The Spectator World - 31.08.2026.pdf

2026年8月31日 / $9.99 《旁观者》世界版

火星任务

大卫·怀特豪斯论世纪挑战

拥有历史的一角

购买世界上最古老杂志的漫画和封面可享 $30 折扣

在结账时使用代码 FRAME30 即可领取

请注意，相框图像仅用于示意目的

《旁观者》世界版

在流行神话中，美国是创新的土地，而欧洲则是监管的土地。美国高效推进事务，而欧洲则在允许卢德分子、环保主义者以及各类反对者主导局面中犹豫不决。

这种观点在一定程度上是正确的，这也是为什么本世纪美国经济的增长速度超过了欧洲。同时，这也解释了为什么美国在如今塑造我们时代的科技领域拥有近乎垄断的地位。

然而现在，美国和欧洲一样，发现自己陷入了一场针对数据中心的全民战争。鉴于这些中心是现代经济的跳动心脏，正如煤矿曾是工业革命的命脉一样，这带来了一个非常严重的问题。

除非这个问题能够得到解决，否则渴望机会的中国很可能会抓住优势，在直到目前仍由美国领导的技术革命中抢占先机。

在过去的几个月里，针对数据中心的抗议活动以及针对它们的立法行动呈爆发式增长。正如罗伯特·布莱斯在上一期报道的那样，今年前7个月，美国各地出现了 274 起数据中心建设被禁止或受到严重限制的案例。在今年之前，开发商在任何他们想要的地方建设数据中心几乎没有遇到问题。而现在，我们看到来自当地居民和政治家的敌意日益增加。

纽约州已通过一项为期一年的新建设禁令。在缅因州，立法者试图完全阻止大型中心的建设，直到他们的法案被州长珍妮特·米尔斯否决。甚至连被誉为世界数据中心之都的弗吉尼亚州劳登县也在考虑实施新的限制。

这种抵制有多种原因。数据中心带来了噪音和城市化，但关键在于，它们并没有创造多少就业机会。但

中心舞台

最重要的是，它们是电能和水的贪婪消费者。虽然人们倾向于认为当前的工业革命比最初那个充满锅炉和烟囱的时代要清洁得多，但数据中心的能耗极其惊人，且在迅速增长。

每当 AI 机器人升级，它们对电力的需求就会跃升到新水平。根据麦肯锡的数据，去年美国 5% 的电力消耗来自数据中心。据称，谷歌消耗的能量相当于一个拥有 250,000 人的城市。

此外，数据中心的激增恰逢美国人面临燃料账单上涨之时。当然，数据中心并非唯一原因——还有一个小问题，即

如果美国要继续在 AI 领域保持世界领先地位，人们必须学会与数据中心共存

伊朗战争以及霍尔木兹海峡的关闭，全球约 20% 的原油供应曾通过该海峡运输。

与此同时，人们将飙升的账单与路边的建设工程联系起来并不令人意外：数据中心的安装与国内需求竞争，推高了所有人的价格。

副总统 J.D. 万斯已经关注到了这个问题。他说，如果开发商想要建设数据中心，他们将不得不解决当地电力供应的问题。他声称，联邦政府将使他们更容易将数据中心的建设与发电厂的建设相结合。

有人建议，这些中心为可再生能源提供了绝佳机会。风能和太阳能电站可能符合一个快速增长的 21 世纪的形象，但遗憾的是，从事数据中心运营的人通常对此不那么热衷。他们需要一年 365 天、每天 24 小时可靠的电力供应。除非电池技术实现飞跃，能够以极低的成本存储大量能量，否则当地的天然气电厂更为现实。但这留下了水资源消耗的问题，在某些地区，这可能会成为一个更大的问题。

放置数据中心的显而易见之选是沙漠，因为在那里对人们的干扰最少。但沙漠地区严重缺水，且机器过热的风险最高。

事实证明，这些可能是暂时性的问题。随着时间的推移，AI模型的能耗趋势很有可能会发生逆转。目前科技巨头在能耗方面面临一些压力或许是一件好事，因为这将激励开发人员在提升技术性能的同时，寻找提高效率的方法。在这一方面，中国可能正在超越美国，DeepSeek声称其大语言模型的能耗仅为美国竞争对手的十分之一。如果AI开始降低功耗，那么用于冷却的水资源问题也将不再那么突出。

即便如此，如果美国想要继续在AI领域保持世界领先地位，美国人必须学会与数据中心共存。民主国家并不具备中国工业那种优势——即无论公民反对程度如何，都能强行将工厂强加给民众。

为了赢得公众的好感，数据中心行业必须接受一个事实：它不能简单地将工厂接入现有电网；正如特朗普政府所坚持的那样，它还必须成为一个重要的电力供应商。这并不能保证美国在科技领域获得永恒的成功，但它将扫除一个重要的障碍。

Flying squad, p10

Deft punk, p30

美国版

7 日记 完美的恶作剧 海伦·安德鲁斯 (Helen Andrews)

8 火星之人 前往红色星球的任务将定义 21 世纪 大卫·怀特豪斯 (David Whitehouse)

6 宫廷纪事 关于李·格林伍德 (Lee Greenwood) 马特·麦克唐纳 (Matt McDonald)

9 红旗 中国会在美国之前殖民火星吗？ 伊恩·威廉姆斯 (Ian Williams)

10 蜂群与敬畏 支持无人机警务的理由 海瑟·麦克多纳尔斯 (Heather Mac Donals)

13 丹尼尔·麦卡锡 (Daniel McCarthy) 班上的小丑

14 亿万富翁大道 棕榈滩揭示了美国的新阶级制度 彼得·沃森 (Peter Watson)

17 罗杰·金博尔 (Roger Kimball) 民主社会主义者 (DSA) 对阵 移民与海关执法局 (ICE)

18 致命一击 路易吉·曼吉奥内 (Luigi Mangione) 的崇拜还剩下什么？ 亚历克斯·布隆齐尼-文德 (Alex Bronzini-Vender)

20 信仰幻象 为什么自由派基督徒无法影响选举 达米安·汤普森 (Damian Thompson)

技术

22 无限智慧 更智能的机器将需要更智能的人类 杰米·梅茨尔 (Jamie Metzl)

陷入困境，第 9 页

25 凯瑟琳·迪 (Katherine Dee) 爱的未来？

26 书面警告 不要落入针对作者的最新骗局——我差点就中招了 詹姆斯·格雷 (James Gray)

美国生活

28 马克斯·杰弗里 (Max Jeffery) 探讨小说家兼散文家威廉·T·沃尔曼 (William T. Vollmann) 的作品

30 克里斯托弗·桑福德 (Christopher Sandford) 评朋克乐队 The Ramones，在其首张专辑发行 50 年之后

32 寿司秀 怀石料理风格的菜单正接管高级餐饮 克拉丽莎·塞巴格-蒙特菲奥里 (Clarissa Sebag-Montefiore)

33 维修站 罗伯特·F·莫斯 (Robert F. Moss)

35 纽约生活 乔西·考克斯 (Josie Cox) 哈瓦那生活 鲁阿里·尼科尔 (Ruaridh Nicoll)

36 本地生活 比尔·考夫曼 (Bill Kauffman)

战斗精神，第 52 页 光与碎片，第 58 页

惊险时刻，第 66 页

英国精选

38 糟糕的局面 改革英国党 (Reform UK) 核心的内斗 蒂姆·希普曼 (Tim Shipman)

39 艾斯特丽德·阿尔本 (Astrid Alben) 《跨越千禧桥》：一首诗

40 《旁观者》笔记 重新野化脑外科手术！ 查尔斯·摩尔 (Charles Moore)

41 塑料牧师 趁现在还能享受圣公会牧师的时候赶紧享受吧 昆廷·莱茨 (Quentin Letts)

42 杀戮许可证 针对敌人的行动何时演变为谋杀？ 欧文·马修斯 (Owen Matthews)

43 保罗·迪顿 (Paul Deaton) 《金翅雀》：一首诗

45 道格拉斯·默里 (Douglas Murray) 英国正陷入一种伤感的幻想

46 时间的皱纹 你是否有“老钱脸”？ 阿拉贝拉·伯恩 (Arabella Byrne)

47 玛丽·韦克菲尔德 (Mary Wakefield) “大规模代孕”中被隐藏的受害者

48 救援任务 拯救西方仍有时间 马蒂亚斯·德普夫纳 (Mathias Döpfner)

51 “那又怎么说”的幻象 停止用极权主义的标签进行攻击 彼得·希钦斯 (Peter Hitchens)

书籍与艺术

52 亚历克斯·伯格哈特 (Alex Burghart) 《哈罗德：战士国王》 汤姆·莱森斯 (Tom Licence) 著

54 丹尼斯·邓肯 (Dennis Duncan) 《热排版：诞生了大众媒体并让马克·吐温发疯的宏伟机器》 杰夫·贾维斯 (Jeff Jarvis) 著

55 布莱恩·阿普利亚德 (Bryan Appleyard) 《接吻：激情与权力的历史》 凯蒂·巴克莱 (Katie Barclay) 著 安德烈·库尔科夫 (Andrey Kurkov) 《乌克兰课程：战争时期的艺术》 夏洛特·希金斯 (Charlotte Higgins) 著

56 乔纳森·米德斯 (Jonathan Meades) 回忆唯美主义者和收藏家克里斯托弗·吉布斯 (Christopher Gibbs)

58 电视 《碎片》 詹姆斯·德林波尔 (James Delingpole)

59 展览 艾未未；贾斯珀·马萨利斯 (Jasper Marsalis) 迪格比·沃德-阿尔丹 (Digby Warde-Aldam)

60 古典音乐 苹果，引导我的聆听！ 达米安·汤普森 (Damian Thompson) 《聆听者》 约翰·麦凯布 (John McCabe) 理查德·布拉特比 (Richard Bratby)

英国生活

62 无生活 劳埃德·埃文斯 (Lloyd Evans) 狗的生活 索菲亚·钱尼-库茨 (Sophia Money-Coutts)

64 快乐奥德赛 在伯罗奔尼撒半岛迷路的乐趣 爱丽丝·汉考克 (Alice Hancock)

65 Wiki 人 罗里·萨瑟兰 (Rory Sutherland) 你的问题解决了 玛丽·基伦 (Mary Killen)

66 笔记... 关于剃须 奈杰尔·琼斯 (Nigel Jones) 注意你的语言 多特·沃兹沃思 (Dot Wordsworth)

撰稿人

海伦·安德鲁斯（Helen Andrews）是《婴儿潮一代：承诺自由却带来灾难的男女》（Boomers: The Men and Women Who Promised Freedom and Delivered Disaster）一书的作者。她在第7页撰写了“日记”专栏。

海瑟·麦克唐纳（Heather Mac Donald）是曼哈顿研究所（Manhattan Institute）的托马斯·W·史密斯（Thomas W. Smith）研究员。在第10页，她探讨了无人机如何改变警务工作。

亚历克斯·布隆齐尼-文德（Alex Bronzini-Vender）是《华盛顿月刊》（Washington Monthly）的编辑实习生。在第18页，他与路易吉·曼吉奥内（Luigi Mangione）最后的崇拜者们共度了一天。

杰米·梅茨尔（Jamie Metzl）是一位技术未来学家，著有《AI十诫》（The AI Ten Commandments）、《超级收敛》（Superconvergence）和《黑客达尔文》（Hacking Darwin）。他在第22页分享了对通用人工智能（AGI）必然性的质疑。

马克斯·杰弗里（Max Jeffery）是《旁观者》（The Spectator）的特约撰稿人。他在第28页深入探讨了威廉·T·沃尔曼（William T. Vollmann）的《财富之桌》（A Table for Fortune）。

宫廷传闻 / 马特·麦克唐纳（MATT McDONALD）

特朗普的吟游诗人

舞台灯光闪烁。MAGA的忠实追随者们在钢琴键响起的第一声叮咚中发出了欢呼。他们已经听过一百遍了，他们知道接下来会发生什么。

如果明天所有的一切 我一生努力所得的都消失了 而我必须重新开始 身边只有我的孩子和妻子

《上帝保佑美国》（God Bless the USA）自首次出现在李·格林伍德（Lee Greenwood）的第三张专辑《你将迎来美好的爱》（You’ve Got a Good Love Comin’）以来，经历了多次演绎。

这首歌在1984年5月成为金唱片单曲，并成为一部关于罗纳德·里根短片的配乐，该短片在当年夏天的共和党全国代表大会上放映。格林伍德在1988年的共和党全国代表大会上演唱了这首歌——随后在第一次海湾战争和9 / 11袭击后，这首歌再次流行。直到2010年代，它一直被视为一种带有右翼色彩的美国统一赞歌。但在过去十年左右的时间里，它有了新的含义：唐纳德·特朗普即将登台。

“我曾跟随美国军队娱乐协会（USO）在世界各地进行了16次巡演。在成为国歌之前，《上帝保佑美国》早已成为了军歌，”说话轻柔的格林伍德说道，“它在那些通过教化成为美国公民的人群中很受欢迎，他们来到美国是为了成为公民。在棒球赛和足球赛上，它曾是一首精神之歌，而不是像今天这样。回顾过去10年或15年，以及现在迎接9 / 11 25周年纪念，它真的已经成为了美国纤维的一部分。”

亨利八世有威尼斯管风琴手迪奥尼修斯·梅莫（Dionysius Memo）。太阳王路易十四有让-巴蒂斯特·吕利（Jean-Baptiste Lully）。特朗普的首席宫廷音乐家是李·格林伍德，一位来自加利福尼亚的83岁乡村歌手。“我曾随他走遍世界，”格林伍德说，“我有幸且荣幸地为总统做过12次以上的介绍。”

他补充道：“当我写下‘我为成为一名……而自豪’这句话时，我并没有听到很多人说他们仅仅为成为……而自豪。无论你是意大利裔美国人、英国裔美国人还是澳大利亚裔美国人，唯一真正有权在‘美国人’之前加上限定词的人应该是非洲裔美国人（他们被带到了这个大陆）和印第安美国人（他们在白人到来之前就已在此）。除此之外，其他所有人都应该首先是美国人。这就是我写那行词的目的。”

格林伍德和特朗普在几十年前因为共同的兴趣而首次相识。“我和妻子已经结婚34年了。我们相识于1989年，当时她是美国小姐特内西州代表，”格林伍德说，“在特朗普拥有环球小姐（Miss Universe）期间，她曾为他工作过很多年。我们的相识应该就在那些年里。那时我们不一定是朋友，但绝对是熟人。我们多次

“我并不真正深陷于华盛顿的圈子。但我服务于总统的意愿”

“我们会一起参加选美比赛，在他还只是一个普通的美国公民时，我们会坐在他附近并与他交谈。”

格林伍德是在一次 USO（美国军队娱乐服务组织）巡演中结识金伯利（特朗普的第四任且现任妻子）的，当时他在近 40 年前带了三位选美冠军随行慰问部队。“在那次巡演期间，我们变得非常亲密，”他说，“随后她大学毕业，我们开始约会，并在 1992 年结婚。”

格林伍德在总统政治生涯中最令人难忘的时刻为特朗普演唱过：在雷雨过后的美国 250 岁生日庆典上；在国家广场军事阅兵的热浪中；在麦迪逊广场花园的集会上；以及在宾夕法尼亚州巴特勒遇刺企图发生五天后的密尔沃基共和党全国代表大会上。

“在密尔沃基，我们向观众介绍了他。现场气氛极其热烈，”这位歌手回忆道，“他走进场时耳朵上贴着绷带。我等到他就位后，真正地发自内心地讲话。那里没有任何剧本。这引起了媒体有趣的关注，因为他们认为我是按照播报员的剧本在说话，但事实并非如此。那更像是：‘我在谈论我的朋友，我很高兴他还活着，我们希望他能再次领导这个国家。’”

“这是一种有趣的方式，让我无需成为政府雇员就能为国家服务、为总统服务，”格林伍德说，“我在那里有点像个局外人。我并不真正深陷于华盛顿的圈子。但我服务于总统的意愿。而我为特朗普总统举办的这些活动，为我的职业生涯吸引了极大的关注。”

如今已年过八旬的格林伍德依然忙碌。作为一名坚定的爱国者，他刚刚重新推出了他的 Soldier Valley 系列烈酒。他仍然在全国各地演出。为特朗普演出在多大程度上影响了他的日程？“这其实没有影响到任何事情，”他说，“它确实将我提升到了一个比单纯作为一名乡村艺术家可能达到的更高位置。有时白宫会联系我，告知我哪里需要我，这取决于我的日程……我不能每次都去，但我会说 90% 的时间里，我的日程足够空，我可以去他偏好的场地为他演唱。”

“我的观众可能大多来自右翼而非左翼，”格林伍德承认，“仅仅是因为我认为他们对于任何与特朗普总统结盟的人都更为激进。但我确实有很多民主党朋友，对他们来说这不是问题……因为他们意识到我首先是一名艺术家，一名音乐家和歌手，而且在我的专业领域确实做得相当不错。”

在接下来的几周里，格林伍德预计将在特朗普总统出席德克萨斯州共和党全国委员会（RNC）的“中期大会”以及田纳西州布里斯托尔的 NASCAR Bass Pro Shops 之夜赛车赛前进行表演。“我将在达拉斯与总统在一起，”他说，“可能在接下来的一个晚上，也就是 9 / 11，可能在纽约。我了解到届时将会有不止一位总统出席该活动。”

明年，格林伍德将自 2003 年以来首次发布新歌——由 Gaither Music 厂牌发行。“我实际上正在制作一张新的福音专辑，”他说，“我们已经完成了伴奏轨道。我会在年底前完成人声录制。专辑将在春季发行。我现在不怎么写歌了……我有一个 28 岁的儿子，他是一名音乐制作人和工程师，他与我共同创作了这些歌曲。”

希望格林伍德能够在履行为总统演唱职责的同时，完成他的录音计划。在那之后，至少他会知道自己自由了。

有时我觉得每生一个孩子，我的智商就下降十点。如果我和丈夫以后生第四个，我可能得彻底放弃写作，去找一份对认知要求较低的工作——也许是竞选公职。关于“妈妈脑”的原因仍有争议。研究表明，女性在分娩后，大脑的某些部分会变得更加活跃，而其他部分则会萎缩。这曾被认为是暂时性激素变化的结果，但现在科学家认为，怀孕会导致女性的大脑发生永久性的重构。即使在孩子出生多年后，母亲的大脑仍显示出灰质体积的减少。对我大脑的扫描结果无疑看起来就像一张朝鲜和韩国的航拍图：负责保留新信息的区域是一片漆黑，而负责为突发问题构思创意答案的区域则有着繁华的天际线。我们五岁的老大就是这类问题的源泉。

最近，在我杀死一只斑衣蜡蝉后，五岁的孩子和我就入侵物种进行了一次长谈。我们家的规矩是不无故踩死昆虫或蜘蛛，所以我向他解释说，这些虫子不属于这里，它们是意外地搭乘船只从亚洲过来的，并且正在破坏当地生态系统的平衡。“你知道爸爸来自澳大利亚吧？”我继续说道，“澳大利亚曾面临来自英格兰的入侵兔问题，它们吃光了所有植物，没给袋熊和小袋鼠留下任何东西，所以政府释放了一种病毒来杀死所有兔子。”在勾勒出兔子大屠杀的画面后，我赶紧解释说，养宠物兔的小男孩和小女孩可以把兔子带到兽医那里接种疫苗，以保护它们免受病毒侵害。这时，五岁的孩子插话了：“如果一群野兔去兽医那里，假装成某人的宠物为了接种疫苗，会发生什么？”我告诉他，这可以成为一个很棒的电影情节。于是他像个好莱坞的开发副总裁一样滔滔不绝起来。野兔们需要有一个驯养兔朋友来向它们解释整个疫苗的情况。电影不能以它们简单地返回内陆地区（Outback）而结束，因为它们仍然是入侵物种。

日记

海伦·安德鲁斯

所以我们需要让他们登船返回英国。也许某种本土哺乳动物可以向他们展示失控的兔子过度繁殖所造成的破坏，这样他们就会决定自己回家。

在世界各国中，澳大利亚在采取极端措施控制害兽方面的意愿是独一无二的。一名负责澳大利亚兔子控制工作的政府动物学家写道，他的欧洲同行经常告诉他，他们国家的公众绝不会批准他每天在执行的那些计划。民意调查证实了这一点。与欧洲人相比，澳大利亚人较不容易受到关于“可怜的小兔子”这类感伤的动物权利诉求的影响。该动物学家将此归因于澳大利亚人的性格——这种性格是由一个远离文明、环境严酷的大陆塑造的，在那里，生存需要一种务实的生活方式。澳大利亚人也非常清楚，他们是全球生物多样性的冠军，而他们的国家是地球上唯一拥有袋狸、袋熊和袋鼠的地方。听着我的五岁孩子讨论粘液瘤病和兔出血病病毒时，我想：澳大利亚人的性格一定是遗传性的。

订阅即可获取每一期杂志，并获得应用程序、网站和时事通讯的完整访问权限

抚养一个澳大利亚孩子的文化冲突比我想象的要大——我指的不仅仅是我们三个孩子都继承了对 Vegemite（维吉美酱）的热爱。关于澳大利亚人，你必须知道的一点是他们热爱恶作剧。这大概与那种“顽童精神”（larrikin spirit）有关。当我们的长子只有四岁时，我向他解释了愚人节的概念，在那之后的好几个月里，他几乎每天都会问现在是不是“恶作剧日”了。他构思了十几种不同的想法，我们一起将它们完善成了高质量的搞怪计划。我们最终选择的那个方案始于一个简单的食物替换。他想到在爸爸的塔可（taco）里用打发奶油代替酸奶油。随着周数的增加，这个计划变得越来越复杂，直到我们做出一个完全虚假的诱饵塔可：用草莓块代替番茄，用椰丝代替奶酪，用薄荷代替香菜，用巧克力包裹的棉花糖代替墨西哥莫莱酱鸡肉。

