Iain Davis, “disillusioned blogger”, distinguished author, and (by his own admission) recreational vaper, was kind enough to answer a few questions via email.
We spoke about Iain’s plot to instigate a global mind-revolution, among other topics that have surely earned him a prominent spot on various government lists.
Iain is a terrific journalist and I am grateful he took the time to chat with me.
Enjoy!
*
RW: In December you gave a speech at the Mass Non-Compliance Protest Against (UK) Digital ID. A rousing address, too, if I may say so. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but you typically don’t bother with protests. As a journalist and writer, you have undoubtedly grappled with the “action vs. inaction” debate. Why do you think writing is a more valuable use of your time than protesting? Sometimes I receive angry emails from readers who tell me to shut up and “do something” instead of blogging. Maybe they’re right?
Iain Davis: I think protest has its place and it is certainly supposed to be a democratic right, though it is being shut down everywhere. It is one of the ways we can demonstrate to those who claim the authority to rule us that we are not willing to go along with their harebrained schemes.
That said, in my opinion, protesting against a wholly corrupt and venal power structure in the hope it will respond favourably is a complete waste of time.
Asking a slave master to be more generous is pointless. Protests of this kind serve as rallying calls to the disaffected but to believe they will make a material difference to the government policy is wishful thinking.
I attended the mass non-compliance against digital ID protest because the objective was to highlight the real nature of digital ID and to expose the government’s digital ID sale pitch as a lie. The purpose was to encourage people to prepare for mass non-compliance, to maximise their independence from the system and to live lives beyond the digital reach of government, wherever possible.
With regard to the “action vs. inaction” debate, in my view, investigative journalism is one of the most powerful actions of all. This is why those who rule are obsessed with censorship. As Edward Bulwer-Lytton rightly said, “the pen is mightier than the sword.”
Ideas create movements and even reactionary protests are at their most powerful when those protesting know what solutions they want rather than just opposing the idea or policy they reject. I don’t pretend for one to have any significant reach, or the answers for that matter, but I think it is vital that all voices, including yours and mine, stay on the battlefield of ideas. I firmly believe that if we are going to build a better world the essential revolution is a revolution of the mind.
I write long-form articles and books, stuffed with links and references to sources, in which I try to provide readers with access to information and evidence that they will rarely, if ever, read in mainstream pieces and publications. My objective is to encourage readers to question the state narratives they are given and, hopefully, to give them a foundation from where they can conduct their own research and decide for themselves what they believe to be the truth.
Like you, I get my fair share of criticism, but I am sure I also share with you the wonderful experience of readers contacting me to thank me for keeping them sane in confusing and often chaotic times, or starting them down their own path of discovery. Just one such message would make it all worth it and I am very lucky to receive many. I cannot thank people enough for their support and encouragement. I could not do this work without it.
RW: So you admit to openly agitating for a “revolution of the mind”—I knew you would. Your website even features a radical and very disturbing manifesto: “Don’t trust me.” You explain: “Any media outlet or commentator that asks you to ‘trust’ them is suggesting that you abandon critical thinking and simply believe whatever they tell you. I will never ask that of you. Who am I to ask that of anyone?”
Are you suggesting that internet commentary shouldn’t be faith-based? It seems to me that you are agitating for mind-revolution without understanding that many people demand clarity and want to Believe. I think we can all agree that the role of a responsible internet commentator is to act as a kind of info-priest who performs elaborate e-ceremonies that will allow the faithful flock to continue Believing even when observable reality completely contradicts these Beliefs. Please explain yourself, and ideally, apologize.
ID: I do not “agitate” in the sense of calling for a sudden or violent force, nor by deliberately causing distress, I “agitate” in the sense of hopefully arousing readers interest. As you highlight, I try to interest readers in the importance of applying critical thinking whenever they receive or encounter information from any the source, including from myself.
My “revolutionary manifesto,” is indeed that we should all think for ourselves and make up our own minds about what we believe and, more importantly, what we do as a result.
