Part 19: Mr Bean, Proto-Naturalist
Rowan Atkinson points to a key link between Naturalist beliefs
Earlier posts »Intro:About »1:Born Of Lockdown »2:Need For Naturalism »3:Equivalence Of God & Nature »4:Special Role Of Science »5:Right & Wrong Tech »6:Smartphones & Covid Vaccines »7:Irredeemable Tech »8:Tower Of Babel »9:Eden & The Fall »10:Mary Shelley: Prophet? »11:Naturalist Congregation »12:First Three Beliefs »13:Natural Health »14:Trinity & Six Freedoms »15:Importance of Continuity »16:Chicken Little »17:New Fundamentalism »18:Obstacles to Naturalism
I’ve written already a couple times on the fact that Naturalism is a coalescing religion (see “About Naturalism”). It has already been developing for decades, though it hasn’t yet taken any form. In other words, there is not yet any institution for it, and it has no formal rituals or codes (other than perhaps what I’ve proposed in this substack). But the same belief is on the brink of many people’s minds, like a word on the tip of a person’s tongue, or a baby not yet born.
In Part 18, I termed the many people holding Naturalist-type views as “proto-Naturalists”.
Recently, I heard a very strong proto-Naturalist message delivered from none other than Rowan Atkinson, the British comic actor who portrayed the internationally famous Mr. Bean as well as the characters Blackadder and Johnny English. His stunningly eloquent message explains some key Naturalist beliefs of mine more clearly than I yet have. He actually delivered this message more than a decade ago, as part of a 2012 effort to defend free speech in the UK, but his message is even more apropos today.
Atkinson draws the analogy between immunity to communicable germs and immunity to disagreeable speech:
“For me, the best way to increase society’s resistance to insulting or offensive speech is to allow a lot more of it. As with childhood diseases, you can better resist those germs to which you have been exposed. We need to build our immunity to taking offence, so that we can deal with the issues that perfectly justified criticism can raise. Our priority should be to deal with the message, not the messenger.”
Atkinson’s whole 10-minute speech is great, but the above segment begins at the 5:50 timestamp:
In the short text quote that I’ve included above, Atkinson has essentially explained a strong link between the Naturalist “sixth belief”, which includes freedom of speech (see Part 14), and the Naturalist “fourth belief” in the importance of natural immunity (Part 13).
Following the logic of this quote, I can see why cancel-culture zealots are generally also vaccine zealots who call for the impossible zero-covid “cancellation” of a natural virus. They don’t trust a free social environment to rectify itself, any more than they trust a free natural microbiome to find any balance. In their view, both society and microbiology are only possible through intentional expert human control.
Atkinson’s epiphany here is that political tyranny is in essence the same as medical overreach. They both operate under the same mistaken assumption that the unpurge-able can be purged, and that an enlightened elite—political or medical—is the best enactor of such a purge. In their view, such a purge—of unwanted speech or unwanted virus—is for the benefit of everyone, whether the population likes it or not.
One very interesting concept from Atkinson is the final sentence of the text quote above: “Our priority should be to deal with the message, not the messenger.” This sentence is fertile for interpretation when you apply it to the medical realm.
One obvious analogy that can be drawn from this sentence is that the messenger of a disagreeable message is akin to a germ, for example a SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus that delivers the “message” of covid-19 symptoms. As a messenger, the virus is simply doing its job in the biome, delivering its wares and collecting its pay—in terms of energy and reproduction—wherever it can. This job may cause harm to some humans, and may even kill some, but the vast majority of humans are stronger once this “disagreeable message” of covid illness has been delivered, because they now will be largely immune to later versions of the same disease. So even though the message may have been unpleasant, there is a future public health benefit to it. That’s just how nature has always worked.
Another possible analogy is that the “messenger” of the covid “message” is the contagious infected person, who communicates the virus to other people nearby. Public health has promoted this “blame the messenger” view, which encourages a sense of guilt for passing a respiratory virus on to others. This view is used to justify lockdown, masking, quarantine, and zero-covid policies. It encourages a fear of others, similar to political fear in a totalitarian state. A Naturalist would—to use Atkinson’s terms—deal with the “message” of covid instead, by seeking simple remedies for the illness itself (see Part 13), and not blaming others for inadvertently passing a contagious virus in the course of living their normal lives.
Here’s another logical analogy between Illness and disagreeable messages. Two people may both have equal reason to feel that a verbal message is insulting or disagreeable. However, the first person may be unfamiliar with such a challenge, and be quick to take offense at the message, whereas the second has “thick skin” from prior experience, and does not let the message become a reason for emotional upset. The first person, then, has a very weak “immune system” against challenges to his/her views. The second has a strong immunity to such challenges. It seems to me that culture would work more smoothly, cooperatively, and efficiently if there are more people like the second. By the same token, public health will be much better if the population has a strong reserve of natural immunity from past viral challenges.
I thank “Mr Bean” for uncovering the link between freedom of speech and the importance of natural immunity. However, I must take some credit for advancing Atkinson’s analogy somewhat further than he intended in 2012. Although Atkinson’s efforts are focused on freedom of speech, in effect he is advocating the same general “pro-biotic” approach to ethics that I first outlined in my Part 2, as opposed to the current corporate regime’s “anti-biotic” ethics of banning, purging, and eradicating germs and speech. In other words, Atkinson speaks on behalf of living with free nature and free culture rather than pretending that humans could ever be wise micro-managers of either.
Naturally, I wondered how Atkinson ran the gauntlet of corona-mania from 2020 through 2022. From an internet search, I gathered that he apparently bought into the early mania in June 2020, assisting the WHO with a brief public service announcement on distancing and handwashing (see next video below). However, I could find no mention of his supporting the vaccine effort. In 2021, Atkinson again spoke out against cancel-culture and censorship. Of course, a good deal of the censorship at that time was being carried out against vaccine criticism.
Of course, Atkinson is not the only famous figure that I’ve seen talking like a Naturalist. In the past year, I seem to notice Naturalist comments every few days in the media I stumble across, particularly with regard to transgender issues. Take for example, Tucker Carlson’s June 30, 2023 video on Twitter (start viewing at 3:25)
The overarching ethic of Naturalism with regard to transgender issues, freedom of speech, and natural immunity is the simple goodness of living with what nature has given you. Nature—also seen as “God” in Naturalism (see Part 3)—has given us two clearly distinct biological genders that we should live with, employ, and enjoy. Nature has given us a human culture that is full of opinions that vary widely, even within close families. We should recognize and learn from these different views, even if we don’t agree with many. Nature has also given us a biome full of tiny, crafty organisms, with which we have evolved. Some of these organisms may test us at various times, but the undeniable fact is that they are not cancellable, and our proper role is to live well with them.