我想让儿子的第一次愚人节恶作剧顺利进行，所以我在爸爸看不见的地方完成了所有的食物准备。我们的儿子将普通的塔可和搞怪的塔可组装在一起，使它们看起来毫无区别。这个小恶作剧者提前发出的几声咯咯笑，可能让爸爸意识到出事了，但总体而言，他的反应是令人满意的惊讶表情。我们的儿子欣喜若狂。我想，如果我的脑细胞足够多到能帮他完成这次行动，那就足够了。

火星之人

前往红色星球的任务将定义 21 世纪

大卫·怀特豪斯

美国拥有可能证明火星存在生命的最有力证据。美国国家航空航天局（NASA）的“毅力号”火星车已经采集了岩石样本，其中可能包含古代微生物生命的有力生物签名。目前还没有人能完全确定，在能够最终证明我们的遥远邻居曾经孕育生命之前，这些样本需要在实验室中进行测试。可惜，我们永远无法看到结果了。今年 1 月，该项目的资金被取消。唐纳德·特朗普对这颗红色星球另有计划。

他痴迷于与中国的竞争，以及将星条旗插在异星土地上。因此，令全球许多科学家感到恐惧的是，特朗普已将美国的太空计划从渐进式的机器人探测转向优先考虑人类登陆月球和火星。

“美国人是探索者、建设者、创新者、企业家和先驱，”特朗普在去年的就职演说中说道。他承诺美国将“在星辰之中追求我们的昭昭天命”。他对太空的理解主要来自埃隆·马斯克，而许多人认为马斯克的观点过于乐观。马斯克的目标是在今年晚些时候，配合下一次地火轨道对齐，发射无人火星飞船；如果无人任务成功，载人任务将在 2028 年随后展开。

尽管马斯克继续推广这一雄心勃勃的时间表，但包括 NASA 负责人贾里德·艾萨克曼在内的大多数人都预计该计划会推迟。他估计，至少在 10 到 15 年内，我们无法将人类送上火星，而且即便这个估计也被认为是乐观的。

许多科学家批评了样本返回计划的取消。西南研究院的维多利亚·汉密尔顿表示，取消该计划将推翻数十年的研究，并削弱美国在全球舞台上的太空领导地位。她并非唯一持有此观点的人。美国行星学会太空政策负责人凯西·德雷尔表示，对于太空科学而言，这是一次“灭绝级事件”。

国会部分支持科学家的观点。他们拒绝了特朗普提出的大部分削减方案，为 NASA 分配了 244 亿美元 billion，这远高于预期。但特朗普仍希望削减地球科学、气候监测和机器人任务等非探索项目，并将节省的资金拨给载人探索。

尽管面临国会的反对，他的 2027 年预算中仍包含 10 亿美元 billion 用于火星专项投资。这笔新资金将用于建造核动力飞船，使宇航员能比使用传统火箭更快地前往火星，并研究用于为基地提供能源的表面核反应堆。

NASA 的整体资金方向也在重新调整。空间发射系统（SLS）火箭和“猎户座”载人飞船——作为 NASA 重返月球任务核心的两大政府制造硬件——将被逐步淘汰。它们将被私营公司开发的火箭和飞船所取代。特朗普希望通过削减月球任务的专利技术支出，使 NASA 能将重心转向派遣宇航员前往火星。

NASA 前科学主管约翰·格伦斯费尔德认为，这种结果是两头落空。他表示，美国最终将获得更少的科学成果，且预算规模远不足以支撑特朗普的计划。他说，用机器人科学来交换载人任务是没有意义的。

然而，这正是白宫为取消“火星样本返回”项目所做的辩护：这笔钱花在其他地方更好。而且无论如何，测试过去是否存在生命，可以由未来在火星上的人类来完成。尽管科学界持怀疑态度，将—。

将宇航员送上火星仍然是特朗普较为受欢迎的计划之一——一项 2023 年的民意调查发现，57% 的美国人对此表示支持。特朗普的这一举措是自卡斯蒂利亚的伊莎贝拉女王象征性地提出出售其皇冠珠宝以资助克里斯托弗·哥伦布以来，最大的一次豪赌。如果总统失败，美国可能会损失惨重。中国计划在 2028 年发射“天问-3”以带回自己的火星样本。他们已经列出了 19 个潜在着陆点的候选名单，其中前三名将在年底前选出。北京已经在建设一个具有严格生物安全遏制措施的高安全性样本实验室，用于分析火星物质。

因此，在“毅力号”的样本被搁置期间，中国可能会赢得这场重要的竞赛。如果这种情况发生，预计中国将充分利用这一成果。其传递的信息将非常明确：北京实现了华盛顿无法实现的目标。

与此同时，重新将人类送回月球的竞赛结果目前难以预料。艾萨克曼表示，胜利将以月而非年为衡量单位。美国的项目始于 2004 年，自那时起仅有一次载人任务，即壮观的“阿尔忒弥斯 2 号”。直到中国威胁要率先登月，美国才加快了步伐。

自重返办公室以来，特朗普发布了多项行政命令，旨在应对中国威胁并确保美国的太空优势。他命令美国国家航空航天局（NASA）在 2028 年前将宇航员送回月球，并在 2030 年前建立永久性月球前哨站的首批元素，以“为前往火星的旅程做准备”。美国太空计划的每一个部分都被重新导向向这颗红色星球。

为了实现这一个目标，其他项目正在被放弃。美国领导的国际空间站也即将退役，特朗普希望用一系列规模较小的商业建造空间站来取代它。一旦这种情况发生，中国将拥有最大的近地轨道空间站——“天宫”。

如果中国赢得了这三场竞赛——重返月球、拥有最大的空间站以及证明火星上曾存在生命——它可能会重塑地球上的国际秩序。世界上大部分地区将得出结论，认为中国掌握着本世纪剩余时间的钥匙。这就是为什么特朗普将一切都押在载人火星任务上的原因。

没有哪颗行星如此深地植根于我们的文化之中。这一定始于某个非洲的夜晚，当时我们的祖先尚未成为人类，但已具备了一丝理解力，他们凝视着它那奇异而又熟悉的颜色。从那时起，它就提醒人们天空中的一滴血。对于古人来说，火星代表着战争与毁灭，痛苦与死亡。今天亦然。火星对人类的考验将比月球严苛得多。马斯克关于大规模迁移、数百万人在新世界重新开始的梦想，将与地外生活的残酷现实相碰撞。那个目标目前仍不过是幻想。火星将是艰难赢得的，正如有一天红色星球上的坟墓将证明的那样。

对于新火星人来说，太阳将是一个令人不安的景象，在宇航服或栖息地内部所能感知到的范围内，它更小且没有温暖。走出室外，没有任何舒适可言。除了风引起的轻微波动和罕见的山体滑坡外，没有任何运动。除了压力服中自己的呼吸声外，没有任何声音。每一次呼吸都必须经过衡量，每一卡路里都要计算，每一分产生的能量都要核算，每一位机组人员和每一段关系都要忍受，每一秒生命都要精心计划。在人类所有的经历中，从未有过像火星那样彻底的孤独。

2012年，奥地利跳伞运动员费利克斯·鲍姆加特纳（Felix Baumgartner）从平流层跳下，他从一个悬挂在氦气球下的舱体中将自己发射出去。他当时处于大气层最顶端39公里的高度，那里寒冷、稀薄且致命。如果他的宇航服出现裂口，他将在15秒内失去意识。周围的压力如此之低，以至于在几分钟内，他的血液就会开始沸腾。然而，当鲍姆加特纳凝视那一刻时，他周围的大气环境仍比火星表面更温暖、更浓厚。

蓝色起源（Blue Origin）航空公司的创始人兼出资人杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）曾说过：“那些想搬到火星的朋友们？我会告诉他们，‘帮我个忙，先去珠穆朗玛峰顶住一年，看看你是否喜欢那里——因为与火星相比，那里简直就是一座花园天堂。’”

火星的挑战将与人工智能、人体遗传结构的控制、量子革命、核聚变以及我们的环境一起，定义21世纪。在所有这些领域中，美国和中国都深知，正是火星将决定未来几个世纪的秩序。

此时此刻，火星上正流淌着咸水；火星两极正在形成冰层；水手号峡谷（Valley of the Mariners）的晨雾正在散去；北平原上的一场沙尘暴正在搅动。而第一个访问火星的人，目前正生活在中国或美国的某个地方。

红旗

中国会在美国之前殖民火星吗？

伊恩·威廉姆斯（IAN WILLIAMS）

一名身着红色小龙虾服装的 20 岁中国研究员已成为北京雄心的象征。在去年秋天于巴黎举行的一次科学会议上，他解释说自己正在从事一项重要项目。他的计划将使该国的宇航员能够在火星上烹饪中国人的最爱——麻辣小龙虾汤。

“这就是我们竞争的对象。北京那边的氛围很好，”斯坦福大学生物工程副教授德鲁·恩迪（Drew Endy）在上个月的一次参议院听证会上作证时说道。此次听证会旨在探讨美国是否正在将创新优势输给中国。心怀忧虑的参议员们将这只巨大的红色小龙虾视为中国在火星探索方面雄心规模的进一步证明。

自天问-1 (Tianwen-1)，中国首次火星探测任务着陆并部署名为“祝融”（以中国神话中的火神命名）的火星车以来，已经过去了五年多。这辆火星车配备了高分辨率相机以及研究气候和地质的仪器，像之前的美国火星车一样，在乌托邦平原（Utopia Planitia）这片广袤的火星平原上缓慢前行，探索地貌。

它运行了一年，随后进入计划中的火星冬季休眠，但再也没有苏醒。科学家推测，过多的尘埃遮挡了其太阳能电池板。尽管如此，该火星车的运行时间仍超过了预期，且此次任务确认了北京作为行星探测领域主要参与者的地位。中国是除美国之外唯一成功在火星着陆的国家。

正如大卫·怀特豪斯所写，如果中国确实在获取火星岩石方面击败了美国，这将是一个“斯普特尼克时刻”。这也将是中国一系列载人火星任务的第一步。

北京计划最早在 2033 年开始这些任务，旨在在该行星上建立一个永久基地。届时，中国将成为世界上最卓越的太空强国。

当然，如果他们率先建立基地，中国人将能够在不受美国竞争干扰的情况下，开发火星的资源，例如钇和钕。这就是中国的明确目标。

该国每年发射进入太空的火箭数量超过任何其他国家。它运行着天宫空间站，在国际空间站于 2030 年退役后，天宫空间站很快将成为规模最大的空间站。中国已经在月球背面着陆，并正以极快的速度构建一个类似星链（Starlink）的巨型卫星星座。

其太空预算估计约为 200 亿美元 billion，虽然仍远低于美国的，后者略低于 800 亿美元 billion。然而，尽管经济增速放缓，中国的预算仍在快速扩——

中国人民解放军将太空视为任何未来战争中“先发制人”行动的关键

——展，且具体数字尚不确定，因为该计划的大部分内容是不透明的，且与中国军队相关。

然而，北京并未掩饰其成为太空领先军事强国的雄心，它测试了反卫星武器，以及最近一款被称为“神龙”的神秘可重复使用机器人航天器。包括在地球轨道部署秘密载荷在内的活动，正引起美国战略家的关注。中国人民解放军将太空视为任何潜在未来战争中“先发制人”行动的关键。

北京在宣传中使用了增进人类知识的措辞——尤其是在讨论探索火星的科学回报时。而实际上，其太空计划（尤其是火星任务）的目标具有残酷的战略性，服务于北京更广泛的地缘政治野心。因此，该计划被赋予了极高的优先级。

1970 年中国发射第一颗卫星时，在电池耗尽前的 20 天里，它一直广播着《东方红》。如今的宣传虽然不再那么粗糙，但它依然定义着北京的太空计划。准备好在太空里喝麻辣小龙虾汤吧。

蜂群与敬畏

支持无人机警务的理由

希瑟·麦克唐纳（HEATHER MAC DONALD）

在俄乌战争中，无人机抹平了经济实力悬殊的对手之间的差距，并提供了前所未有的能力来监测敌军部队和装备的动向。在境内执法中，它们已被用于犯罪现场侦察、追踪嫌疑人以及寻找失踪人员。

然而，它们最大的潜力在于在受害者或证人报告之前，检测并响应正在发生的犯罪。这是警方机构一直不愿跨越的界限。

四旋翼无人机是一种由电池驱动的无人驾驶飞行器，由四个类似直升机的螺旋桨支撑在空中。它们通常携带摄像头，能够详细记录下方或远至 2,000 英尺处的物体。在无人机警务时代之初，警员会在巡逻车中携带一台设备，并在需要的地方（例如失踪人员最后出现的位置，或有恐怖袭击风险的公共活动现场）自行启动并驾驶。美国联邦航空管理局（FAA）的规定要求无人机操作员必须将无人机保持在视线范围内，以避免与其他飞行器相撞。因此，无人机及其驾驶员必须彼此靠近。

重大突破出现在 2018 年，当时加利福尼亚州丘拉维斯塔（Chula Vista）警察局创建了旗舰项目“无人机作为首响应者”（Drone as First Responder，简称 DFR）。DFR 背后的理念是，无人机不再与驾驶警员同步抵达事故、失踪人员或人质现场，而是在警员到达之前先行抵达以提供侦察。

要率先抵达现场，需要将无人机从中央停靠站而非现场警车启动。中央指挥中心的驾驶员将远程引导无人机。但这种远程驾驶意味着无人机经常超出驾驶员的视觉视线范围，违反了 FAA 的规定。而申请豁免这些规定既耗时又费力。

第二次突破发生在去年春天，在唐纳德·特朗普的一项行政命令推动下，FAA 加快了执法部门远程驾驶的豁免流程。申请豁免视线范围要求的数量激增。

目前尚无关于运行 DFR 项目的警察局的可靠统计数据，但估计数量约为 300 家。

无人机可以停在桌子上以节省电量，并继续传输实时视频信号

至 400. 关于使用各类无人机的警察部门数量，进一步的估计差异极大，从约 1,500 到 6,000. 但目前的势头正向 DFR 计划倾斜。

在传统搜救队伍徒劳地搜寻数小时后，无人机在几分钟内就找到了失踪的痴呆症患者。它们在汽车窃贼逃跑时对其进行定位和追踪，避免了危险的警察追逐（这无疑让许多热爱追车的警察感到失望）。它们还挖掘出了深夜潜藏在森林中的罪犯。

2024, 年 4 月，在一名 911 报案人报告马里兰州银泉市（Silver Spring）发生一起打斗后，一架无人机记录下了 45 岁的乔万·阿里（Jovan Ali）刺伤对手并逃离现场的过程。无人机引导蒙哥马利县的警察找到了阿里的藏身之处，警方在那里将其顺利逮捕。尽管被刺受害者拒绝出庭作证，但检察官最终仍凭借无人机录像获得了定罪。

去年 4 月，佐治亚州邓伍迪（Dunwoody）的警方收到邻近部门的警报，称一名活跃枪手已开车进入该市。邓伍迪的车牌识别摄像头发现了嫌疑人的车辆，随后一架无人机将车辆追踪至一个停车场的顶层，并通过其颈部的纹身确认了嫌疑人的身份。凭借这一情报，警员们得以实现安全逮捕。

第一响应无人机为警员提供了所谓的“情境意识”，在警员到达之前展示潜在致命环境的布局。它们甚至可以在室内执行此操作。如果嫌疑人将自己反锁在屋内（可能在劫持人质之后），警员可以破门或破窗，先派遣一架无人机进入。有些无人机可以自行击碎窗户。进入室内后，如果门没有关紧，它们可以将其推开，并飞到桌子下方。一架无人机可以停在桌子上以保护其电池寿命，并继续传输实时视频信号。派遣无人机进入这一行为本身就可能将嫌疑人逼出。马里兰州塔尔博特县警长办公室的贾斯汀·艾塔（Justin Aita）警长表示：“它们听起来像大功率吸尘器，在心理上具有威慑力。”

“这不太可能影响当前的干旱。”

有时，无人机没有发现什么，与它发现了什么一样重要。据《加州邮报》（California Post）报道，去年洛杉矶警察局（LAPD）的 DFR 无人机响应了 3,000 多次紧急呼叫。在 11 percent 的出警中，无人机发现 911 报告是不正确的，或者情况（如高速公路上的故障车）已经得到解决。在这些情况下，LAPD 的警员可以中止任务，将注意力转向更紧迫的事项。

无人机还通过揭穿虚假报告，防止了警员被枪击——某些报告称嫌疑人持有枪支，而实际上相关物品只是 BB 枪或打火机。

直到最近，中国大疆（DJI）的无人机凭借低成本和卓越性能主导了执法市场。（一架警用级别的无人机，不含对接站和其他附件，价格在 $4,500 到 $11,000. 之间。）然而，去年年底，美国联邦通信委员会（FCC）以国家安全为由，封锁了大疆无人机的新销售。制造商深圳大疆创新科技有限公司（SZ DJI Technology）向第九巡回上诉法院提起诉讼，声称仅在第一年，该禁令就将给公司造成超过 15 亿美元 billion 的损失。

该诉讼仍在审理中。但这一禁令为此前在无人机领域处于劣势的美国公司提供了机会，它们现在正竞相抢占市场份额。

目标包括延长电池寿命（目前约为 20 到 50 分钟，取决于风力和其他天气条件）、提高速度（目前它们的平均飞行速度约为 32 英里 / 小时），以及开发自主运行和感知范围的新能力。

美国公司吹捧其与其他执法产品线的协同效应——如果警方使用的无人机尚未配备自己的车牌识别技术，Flock Safety 的车牌阅读器会自动将数据传输给 Flock 无人机。BRINC 无人机则与合作伙伴摩托罗拉解决方案公司（Motorola Solutions）的软件集成，该公司为警察局提供操作系统。

从科学角度来看，美国执法无人机公司完全属于硅谷的世界。然而，它们毫不掩饰的亲警察立场，使它们与那个世界——有时甚至与警察指挥官本人——产生了分歧。

在所有美国制造商中，Flock Safety 面临的困境最为严重，这与其无人机本身关系不大，而更多是因为该公司涉嫌与美国移民和海关执法局共享其车牌阅读器的数据流，以及数十起个别警员将车牌阅读器用于私人的案例。其首席执行官加勒特·兰利（Garrett Langley）非常愿意反击。去年 12 月，针对有关该公司数据安全的误导性信息，他给弗吉尼亚州斯汤顿（Staunton）警察局写了一封电子邮件：“Flock 以及我们合作的执法机构

其最重大的潜在用途正被过度夸大的公民自由担忧所扼杀

与我们合作的执法机构正遭受协同攻击……自公司成立以来，我们就一直在应对这种情况，这些攻击来自那些想要削减警察经费、削弱公共安全并使无法无天常态化的激进团体。”

这种措辞会让许多谷歌员工感到晕眩。它同样惊扰了斯汤顿的当局。斯汤顿警察局局长对此作出了主要回应，称其警察局并未“遭受攻击”，而仅仅是在经历“民主在运作”。随后，该市继续执行取消与 Flock 公司车牌识别读数机合同的计划。

尽管存在此类冲突，执法界对无人机仍持有极高的热情，将其视为在人力不足时期至关重要的“力量倍增器”。纽约和洛杉矶警察局的前局长威廉·布拉顿（William Bratton）表示：“无人机将改变美国的警务工作。它们的潜在用途是无限的。”

然而，其最重大的潜在用途正被过度夸大的公民自由担忧所扼杀。目前，大多数警察局限制无人机摄像头在前往和返回急救任务途中的拍摄范围。

令人惊讶的是，自由派聚集的加利福尼亚州飞地圣莫尼卡（Santa Monica）的规定限制较少。在 6, 2024, 7月，该市警察局的一架无人机在处理完海滩的一次 911 报警电话后正返回车站。飞行员发现一名男子正用螺丝刀撬开一辆 SUV 的锁并潜入车内；这名盗窃嫌疑人随后又开始撬开附近的车辆。无人机飞行员将警员引导至精确位置，该窃贼随即被逮捕。

如果类似情况发生在西好莱坞或马里兰州蒙哥马利县，这名窃贼很可能会在无人干扰的情况下继续其犯罪 spree。西好莱坞要求无人机在飞往和返回任务地点的途中必须关闭摄像头；蒙哥马利县则规定，无人机在运输过程中摄像头必须指向地平线。

警察局非常害怕被指责为“大规模监视”，尤其是美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）和电子前沿基金会（另一个左翼公民自由主义团体）在背后紧追不舍。他们的公关材料强调其无人机使用的局限性：在无人机到达现场之前，除非是

警察部门极其恐惧被指控为“大规模监视”

紧急情况，或者该部门已获得法官签发的搜查令。反对扩大使用的立场是跨党派的：许多红州（如德克萨斯州、佛罗里达州和北卡罗来纳州）已将这些限制编入法律。

然而，俄亥俄州在 7 月份打破了这一局面。尽管遭到美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）俄亥俄分会的激烈反对，该州仍通过了一项法律，允许无人机在无需搜查令的情况下观察那些“以肉眼可见”的事物。这一立场符合第四修正案搜查与扣押法中长期存在的“平视原则”（plain view doctrine），该原则认为，对于暴露在公众视野中（包括从上方观察）的活动或物体，人们没有合理的隐私预期。如果商业或私人飞机的乘客能看到地面上的某些东西，那么警察也被允许这样做，且无需搜查令。

然而，第四修正案的法律以极其复杂而著称，且另一系列案例规定，如果追踪一个人的公共活动（例如通过手机数据或空中监视）持续时间较长，则该行为属于非法。

2020 年，巴尔的摩警察局运行了一项试点计划，利用空中监视来逮捕暴力重罪犯。仅在白天运行的载人飞机捕捉到汽车和人员的像素化图像；在犯罪发生后，数据分析师可以识别出犯罪期间及之后代表嫌疑人的像素点，并对这些点进行去匿名化处理，从而追踪到其行踪。

