurement, and shifting definitions. See for example counting and attribution of Covid deaths by vax status.]

Of course, whatever the real aim of the legislation, the face-value aim will not work. Children under 16 will still use the banned apps. They’re smarter than the legislators. Which raises the question as to what is the real aim of this bill.

But that line of enquiry - essentially asking “Why are they really doing this?” - is and always has been a fruitless distraction, even if it can be an entertaining parlour game. Once speculation takes over, endless hours, hot air, and ink can be spilled thinking, talking and writing down theories for this and explanations for that. In the end, motive doesn’t matter. What we must deal with are the things that confront us, not the rationale for their existence or form.

In his book Live not by Lies, Rod Dreher makes a theme out of the mantra “See, Judge, Act.” Dreher recounts it as the motto of a Belgian priest named Joseph Cardijn in the wake of the First World War, and adopted by Croatian Jesuit priest Tomislav Poglajen, who took on his mother’s name - Kolakovic - to conceal himself from the Nazi’s as he fled to Czechoslavakia. Dreher writes:

See meant to be awake to realities around you. Judge was a command to discern soberly the meaning of those realities in the light of what you know to be true, especially from the teachings of the Christian faith. After you reach a conclusion, then you are to act to resist evil.

Notably absent from this mantra is any attempt to answer the question of motive. “Why is this happening? What is the ultimate goal? Who is really pulling the strings? Is this just a bluff or is something else planned?” All such questions become irrelevant in Kolakovic’s framing of reality and how to deal with it.

In the last few years we have seen a horrow-show unfold, the first few acts of a diabolical play that saw ordinary citizens deliberately frightened into cowering in their homes and losing their livelihoods. The scar tissue from those wounds is deep and still affects us today - birthday celebrations are reflexively self-cancelled and care-home residents are confined to rooms for weeks at at time, on the strength of a discredited plastic test assembled on the floor of a grubby warehouse on the other side of the world.

This latest scene, where the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition conspired to ban children under 16 from posting a holiday snap to granny, adds to the fabric of this gruesome play.

What does it mean? It means totalitarianism is getting worse, and there’s no sign yet of it stopping.

How should we act, then? In a popular paradigm, malevolent actors are often seen to be the instigators of some sort of crisis or event or ‘Problem” which they accurately anticipate will cause a particular “Reaction” which results in a popular clamour for a “Solution”, which the malevolent actors just happen to have on hand. Problem, Reaction, Solution. In the case of the social media age ban, we saw months of lead up articles about online bullying, then we saw polling results showing people wanted something done about it, then Hey Presto! here’s a bill banning under 16’s from using facebook. Seems to fit.

Reversing the paradigm into “Solution, Reaction, Problem” might be a way to guide our actions, without getting caught in the endless speculation on questions of motive.

When we see a “Solution” rolled out, we can plan a Reaction, with a view to creating a Problem for the tyrant. The point of causing a problem is to frustrate whatever might be next on the tyrant’s to-do list. It doesn’t matter what that might be. A distraction or an unanticipated expenditure of effort, time and political capital is the goal of the ‘Problem” we create.

What ‘Reaction” might cause a ‘Problem” for the tyrant when we consider the “Solution” that is the under 16 social media ban? Perhaps a slow but relentless increase in the uptake of VPNs? That might be a problem to deal with. Perhaps a relentless campaign of mockery might be a problem to deal with. I’m sure readers can think of many more. “Problems” as such don’t even necessarily have to be related to the “Solution”. Just be a problem.

I’ve got a couple of New Year’s Resolutions firming up in my mind. One is to ride the fastest time in a Wednesday Supervets bike race at my local cycling club. Another is to learn to play one jazz standard on the piano per month. I think I’ve just found another.

Be a problem.