Contact the Author |

Q & A

The Irish republic is a typical example to many people who do not attempt to improve society because they believe that any new State will not perform appreciably better than the old; is there anything other than crisis that might persuade such people not to be so tolerant of the bad company involved?

What such people need to consider is that no one is more aware than the bad company itself that the bad company is tolerated, and the bad company understands that it exists because it is tolerated; people who tolerate it cannot really be good company themselves, and the most cynical examples do not even mean to be “good”.


Were, or are, the academics of “Ireland’s political and cultural magazine” themselves misled by “a number of international myths and State cultures as involving media posture between State and People control of one another”?

Even a media “political and cultural magazine” is not necessarily more inclined than the State to ask “just where, and how” the people are misled. The principal political and cultural State preoccupation is to ask ‘just where might the next war be and how might we fight it’, not ‘just where, and how might war be prevented’; “the war to end wars” was followed by “the peace to end peace”, but as politics and culture has it: “the peace to end peace” did not begin until media could argue that the State had misled the people concerning the supposed possibilities of preventing another war; that argument only began when it was clear that “appeasement” involved draconian concessions. The ultimate consequence was greater common fear and confusion concerning “just where, and how” the intention to prevent another war failed. “Village” is not a history magazine, just as the State itself is a political and cultural phenomenon; and of course controversy generates news activity, and inconvenient protest can be side-lined by the concept that there are people who would be controversial in order to generate news for personal, rather than principled, reasons – and inconvenient the protest would be to ask “just where, and how” so, because the side-liner’s exact position is that the public, being the most cynical and disregarded element of any country, “would be controversial”.


William Ewing, gentleman parent and blood donor, and yet not respected by the State? Or if the defeat of ‘the triple threat’ (Germany, Italy and Japan) was a consequence of a routine preoccupation (‘Just where might the next war be and how might we fight it?’), was the crisis itself a consequence of that routine?

Commonly, statehood has always been a source of fear, as pleasing the State is transitory; only those who by legal default invariably generally “please the court”, particularly non-retiring heads of State, are generally allowed continuous State pleasure – everyone else is required to plead that “credit will be given where credit is due”, and not to plead: “the verdict of that impartial referee – accurate history” – that credit is seldom received where it is due from the State, as it pleases the State to accept any amount of credit due elsewhere. Therefore, fear is more routinely favoured by the State than any “endeavour to show just where, and how, the public has been so badly misled on many important points”; the war was a consequence of the routine preoccupation to fault rather than favour, but exploring whether it might be prevented was extraordinarily popular, even with the head of State (as another “great power” war was known to likely involve society itself in the front-line, not simply the military profession, and only by way of military defence of the civilian population could the fear of such involvement be remedied). Thus the routine to fault rather than favour survived its first substantial obstacle: inter-war idealism that modern war could be defined as the most preventable madness. Chamberlain deftly led public opinion by frankly declaring that the common idealism concerning the immediate potential of the League of Nations constituted “the very mid-summer of madness”.


Rather than “peace for our time”, most people live in a state of provocation, and such can be exploited. Does the book attempt remedying that ‘Well’ of vulnerability?

Yes, just as the Radical’s paper ‘butterfly’ was leadership to remedy the vulnerability to the dictator. I say “Radical’s”, for example, as less provocative to the provoked labeller: “Tory”.