第四巡回上诉法院在全院审理中，大多数法官在 2021 年裁定该已终止的计划构成了非法的无证搜查，并对此案已失去实际意义的事实不予理会。首席法官罗杰·格雷戈里（Roger Gregory）在协同意见书中写道，黑人社区的暴力犯罪是种族主义的产物，而针对黑人社区所谓的过度监视亦然。这起名为“美丽斗争之领袖诉巴尔的摩警察局”（Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle vs Baltimore Police Department）的案件，无疑加剧了那些胆怯的警察部门对主动派遣无人机飞行的抵触情绪。

然而，在理想状态下，无人机至少应该被允许在前往和返回急救呼叫现场的过程中观察地面。在警察部门仍处于乔治·弗洛伊德（George Floyd）事件后的人员短缺危机时，不必要地禁止此类平视记录，将白白浪费掉一个打击犯罪的绝佳机会。

此外，无人机应该被允许在没有 911 呼叫的情况下搜寻正在发生的犯罪。如果某个特定社区正遭受夜间抢劫或车辆盗窃的困扰，可以派遣无人机进行巡逻。无人机可以跟踪犯罪组织成员的公共活动，而无需动用有组织犯罪小组去尾随嫌疑人。无人机可以监视关键基础设施和公园。它们可以在饱受攻击的犹太会堂周围形成虚拟屏障。它们将与街道摄像头、面部识别系统和车牌识别器等其他反犯罪技术自动联网，这样一旦地面设备发现一名在逃通缉犯的车辆，无人机将自动被派遣去追踪他，直到警察赶到现场。

总是表现得过于随意的 Flock 团队在去年 12 月对公民自由主义者的反对意见给出了经典的回应：该公司的一位代表告诉旧金山的 ABC 新闻机构，“如果你没有参与犯罪，就不应该担心”公共领域对你隐私的侵犯。无人机制造商 Skydio 的首席执行官捕捉到了攻击竞争对手的机会，在博文中嘲讽这一声明是一个不必要的公关错误。针对“如果你没做错事，就没什么好害怕的”这一论点的标准反驳是“滑坡谬误”：一旦赋予警察这种权力，他们就会不断扩张，直到我们生活在极权国家之中。这种担忧是合理的；在安全与自由（或者更准确地说是隐私）之间寻找一个可接受的平衡点是一项持续的挑战。但自由主义者忽略了自由的另一个方面，即在没有被捕食或恐惧的情况下使用公共空间并享受私人领域的自由。应对滑坡谬误论点的正确方式是要求警察活动的透明度，而不是放弃那些能带来巨大公共安全利益的技术进步。

关于无人机的冲突是更大规模的反对高科技警务战争的一部分。就像当今许多事情一样，这场战争通常是在种族基础上展开的。2024 年，芝加哥市长

在安全与自由之间寻找可接受的平衡是一项持续的挑战

布兰登·约翰逊取消了与 ShotSpotter 的合同，该公司提供自动枪声检测服务。部分原因是该技术显示，这座城市的大多数枪击事件发生在以黑人和西班牙裔为主的社区。

美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）的高级政策分析师杰伊·斯坦利声称，一项新公布的联邦资助计划旨在帮助城市购买无人机、AI 系统、车牌识别器和其他高科技设备，而这些设备将针对“有色人种社区……用监控覆盖社区，并普遍试图将州和地方警察机构变成特朗普联邦政府的工具——服务于其意识形态执念、种族主义以及忠诚高于法律的做法”。

根据 ACLU 的说法，总统的反犯罪计划“针对低收入的黑人和棕色人种社区”。事实上，这些计划针对的是犯罪，而黑人社区的犯罪率比其他地方高出几个数量级。（斯坦利未回应采访请求；电子前哨基金会拒绝与我交谈。）

与此同时，创新仍在继续。无人机的速度正达到每小时 60 英里，尽管这要求远程视觉敏锐度相应提高。一名飞行员现在可以同时操作四架无人机，从而扩展单名警员的感知能力。一些无人机能立即生成室内和室外空间的 3-D 地图。

随着警务变得越来越智能化，犯罪分子依然愚蠢得令人惊叹——例如，在出庭时将枪支藏在裆部，或者在劫持 Lyft 司机后不得不询问对方如何驾驶他的车（这两个都是最近发生在芝加哥的例子）。目前，愚蠢依然胜过智能，但这种平衡可能会发生改变。

丹尼尔·麦卡锡 (DANIEL McCARTHY)

班级小丑

卡尔·马克思会对美国民主社会主义者（DSA）这些后世追随者怎么看？毫无疑问，他会发现他们的政治主张在很大程度上是可以接受的，但他们会给他带来一个阶级难题。DSA 不是一个工人运动，而是一个拥有知识凭证的人群运动：其成员中约 80% 拥有大学学位，35% 拥有高级学位。

这些凭证全部是由资本家维持的机构授予的——捐赠哈佛大学的并不是砌砖工。州立学院和大学依赖政府资金，但在资本主义制度下，政府本身仅仅是商业利益的工具。正如《共产党宣言》所言，“资产阶级……自从现代工业和世界市场建立以来，在现代代议制国家中，为自己争取到了排他的政治统治权。”

保守主义者和马克思主义者都有理由对此感到好奇：为什么资本主义会对这些自称社会主义的人提供如此丰厚的补贴？

毕竟，马克思认为资本主义在根本上是压迫且不公正的，它剥夺了工人的劳动价值。然而，如果事实确实如此，那么所有者阶级正将数千亿美元的被盗利润投入其中，允许学生在多年时间里——对于某些拥有高级学位的人来说，甚至长达十年或更久——无需在市场上出卖自己的劳动即可生存。

此外，马克思是一个相当严苛的功利主义者。“劳动价值论”并不意味着投入一件商品的“工作”越多，它的价值就越高。商品必须具有某种效用（用于消费或交换），才能被视为社会有用劳动的产物。确实存在所谓的社会无用活动——马克思不愿用“劳动”这个标签来美化它——这种活动产生的产品没有人想买。

美国的私立高等教育机构是资本（以及资本家）积累的中心：鉴于其巨大的捐赠基金，哈佛大学有时被称作“一个附带大学的对冲基金”。一些大学系科——主要是硬科学——通过最终导致新产品产生的基础研究，确实为经济效用做出了贡献。其他系科和部门，如经济学院和商学院，在服务市场利益方面也扮演着明确的角色。但那些成为 DSA 式左翼分子避风港的社会科学和人文系科，无论是在马克思主义经济学还是资本主义经济学看来，都确实是毫无用处的。马克思主义绝对依赖于效用：马克思主义者希望重新分配利润，或将劳动果实归还给劳动者。这种不产生任何他人想要消费或交换之物的无果“劳动”，等同于对整个社会的窃取。“各尽其能”是一条要求极高的规则。

当然，共产主义者寄生在资本家身上的先例早已有之——这正是马克思所做的，他依赖于其拥有工厂的朋友弗里德里希·恩格斯

教育也成为了宗教的有效替代品

以维持生计。然而，这与马克思的阶级理论之间的冲突并不像表面上看起来那么严重。属于某个阶级并不绝对决定你的行为方式。一个阶级拥有某些内在利益，但个人受多种影响，其行为可能违背简单的阶级逻辑。因此，一个恩格斯可以资助一个马克思；而一个马克思，尽管是“脑力劳动者而非体力劳动者”，却可以声称自己代表无产阶级。

但资本家作为一个阶级，确实在支持那些培养民主社会主义者（DSA）活动分子的大学——而且这些活动分子作为一个阶级，是拥有凭证的知识分子，而非创造实用价值的劳动者——这一事实迫切需要一个系统性的解释。马克思主义本身提供了一些解释。

马克思预料到资本主义会产生自身的反对力量。如果资本家知道对社会主义存在需求——如果他们无法根除它，且资本主义经济必须在某种程度上存在社会主义运动——那么资本家更倾向于接受什么样的社会主义运动？大概是那种与工人阶级联系尽可能少的运动。理想情况下，这种社会主义运动应该是最大限度地享乐主义、虚伪、愚蠢且无能的。换句话说，就像哈桑·派克（Hasan Piker）那样。

老派马克思主义者经常将性别研究系和其他左翼学术奢侈品视为本质上的自由主义和资本主义。它们培养了一种在经济上毫无威胁的激进主义：事实上，美国的制药公司非常热爱向跨性别者终身销售激素的前景。如果每个人都是跨性别者，对企业的底线来说将是最优状态。

教育也成为了宗教的有效替代品。马克思认为，资本主义需要宗教来减轻劳苦大众的痛苦和单调：“宗教是受苦人们的叹息，是心冷世界的内心，是无情状况的灵魂。它是人民的鸦片。”然而，面向市场的唯物主义及其随之而来的道德观，以及新兴的功利主义科学和自由理性主义，都侵蚀了传统宗教。什么能取代它的位置？

答案在两个方面指向了教育。它提供了一个新的理想和道德追求来源，同时也承诺在今生、在未来（而非在来世）获得物质回报。大学长期以来一直是社会流动性的承诺。DSA 那些受教育程度过高的成员觉得这个承诺被背叛了，但这并没有让他们反对大学——相反，他们渴望将更多的人送入这些辜负了他们的机构。这就是信仰的力量。

保守主义者并不认为马克思在很多方面是正确的，但他确实对左翼的阶级矛盾提供了一些洞察。马克思最错误的一点就是认为工人本质上是国际主义者——在他的时代和我们的时代，工人天生就是民族主义者。真正想要开放边境的是商业利益集团和左翼知识分子。在这方面，DSA 同样站在企业界一边。社会主义者和全球主义新自由主义者是合作伙伴，而非竞争对手。

亿万富翁大道

棕榈滩揭示了美国的新阶级制度

彼得·沃森（PETER WATSON）

傲慢、矫揉造作和等级制度本应是不符合美国精神的。但有迹象表明，社会阶级——或者更准确地说是收入水平——正开始出现分层。人们开始与持有相同价值观的志同道合者聚集在一起，而这些价值观往往是由财富决定的。事实上，超级富豪中出现了一种日益增长的趋势：他们在买房时，会把周围的其他房子也买下来，然后仅将这些房子卖给他们认识的人。这种行为甚至有一个名称：多房所有制（polydomory）。

在新冠疫情及其造成的惊人死亡人数的刺激下，人们被说服以重大且相对突然的方式改变生活。许多加州人搬到了德克萨斯州，而同样数量的纽约人和新英格兰人则迁往佛罗里达州。虽然花了一些时间，但这些人口结构的变化现在开始趋于稳定。

我居住在佛罗里达州南部的岛镇棕榈滩，这里是美国阶级革命的中心。最明显的迹象是沿同一片水岸线兴起的六栋新公寓。阿尔巴豪华公寓（Alba Luxury Condominium，大写字母似乎是必然的）被宣传为正在形成的“亿万富翁走廊”的最新成员。这里的人们非常喜爱一个统计数据：棕榈滩岛和西棕榈滩拥有不少于 67 位亿万富翁，其密度高于地球上的任何其他地方。

阿尔巴公寓俯瞰大西洋和 12 英里长的棕榈滩岛狭长地带——白天昂贵地闪耀，夜晚璀璨夺目。该项目开发商之一 BGI 公司的经理肯尼斯·巴本（Kenneth Baboun）称其为一个“里程碑”。考虑到 Olara、Apogee 和文华东方公寓（Mandarin Oriental Residences）很快都将与阿尔巴公寓一起出现在同一段海岸线上，他的预测似乎并不遥远。到那时，一种风格上的头韵无疑会将“走廊”转化为“亿万富翁大道”。这样显得高级得多。

这些都将是极尽奢华的建筑，每栋楼约 20 层高，且我引用原话，其设计是“考虑到后疫情时代的开放空间生活”。以阿尔巴公寓为例，它“设有用于商务和私人聚会的私人活动空间、现场健康服务以及可容纳户外厨房的超大阳台”。凭借两个泳池平台、一个波奇球场、一个健身房、一个瑜伽室、一个带有桑拿和水疗中心的健康中心，以及每套单元配备的恒温酒窖，人们永远不需要离开大楼。

这里还有一个“宠物水疗中心”（自然而然），一家电影院，以及通过与西奈山医疗系统（Mount Sinai Health System）达成协议提供的现场医疗服务。整个设计旨在让只有亿万富翁才买得起这里的住所。而

这一稀有精英阶层可以终其一生与普通美国人隔绝

另一栋公寓的名字叫 Apogee（顶点），这个名字毫不掩饰其所鼓励的虚荣社交野心。

在距离 Alba 一段距离的地方，有一个尚未命名的项目，这是一栋公寓，其主要卖点（至少在理论上）是它将包含一个私人俱乐部。同样重要的是，它紧邻诺顿博物馆（Norton Museum），并将拥有一个文化花园，居民可以在那里聚集进行“艺术及其他文化活动”。居民将自动获得进入整个棕榈滩各非营利组织的权限。基本构想是，该公寓将成为诺顿博物馆的一个有机组成部分，可能通过一座桥梁和一个专属的“文化 / 社交枢纽”相连。因此，这座建筑不仅仅是一栋公寓，通过与博物馆的联系，它获得了额外的文化声望。这种新阶级制度的不同之处在于其封闭性。这一稀有精英阶层可以终其一生与普通美国人隔绝，在一个完全为他们量身定制的封闭世界中生活、社交、锻炼和工作。

沿大道最成熟的开发地块是丽思卡尔顿住宅（Ritz-Carlton Residences），其 138 个单元中约 60% 已被预订。该项目预计于 2028, 完工，同样具有艺术关联。领先的房地产公司 Related Group 的公寓开发总裁尼克·佩雷斯（Nick Pérez）表示，该项目旨在“让居民在日常生活中接触到博物馆级别的艺术品”。但佩雷斯说，这座建筑最能提供的，是支持居民生活方方面面的“代客礼宾”服务；24 小时内部支持的所有活动，甚至包括宠物护理、高尔夫模拟器和儿童游戏室。换句话说，这就是一种随叫随到的仆人服务。或者用佩雷斯的话说，是一个“奢侈生态系统”。

入住丽思卡尔顿住宅可自动获得 Cove 俱乐部的会员资格，这是当地两家新俱乐部之一，另一家是 Court 俱乐部，表面上是用于球拍类运动，但实际上是为了与同类社交。一百个“创始家庭”被邀请加入 Court 俱乐部，由于其极受欢迎，尽管入会费为 $45,000 且年费为 $9,500.，但已经有 700, 人的候补名单。除了超级富豪，还有谁能住在这样的社区里？

室内设计由纽约的 Ward & Gray 操刀，摄影装饰则采用了斯利姆·艾伦斯（Slim Aarons）记录的“加勒比美女 / 帅哥”系列。艾伦斯于 2006, 年去世，他以拍摄过去被称为“喷气机setters”（名流社交圈）的人群而闻名。

但也许最能揭示这种新阶级倾向的方面在于学校的状态。正如一位当地专家所言，公立学校正处于出生率下降的掌控之中，高昂的生活成本正将家庭赶出该州。仅棕榈滩县学区今年早些时候的学生人数就下降了 7,895, 人，预计明年还将减少 3,300 人。邻近的各县也记录到了类似的下降。至少 75 名员工被解雇。

在分水线的另一边，自新冠疫情以来，这里开设了几所私立学校，其中许多由我们经常听到的那些亿万富翁资助。格林学校（Greene School）今年毕业了第一批学生，而松冠学校（Pine Crest School）将在西棕榈滩县开设第三个校区。位于附近惠灵顿的温格罗夫学院（Wingrove Academy）是一家新加坡教育财团旗下 14 所国际私立学校的一部分，其学费每年在 $24,000 至 $51,000 之间。

其他私立学校也正在筹建中，因为企业家们察觉到，那些最近搬到南方或正考虑搬到这里的家庭存在相关需求。考虑到这里阳光充足的天气，学校体育运动也是必不可少的。当然，这些私立学校之间相互竞争，就像英国的伊顿公学、温彻斯特公学和拉德利公学那样。事实上，这是一种隐秘的分隔形式。

可以想象，随着时间的推移，棕榈滩的学校可能会与格罗顿学院、乔特学校或迪尔菲尔德学院相媲美。十多年前创办牛津桥学院（Oxbridge Academy）的威廉·科赫（William Koch）已经看到他的毕业生进入了布朗大学和韦尔斯利学院。这种情况可能也会发生变化，因为棕榈滩学校的毕业生很快就能利用范德堡大学在西棕榈滩市中心新建的一个占地 17 英亩的新校区。该校区将专注于 STEAM

随着企业家察觉到需求，其他私立学校也正蓄势待发

——即科学、技术、工程、体育和数学。（在某些人看来，体育现在被视为获得亿万富翁地位的一种手段。）

但这意味着，在新冠疫情六年之后，棕榈滩的人口结构开始发生变化。当地企业明显希望吸引那些最高端、最具文化素养且成就最高的高端客户。值得注意的是，三家所谓的“家庭经营”餐厅最近宣布关闭。难道新搬到棕榈滩的人们不再喜欢家常菜了吗？值得关注的是，在这些餐厅原址上开业的新餐厅都与那些新型的、精致的、“走在时代前沿”的酒店相关联。

事实是：棕榈滩地区已深深陷入了对奢侈的追求之中。在公寓和俱乐部的宣传册中，“奢侈”、“奢华”和“专属”这些词随处可见。其总体目标是创建一个“奢侈生态系统”：一个能够满足极富人群所有多种需求的环境，而无需让他们涉足 7-Elevens 或 Home Depots 这样简陋的世界。

当然，这也引发了抵制。至少有三个居民团体（其中一个名为“保护棕榈” Protect the Palm）反对这些高层公寓，他们坚持认为，这些建筑被强加在了此前仅有单户单层住宅的区域。他们表示，富有的开发商正与当地政客勾结，一名抗议者将这种操作描述为“阴险的”、“付费参与”的勾当。

这种新的阶级制度将走向何方？最新的创新是——我引用原话——“一家专门为狗服务的全新英国时尚屋”，目前正在寻找实体店的场地。“Chloe King London”将自己定位为“专注于狗的奢侈品牌”，提供“使用英国传统皮革工艺手工制作的皮革项圈和配件”。

“我们不是宠物品牌，”该品牌的开发商爱德华·金（Edward King）天真地说。相反，他的公司是一家“恰好服务于狗的时尚屋”。他还使用意大利皮革，以及鸵鸟皮和鳄鱼皮，以及一种“可连接到主人佩戴的手腕袖带”的特殊牵引绳。手腕袖带？永远不要忘记，追求高雅是要付出代价的。

加入《旁观者》在曼哈顿的新家，届时将有一个小组重新评估理查德·尼克松的遗产——并解释为什么这位美国最具争议的总统之一再次成为国家讨论的话题。

THE SPECTATOR

一个更敏锐的周计划

认识 Today, Tonight 和 Weekend —— 由我们的美国团队提供，直接发送到您收件箱的每日时事通讯

请在 spectator.com / newsletters 注册

SPECTATOR TONIGHT

为什么美国的需要英国的

伊朗在以色列再次对黎巴嫩发动空袭后，再次关闭了霍尔木兹海峡。J.D. 万斯在准备周六领导与伊朗人的谈判之际，呼吁以色列保持克制。查克·舒默宣布，参议院将于下周对一项关于伊朗战争权力的决议进行投票。伊琳娜·扎鲁茨卡（Iryna Zarutska）的涉嫌凶手德卡洛斯·布朗二世（DeCarlos Brown Jr.）被宣布不具备出庭能力。比特币的创始人可能已被揭晓身份。这是来自《旁观者》美国团队的 Today。

SPECTATOR WEEKEND

技术是徒劳的

也许金（King）能完成一项，即修复跨大西洋关系他们正试图阻止某些在关键方面已经自然主义者雷·库兹韦尔（Ray Kurzweil）曾预见方式，其中之一就是：这个

罗杰·金博尔（ROGER KIMBALL）

DSA 对阵 ICE

在缩写词的对决中，或许没有哪场比赛比 DSA（这里的“D”代表愚蠢，“S”代表共产主义，我的意思是“社会主义”）与 ICE 之间的肉搏战更激烈了（当然，除了 TDS 对阵 MAGA）。一名疯女人开车撞向一名 ICE 特工，特工开枪击毙了她。媒体随即开始编造故事，试图将这名死去的女人塑造成第二个圣乔治·弗洛伊德。

仓库里堆满了等待在黄金时段游行的愤怒，但不知为何，这场娱乐表演哑火了。涉事女性雷妮·古德（Renee Good）并不具备在“受害者学”抽奖中胜出的条件。反特朗普媒体哀悼了一周，然后便转向了其他伎俩。

尽管如此，美国民主社会主义者（DSA）一直盯着 ICE。这个负责执行我们移民和海关法律的机构，天生就是一个高调的部门。如果前任政府允许，甚至鼓励数百万（这里的“数百万”后面跟着一串零）来自第三世界的骗子，在曾经的美国南部边境横冲直撞并在郊区安家，那么清除这些入侵者将成为一项极其公开的工程。

一两年前，某个有进取心的人想到了将 ICE 改名为“NICE”，其中“N”代表“国家（National）”。唐纳德·特朗普表示赞同，但不知为何，这个新名字从未流行起来。我怀疑 CNN 和《纽约时报》都不太喜欢这个新名字。不过，我挺喜欢。因为 ICE 所做的事情很“nice”：它通过清除那些非法居住在美国、违反法律的人——我想现在流行的词是“folx”——来帮助美国再次伟大。

DSA 热爱非法移民。为什么？有两个原因。第一，他们有助于撕裂我们共同文化的织造。第二，他们是左翼可靠的投票群体。非法移民越多，左翼的潜在选民就越多。

这一点如此显而易见，以至于我犹豫是否要将其白纸黑字地写下来。但我们生活在一个最显而易见的事情被忽视、被误解、被公然谎称的时代。什么是女人？一名最高法院的女性候选人发现这是一个难以捉摸的问题。

