The great divider
Sir: Niall Ferguson (‘Tech vs Trump’, 14 October) draws a parallel between the Reformation — powered by the printing press — and today’s social networks — powered by the internet — in their influence on the established hierarchy. Ferguson astutely observes that the consequence of the Reformation was not a hoped-for harmony but ‘polarisation and conflict’. The difference was then, and is now, between collectivism and individualism. Collectivists always saw the internet as a vehicle for the universal consciousness: the blending of minds. Individualists always saw the internet as an integrator: establishing facts using the principle of non-contradiction. The first is mystical. The second is a demonstration of the scientific method at work.
Christine McNulty
Oxhey, Herts
Bring back diplomacy
Sir: Charles Moore is right to remind us of the importance of our overseas missions (The Spectator’s Notes, 14 October), so beautifully recorded in James Stourton’s new book British Embassies. He is also right when he says that in the light of Brexit we urgently need to bolster our diplomatic efforts.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in