Though something of a contradiction, I guess that includes believing you should do whatever you are told. Similarly, if you choose to unquestioningly trust information from sources you consider “reliable,” that too is your choice. Though I would advise against both.
As the defendants at Nuremberg discovered, simply trusting information and following your orders is not actually a defence. When we think about it, crimes against humanity aren’t really possible unless people follow orders. So, as a matter of precautionary principle, I say obedience is not a virtue.
Something else I bang on about is evidence. Whenever I write anything I am essentially offering my opinion and I always provide referenced sources to try to substantiate my opinion. Equally, I never profess to be unquestionably right. Again, I ask the reader to make of it what they will.
Of course, readers can and should question both my opinions and the evidence I offer to support them. Hopefully they will be sufficiently agitated to want to investigate what I have said themselves. I hopefully provide starting points for, or additions to, their own research.
I certainly apologize to readers who expect me to provide all the answers and tell them what to do or what to think. Sorry guys and gals, that ain’t my bag, nor is it any of my business.
I offer no apology to those who refuse to consider evidence. I think they should stick to mainstream propaganda, readily available online, as this rarely contains any, or makes it up. They will find slavish consumption of propaganda far more comforting than trying to wrestle with anything I write.
RW: I’m glad you mentioned that you aren’t in the business of telling people what to do. I am also not in this line of work. (I am a blogger, i.e., unemployed.) However, sometimes I receive emails from displeased readers who ask me questions such as: “Oh, so you DON’T think the White Hats will save us? Well then, what do you suggest we do, huh????”
If I understand this logic correctly, reading internet articles reassuring you that the Patriots Are In Control is “doing something”, but if you question the existence of the White Hats you are “doing nothing” and your opinion is invalid unless you have a clear action plan that is more convenient than reading blog posts about how the White Hats will save us (i.e., doing nothing).
Iain, you are a seasoned internet writer so I assume you also have the pleasure of receiving “what are we supposed to do then, Mr. Smartypants?” emails. How do you respond to these types of queries? Are you ever tempted to tell people what to do so that they will just leave you alone? Like… “trust the plan”?
ID:I do indeed receive many such comments. I generally refer people to pieces where I have suggested possible solutions, like this one or this. However, I often find that these are not the solutions the critics are searching for. Perhaps because they involve doing something other than reading blog posts. Who knows?
I sometimes ask these critics what solutions they would prefer. I have noticed that their solutions usually include things like voting for the right White Hat, supporting the right war, or censoring the right people. So, then, I ask them, if they know what solutions they want, why are they asking me? I haven’t got much of a response to this line of questioning.
My favourite criticism is that I haven’t written about certain things or that I haven’t included a specific detail in my exploration of a topic. When I point out that isn’t the subject of the article or that I have no knowledge of, or don’t accept, whatever I am supposed to have included in the article, this also seems to make people very angry. They get quite uppity sometimes and even use hurty words. I can only apologise for disagreeing with them or for not having a clue what they are talking about.
RW: What keeps you grounded? I am quite partial to Johann Sebastian Bach and Czech beer.
ID: Most of my critics suggest I have a kangaroo loose in the top paddock and am not remotely grounded. I like to think that I am pretty level headed but then, in my experience, the unhinged never know they are unhinged.
In an effort to maintain plausible deniability at least, I like to walk the dog and then wind him up by playing “sticky-throwy” (the rules are quite complex but he has got the hang of it) so that my partner has to deal with his over-stimulated mud-splattering frenzies on our return. Sometimes we walk the dog together, in which case I never play “sticky-throwy” with him to ensure she remains none the wiser.
I like to engage in pointless but cathartic arguments on social media and dip in and out of it while I am depressing myself researching articles. I also enjoy listening to extremely aggressive metal, puffing on my vape, drinking British Ale (Czech beer? Pah!) and weeping unnoticed.
Thank you, Iain!