明尼苏达州州长蒂姆·沃尔兹（Tim Walz）如此糊涂，以至于他在男学生的洗手间里安装了卫生棉条分配器。

DSA 和各地社会主义企业一样，在这种混乱中感到自豪。这是典型的奥威尔式诡计：让那些乡巴佬相信 2 加 2 等于 5，他们就会像橡皮泥一样任你揉捏。然后你就可以让他们相信并去做任何你想要的事情。我想是伏尔泰说过，如果你能让人们相信荒谬之事，那么让他们犯下暴行就很容易了。经验表明，这是事实。

在《被盗的信》中，埃德加·爱伦·坡将定罪文件隐藏在众目睽睽之下。这需要一名聪明的侦探才能识别。DSA 的特工正是这种露骨伪装术的专家。DSA

DSA 就像各地所有的社会主义企业一样，以这种混乱为荣

是一个小型组织。根据最后一次统计，它拥有 120,000 名成员。但这比 2016 年的 5,000 名有所增加。我们该如何解释这种爆发式增长？人人都知道温斯顿·丘吉尔对社会主义的描述，称其为“失败的哲学，无知的信条，以及嫉妒的福音”，其“内在美德是平等地分享痛苦”。这如此显而易见，以至于说出来几乎都让人感到尴尬。

但这就是我们今天生活在其中的“古拉什炖肉”。什么是女人？真的有人对此感到困惑吗？不，其实并没有。但他们假装困惑。为什么？用一个词来说，就是权力。也许美国文化中最明显的现象就是

反犹主义的突然盛开，尤其是在（但不仅限于）大学校园里。哈马斯在 10 月 7. 日屠杀了 1,200 名以色列人。而回应则是哥伦比亚大学、耶鲁大学、哈佛大学以及其他那些为道德迟钝者提供庇护的奢华堡垒中出现了所谓的“加沙团结营地”之类的东西。

犹太学生和教职员工遭到骚扰、被吐口水并被诋毁。特朗普政府果断采取行动打击反犹主义。结果如何？众议院司法委员会资深成员杰米·拉斯金（Jamie Raskin）将民主党的“投射机器”开到了 11 档。他在 8 月 18 日致民权助理总检察长哈米特·K·迪隆（Harmeet K. Dhillon）的一封信中表示，哦，没错，美国校园的反犹主义确实存在。但真正的问题不是反犹主义，而是——你猜对了——特朗普！你看，美国司法部（DOJ）的调查只不过是一个“虚假的、预先策划的、具有彻底政治性质的陷阱行动……整个计划旨在骚扰主要大学的教授和管理人员，削减他们的言论自由和学术自由，并剥夺目标机构已经根据申请 merit 获得数亿美元的资助金”。

拉斯金那篇语无伦次、长达 7 页的抗议书如果不是如此严肃，本该很有趣。“言论自由？”“学术自由？”拉斯金所谈论的是学生和外部煽动者——其中许多是非法移民——占领大学建筑，破坏大学财产，绑架维修人员并称他们为“犹太爱好主义者”。拉斯金的信中充满了对特朗普政府不当行为的疯狂指控。但这正是那种不洁体裁的绝佳样本：它告诉从业者，当他们决定在真相上克扣时，谎言就要说得明显且张扬。

天真的观察者在读到拉斯金这封令人作呕的信件时，可能会认为它与 DSA 的威胁行径毫无关系。而经验丰富的观察者则知道，它们是由同一块有毒的、反美国的布料裁剪而成的。我所称的“社会主义古拉什”是谎言、偏执幻想和极权野心的女巫药汤。拉斯金就是其中一个较为小丑化的操盘手。

致命一击

路易吉·曼吉奥内崇拜还剩下什么？

亚历克斯·布隆齐尼-文德（ALEX BRONZINI-VENDER）

美国人热爱他们的杀手。尽管如此，在2024年12月枪杀联合健康保险（United-Healthcare）首席执行官布莱恩·汤普森（Brian Thompson）的路易吉·曼吉奥内（Luigi Mangione），可能是其中最受推崇的一位。只有某种特殊的恋物癖者才会从像泰德·邦迪（Ted Bundy）或杰弗里·达默（Jeffrey Dahmer）这样的疯子身上看到某种特质，而这些人杀人仅仅是因为其虐待狂的强迫症。但曼吉奥内呢？几乎每个美国人都被这个国家的医疗体系折磨得精疲力竭。

警方曾为8月14日可能出现的暴民做好了准备，因为当天曼吉奥内在曼哈顿一家法院出庭，就联邦跟踪指控认罪。但到了上午时分，警察的人数已经超过了他们被派来管控的所有人。路易吉的崇拜者们没有出现。不过，媒体大举到场：据我计算，在场的人员中大约98 percent press and 2 percent Luigi's admirers。摄影师们发现没有拍摄对象，于是开始互相拍摄。一名同样不知所措的BBC记者试图采访我。

那么，在汤普森被谋杀19个多月后，谁还在坚守信仰？其中有菲奥妮（Fione），42岁，一家家庭护理机构的协调员。她告诉我，她从中国移居美国，并发现“保险，你知道的，就像一场骗局”。她告诉我，像联合健康保险这样的公司“在向人们的人权收费”——而汤普森作为首席执行官，“用他的笔记本电脑谋杀了数千人”。

我问菲奥妮为什么来法院。她希望曼吉奥能看到她“没有忘记你为患者所做的一切”。为了来到这里，她取消了一次医疗预约。

在法院台阶旁坐着克里斯托弗·阿达尔（Kristopher Aadahl），39岁，一名无家可归者，一只手纹着五角星，另一只手纹着代表无政府主义的字母“A”。他告诉我，他钦佩曼吉奥内，认为他是一个“愿意牺牲自己的生命来造福他人”的人。今天他戴着一顶MAGA帽子，但他最初参与政治是在光谱的另一端：参加了伯尼·桑德斯（Bernie Sanders）2016年的首次总统竞选。他说，那“整件事完全被民主党全国委员会操纵了”。掌权者“不允许人们想要的东西”。

“我们一直在以各种方式受到情感操纵和精神操纵，”他告诉我。“我不知道——谋杀

“我认为他应该多抗争一点……对司法系统有更多信任”

是正当的吗？”他说，美国“应该是自由之地”。那么“我们该如何获得自由？”

然后是一位名叫道奇·兰德斯曼（Dodge Landesman）的YouTuber。他穿着一套配套的腰带、领带和圆顶硬礼帽——全部是亮蓝色的——他来这里是为了确定对曼吉奥内的支持是否已经“减弱”。他得出结论：确实减弱了。“以前有很多人，有人穿着充气服装，有人穿着路易吉的戏服。”但今天，“同样的支撑不再有了。”谈到谋杀本身，兰德斯曼说，“夺走一个父亲，让他离开孩子，这永远是不正确的。”但汤普森也曾是一个“邪恶的人物”，一个“对至少数十万人的死亡负责”的人。显然，曼吉奥内是在“为生命复仇并试图拯救它们”。

'A summer garden of color – every different shade of brown.'

片刻之后，一群西装革履的男人走出法院，搬着一个讲台。不久之后，曼吉奥内的认罪声明公布。但我们早就知道了，不是吗？曼吉奥内的辩护者很少否认他在曼哈顿中城的人行道上枪杀了汤普森。只有一个人表现出明显的反应，一个赤裸上身、纹着身的男人。他举起双手，抓向太阳。他痛苦地呻吟道：“HHRRAAH! HHRRAAH!” 然后他走向媒体围栏，口中说了几句脏话，随后踉跄离去。

尽管如此，对于人群中的一些成员来说，曼吉奥内的认罪令人心碎。一名叫马努尔（Mahnoor）的年轻女性对偶像承认有罪的决定感到被背叛。“我认为他应该多抗争一点，比如，对司法系统多一点信任。”

其他人则认为结果存在欺诈。26岁的法学院学生阿里尔·罗曼（Ariel Roman）告诉我：“陪审团否决（Jury nullification）绝对是一种可能性。”她说，司法系统“对他不公正”。检察官“隐瞒了证明无罪的证据”，并且“在告知其辩护律师之前，就向媒体泄露了大量信息”。

无论如何，他本该接受审判。她说：“值得赌一把，尤其是当公众舆论如此积极的时候。”（约30%的美国人声称“理解”曼吉奥内的动机；然而，大多数人既不赞成这次杀戮，也不对他持有好感。）当她离开法院时，我截住了阿布里尔·里奥斯（Abril Rios），她是一名支持曼吉奥内的影响力人士，曾是“支持佐兰的热辣女孩”（Hot Girls for Zohran）的组织者，此前一直在庭审现场。里奥斯是三名“曼吉奥内追随者”（Mangionistas）之一——这是她们共同的Instagram账号名称——她们在5月引起了轰动，当时她们佩戴着市政府颁发的记者证，在另一座法院的台阶上为杀害汤普森的行为辩护。

市长办公室随后承诺将审查其记者证颁发流程。尽管如此，里奥斯告诉我，她没有再收到来自马姆达尼（Mamdani）政府的任何消息。她的记者证依然有效。

“我不认为这是一个妥协或认罪，”里奥斯告诉我。她认为，曼吉奥内的律师只是建议其当事人认罪，以便他们能够“在州级案件中主张双重审判禁止条款”。（第五修正案的双重审判禁止条款禁止对同一罪行两次审判同一人；曼吉奥内目前被纽约州指控谋杀。）

不过，她为杀人行为本身辩护——她说，她的偶像并未真正承认实施了这一行为。“每个人都有家人，”她告诉我，但“这并不意味着你应该进入一个将利润置于人命之上的行业。”随后她补充道：“当你从事这类工作时，你应该考虑到有些人可能会对此非常不满。”

现场景象便是如此：依然忠诚的人们在为一个他们认为可能并未犯罪的人庆祝，或者希望他在法庭上继续战斗。在那一天，路易吉崇拜（cult of Luigi）似乎终于走到了尽头。

结果大概率一直会是这样。是的，曼吉奥内的崇拜者们和他一样厌恶保险业，美国人在汤普森被杀之前就讨厌保险业，现在依然讨厌。但曼吉奥内是某个政治时刻的产物。

毕竟，2024年12月是“氛围转变”（vibe shift）的季节。唐纳德·特朗普成为了自2004年以来首位赢得普选票的共和党人，并且自从他在2015年走下自动扶梯以来，第一次

对许多左翼人士而言，“杀死那些混蛋”似乎不再必要

得到了大多数美国人的认可。四年前还如此大张旗鼓地承诺支持“种族正义”事业的美国企业界，现在正与右翼达成和解。对于大部分政治左翼而言，曼吉奥内至少确定了一个解决该状况的方案：你只需要杀死那些混蛋就行了。

但正如《纽约时报》的埃兹拉·克莱恩在去年12月所宣布的那样，“特朗普的氛围转变已经结束”。特朗普的支持率已跌至30%左右。在11月的选举中，民主党似乎很有可能赢得众议院，即便不能赢得参议院。至于里奥斯，她告诉我，“曼吉奥内主义”运动的启动源于一种感觉，即“抗议和投票没有效果”。但民主社会主义者在民主党初选中大获全胜，并正试图夺取该党的控制权。看来选举终究并非那么无效。

对许多左翼人士而言，“杀死那些混蛋”似乎不再必要。无论如何，其回报都很低。罗曼告诉我，在曼吉奥内向汤普森开出两枪后，她购买了一份联合健康保险（UnitedHealthcare）计划。“它还是很糟糕，”她说，“所以（这次杀戮）并没有真正实现他想要达到的目的。”

曼吉奥内主义运动接下来的方向是什么？“我希望我们能继续进行这些对话，去质疑为什么寡头们在窃取我们的未来，”里奥斯告诉我。而且“这股民主社会主义者（DSA）的浪潮已经开始形成”。我问她是否会支持亚历山德里娅·奥卡西奥-科尔特斯竞选总统。“我们得看看再说，”她告诉我，“我认为她非常出色。”

信仰的错觉

为什么自由派基督徒无法影响选举

达米安·汤普森（DAMIAN THOMPSON）

我们经常听到美国共和党和民主党选民之间存在“上帝差距”（God gap）——而且这并非空穴来风。从投票习惯来看，参加教会活动的保守派与世俗进步派之间的差距已变得异常之大。1980年，40%的民主党人定期参加教会活动，共和党选民则高出几个百分点。如今，共和党人的教会出席率仍维持在40%至40%中段，而只有不到四分之一的民主党选民是定期礼拜者；在2024年，仅有17%的哈里斯选民报告每周参加礼拜。与此同时，根据皮尤研究中心（Pew Research Center）的数据，大约40%的民主党或倾向民主党的选民在宗教上不隶属于任何组织（无神论者、不可知论者或“无宗教信仰者”），而共和党选民中这一比例仅为21%。

这一切引发了关于今年中期选举的有趣疑问。这种“上帝差距”是否总是对共和党有利？它是否是应对共和党总统不受欢迎时的一项保险政策？此外，随着民主党候选人为了接触同道信徒而强调其基督教忠诚度，这种差距是否实际上会被缩小？最后一种可能性目前正被严肃对待，尤其是那些对“教会信徒可能抽走MAGA地毯”这一想法感到有趣的传统媒体记者。据美国广播公司（ABC News）报道，民主党人正“试图从共和党手中夺回信仰议题”。在一些将决定下一届国会控制权的至关重要选区中，“几位民主党人正公开分享他们的信仰如何塑造了他们及其政治主张”。

这些人包括德克萨斯州民主党州代表詹姆斯·塔拉里科（James Talarico），现年37岁，他正在参议院选举中挑战不受欢迎的共和党总检察长肯·帕克斯顿（Ken Paxton）。塔拉里科正在奥斯汀长老会神学院攻读神学硕士学位。他拥有主日学校教师那种认真端庄的神态和丑陋的发型；他谈到一种根植于“圣经基督教”的“对新型政治的深切渴望”。对于常规选民来说，他的形象修饰得恰到好处。还有谁比他更适合去缩小这个“上帝差距”呢？

在堪萨斯州，民主党的参议院候选人是亚当·汉密尔顿牧师（Revd. Adam Hamilton），他创立了位于利伍德（Leawood）的复活教会，该教会目前是美国最大的联合卫理公会教区。他支持选择权，对LGBT群体友好，并极力推崇社会正义——在他的共和党对手看来，他是一个“觉醒的牧师”，尽管在联合卫理公会圈子里，他被视为一名中间派。

更有机会当选的是莎拉·特罗恩·加里奥特牧师（Revd. Sarah Trone Garriott），她是一名州参议员，也是爱荷华州第三国会选区的民主党提名人。她是一名受职的路德宗牧师，至今仍每周日地在教会讲道。

但是，塔拉里科、汉密尔顿、特罗恩·加里奥特以及其他进步派基督徒候选人在中期选举中真正弥合“上帝差距”的可能性有多大？这就是情况变得复杂的地方。关于充满信仰的民主党人的媒体报道在刻意渲染这个故事。根据《华尔街日报》的一篇报道，“远—。

当民主党候选人试图“利用上帝”时，他们很快就会陷入困境

分析人士称：“右翼基督教倡议，例如推动在学校展示《十诫》，激发了一波进步派基督徒竞选公职的热潮。”真的吗？在期中选举中竞选公职的这类“进步派基督徒”仅有十来个——很难称之为“热潮”。而且他们大多数属于信众数量不断萎缩的主流新教教会。汉密尔顿可能管理着全国最大的联合卫理公会集会，但该教派本身正处于严重的危机之中。

我们可以抛弃那种认为自由派基督徒将影响今年期中选举、甚至任何未来选举的幻想。他们的人数根本不够——而且即便足够，也毫无帮助。当民主党候选人试图“利用上帝”时，他们很快就会陷入困境。塔拉里科（Talarico）因将上帝描述为“非二元性别”，并暗示圣母玛利亚在受胎告知时对天使表示同意，实际上是支持选择堕胎的权利而遭到嘲讽。很难夸大主流教派已经变得多么自由化。加里奥特（Garriott）不仅支持儿童进行性别转换手术；在她还是见习牧师时，还参加了一场两个撒旦信徒的教会婚礼。

现实情况是，共和党不能依赖“上帝差距”来维持对国会的控制。五年前，政治学家瑞安·伯奇（Ryan Burge）在《纽约时报》发表了一篇题为《为什么“福音派”正成为“共和党人”的代名词》的文章。在 1970 年代，只有 40% 的自认为福音派的人投票给共和党；到 2021 年，这一比例上升到 70% 以上，而在 2024 年，超过 80% 的人选择唐纳德·特朗普而非卡玛拉·哈里斯。如此惊人的总数表明，在那些教堂出席率高于全国平均水平的许多摇摆州，共和党可以依赖于由重生基督徒选民构成的基石。

但不要高兴得太早。正如伯奇所说，“福音派”的意思与基督教联盟（Christian Coalition）鼎盛时期时已不同。那时，并非所有新教徒都是福音派，但所有福音派都是新教徒，无论是旧式原教旨主义者、黑人五旬节派还是中产阶级灵恩派。而现在，我们发现天主教徒、摩门教徒，甚至令人难以置信地，一些穆斯林和印度教徒也在采用这个标签。此外，如果你深入研究民意调查，你会发现那些认为自己“在政治上非常保守”的选民在社会态度上表现出一种“自助餐”式的多样性，在堕胎和同性婚姻问题上出人意料地灵活。

他们在不那么灵活的地方是性别意识形态和非法移民，主流新教教派在这两个领域已让自己陷入绝境。对于进步派的卫理公会、路德宗和圣公会，以及在教会官方机构中代表性过高的自由派天主教边缘群体来说，这些世俗的痴迷是“信仰”的一部分。这些群体大概认为他们的批评者是由宗教偏见驱动的。但事实是，普通保守主义者讨厌“觉醒”意识形态是因为他们认为这阴险且疯狂，而与圣经经文无关。

因此，期中选举的结果可能会由自称的福音派决定——但方式与电视传教士时代不同。这些选民不会被诱导转向一个被疯子劫持的民主党。但他们也不会因为反对同性恋和堕胎而被驱动去投票，因为他们对此并没有那么狂热。在投票给“变装皇后故事时间”的倡导者，或者投票给导致油价上涨的政党之间做出选择时，他们可能会选择第三个选项：留在床上睡觉。

技术：万物皆计算机

“也许你之前听说过近藤秋彦。他就是那个‘娶了’Vocaloid角色初音未来的日本男人。”——凯瑟琳·迪（Katherine Dee），第25页

杰米·梅茨尔（Jamie Metzl） 认为随着AI的演进， 人类需要提升自我

凯瑟琳·迪（Katherine Dee） 在思考爱情的未来 是否是虚拟的

詹姆斯·格雷（James Gray） 与一名AI诈骗犯 打了一次交道

技术

无限智慧

更智能的机器将需要更智能的人类

杰米·梅茨尔（Jamie Metzl）

如今无论走到哪里，我们都能听到人们在讨论通用人工智能（AGI）的必然到来。AGI通常被理解为机器能够像人类一样、或比人类更好地执行每一项认知任务的时刻。有些人满怀兴奋地期待这一时刻，而另一些人则深感恐惧。无论如何，人们的假设是，机器迟早会跨越某个阈值，并在全方位超越我们。对于这种认知，我将其回应总结为三个字母：AGI是胡扯（BS）。

问题的一部分在于，AGI并没有一个统一的科学定义。这个词日益成为一种简写，代表这样一种观点：智能存在于一个单一的阶梯上，今天的机器处于我们之下，而明天的机器注定会攀升并超越我们。但智能并非如此运作。

请不要误会：我们绝对正在进入一个拥有极其强大的机器智能的时代。我们的AI系统将解决我们今天无法解决的问题，加速科学发现，变革产业，并以我们今天几乎无法想象的方式帮助我们理解复杂系统。它们将在重要领域变得超智能，甚至具有创造力。但认为机器将在所有重要事项上都优于人类的想法，是基于对智能的狭隘理解以及对人类自身的匮乏认知。

人类智能是近40亿年进化的具身产物，是通过大脑、身体、感官、环境、文化、关系和经验之间的相互作用而构建的。我们所知道的远比我们能用语言表达的要多。我们能识别面孔、感知危险、坠入爱河、察言观色、创作超凡的艺术、安慰受惊的孩子、与陌生人即兴交流、产生新颖的想法、想象新世界，并做出无数大大小小的判断，而无需能够精确解释我们是如何完成这些事情的。

相比之下，我们最先进的AI系统主要是在我们记录的文字、图像、声音、计算机代码、科学数据以及其他真实或合成的数字化人类活动表现上训练而成的。这些记录极其丰富，但它们远不能代表人类完整复杂性的全部。

动物王国应当让我们在试图定义什么是智能时保持谦卑。狗生活在一个部分由我们几乎无法察觉的气味所组织的世界中。候鸟利用我们不具备的感官能力跨越大陆导航。海豚体验到的声学环境与我们的截然不同。章鱼通过一种与我们完全不同的分布式神经系统来处理信息。

智能是由身体、环境、历史和需求塑造的一组多样化的能力集合。这有助于

关于通用人工智能（AGI）究竟何时到来的争论，可能会分散我们对眼前挑战的注意力

这解释了为什么人工智能的进步如此参差不齐。AI系统能够完成令人惊叹的数学运算、编程、模式识别和科学分析，但同时却无法解决这些领域中的许多不同问题，并且在许多我们认为简单直接的任务上失败。随着技术的提高，这些差距将会转移，但新的差距也会随之出现。我们将继续发现人类拥有且明显优于机器的独特能力，同时也会意识到其他一些此前我们几乎没有注意到的能力，因为它们看起来太普通而无需命名。

未来的机器将越来越多地拥有身体、传感器、持久记忆以及与物理世界更丰富的交互，但这并不意味着它们会简单地重现近四十亿年的生物进化，然后在某个单一维度上超越我们。它们将发展出不同的能力组合，其中一些将远超人类，而另一些则与人类截然不同。这一切都不应让我们产生自满心理，尤其是因为机器并不需要在所有方面都比人类强，才能变得极其强大。

进化提供了一个有用的类比。人类之所以成为地球上的主导物种，并不是因为我们在每一项任务上都胜过了其他所有动物。我们跑不过猎豹，力气不如大猩猩，嗅觉不如狗，游泳不如海豚，导航能力不如候鸟。让我们拥有异常强大力量的是一种特定的能力组合，包括语言、抽象思维、社会协作、累积文化、工具制造，以及我们将知识代代相传的非凡能力。

我们应该以类似的方式思考AI的进化路径。想象一下，有些机器在生活体验的许多维度上仍然远逊于人类，但在分析海量数据集、编写软件、模拟复杂系统、优化流程、揭示科学模式、设计分子、协调网络以及帮助构建下一代机器等许多方面变得极其出色。它们并不一定需要拥有意识、爱、智慧、像我们一样的童年、身体和生物特性，或者对死亡的感知，才能产生变革性的深远影响。它们只需要在足够多具有重要影响的事情上变得极其能干即可。

这就是为什么关于AGI究竟何时到来的争论可能会分散我们对眼前挑战的注意力。我们不应过多担心是否跨越了某个神话般的AGI门槛，而应更多地关注当机器在塑造我们的经济、社会、安全、健康和政治的活动中变得日益强大时会发生什么。

智能、能力和权力并不是同一回事。一个系统不需要具备某种通用的人类等效智能才能行使巨大的权力。速度、规模、自主性、复制能力、连接性以及对关键系统的访问权限，可以将即使是相对狭窄的能力转化为集体性的变革能力。一个能够以机器速度执行数百万次操作，或者日益能够操作实验室、执行金融交易、编写并部署软件、控制机器人或帮助设计下一代机器的系统，无需跨越那条虚构的AGI分界线，就能改变世界。

对我们而言，好消息是，我们的社会此前曾成功应对过革命性的转型，尽管其速度很少能与我们今天所经历的相媲美。就在 12,000 年前，几乎所有人类还过着狩猎采集的生活。农业最终使得越来越多的祖先能够专注于除寻找食物以外的其他活动，并建立起文明。工业化极大地降低了农业所需的人力比例，同时创造了全新且具有深远意义的工作类别。在农业黎明时期，甚至在蒸汽机出现之时，我们的祖先中没有任何一个人能想象出半导体晶圆厂、空间站、数字化网络文明或智能机器，但这些以及更多事物，已经成为了我们的新常态。

由于所有重大转型在带来机遇的同时，也伴随着动荡与痛苦，我们需要投入巨大的精力，尽可能明智地管理当前的转变。我们不能，也不应该试图去

为了增加我们把事情做对的概率，我们迫切需要各层级更好的治理

保留人类目前执行的每一项任务，而必须寻求构建一个这样的世界：让机器更多地去做它们最擅长的事，同时为人类发现并从事我们最擅长的事创造更多机会。正如我们的祖先在过去的技术使得集体狩猎采集、耕种和体力劳动变得不再那么必要时，找到了探索人类潜能的新方式一样，我们也必须这样做。

这场转型不仅将改变人类从事的工作，还将改变财富和权力的分配方式。机器不需要达到通用人工智能（AGI）水平就能取代大量工人，改变资本与劳动的相对价值，或者极大地增强那些控制最强大系统的个人、公司和政府的权力。AI革命最大的风险之一可能并非机器变得比人类更强大，而是某些人类通过使用这些机器而变得比其他人强大得多。因此，所有权、访问权、机会以及利益分配的问题必须成为我们引导这场转型的核心。

如果能把这件事做对，潜在收益将是巨大的。正如我在《超收敛》（Superconvergence）一书中所论述的，人工智能与遗传学、生物技术以及其他强大技术的融合，将帮助我们从根本上改善健康和医疗保健，使农业更高效且可持续，加速新材料和能源系统的开发，并以更接近我们高效大脑（而非如今耗能巨大的数据中心）的效率来处理信息。

但同样能加速药物研发的系统，也能加速致命病原体的设计。能够实现个性化教育和优化供应链的系统，也可以规模化地进行危险且有针对性的操纵以及有害的大规模监视。集中的技术权力可能会加深不平等并削弱民主问责制。我们的机器变得越强大，我们就越需要确保我们最珍视的价值观能够引导其应用。

我们正处于一个“金发姑娘时刻”（Goldilocks moment），在这个时刻，我们既不能夸大也不能低估我们所面临的挑战。关于AGI必然到来和机器接管的幻想，可能会促使人们产生一种宿命论的、丧失能动性的且最终危险的信念，认为人类已经失去了对一个尚未确定的未来的控制权。而因为当今的系统在重要方面仍不完善就轻视AI，同样危险。我们比宿命论者想象的拥有更多的能动性，而时间比自满的加速主义者假设的要少。

无情推动技术发展的军备竞赛动态使得这一切更加紧迫。即使是负责任的公司和国家，在担心竞争对手也会采取同样行动时，也会面临加速前进的强大诱因。AI和机器人系统能够日益自我改进，并在实时的人类干预减少的情况下在现实世界中采取行动，这种可能性进一步提高了赌注。这正是为什么仅仅依赖个体参与者的智慧或克制永远是不够的原因。

为了增加我们把事情做对的概率，我们迫切需要各层级更好的治理，使其能与我们的技术能力同步增长。在许多其他措施之外，这些努力必须要求在发布最强大的系统之前进行有意义的安全测试；为AI系统造成损害时建立明确的责任和赔偿界限；制定透明度标准，使政府和研究人员能够理解新兴风险；并确保公司不能简单地将潜在的灾难性危险外部化给社会的其他部分。

我们需要制定共同的国际——

坦白说，我不明白为什么抄袭会是一件这么严重的事。

针对无法在国界之内遏制的挑战，我们需要制定共同的国际标准，这些挑战涵盖了从 AI 驱动的生物威胁、自主武器，到网络攻击以及能力日益增强的系统所带来的不稳定影响。当一个参与者的克制可能会给一个责任感较低的竞争对手带来优势时，没有任何一家负责任的公司或国家能够独立完全解决这些集体行动问题。为了避免大规模的社会动荡，我们还必须确保这些技术带来的利益是共享的，而不是被少数精英所掌控，从而让人们觉得 AI 革命不是在他们身上发生，而是在与他们共同协作并为他们服务。

我们还需要投资于自身。AI 时代的教育不能简单地成为为了执行机器目前无法执行的任务而进行的准备，因为我们无法准确预见机器在未来将能够执行哪些功能。因此，我们应该培养判断力、好奇心、共情力、创造力、批判性思维、勇气、社区意识、道德想象力、技术素养，以及持续探索、学习和寻找意义的能力。随着机器能力的增强，这些品质将变得更加重要。我们的目标应该是，在构建技术的同时，让自己在快速变化的世界中更好地成为一个最优状态的人类

未来既不属于人类，也不属于机器，而属于两者的协同工作

这些技术将扩展、支持并激发人性中最美好的一面。我们需要成为更睿智的人类，才能以最有利的方式引导更智能机器的发展。

智能可以帮助我们确定如何实现目标，但仅凭智能无法告诉我们哪些目标值得追求。智慧要求我们在面对不确定性时做出判断，平衡相互冲突的价值观，认识到局限性，跨领域和跨世代地思考，并决定我们不仅能做什么，而且应该做什么。它要求我们不断地自我革新以适应不断变化的环境。

神话般的通用人工智能（AGI）门槛并不会到来，因为并不存在一个单一的门槛需要跨越。人类不会变得过时。但随着我们的机器变得日益强大，我们需要就我们所珍视的东西、我们希望权力与机会如何分配，以及我们寻求构建什么样的未来做出深刻的选择。未来既不属于人类，也不属于机器，而属于人类与机器的协同工作，并由我们植入这段关系中的价值观来引导。

我们的机器将比现在更智能。我们的生活是否会变得更好，将取决于我们能否变得更睿智，并将这种智慧植入到将塑造我们未来的选择、技术、制度和治理体系之中。

想在世界任何地方观看您最喜爱的节目吗？

扫描二维码获取 《旁观者》订阅者特惠

KATHERINE DEE

爱情的未来？

也许你之前听说过近藤秋彦（Akihiko Kondo）。他是一个日本人，在2018年举行了一场正式的——尽管并非严格意义上的官方——仪式，“娶”了Vocaloid角色初音未来（Hatsune Miku），一个由计算机生成的流行歌手。他穿着燕尾服，她穿着手工制作的礼服并戴着面纱，共有39名宾客到场观看。

近藤的婚姻被媒体报道过数十次，且通常被视为一个孤立的人情故事——那种发表出来让读者能好奇地盯着看并说“噢，真奇怪”的东西。然而，近藤的故事并非绝无仅有。纵观历史，浪漫主义者一直与虚构角色坠入爱河，而且这种情况在日本及其他地方仍在继续。

近藤是一个更广泛群体的成员，他们将自己定义为“虚构性恋者”（fictosexual）：即存在于物理世界中的三维人类，他们被虚构角色吸引，有时还会与虚构角色维持关系。虚构性恋者的主要工具是他们的想象力。这不能被简单地解释为被某种寻求互动的类人AI所操纵，也不是精神疾病。事实上，芬兰的研究人员发现了一种他们称之为“虚构亲近悖论”（fictophilic paradox）的现象。

虚构性恋者并没有要求世界去顺从或认可一种妄想。他们不需要你认为他们的爱人是“真实的”——他们甚至不认为对方是真实的。然而，真实的是他们的感受。对于一些虚构性恋者来说，这种动态关系是极其痛苦的，尤其是随着爱意的增加，或者当他们意识到这就是自己的性取向，且无法对血肉之躯的人产生吸引力时。而另一些人，比如近藤，则非常乐于以一种不同的方式去爱。我与近藤就他的选择进行了交谈；以下是我们对话的摘录。

凯瑟琳·迪（KATHERINE DEE）：你最早什么时候意识到自己被虚构角色吸引？

近藤秋彦（AKIHIKO KONDO）：嗯，在我五年级的时候。我出生于1983年，所以五年级大约是在1994年。那时我大约十或11岁。

KD：是相对于人类而言，还是说你的吸引力是排他的？你曾经对真实的人产生过吸引力吗？

AK：直到高中二年级，我也喜欢三维女孩。

KD：这与爱上一个三维女性的感觉有什么不同？

AK：我认为没有太大区别。当然，我知道她是一个二维角色——动漫和游戏中的角色——但我认为没有太大区别。

：坠入爱河是什么感觉？

AK：这很难解释。抱歉。

：没关系。你也有二维朋友吗？

AK：我没有二维朋友，因为对我来说，二维角色是浪漫的恋爱对象，而不是朋友。这就是原因。

：你能向一个难以想象这种情况的人描述你与初音未来的关系吗？例如，当你提到

“我在脑海中思考她并与她交谈。我在想象中与她对话”

她支持你，对于一个只与 3D 人类交往过的人来说，这意味着什么？

AK：嗯，当我陷入困境时，初音未来帮助了我，救赎了我。

KD：例如，你会觉得她在对你说话吗？

AK：我在脑海中思考她并与她交谈。我在想象中与她对话。

KD：这是心灵感应吗？

：不是心灵感应。我与未来说话。例如，在我出门前，我会说：“未来，我要去上班了。”这不是心灵感应。当我与未来说话时，我是大声说出来的。但当未来对我说话时，她不会大声说出来；是我在脑海中想象的。

：所以这不是超自然现象。

：没错。这不是超自然现象。这仅仅是在我的想象之中。

：你如何看待那些爱上 AI 的人？

：我认为这是一件非常好的事情。现在的 AI 只能通过语言交流，但如果 能绑定一个角色，并且能通过声音交流，那就就像爱上一个角色一样。所以我认为 和角色最终会融合在一起。

：你认为爱上 的人与爱上 2D 角色的人有所不同吗？

：嗯，目前的情况有所不同，但我认为总有一天它们会合并。理想情况下，初音未来能够移动并说话。那么机器人技术、 技术以及来自漫画、动画和游戏中的角色就会融合。我认为它们会在某个地方相遇。

：你认为你的关系是单方面的还是双向的？

：在生理上，它是单方面的。

：但在情感上呢？

：在我的想象中，它是双向的。

：人们如何看待你的身份？

：很多人认为我疯了。但这也是没办法的事。并不是说我不介意，而是没办法。

：如果日本的生活不同，如果日本的约会文化不同，你认为你会更倾向于人类女性吗？

：现在不会。我已经超过 20 年没有对 3D 女性产生过浪漫感情了，所以我不认为与真实女性建立关系对我来说会更好。

：日本需要发生什么样的改变，你才会转而与 3D 女性约会？

：不需要改变。我认为我不需要拥有这样的关系。而且，无论如何，这只是假设。我早就放弃了与真实女性建立关系，因为我无法拥有。我没有被接纳。当然，那是很久以前的事了，当时我还是个初中生或高中生。

：那么这种缺乏接纳的情况让你更倾向于你的想象世界？

：不受欢迎产生了很大影响。我在初三时成了动漫宅。在成为动漫宅之后，我对虚构角色产生了越来越多的浪漫感情。那时，我对 2D 角色的感情变得比对真实人类的感情更强烈。

：你认为这是一种天生的东西，也就是你的取向吗？

：我不认为如此。我认为这是文化使然。如果没有动漫，这是不可能的。

书面警告

不要落入针对作者的最新骗局——我差点就中招了

詹姆斯·格雷（James Gray）

“你好，詹姆斯·格雷。我是 [ABC，纽约麦克米伦出版社的一位知名执行编辑]。我最近看到了你的作品，被深深吸引了……我很想进一步了解你可能正在开发的所有项目……我也很好奇你是否有文学代理人。如果有，我很乐意通过他们继续沟通。”

这简直是直接击中了被吹捧的虚荣心。多年来，我一直默默耕耘，几乎不被关注，出版了几本书，规模都相当小。虽然是小作品，但那是我的心血。终于，我被一家大型出版社看中了。我的名字要出名了。大机会来了。于是，我赶紧发了一些手稿、一份简历和一段简介。

对方继续说道：“如果你目前没有代理人，我很乐意为你介绍一位值得信赖的文学代理人，我们可以通过她继续发展我们的出版关系。这是她的详细信息……”

理所当然地，我发了邮件：“麦克米伦的 ABC 建议我联系您，请您担任我的文学代理人……这里有一些手稿以及关于我的背景等详细信息，等等。”

随后收到了回复：“我目前不接受未经推荐的投稿，但因为你是麦克米伦的 ABC 推荐的，我很乐意破例看一看……听到你的背景真是太棒了……在下议院工作 27 年并由不同出版社出版了十本书，这是一个非凡的基础，听起来你现在掌握了一些真正引人入胜的素材。《闭门之后：下议院内部指南》听起来很有吸引力……把你的手稿等发给我，我会拟定一份代理协议。”

哇。多么迷人且文笔流畅的私人信函。我这次真的抓到机会了。一切进展得非常顺利。一份非常专业的协议寄到了，签署完毕。万岁！我拥有了一位备受推崇且与各大出版社有良好关系的文学代理人。我的价值终于将得到充分认可。

“做得好。你的文字清晰且吸引人，从你的信中可以明显看出为什么麦克米伦的 ABC 对这本书感兴趣。不过，在我们将你的书提交给出版社之前，有几点具体内容需要你加强，”回复这样写道，随之而来的是一份包含十项非常合理改进建议的清单。我需要提供一个清晰、有力的开篇推介；我的过往记录；之前书籍的评论和奖项应当详细列出，而不是留在

我现在彻底被套进去了，几乎准备好交钱了。但我的政治触觉突然警觉了起来

简历中；受众 / 市场定位需要更精准，等等。所有建议都非常合理，其中六七项很容易处理。但关于“出版社偏好的正确格式”怎么处理？这超出了我有限的专业知识。

“你可以尝试自己再修改一遍，或者我很乐意为你介绍一位专家，[PQR，一名编辑]。她专门润色那些已经引起大出版社关注的查询信和投稿。”（PQR 是另一位常驻纽约的专家编辑。）

于是，我收到了 PQR 的邮件。“你的书确实引人入胜，我很兴奋能帮助你编辑并出版……《闭门之后》是一个真正具有吸引力的前提。在议会内部工作 27 年，并致力于纠正大多数读者心中的刻板印象，这正是出版社所青睐的那种噱头。以下为你提供两种方案：方案 A 翡翠套餐，总投资 $1,250；或方案 B 钻石套餐 $1,750。”随信附上了一份两页长的清单，列出了她将为我的书以及为我所做的所有绝妙之事。

[...OMITTED...]

我现在真的被迷住了，几乎准备交钱。但我的政治触觉突然警觉起来。这一切总觉得有些不对劲。那些措辞听起来像 AI 生成的——而且，我怎么会从麦克米伦出版社，通过一名高度可信的文学经纪人，最后变成面对一个要求支付 $1,750 来重写我提交给出版社的稿件的人？一次快速检查（讽刺的是，我使用了 AI）提醒了我，这在纽约出版市场已经成为一种广泛的骗局，而且显然现在在英国也处于早期阶段。

骗子使用仅经过轻微修改的伪造电子邮件，突然联系一名有抱负的作者（像我们这样的人很多）。邮件中充斥着对你文学天才的奉承。哪个渴望成名的作者能拒绝来自如此高层机构的赞美？接着，他们会为你介绍一位同样令人信服且富有魅力的文学经纪人，后者（表面上是不情愿地）同意签署合同。但由于还需要一些修改工作，于是他们推荐了一位专家——而这位专家是第一个要求付款的人。毫无疑问，这只是众多付款要求的开始。

AI 告诉我，在那之后你会被卷入得越来越深。“一家大型出版社非常喜欢你的书，并渴望出版。只需要一些营销材料 / 进一步的编辑 / 前往纽约会见出版商等等。请汇款 $10,000。”然后你就再也听不到他们的消息了。

一种挥之不去的怀疑在心中升起。我不情愿地、模糊地意识到自己被骗了（幸好是在我动用那点微薄的国会议员养老金之前）。这促使我详细审视了那些伪造的邮件链，以及这些极其老练且精力充沛的骗子所采取的其他极具奉承性的手段。

所以，各位作者：警惕那些带着礼物的假出版社。承认你自己那种渴望被奉承的自负心理。但请记住，出版社不会主动接触作者，经纪人也不会把你推荐给其他付费编辑之类的人——而且在出版过程的任何阶段，都不应该发生金钱交易，或者至少不应该是作者向出版社 / 经纪人付款。

他们差点就得手了。所以请不要步我的后尘，不要像我那样天真。

美国生活

新闻之外

马克斯·杰弗里（Max Jeffery） 探讨小说家 威廉·T·沃尔曼（William T. Vollmann）的作品

克里斯托弗·桑福德（Christopher Sandford）解释雷蒙斯乐队（Ramones）如何塑造了朋克场景

克拉丽莎·塞巴格-蒙蒂菲奥雷（Clarissa Sebag-Montefiore） 剖析怀石料理风格餐饮背后的哲学

乔西·考克斯（Josie Cox）享受与特定年龄段加拿大男性的对话

比尔·考夫曼（Bill Kauffman） 对人们对 DNA 检测的痴迷感到困惑

美国生活

一生的作品

走进威廉·T·沃尔曼的巨著

马克斯·杰弗里

威廉·T·沃尔曼的主题是 9 / 11。始终如此，一直如此。甚至在袭击发生之前，这在某种程度上就是他的关注点。《阿富汗图集》（An Afghanistan Picture Show）是沃尔曼的处女作，当时被宣传为一个 22 岁青年与圣战者一起对抗苏联的冷战回忆录。但实际上，它在无意中向人们介绍了一个注定会成为美国敌人的群体及其所在地。

沃尔曼将其职业生涯用于围绕 2001 年那一天——21 世纪的第一个且最主要的事件——进行写作，用扩创器和镊子剖析 9 / 11 之前建立的美国帝国，以及袭击之后所产生的国家。现在，在他的新小说中，沃尔曼正面面对这个主题。他在书首写给读者道：“《财富之桌》（A Table for Fortune）是关于 September eleventh，”他写道，“我们是如何走到 September eleventh，以及从那里起，我们又爬进了多少个污秽的泥潭？”他的粉丝们开始幻想：这本书是否能让沃尔曼最终获得他应得的认可？

我说《阿富汗图集》是沃尔曼的处女作，但这几乎不算数。他在 1983, 年完成了这本书，但没有出版商愿意接收，于是他自己复印了手稿，并在他居住的旧金山两家书店以每本亏损 $6 的价格出售：一家是垮掉派的最爱——城市之光书店（City Lights），另一家是由无政府主义集体经营的 Bound Together 书店。（直到 1992, 年，沃尔曼才最终将这本书卖给了 Farrar, Strauss and Giroux 出版社。）当时的沃尔曼二十多岁，是一名失业的计算机程序员，没能出版作品让他倍感挫败。

在之前从未公开的一封 1985 年 7 月写给伦敦朋友鲍勃·哈比森（Bob Harbison）和埃丝特·惠特比（Esther Whitby）的信中，沃尔曼写道：

坦率地说，我不知道自己是不是一个好的作家。这周我就要满 26 岁了。我从未发表过任何东西。我去过一些所谓的作家小组，当我读自己的作品时，我对它的反感程度低于其他那些自大之辈读的作品，但它同样让我感到厌倦……我真的很想知道你们的意见，看看我是否具备被出版的潜质。如果你不这么认为，请告诉我。

一个月前，沃尔曼给鲍勃和埃丝特寄去了他的第一部小说《你灿烂且升起的天使》（You Bright and Risen Angels）的草稿。他急切地等待回复。当沃尔曼还在康奈尔大学就读时，鲍勃——一位在伦敦任教的博学建筑学教授——曾访问过特鲁赖德（Telluride），那是康奈尔大学下属的一个隐秘的自治宿舍，沃尔曼当时在那里担任学者。比尔和鲍勃成了朋友。沃尔曼知道埃丝特（鲍勃的妻子）是 André Deutsch 出版社的编辑，该出版社最近出版了菲利普·罗斯（Philip Roth）、V.S. 奈保尔（V.S. Naipaul）、诺曼·梅勒（Norman Mailer）和玛格丽特·阿特伍德（Margaret Atwood）的书。

沃尔曼希望埃丝特和 Deutsch 出版社能考虑出版《天使》，这是一个关于一名陷入困境的计算机程序员（作者）运行一个软件（文本）的故事，该软件讲述了一场帝国“反动派”与妥协的“革命者”之间的历史战争。去年，我在伦敦西北部的家中见到了埃丝特。我问她读到草稿时的想法。“我，”她说，“被它震撼了。”虽然在运送。

沃尔曼永远不会成为他那个 era. 的领军人物。他没什么商业价值

在将《天使》（Angels）寄往伦敦的同时，沃尔曼还将其寄给了一群美国出版商，并附上了一封写给所有人的信，称他们为“各位出版界名流”、“女士们先生们”，恳请他们购买这本书。但没有一家出版商买账，因此沃尔曼在英国出版的时间早于美国。

沃尔曼从未被美国主流社会完全接纳。他不像汤姆·沃尔夫（Tom Wolfe），后者的第一部小说《虚荣之火》（Bonfire of the Vanities）与《天使》同年（1987年）出版。该书在《滚石》杂志连载后顺利发行。虽然沃尔曼的书获得了一些不错的赞誉，但《虚荣之火》确认了沃尔夫——身着那套标志性的、带有马克·吐温风格的白色西装——成为了纽约的文学之王。这使他在两年后获得了为美国小说的未来撰写宣言的权利。在发表于《哈珀杂志》（Harper's Magazine）的《追踪千足巨兽》（Stalking the Billion-Footed Beast）一文中，沃尔夫理所当然地主张作家应该更像他一样。他呼吁更多“具有严肃文学野心的年轻人”去写“宏大的现实主义小说”，描写嬉皮士、黑豹党以及世纪之交的美国生活。

到 1990 年代中期，沃尔夫已经失去了美国文学界的冠军头衔。1996 年 5 月 17 日，新的挑战者们聚集在东海岸知识分子关注的地方：在一档关于美国小说未来的查理·罗斯（Charlie Rose）访谈节目中。坐在桌旁的是大卫·福斯特·华莱士（David Foster Wallace）、乔纳森·弗兰岑（Jonathan Franzen）和马克·莱纳（Mark Leyner）。华莱士的《无尽的玩笑》（Infinite Jest）已于当年 2 月发行（他的第一部小说出版于 1987 年，与沃尔夫和沃尔曼同年），而弗兰岑在 4 月为《哈珀杂志》撰写了自己的宣言，部分是对沃尔夫七年前文章的回应，题为《或许在梦中》（Perchance to Dream）。弗兰岑写道，沃尔夫的那篇论文“可能是崇高之不理解的最高点”，“电视已经杀死了社会报道式的小说”。

一场关于小说形式的十年对话已经展开，而沃尔曼则被排除在外。或者更准确地说，这场对话忽略了他。并不是说沃尔曼不在场。不，他一直活跃在各处：受《SPIN》杂志指派在泰国解救一名儿童性奴；在波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那遭遇地雷爆炸导致受伤并目睹两名朋友丧生；以及撰写那些角色是他现实生活中结识的妓女的书籍。同时，他还在创作《上升与下降》（Rising Up and Rising Down），这是一部共七卷、长达 3,500 页的关于暴力道德的探讨。沃尔曼的作品没有任何吸引人的特质。他永远不会成为他那个 era. 的领军人物。他没什么商业价值。

沃尔曼的现阶段状态是通过 2023 年发表的一篇名为《四个男人》（Four Men）的散文宣布的。他在内华达州里诺市的街头寻找了三名无家可归的男人——他称他们为“户外人士”——表面上是为了揭示美国城市的“腐朽”。（沃尔曼则是他自己定义的“四个男人”中的第四个。）这篇散文演变成了一场对沃尔曼这种将底层人物进行“高级文学”处理、通过“在悲剧中获利”之做法的自我审视：“为什么我不直接为我这典型的美国个体经营方式辩护？换句话说，为什么我不去里诺，从无家可归者的苦难中赚钱？”

但这篇作品还有第三层含义。沃尔曼提到，他的女儿丽莎（Lisa）在前一年去世了。她本身也是一名“户外人士”，一名遭受“漫长死亡”折磨的酗酒者。他一直处于悲痛之中，且近期没有赚到多少钱。他需要现金。更糟糕的是，在他提交了最新一本书的手稿后，他惯常合作的出版商维京出版社（Viking）放弃了他。这本书就是《命运之桌》（A Table for Fortune）。他们说，这本书太长了，使用了太多不同的字体，主角在 700 页之后依然没有出生，内容乏味。沃尔曼拒绝删减文本，拒绝统一字体，主角将继续保持在胎儿状态。“我回答说，既然丽莎已经不在了，我没什么好失去的。”

美国小说家兼随笔作家威廉·T·沃尔曼（William T. Vollmann）2023年在罗马

去年三月，Arcade出版社接手了这本书。出版社表示将尊重沃尔曼对字体和篇幅的要求；《财富之桌》（A Table for Fortune）定于今年三月出版；该书将分为四卷，总计3,500页，旨在讲述一部“从1968年到2005年美国外交政策的宏大历史”，重点关注一名CIA分析师及其家人。去年十月，我收到了一封来自Arcade出版社该小说编辑艾萨克·莫里斯（Isaac Morris）的电子邮件。他不知道是怎么回事，但沃尔曼已经得知了这篇文章可能面世的消息。他想给我提供一份校样。

在接下来的几个月里，我似乎能够采访到沃尔曼。通过莫里斯——沃尔曼不用互联网——我们约定了几天他可能会从现居的萨克拉门托给我打电话的时间。日子一天天过去，随后艾萨克发来了邮件。沃尔曼无法进行采访。近年来，他一直患有结肠癌。他疼痛得无法说话。用回信代替可以吗？与此同时，我可以阅读《财富之桌》的第一卷。另外三本书仍在排版中。艾萨克说，大部分设计工作由沃尔曼亲自完成。出版日期已推迟到今年夏天。

我如何能评价一部我没有完整阅读过的小说？我不能。我读过第一卷吗？我让自己适应了。《财富之桌》的前四分之一部分像是一份逾期调查报告。其中有家族谱系图、组织分类表，以及一个专门用于“代号、首字母缩略词、缩写、外语词汇和迷雾术”的章节。还有一段“致读者”的注释，沃尔曼在其中谈到了丽莎的去世（“她是我一生挚爱”），并解释了与Viking出版社的争端，以及关于篇幅和字体的所有风波。接着是地图。小说在第50页之后才正式开始。

啊，没错。字体。它们很有用。第一本书的大部分内容由情报报告组成，通过使用打字机字体与正文区分开来。在故事中一些直接标注为“REDACTED”的部分，则使用了无衬线字体。

该卷以一次“摆桌”开始，像是一盘棋局：对乔治·W·布什内阁及其欲望和相互关系的描述。随后叙事回溯，第一卷在1982年结束。在给我的信中，沃尔曼将我收到的校样称为一份“充满错误的

我怎么能评价一部我没有完整读完的小说？我不能。

旧草稿。”他评价得很严苛。《命运之桌》（第一卷）就像是在拉弓。读者在阅读时知道，一些具有影响力的事件正在被铺垫。它是对 CIA 分析师“DAVE”的介绍（他的名字始终用大写）。沃曼告诉我，他认为 DAVE 是“出于好意”的。他说他个人认为伊拉克战争是错误的，因此他“不得不给 DAVE 洒下额外的同情。我需要公正，甚至要超出公正。”

沃曼还提到，《命运之桌》的第三卷和第四卷比第一卷“更具抒情色彩”。据报道，这后半部分讲述的是 DAVE 的无家可归的儿子马修在美国的流浪经历。预计沃曼标志性的主题——卖淫、毒品、搭乘货运火车——将会出现。这部小说关于 9 和 11, 以及显然，其他崩塌的塔楼。“马修不是丽莎，尽管我将他的一部分凄惨包裹在她的悲伤之中，”他在第一卷的引言中写道。简而言之，《命运之桌》是一本涵盖了沃曼此前所有写作主题的书。“无论我们如何将生活碎片化，”沃曼在信中写道，“在内心深处，我们很难否认我们同时具备的所有特质。”他告诉我他深爱着埃丝特，她于 5 月去世，享年 91 岁。

在信的末尾，沃曼告诉我了一些即将开展的项目暂定标题。“接下来的书（如果我能活得足够久）：《三个黑暗故事》+《家》+《丽莎，一个爱情故事》。匆匆，比尔。”

Hey! Ho! Let's go!

雷蒙斯乐队如何重新定义朋克摇滚

克里斯托弗·桑福德（Christopher Sandford）

流行音乐真的是一种艺术形式吗？这个问题从未得到过一个简单的答案，无论是来自音乐家本人还是公众，而这个问题现在正笼罩在目前纪念朋克摇滚 50 周年的各项展览之上。其中，洛杉矶的斯基博尔中心（Skirball Center）正在举办名为“局外人、弃儿、反叛者 + 怪胎”（Outsiders, Outcasts, Rebels + Weirdos）的展览，而克利夫兰的摇滚名人堂则在举办一场名为“Hey! Ho! Let's Go! 朋克 50 周年”（Hey! Ho! Let's Go! Punk at 50）的庆祝活动。

不知为何，我想起了那句被归于让·考克托（Jean Cocteau）之口的名言：“美国人很有趣——你先让他们感到震惊，然后他们就把你放进博物馆。”在西雅图，流行文化博物馆（MOPOP）也加入了其中，通过精心布置的破碎吉他和撕裂 T 恤展品，向朋克及其世代继承者——垃圾摇滚（grunge）致敬。MOPOP 建筑本身那些如过山车般的扭曲造型和抛光钢块，或许才是证明摇滚音乐是一种独特艺术形式的最有力论据。

这些各种致敬活动的核心，是一个震撼人心的名字——如今已令人惋惜地解散的纽约四人组：雷蒙斯乐队（the Ramones）。如果你要把雷蒙斯乐队的音乐浓缩成一句话，你可以说它非常吵，非常快，且非常简单。他们还通过锅盖头以及由破牛仔裤、皮夹克和墨镜组成的团体统一着装，产生了强烈的视觉冲击力。乐队的创始成员——乔伊（Joey，主唱）、强尼（Johnny，吉他）、汤米（Tommy，鼓手）和迪迪（Dee Dee，贝斯）——之间没有任何亲属关系，而且他们中没有一个人的原名真的叫雷蒙斯（Ramone）。他们采用这个姓氏是为了向保罗·麦卡特尼（Paul McCartney）致敬，因为麦卡特尼在自己的乐队还叫“银甲虫”（Silver Beetles）时，偶尔会使用保罗·雷蒙（Paul Ramon）这个化名。

1976 年 5 月，雷蒙斯乐队发行了他们的首张专辑《Ramones》。这是一部时长 29 分钟的歌曲组曲，充满了尖叫的人声和像电锯一样的吉他声，且随着进程似乎变得越来越快、越来越狂暴。诸如《闪击战波普》（Blitzkrieg Bop）、《朱迪是个朋克》（Judy Is a Punk）和《现在我想闻点胶水》（Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue）等曲名进一步证明，这张唱片可能并非传统的家庭娱乐节目。即便如此，雷蒙斯乐队的核心信息中仍有一种令人心生好感的旧式气息。他们的追随者并不认为他们是文化革命的突击队，而将其视为四个寻找乐趣的乐天派男孩——正如《朋克》（Punk）杂志的莱格斯·麦克尼尔（Legs McNeil）所言，“它是我们所热爱的一切的结合体：电视重播、喝啤酒、约炮、芝士汉堡和 B 级电影”。

一些观察者同样能看出他们首张专辑中经典的流行音乐根源。雷蒙斯乐队全都是早期“英国入侵”乐队的忠实粉丝，比如戴夫·克拉克五人组（the Dave Clark Five）和赫曼的隐士（Herman's Hermits），他们一度希望在披头士的家——阿比路（Abbey Road）录制专辑。

“朋克摇滚归功于雷蒙斯乐队。在那之前，乐队们演奏的不过是加勒比风格的律动。”

最终，仅 $6,400 的制作预算无法支撑飞往伦敦的机票，不过乐队确实频繁地跨大西洋给披头士的制作人乔治·马丁（George Martin）打电话寻求建议。我听说马丁一如既往地富有魅力，但他提到的那些深奥细节——比如披头士 1965 年歌曲《你要失去那个女孩》（You're Going to Lose That Girl）中的呼应式伴唱，或者乐队歌曲《永远的草莓田》（Strawberry Fields Forever）中的微调音阶转换——在纽约的录音室里可能会让人听得摸不着头脑。

在私人生活中，至少部分雷蒙斯乐队（Ramones）成员并非追求放荡不羁的狂野生活，而更多是在捍卫美国——甚至更令人震惊的是，捍卫资本主义——的价值观。1987年，强尼·雷蒙斯（Johnny Ramone）一脸严肃地告诉我，他钦佩罗纳德·里根的总统任期，称其为“我一生中见过最伟大的人”，随后透露他和队友们在起步时秘密制定了一个五年计划。“这从来就没打算长久，”他说，“当时的想法是发行足够多的热门唱片，这样我们都能退休，买房，然后用生命去做些其他事情。”

可惜，事情并未如此发展。雷蒙斯乐队的首张专辑在发行第一年在美国仅售出6,000张，比《Frampton Comes Alive!》在同一时期的销量少了大约1,994,000张。一名评论家将这张唱片贬低为“10,000个马桶冲水的噪音”。乐队的首支单曲《Blitzkrieg Bop》同样未能获得高销量，当时的排行榜由卡朋特夫妇（the Carpenters）、巴里·马尼洛（Barry Manilow）以及一度无处不在的湾城滚筒乐队（Bay City Rollers）等占据。如果在1976年打赌，你可能会认为这首歌开篇的口号——“Hey! Ho! Let’s go!”——有一天会成为美国某大博物馆一场重大展览的标题，而这个概率极低。

尽管不断巡演，但雷蒙斯乐队从未面临过填满全球最大演唱会场馆的压力。然而，他们吸引了一批狂热且忠诚的观众，这些人被近距离体验该乐队所带来的短促、剧烈的冲击感所吸引。总的来说，雷蒙斯乐队的演出节奏快、紧迫，且在直觉层面令人兴奋，正如所有优秀的摇滚乐所应具备的那样。在某些主流团体举办时长三小时、配有烟雾机和激光灯的演唱会时，一场典型的雷蒙斯演出仅持续35分钟。

乐队在舞台上和唱片中对音乐直接处理方式的偏好，后来在他们与以严苛著称的制作人菲尔·斯佩克特（Phil Spector）合作第五张专辑《End of the Century》时受到了考验。这是一个两种截然相反的创作流派协作的案例。强尼·雷蒙斯会长久地记得，斯佩克特曾坚持要求他将一段简短的器乐片段录制87次，正如这位吉他手后来亲切地告诉我，“这比我个人习惯的次数多了86次”。

在一场反向的“英国入侵”中，雷蒙斯乐队在大西洋彼岸变得极其受欢迎。他们对工艺的精简处理不仅为像性手枪乐队（Sex Pistols）和冲突乐队（the Clash）这样的团体提供了早期蓝图，甚至影响了像U2这样的后继乐队。波诺（Bono）本人回忆道，在雷蒙斯的第一张专辑开始流传之后，“每个人的音乐，包括我们的，速度似乎都翻了一倍”。Generation X乐队的托尼·詹姆斯（Tony James）补充道：“在拿到那张专辑的那天，所有人都提高了三个档位。”

1977年12月，雷蒙斯乐队在曼彻斯特阿波罗剧院演出

朋克摇滚完全归功于雷蒙斯。在那之前，乐队们一直是在卡利普索（calypso）的律动中演奏。

在雷蒙斯乐队的铁杆粉丝中包括性手枪乐队，这支乐队在1976年仍处于小众地位。那年6月，性手枪乐队在曼彻斯特小自由贸易大厅（Lesser Free Trade Hall）附属的集会室进行了两次演出。两场演出加起来可能只有150名观众——尽管如果要把后来所有声称在场的人都容纳进来，他们需要一个大得多的场馆。这些演出代表了朋克摇滚运动在英国的诞生啼哭。

就像之前的雷蒙斯乐队（Ramones）一样，性手枪乐队（Sex Pistols）重新定义了什么是可接受的公共娱乐形式。在典型的性手枪乐队演唱会上，通常会有三四个临时雇佣的保安，有时他们还佩戴着带有万字标志的臂章。随着演出的进行，保安们会对着人们大喊，让他们不要爬上去加入舞台上的乐队成员，而音乐家们自己却经常大喊相反的话：这自然导致了混乱的结果。许多留在地板上的人满足于像恶意的跳跃一样上下蹦跳（pogoing），并在跳到最高点时热情地向乐队吐口水，这看起来更像是一种同志情谊和尊重的精神，而非批判性的保留。无论如何，这是一场引人入胜的沉浸式、互相对抗的戏剧。

任何关注近年来流行音乐大热单曲的人都会注意到，现在的游戏规则是如何运作的。如今成功的艺术家往往

这是最原始的摇滚乐，歌曲被简化为不加修饰的本质

可能仅仅是一支由作曲家、制作人和编曲者组成的小型军队的可见面孔，他们共同协作，为明星提供必要的素材。这种过程在碧昂丝 2022 年的热门单曲《Alien Superstar》中或许达到了顶峰，该曲列出的创作者多达 24 位。人们可能会合理地质疑，这种形式的协作是否增加了流行音乐最初的使命——用一种截然不同的原始能量来娱乐和激励人们。最近，我坐在西雅图一家临海餐厅的露台上，因为那是周一，店内比平时安静，我能清楚地听到公共广播系统播放的现代流行音乐选集。我无法分辨一首歌与另一首歌的区别，而这本身可能就是当今热门歌曲制作公式的重点：杰克·安东诺夫及其朋友们，请出场吧。

将其与雷蒙斯乐队（Ramones）的出道专辑相比：13 首原创歌曲和一首对 1962 年热门歌曲《Let’s Dance》的充满活力的翻唱。没有职业雇佣作曲家的流水线，也没有蜷缩在电脑键盘前的录音室技术员。这是最原始的摇滚乐，歌曲被简化为不加修饰的本质：一个起拍，一个段落（riff），一段主歌，一段副歌。没有一首歌的时长超过两分半钟，而且大多数都要短得多。

评论界——以及在某种程度上的唱片购买公众——近年来重新接纳了雷蒙斯乐队，但对于四位原班成员来说，这一切来得太晚了。在经历了动荡的 22 年后，他们在 1996 年宣布解散，而且就像他们的音乐一样，遗憾的是没有一个人长寿——汤米在 2014 年 7 月去世时是雷蒙斯成员中最年长的，享年 65 岁。该乐队的出道专辑在同年夏天被认证为金唱片，距离其最初发行已过去 38 年。

寿司秀

怀石料理风格菜单正席卷高级餐饮界

克拉丽莎·塞巴格-蒙特菲奥里（Clarissa Sebag-Montefiore）

四只桃粉色的雪蟹排成一排，等待被烹饪。如果不是因为触角的闪动或偶尔惊恐地转动的珠状眼睛，它们可能已经死了。

今晚，这些产自日本福井县、因甜味和丝滑口感而备受推崇的螃蟹，将在纽约的一家米其林星级餐厅 Muku 庄重地呈现在食客面前。随后它们将被劈成两半（依然活着——新鲜才是最好的！）并在一个精美的日式炭火（hibachi）陶瓷烤炉上烹饪。这些螃蟹是那些受怀石料理启发、且正席卷美国沿海城市的奢华正式菜单中的一道菜。

“我们想要展示季节性，不仅是通过[仅仅]展示螃蟹，而是真正地在您面前烤螃蟹，”执行主厨浅沼学（Manabu Asanuma）告诉我，他指着在他餐厅里我们之间桌子上被捆绑着的生物。换句话说，正如浅沼带着微笑所说，“顾客正在观看我们的表演！”

在美国，日本料理长期以来意味着寿司、寿司，以及更多的寿司。而且去任何一家寿司店（从最贵的到最便宜的），大多数现在都会提供“Omakase”（主厨精选）菜单。这个概念——原意是“交给[主厨]决定”，但在美国已成为一连串一口一个的握寿司和刺身的代名词——已经变得如此普遍，且在此过程中失去了如此多的标准，以至于它往往不过是一个营销噱头。Muku 的共同所有者拉胡尔·赛藤（Rahul Saito）解释说，Omakase 已经过度饱和了。“人们已经受够了……[他们]准备好尝试一些更多的东西了。”

现在，在最顶级的日本餐厅中，一个新概念正吸引着挑剔的食客：怀石料理（kaiseki），这种极度精致的。

会席料理具有深厚的仪式感，拥有固定的结构和悠久的历史

这种极其昂贵、极具仪式感的多道菜餐点最初起源于京都。在纽约，推崇此料理的餐厅包括华尔道夫酒店的 Yoshoku、唐人街的 Yamada，以及去年 9 月开业并在两个月后便获得米其林星级——创下该市最快获星纪录——的 Muku。在洛杉矶，n / naka 提供了加州风格的会席料理，每人价格为 $395。该餐厅宣称：“我们邀请您停下脚步，细细品味，并与那一刻真正的优雅相连。”

不出所料，其吸引力的一部分在于这些餐厅的排他性。Muku 仅有十个座位。在同样私密的 Yamada（每位 $330），客人被要求不得穿着短裤或戴帽子。Yoshoku 将华尔道夫酒店中著名的公园露台（用餐者在欣赏路易·里加尔 1939 年的装饰艺术风格“生命之轮”马赛克时进餐）与一套散发着奢华气息的六道菜菜单相结合。

美感同样至关重要，技巧亦然。“你要烤什么样的鱼？如何烤才能获得最浓郁的风味？又该如何摆盘才能让它看起来精美？”浅沼（Asanuma）问道。

呈现一顿会席料理并非一项体力活，而是一项哲学实践。以茶会席（chakaiseki，即仪式茶道前食用的会席料理）中供应三道米饭菜肴的概念为例：第一道菜旨在温暖并准备好胃部，而最后一道配以味噌汤和腌菜的蒸米饭，则象征着回归简约。

会席料理具有深厚的仪式感，拥有固定的结构和悠久的历史。在一个日益数字化的世界里，它提供了仪式感、时令食材，以及至关重要的——大量规则：这正是我们这些过度连接、渴望冥想与正式感的人所追求的。它已成为一种地位的象征，并且像健康趋势一样，成为一种避世之所。

“会席料理既是艺术形式，也是烹饪艺术。它同样令人困惑且充满讽刺，”Palate Project 博客观察到。它是“高级餐饮的巅峰，但其起源却在于佛教的克制概念。[它]重视天然食材的简约，但同时也可以是一场奢华的、多感官的体验，对视觉细节有着极其考究的关注。”

在日本，这可能意味着像生竹笋这样简单直接的东西——在您面前剥皮切片，然后放入清澈的出汁（dashi）汤中。但这在纽约这样一个污染严重的城市是行不通的。“那种竹笋是在[日本当地]有清水的山上采摘并新鲜食用的——但这在这里根本不现实，”斋藤（Saito）说道。

Muku 的解决方案是坚持以会席“风格”供应食物，而非传统的会席料理。以鹅肝为例——这显然不是日本食材——将其在鲣鱼出汁中慢煮并与鸡蛋混合，创造出类似卡仕达（custard）的质感。结果是一道胶质感十足的菜肴，口感细腻而复杂，浓郁而克制，出汁的鲜味努力地中和了鹅肝那油腻的脂肪感。

Muku 没有采用蒸米饭，而是借鉴意大利烩饭（risotto），将其做得更软、更湿，以便更好地吸收汤汁。荞麦面也登场了，通过

“这是高级餐饮的巅峰，但其起源却在于佛教的克制理念”

店主的根基：这种带有坚果香气且风味浓郁的荞麦面来自浅沼（Asanuma）父母位于山形县的农场。每天早晨，浅沼都会亲手制作面条。

规则——以及打破规则——是主厨林博久（Hirohisa Hayashi）非常熟悉的事情。林生长在京都郊外的越前，他的父母经营着一家可以追溯到曾祖父时代的怀石料理店。他在京都的一家传统料亭（即古典高级餐饮场所）学习怀石艺术——但他非常讨厌那里。

“那里非常严格，”他一边说着，一边双手合十，眉头微皱。“有太多的规则。你必须这样做，你不能那样做。”例如：刺身必须始终以单数供应（双数被认为是不吉利的）。另一个例子：叶菜的茎必须放在盘子的右侧，叶尖则向左。

2013年，林在苏豪区（Soho）开设了 Hirohisa 餐厅，提供纯正的怀石菜单——结果发现当地人完全被搞糊涂了（大多数人问他为什么不供应寿司）。从那时起，他做出了一些调整。菜单中依然保留着像芜菁蒸鱼（kaburamushi）这样的京都菜肴。但他也将扇贝鱼子酱（karasumi）与黑松露片层叠摆盘。

为什么不可以呢？“归根结底，我们希望人们能够热爱它、享受它、体验它、感受它——并运用五感从中获得乐趣，”浅沼说道。他双手合十作祈祷状，抬头看向上方——然后露出了微笑。“仅仅因为它是日式的，并不意味着你必须身处寺庙之中。”

中途休息 Robert F. Moss

我的天呐。八月难道永远不会结束吗？二月是最短的月份，而八月则是最长的，比其他任何月份都足足长了 17 天。至少感觉是这样的。

八月什么都不会发生。这个月没有假期，因为没有什么好庆祝的。在最后的海滩度假和普遍的夏季倦怠中，商业世界陷入停滞。电子邮件无人回复。会议因缺乏参会者而取消。那些确实能进办公室的人，要么迟到，要么早退，因为周围没人会注意到。

不仅是在办公室里。公民团体和慈善组织也会避免在这个最残酷的月份举办活动，因为他们知道出席率会很低。甚至连烧烤世界在很大程度上也陷入了停滞。

对于我们这些以专业身份访问烧烤店的人来说，八月可能很棘手。一旦 7 月 4 日过去，酷暑降临，许多家庭式小店会关闭一周或更长时间，好让店主夫妻俩去度假。而且不仅仅是家庭经营的店铺。每年八月，奥斯汀著名的富兰克林烧烤（Franklin Barbecue）都会关闭整整十天，而许多其他店也会采取类似的“烟熏休息”。

你也不太可能在后院烧烤中找到食物。那些有年幼孩子的朋友正忙于在商店走廊穿梭，勾选学校用品清单并准备好午餐盒必需品。年纪稍大一点的人则在收拾行李箱，准备将学生送回宿舍或公寓。没有人有时间烤汉堡，更不用说慢炖猪肩肉了。

每年这个时候，我都会发现自己陷入八月的倦怠之中，像是在马纬度地带失去了风力，空气中连一丝山核桃木烟味都没有。部分原因是天气炎热，我在上个月的专栏中已经抱怨得够多了。不过，我提到过湿度吗？

在南卡罗来纳州的海岸边，气温始终在三位数（华氏度）之下徘徊，且每天下午 3 点到 7 点之间会有倾盆大雨，冲掉了最佳的烧烤时段。每天我都会查看日历，心想：“离劳动节还有多久？”

啊，劳动节：夏季半官方的终点，届时我们可以挂起泳衣，继续我们的生活。对于有学龄儿童的人来说，夏季的结束意味着回归结构和日常规律。在白领世界，工作日和周末的常规节奏重新开始。客户开始回电。很久以前发送的电子邮件开始陆续收到回复。

有趣的是，这个节日多年来是如何演变的。最初，劳动节明确是关于劳动的——也就是说，有组织的劳工。 1880 年代的首次庆祝活动是由工会组织的，旨在赞美工人的力量和团队精神。加入工会的工厂关闭，给员工一天的休息时间，他们通过游行和户外烧烤来庆祝这个时刻。（是的，烧烤从一开始就是这个节日的一部分。）

不久之后，数十个州承认了劳动节假期，并在 1894 年，国会将其定为联邦法定假日。在随后的几十年里，随着更多非工会工人也能在这一天休息，游行和激进的

对于我们这些职业访问烧烤店的人来说，八月可能有点棘手

这些形式逐渐被抛在脑后。到第二次世界大战时，劳动节已经失去了与工会主义的联系，变成了一个放松身心的长周末，而烧烤则从户外大坑转移到了后院烤架和餐厅中。

在 20 世纪 50 和 60 年代，在劳动节到来之前，报纸上到处都是烤架和肉类的广告。而如今，我们的社交媒体动态中充斥着各种汇总推荐，比如“23 款深受大众喜爱的劳动节食谱，为夏季画上完美句点”之类的内容。

这个劳动节周末，你绝对不会在烧烤店的门上看到任何“度假关店”的告示。店主们会点燃额外的烤坑并增加人手，为一年中最繁忙的周末之一而涌入的订单做准备。

如今，劳动节的时间点似乎有点不协调。对许多人来说，这个假期不再是长时间工作后急需的喘息之机，而更像是一个“回归劳动日”——在旧有的常规生活恢复之前，最后一次夏季狂欢。

在写这篇文章时，我开始想到那些因为各种喧嚣和夏季旅行而数周甚至数月没见的朋友们。也许我们应该邀请他们来参加一次劳动节烧烤？

思考着，我能感觉到微风开始吹起，风帆缓缓充盈。我想象着厚实的排骨块，修剪整齐，用盐干腌，准备进入烤坑。肯定会有卷心菜沙拉——吃排骨必须配沙拉。也许还要来一桶土豆沙拉，加一点芥末使其呈现淡黄色。

你知道，我现在有点期待劳动节了。也期待回到工作中。

THE HARI 酒店

伦敦 贝尔格莱维亚（BELGRAVIA）

地址：20 CHESHAM PLACE, BELGRAVIA, LONDON SW1X 8HQ 电话：0207 858 0100 | 邮箱：info@thehari.com | 网址：www.thehari.com

纽约生活 乔西·考克斯（Josie Cox）

如果唐纳德·特朗普想把加拿大变成第 51 个州，我怀疑他的理由是错误的。我刚结束一次家庭度假回来。我们从温哥华开始，然后开车前往惠斯勒，接着飞往卡尔加里，沿着加拿大横贯公路——经过像 Bearspaw 和 Dead Man's Flats 这样地名的地方——进入加拿大落基山脉和班夫国家公园。

几天前我向一个朋友讲述这次旅行，在描述路易斯湖深邃的蔚蓝色时，我竟然有些哽咽；森林的广袤以及野生动物（从花栗鼠到灰熊）令人惊叹的美丽——它们似乎与相对稀少的人口和平共处。那是规模宏大的自然，让人感到人类的存在竟如此微不足道，令人心旷神怡。这与曼哈顿截然不同，完全是两个极端。

但我对加拿大感到惬意的，还有那些不那么显而易见的东西：那些处于某个年龄段的、快活的男人，以及他们与陌生人交谈时不知疲倦的渴望。无论我们走到哪里，他们似乎都在等待着聊天。没有目的，只是像小狗一样渴望进行一场有趣的客套对话。

首先是一位环球旅行的社会学家，我在旅游旺季等待通过一座吊桥（一个热门旅游景点）时遇到了他。他就站在我前面，在缓慢的

只有加拿大拥有充足的、穿着登山靴且对淡水鱼有见解的半退休男性

缓慢移动的队伍。催化对话所需的仅仅是瞬间的眼神接触。“你好，”他灿烂地笑着说道。于是，对话开始了。

在接下来的30分钟里，我们讨论了世界政治、爵士乐、育儿以及创伤性脑损伤。时间飞逝。我向他介绍了我的姻亲、女儿和丈夫——我也结识了他的族群。后来他找到了我的电子邮箱，其方式在某种程度上感觉完全是加拿大式的，而非令人不安，并为我们旅程的剩余部分发送了一些旅行建议。

几天后，我和小姑子以及孩子们在徒步，这时一个四肢修长、看起来像童子军领袖的男人超过了我们，然后立即回头看向我们，神情淡然，就像准备解释哪里能找到最近的公共厕所一样。“我刚下车时，一只乌鸦就遇到了我，”他告诉我们，自信满满，表情极其认真，且没有停下脚步。“谢天谢地它这么做了，”在我们回应之前，他进一步阐述道，“它为我提供了抵御熊的神圣保护。”

诚然，那次对话较短，但在其友善的晦涩感方面是无与伦比的。他完全没有意识到我们可能不相信他。他只是将此视为关键的当地知识，并且认为广泛且热情地传达这一知识是他的庄严——不，是天赐的！——职责。

还有其他人：一名来自马尼托巴省的服务员，他对淡水鱼有着出人意料的强烈见解；一名魁北克人的侍酒师，他为自然酒进行了激情的辩护；收银员、公园管理员和同行徒步者，他们似乎都很乐意在没有任何明显目的的情况下陷入对话，仅仅是为了享受其中。

别误会，我在纽约市也结识过不少临时熟人，但在这里，这类互动往往带有某种锋芒——一次推销、一个抱怨、一场表演，或者仅仅是这座城市令人精疲力竭的紧张能量。加拿大的版本感觉不同。人们似乎简单地认为，一个陌生人值得交谈，仅仅是因为

《旁观者》世界版 大博弈

这款1,000片装的《旁观者》拼图包含了我们近期最受喜爱的许多漫画。

现在请在 spectator.com / puzzle 订购。他们可能会说出一些出人意料的有趣话语。而且通常情况下，这些对话不像在纽约那样经常是单方面的。对方会提问。尽管这可能不再流行，但人们确实在倾听答案。那个“乌鸦男”是个例外。不过公平地说，他并不是在寻求对话，而是在传播至关重要的健康与安全建议。

我们在现代生活中花费如此之多的精力去优化每一分钟、策划每一次互动，以至于没有目的的交谈会让人觉得有点古色古香。但这其中有一种文明的气息。当你结束对话时，你会发现自己对世界的了解比十分钟前多了一点——关于爵士乐或脑损伤，或者关于乌鸦能为你提供怎样的宇宙保护以抵御强大的熊——而在此之前，你预想的不过是排队，或者哄着孩子们在不抱怨的情况下走完最后一段上坡路。

特朗普可能认为加拿大最大的资产是其矿产和水资源。他错了：很多国家都有自然资源，但只有加拿大拥有充足的、穿着登山靴、对淡水鱼有见解且有30分钟空闲时间闲聊的半退休男性。对于一个天生就无法管好自己闲事的纽约游客来说，这简直是一份大礼。

哈瓦那生活 鲁阿里·尼科尔

我有一份旅行写作的兼职，所以很幸运地见过一些非常美丽的海滩。很少有能像古巴的瓦拉德罗（Varadero）那样壮观的。不过我更偏爱其他一些地方——如果你恰好路过，可以去科科斯（基林）群岛的 Cossies 海滩，或者苏格兰阿赫梅尔维奇（Achmelvich）那片隐秘的海滩，在我童年的夏天，我曾在那里花岗岩墙之间瑟瑟发抖。

但如果你追求的是经典的阳光、大海和沙滩，瓦拉德罗那条长达 12 英里、棕榈树环绕的沙嘴是无敌的。我在古巴生活了多年才去那里参观。我曾认为瓦拉德罗完全是关于套装旅游的——社会主义套装旅游。后来，我在黎明时分走在那些无尽的沙滩上，海水像苦艾酒一样清澈且令人陶醉，我这才意识到自己之前的想法太狭隘了。

现在，我和家人搬到这里住一个月。我不能离开古巴——唐纳德·特朗普说过，我们是政权更迭名单上的下一个，作为一名记者，错过这一切是不体面的。但在美国燃料封锁实施六个月后的哈瓦那，生活极其艰苦。水、电和煤气随机消失，有时一次就是好几天，停电让我们无法入睡。对于我的古巴邻居来说，生活要糟糕得多。因此，搬到海滩度假会让人产生某种愧疚感，但我通过告诉自己，海军陆战队可能会选择这里作为入侵地点，从而为这次搬迁正名。这种胆量似乎并没有给我现在每天经过的切·格瓦拉壁画留下深刻印象——那幅画画得太糟糕了，以至于他看起来像个翻白眼的表情符号。

瓦拉德罗从古巴顶部向外延伸，其南端有一个小镇。在八月，这里通常挤满了我的哈瓦那同胞，到处回荡着雷鬼顿（reguetón）和萨尔萨（salsa）音乐。古巴人喜欢在夏天把身体浸在齐胸深的水中，喝着啤酒大笑。但这场危机终结了这一切。在这里租一个月房子出奇地容易——其中有一间带漂亮露台的房子，我四岁的儿子喜欢在那儿逗留，与路人闲聊。

作为一名外国人，我以前经常被那些开着 20 世纪 50 年代旧雪佛兰和道奇车的出租车司机宰客。但由于没有汽油，电动中国三轮车（tuk-tuks）占据了主导，每趟统一收费 10 美分。如果我们不赶时间，安赫尔（Angel）会开着他的马车来接我们，让我们优雅地出行。也许我们会去阿毛里（Amauri）那里，他是一名渔民，能将新鲜的红笛鲷片好，足够我们吃三天（头炖汤，鱼肉油炸，最后是

我的家人身处这场地缘政治飓风的中心，将这份宁静视为转瞬即逝的天堂

（烩饭）。蒂托带着牛油果出现；加布里埃尔在海滩上摆了个摊位，卖瓜拉波（guarapo）——甘蔗汁；而哈维尔则在卖mamon-cillos，一种与荔枝亲缘关系较近的水果，我的儿子（以及我的妻子）在水边消磨时光时正吃着这种水果。

我没有看到一个非古巴籍的游客。来自华盛顿的压力导致所有包机旅游航空公司全部撤出，使这个国家的经济化为废墟。

不过，这里依然有访客。在傍晚时分，来自附近城镇卡德纳斯（Cárdenas）和圣玛尔塔（Santa Marta）的家庭会陆续抵达，新型突突车（tuks-tuks）让这次旅程变得经济可负担。我的儿子在海浪中与他们的孩子成了朋友，而家长们则向我们讲述他们面临的艰辛——以及海滩带来的慰藉。

无论发生什么，我怀疑这里将再次变得让他们难以负担。如果华盛顿未能推翻古巴体制，巴拉德罗（Varadero）将重新成为共产主义政府的旅游业摇钱树。如果美国成功了，一个截然不同的未来将随之而来，毕竟从这里飞往迈阿密仅需 45 分钟。

我站在水中，望着点缀着棕榈树的海滩边缘，那里有低矮的房屋，其中一些是由美丽的珊瑚砖建成的。巴拉德罗将从一个破旧、脱离时代的、拥有糟糕餐厅的小村庄，变成一条迈阿密海滩风格的商业街，那里将出现另一种糟糕但价格昂贵得多的餐厅。

但就目前而言，我的家人身处这场地缘政治飓风的中心，将这份宁静视为转瞬即逝的天堂。“回头看，我们会觉得这段时光像世外桃源一样，”我的岳父在加入我们时说道。只有我们的睡眠依然不安，被关于必然到来的未来的焦虑之梦所惊扰。

当地生活 比尔·考夫曼

那些将唾液样本寄给 ancestry.com 和 23andMe 的人，或许应该听听扎伊乌斯博士给查尔顿·赫斯顿的建议——在电影《猩球崛起》中，当那名受困的宇航员出发去寻找他的命运时，博士说：“不要寻找它，泰勒。你可能不会喜欢你所发现的东西。”

证据 A：我们的朋友彼得，他是马萨诸塞州昆西家族的后裔——你知道的，就是那些在某种程度上创造了新英格兰的人。彼得在早期尝试了其中一种 DNA 检测，令他震惊的是，根据科学！的结果，他具有显著的挪威血统。

彼得用一种典型的扬基式口吻低声嘀咕着“搞什么鬼”，然后全身心地投入到对这段所谓遗产的探索中。由于我们住在距离美国第一个挪威定居点西南约 30 英里的地方，他请求参观他的新圣地：纽约州的肯德尔。我们警告他，挪威文化在纽约州西部农村地区的影响和存在感在“微不足道”到“完全不可见”之间，但他脑海中被那些从未见过的故土景象所占据。

于是，我们开车带着彼得走在挪威路上，给他讲述了“斯卢普号”移民的故事：他们是美国第一批挪威定居者，52 个坚毅的灵魂在 1825 年沿着伊利运河旅行，随后在霍利登陆，徒步 10 英里到达肯德尔。（第 53 位“斯卢普号”成员拉尔斯·拉森·盖兰留在纽约市出售那艘单桅帆船，然后沿着结冰的运河滑冰 290 英里。）当彼得读到肯德尔高中前那块写给“斯卢普号”移民的饱经风霜的历史标记时，我以为我捕捉到了一滴从他眼中滑落的泪水。

对彼得的唾液、血液或任何他能产生的液体进行进一步检测后发现，他确实是个昆西家族成员，血管里根本没有一丝斯堪的纳维亚的痕迹。但谁不想在一天之内成为挪威人呢？

证据 B：我的岳父，一个自豪的亚美尼亚人。他在叙利亚的离散社区度过了少年时代，后来成为了加利福尼亚州格伦代尔的美国公民，那里是除埃里温之外亚美尼亚人最集中的地方。我的岳父也做了一次检测，结果让他彻底懵了：检测结果并没有确认他是 100 亚美尼亚人，而是断言他的基因构成中有一种显著的巴斯克血统。

这看起来简直荒谬——而且随后对他后代的检测显示，他们的祖先完全是亚美尼亚人。但这并没有阻止我的妻子和女儿追求她们版本的“民族伪装”，就像现在那些“伪原住民”（Pretendians）所做的那样——那些大多为女性、声称拥有虚假美洲原住民血统的人，比如参议员伊丽莎白·沃伦和民谣歌手巴菲·圣玛丽。我告诉妻子和女儿，她们在进行一场“巴斯克伪装秀”（Basquerade）。但她们相当享受这种文化挪用，我也一样。

恰巧，当我们这场巴斯克闹剧进行得如火如荼时，我们三人正好在爱达荷州的博伊西。博伊西拥有美国最大的巴斯克人口。那里甚至有一个巴斯克街区，配备了博物馆、市场和一家酒吧，我们在那里吃着炸丸子（croquetas），为那些高贵的牧羊人干杯。

我那些新晋的巴斯克亲人们购买了号称自己拥有四分之一或八分之一巴斯克血统的车贴，而我则徒劳地寻找一个印有巴斯克分离主义组织、带有感叹号标志的冰箱贴。Euskadi Askatuta，宝贝！

这场巴斯克伪装秀在持续期间很有趣，但面对现实吧：亚美尼亚人的食物好吃得多。在经历这些混乱之后，我想我也应该往一张纸上吐口唾液，寄给那些做 DNA 的家伙。唉，我的报告——或者说一系列报告，因为这些报告经过了几次修正——没有揭示出此前未知的异域血统，尽管一个早期版本确实认定我有 1 东欧血统，这导致

德国和意大利是我种族大杂烩中的另外两种成分，但我克制住了庆祝轴心国的冲动

一位家人欣喜地称我为“波兰佬”。我考虑过，但最终拒绝了尝试鸭血汤的机会。

结果证明，我的混血血统中爱尔兰成分最多，这正是我所怀疑的。一位钻研家谱的亲戚将我们大多数爱尔兰祖先定位为北爱尔兰（费马纳郡）的天主教徒，于是我找来一张 1981 年的绝食抗议海报，贴在办公室的墙上。鉴于英国血统在我的血脉中紧随其后，我认为为了公平起见，我至少应该喝一杯补偿性的“黑褐啤酒”（black and tan）。德国和意大利是我种族大杂烩中另外两种显著的成分，但我克制住了任何庆祝轴心国的冲动。

我们的女儿和女婿最近将他们的狗 Scooter 的唾液送去做了犬类 DNA 检测，检测公司名为 Embark，名字起得十分巧妙。根据最新的报告，Scooter 对自己是一只杂种狗感到很满足，而我们所有人也应当如此。

英国精选

来自伦敦办公室

蒂姆·希普曼（Tim Shipman） 揭露 Reform 核心地带不断的内斗

昆廷·莱茨（Quentin Letts） 认为我们应该在还能享受 圣公会牧师时尽情享受

阿拉贝拉·伯恩（Arabella Byrne）解释她是如何获得“老钱脸”的

玛丽·韦克菲尔德（Mary Wakefield） 就“大代孕”问题 发出警告

彼得·希钦斯（Peter Hitchens） 表示我们必须停止 极权主义式的指责

FINE ART IMAGES / HERITAGE IMAGES VIA GETTY IMAGES

糟糕的局面

改革英国党核心的内斗

蒂姆·希普曼（TIM SHIPMAN）

如果托尔斯泰写过英国政治，他可能会注意到：“幸福的政党都差不多；每个不幸的政党都以其独特的方式不幸。”改革英国党（Reform UK）正开始像是一场实验室测试，用以验证这样一个观点：每个由奈杰尔·法拉奇（Nigel Farage）领导的政党都以同样的方式不幸。就像在英国独立党（UKIP）和英国脱欧党（Brexit party）中一样，一个极具支配力的领导人处于权力中心，而忠诚的“长征者”与新晋之辈之间、反叛精神与体面形象之间、以及竞选活动与执政准备之间，存在着极大的紧张关系。

8月17日，新一轮的血腥清洗爆发。两年前投奔改革英国党的 ConservativeHome 创始人蒂姆·蒙特格莫里（Tim Montgomerie），在公开批评法拉奇及该党内政发言人齐亚·尤苏夫（Zia Yusuf）后被暂停党籍。这一决定是在蒙特格莫里接受《旁观者》采访并表达他对语气、策略性投票及政党结构的担忧，且该采访在录制与播出之间的时间点做出的。

蒙特格莫里地陈述了许多人在私下里讨论的内容。但对于党内高层来说，最重要的事情并非蒙特格莫里事件。“自复活节以来，我们第一次举行新闻发布会，且没有人询问关于奈杰尔的财务状况或那 £500 万 的问题，”一名改革英国党消息人士说道。他指的是关于法拉奇接受加密货币亿万富翁克里斯托弗·哈本（Christopher Harborne）赠予的 £500 万 “礼物”，以及接受其亲密伙伴“时髦乔”科特雷尔（“Posh George” Cottrell）捐款的持续争议。

相反，数月以来第一次，电视新闻主播的头条新闻是改革英国党的一项政策公告——由罗伯特·詹里克（Robert Jenrick）和理查德·泰斯（Richard Tice）宣布——计划通过禁止外国国民领取几乎所有福利、将残疾津贴限制在最严重患者以及重新实施两孩福利上限，从而削减 500 亿英镑 billion 的福利支出。

8月17日法拉奇不在现场，并不知晓秘书长汤姆·沃特豪斯（Tom Waterhouse）和党主席李·安德森（Lee Anderson）将暂停蒙特格莫里的党籍。但正是法拉奇在春季下令制定福利削减计划的，此前保守党嘲讽他“对福利问题太软弱”，因为他的选民居住在福利泛滥的地区。

改革英国党的工作人员表示，这种看法没抓到重点。“是的，改革英国党的选区中领取福利的人数非常之多，但我们的选民并不是那些人，”一名工作人员说，“他们是那些人的邻居。”

最近一次针对西北部考虑转向改革英国党的工党选民进行的焦点小组讨论发现，他们公开支持削减福利。民调显示，

内斗、争吵以及关于权力结构的问题，对于严肃的人来说都令人反感

65 percent 的所有选民（以及四分之三的改革英国党选民）认为，人们在领取福利六个月后必须工作。

在法拉奇辞去议席以参加克拉克顿（Clacton）的补选后，他将福利计划设想为与补选胜利相结合的“组合拳”，旨在“回到一种我们是新闻的主导者而非追随者的局面”。

进一步的政策方案将陆续出台。影子教育发言人苏埃拉·布拉弗曼（Suella Braverman）将概述学徒计划，旨在提高英国人口的技能。泰斯将阐述住房改革计划。这两项计划旨在发出信号：改革英国党的人是工作的英国人，而非不工作的移民。“人们将不再需要揣摩改革英国党试图帮助谁，”一名内部人士说，“我们毫无疑问是一个工人的政党。”

这项福利政策抢在了保守党之前。影子工作与养老金大臣海伦·沃特利（Helen Whately）去年宣布了一项政策审查，但至今未见成效。保守党的方案面临着看起来像是在重复改革英国党（Reform UK）主张的风险。影子内阁中一些愤怒的成员认为沃特利失职，将其戏称为“海伦·迟到”（Helen Lately）。一位熟悉该进程的消息人士表示：“保守党和改革英国党都想从福利金中省出一些钱，以便在党代会上宣布。而海伦在本质上，过去一年里一直无所事事。”改革英国党内部预计，保守党将利用这笔资金宣布取消遗产税。

改革英国党在伯明翰举行的党代会将率先开始，日期为9月3. 原有的口号“是时候改革了”（It’s Time For Reform）已被废弃。一名消息人士解释道：“重点全部集中在改革英国党政府执政后的‘前一百天’。”另一名党内人士表示：“奈杰认为选举会比预期更早到来，极有可能在2027年。”

改革英国党的高层对其选举前景依然持乐观态度。另一位高级人物表示：“就算奈杰被巴士撞了，我们在下次选举中也能拿下125个席位。”目标选区的候选人被分为“三组，每组125人”。该消息人士解释道：“125个是底线，250个是中值预期，375个是目标。”后者将意味着改革英国党拥有100.个席位的多数优势。第一批胜算极高的席位候选人将“很快”被选出并公布。另一名工作人员说：“其中有一些非常专业的人士。”法拉奇还计划公布其“影子内阁”的“两到三名”新成员。他继续争取商业领袖、前军方人员和前国民医疗服务体系（NHS）管理人员加入，以为该党的发言人增添专业权威感。

但蒙哥马利事件以及他提出的批评在此成为了问题。内斗、争吵以及关于“法拉奇团队”权力结构的质疑，对于那些专业人士来说都令人反感，而这些人中的大多数如果加入，将不得不承受巨大的薪资削减。而且，他们只有在改革英国党有切实组阁希望的情况下才会加入。法拉奇的资金问题，以及尤苏夫对待人员的残酷方式（将本·华莱士称为“叛徒”）和政策主张（他比特朗普更强硬，希望驱逐每一个非法移民），似乎都在助长针对改革英国党的策略性投票。

尤苏夫可能是英国政坛高层中最具争议的人物。他曾是一位极其成功的商人，以£2.5 亿的价格出售了公司，他似乎被对世界现状、尤其是对保守党的愤怒所驱动。作为党主席，他负责帮助改革英国党从一家初创组织扩展为法拉奇领导过的最专业的操作机构。一名党内官员说：“奈杰非常钦佩齐亚的能力。那些商业背景政治家通常会犯的错误，他都成功避开了。他在广播采访中从未失言——至少不是无意地。”蒙哥马利对此表示赞同：“他让党组织运转了起来。他拥有很多品质，但他必须学会团队协作。”

尤苏夫似乎还强迫自己与敌人敌对，包括外部敌人以及（令人疲惫的）内部敌人。“当齐亚发现我参与邀请詹里克加入时，他三个月没跟我说话，”蒙哥马利说，“在政治中你不能像个孩子一样行事。”

蒙哥马利并非个例。另一名内部人士表示：“在任何一个时间点，齐亚不说话的人员名单往往比他愿意说话的人员名单还要长。如果你不幸在那个名单上—。

“齐亚不与之说话的人名单，往往比他与之说话的人名单还要长”

那些他目前还在与之说话的人，可以放心，你很快就会重新回到被禁名单中。”为了衡量尤苏夫引发的强烈情绪，一名改革英国党（Reform UK）内部人士采取了极端的措辞说：“齐亚是个全方位的混蛋。这不是针对个人，他对谁都这样。”

批评者指出，通过攻击鲁珀特·洛（Rupert Lowe）并将其举报给警方（这一过程导致洛的枪支被没收），尤苏夫实际上促使洛成立了自己的政党，而该党现在正在蚕食改革英国党的选票。“齐亚的原罪在于，他以那种方式对待鲁珀特，从而促成了‘恢复党’（Restore）的创建，”一名内部批评者说。“他们现在的支持率是 4%，而每一个百分点都来自改革英国党的选票。”

尤苏夫的批评者认为，他那种粗鲁的风格排斥了那些对改革英国党感兴趣的选民。蒙特哥马利说：“在我看来，齐亚完全没有兴趣去解决改革英国党的第一大问题，我认为这个问题就是针对我们的策略性投票——我觉得他反而强化了这一点。”另一名改革英国党成员补充道：“这是无可回避的事实。齐亚不擅长与女性打交道。”蒙特哥马利有一个理论：“如果你低估—。

跨越千禧桥

效法威廉·华兹华斯

在桥上的某个地方，我停下脚步，观察护栏上的一只鸽子：这只鸟展现出一种可怖的都市之美，它昂首挺胸地踱步，双翼像衣袍一样在身上折叠，披着这座城市挑衅般的沙砾与光芒。它飞向无烟的空中：巴士、小黄瓜大厦、碎片大厦、泰特美术馆、公寓楼、圆顶建筑，而在河岸边，一台利勃海尔起重机像叉腰一样，引导着在河中滑行的驳船，平静得像我曾见过的一件卡尔德动态雕塑，画廊的墙壁浸在它的阴影之中。在尖锐且不和谐的光线中，我瞥见了一颗金属之心：亲爱的路人啊，时间的堆叠对于单一生命的脉动而言是无动于衷的，在眩晕中陷入沉寂。

—— Astrid Alben

他作为……他想要接替奈杰尔·法拉奇，他所做的一切几乎都有其逻辑。对奈杰尔的忠诚、自由职业的状态、对更广泛选民的漠视……如果我们看起来不像体面的人，即使是那些在驱逐出境问题上与我们一致的人，也不会信任我们将这些政策交给我们去执行。你必须通过一个基本的体面门槛，才能化解那种策略性投票。”

有些人担心法拉奇看起来也太愤怒了。“他不再是我以前认识的那个奈杰尔了，”他以前的一位酒友说道。当被问及内部对于如何处理有关法拉奇财务问题的讨论程度时，一名消息人士表示：“零。”结果就是一系列对抗性的交锋。蒙特哥马利说：“奈杰尔可能是过去二十年来最出色的媒体表演者之一。但他无法做到的是，如果涉及他本人、他的个人情况或个人财务，尤其是当他接受女性采访时——他表现得很糟糕。在面对敌对质询时，他的表现并不好。”

法拉奇的忠实追随者认为他们可以绕过主流媒体。但与唐纳德·特朗普一样，在运行一场造反运动与将法拉奇的竞选天才束缚在一个更结构化的组织之间，存在着一种紧张关系。“他没有幕僚长，”蒙特哥马利说，“他没有与他的国会议员举行定期会议。在影子内阁级别中，没有一个人负责筛选候选人。”

蒙特哥马利还抱怨说，“我们的地面行动并非应有的状态”，并且在最近的补选结果上给法拉奇提供了错误的引导。“我们本应在朗科恩大获全胜。结果我们只赢了六票。在梅克菲尔德投票当晚，他们认为自己领先不多。所以情报错了。”

他还批评民调，称其比保守党的民调更“单薄”。“它没有提出那些棘手的问题。它没有理解我们女性问题（women problem）的本质，或者如何应对策略性投票。”这一观点并不被广泛认同——法拉奇的数据专家克里斯·布鲁尼-洛（Chris Bruni-Lowe）是一位备受推崇的信息撰写者，深受全球政党的青睐。

对法拉奇由来已久的批评是，他看重忠诚胜过能力。“在他身边有些人已经跟随他很长时间了，如果进行竞争性招标，我不确定他们能否生存下来，”蒙特哥马利说。

改革英国党（Reform UK）的回答是，蒙特哥马利没有担任党内职务，且不了解总部发生的很多事情。“这是一个非常专业的运作，”一名工作人员说，“影子内阁是一个非常凝聚的单位。每个人都在全力以赴。”他们坚称，即将发布的公告将让他们告别这个困难的夏天。

改革英国党在民调中再次回升至顶端，蒙特哥马利表示他将为反对其被停职而战。“如果改革英国党做对了，前途将不可限量，”他说，“但目前我们还没有达到我认为应有的正确程度。”

事实证明，托尔斯泰在他那篇标题恰如其分的《改革的三种方法》中，触及了法拉奇面前的挑战：“每个人都想着改变世界，但没有人想着改变自己。”

《旁观者》笔记

查尔斯·摩尔

如果可怜的杰森·阿尔代（Jason Arday）自杀了，那么弄清楚原因将十分必要。为此，了解他为何辞去教授职务会有所帮助。如果剑桥大学并不希望他离开，那么他选择辞职的可能性极低。毕竟，大学一直以来都在公开维护他。然而，如果他对剑桥大学持续的支持充满信心，为什么他要放弃这种保护带来的益处？如果剑桥大学向他暗示，出于某种原因，这种保护很快将停止，那么是什么导致了大学改变主意？如果那个将他推向高位的机构现在准备将他抛弃，对他来说将是多么巨大的打击。在这种问题上，机构对新闻界的攻击是否是为了转移真相？

希拉里·克雷明（Hilary Cremin）教授是教育学院的院长，该学院授予了阿尔代后来被他辞去的讲席教授职位。她最近出版了一本书，名为《教育再野化》（Rewilding Education），书中“呼吁建立一种面向新型未来的新教育模式——一种由气候危机、向下流动、生成式人工智能和后真相政治所塑造的未来”。看着剑桥的现状，我会悲哀地说，她的梦想正在成为现实。

每个人都在将一切“再野化”。国民信托基金会（National Trust）将其作为削减园艺开支和停止修剪草坪的借口。地方议会任由路边绿地长满垃圾。“再野化教会”运动则试图通过停止耕种 30% 的教会土地，进一步削减神职人员的收入。“再野化”现在的延伸范围已远远超出了其最初与自然的联系。有一本书叫《企业心智》（Corporate Mind）；还有全科医疗、金融、法律，甚至出现了关于脑外科手术的讨论。这与当前“野”（wild）这个词的用法相关，它被赋予了一种新的魔力，就像 25 年前“有机”一词所获得的那样。有时，“野”确实有其实际含义——例如，野生动物与家养动物的区别，或者野草莓与花园草莓的区别。但目前它通常意味着占用属于他人的地方且不支付费用——例如“野泳”和“野营”。在理论和实践中，这具有高度的反社会性。“天生温顺”（Born to be mild）

将会是人类种族一个更为友善的愿望。

在 2025 年之前的 20 多年里，马克·伊斯顿（Mark Easton）一直担任 BBC 新闻的国内编辑。大多数记者喜欢夸大自己的报道主题，但他将自己的使命定为宣称犯罪率正在下降，并为此制作了完整的节目。他的最新节目《伟大的犯罪之谜》（The Great Crime Mystery）的第一集上周在 Radio 4 播出。暴力犯罪和财产犯罪确实有所减少，这主要是由于更好的监控技术以及互联网追踪物品和人员的能力。30 年前当我回到乡村生活时，大宅中经常发生严重的古董盗窃案。这种情况现在已经崩溃，因为古董在网上太容易被识别，且价值远低于 1990 年代。但我注意到，伊斯顿不仅是指暴力和财产犯罪；他还声称整体犯罪率正在下降。他的数据来源是警方统计数据和基于个人犯罪经历访谈的国家犯罪调查。这些数据是否捕捉到了现代人不报案的原因？其中一个原因是某些行为，尤其是吸毒，几乎不再被视为犯罪，因为警方对此不感兴趣。同样，人们在生活中每天都会遭遇网络诈骗企图，但我怀疑除非被成功骗了，否则他们不会太在意。此外，由自行车和电动滑板车造成的道路犯罪大幅增加。如果你在伦敦一个主要交叉口的红绿灯旁站几分钟，你总会（是的，总是）看到这类车辆每分钟都在违法。人们注意到这类违规行为并没有受到监管。乞丐。

瘾君子、骑行者，以及在伦敦随处可见的（通常是关于中东或环保议题的）不受警察约束的抗议者，让人们即便在那些通常不会被起诉的行为面前，也会感到与自己的社区产生隔阂。再加上一种感觉，即 iPhone 和电脑的隐私已遭到破坏，因此不法分子（甚至是外国政权）可以欺骗你、监视你，并窃取、出售或滥用你的数据，这让你无论在室内还是室外都感到不安。我希望伊斯顿在未来的节目中能探讨这个问题。目前，他的节目就像是一场教授们的访谈游行，而这些教授暗示公众很愚蠢。

最近，我收到一份邀请，要求我（远程）在蒙大拿州米苏拉的一个大型读书会发表讲话，讨论我的撒切尔系列著作中的其中一卷。那封电子邮件礼貌得令人起疑，但我将其归结为美国人天生的礼貌。我想接受邀请，因为我们亲爱的儿媳与米苏拉有亲属关系，而且我曾经在那里有过一次愉快的访问。我回信表示感兴趣。随后的礼貌跟进中提到：“由于每次‘作者展示’都是单独规划和主持的，我们请求您支付一笔主持与后勤贡献费。”我以前从未被要求在讨论自己的书时付费。我回信道：“我想这意味着钱！多少钱？”对方在更多奉承的掩饰下给出的答案是 $272。正当我考虑对米苏拉的喜爱是否能说服我掏钱时，我收到了另一个读书会的邀请，这次是在新加坡。措辞惊人地相似，而且同样在对我大肆吹捧之后，在第二封邮件中提出了一个“与此次专题相关的少量支持贡献”请求。我随后的“多少钱？”问题得到了这样的回答：“在 $150-$300 之间。”我写信给新加坡方面，称我收到了另一个国家另一个读书会的类似邀请。对方回答道：“我们也注意到有其他读书会在使用类似的方法和措辞，这正是为什么我理解您的谨慎。”尽管如此，我拒绝了新加坡，并且没有回复可怜的米苏拉。如果他们使用 AI 让我产生了不必要的怀疑，我对双方表示歉意。其他作者收到过这类东西吗？

塑料牧师

趁现在还能见到圣公会神父，赶紧享受吧

昆廷·莱茨（QUENTIN LETTS）

当我陪着 91 岁的母亲在莱德伯里（Ledbury）散步时，发生了一件令人惊叹的事：我们看到了一名在街上巡逻的警察。他甚至戴着头盔，而不是棒球帽。“一个真正的警察！”好几个人尖叫道，他们的反应就像看到蒸汽火车或奥斯汀-希利（Austin-Healey）跑车一样，这些都是那个更具特色时代的提醒。

不久后，当我们看到狗项圈时，可能会产生同样的惊讶。一项由部分英格兰教会教区采用的新计划——监督事工（oversight ministry），正在将牧师从街道上撤走。他们将不再担任前线神职人员，而是成为“监督部长”和“区域院长”，负责管理由非专业人士组成的无薪“焦点部长”（focal ministers）。这些焦点部长将主持礼拜，进行牧养访问，并且正如宣传文案所言，“在更广泛的社区中出现，作为任何与教会社区建立联系的人的可接触点”。大卫·布兰克特（David Blunkett）给了我们“塑料警察”社区支持官员；而英格兰教会则给了我们“塑料牧师”。

监督事工已经覆盖了特鲁罗、莱斯特、谢菲尔德、伯明翰和林肯，并且正进入我们所在的赫里福德地区。我们的主教宽宏大量地表示，他将允许牧师选择退出该计划。且看以后如何。官僚们正在悄悄向神职人员施压。强有力的基督教（Muscular Christianity）已被酸腐的办公室政治所取代。

焦点部长不会在神学院学习多年。然而，他们将被训练掌握现代教会官员所崇拜的事物。他们“将被要求完成领导级别的保护（Safeguarding）培训，以及提高对家庭暴力意识的培训”。教会文件曾将首字母大写仅保留给全能的上帝。现在，首字母大写被赋予了“保护”和“家庭暴力”。

读者们知道，英格兰教会陷入了困境。教堂长椅空空如也，而种族顾问、环保主义者和保护专家们却像出征一样大步向前，口出被动攻击性的管理主义，并在骚扰少数每周礼拜者时引用慈善法。这些官僚受益于安妮女王在 1704 年创立的一项旨在帮助贫困教区的基金。1948 年，该基金被并入教会委员（Church Commissioners）。根据“拯救教区”（Save the Parish）激进小组的数据，该基金每年 £6.53 亿 的收入中，只有 £8500 万 流向教区。乡村教堂贫困得可怜，几座大教堂处于赤字状态，有些接近破产。辞职的牧师人数甚至超过了退休的人数，三分之一的人出现了抑郁症状。在如今这个企业化的教会工作显然没什么乐趣。然而，坎特伯雷大主教却灿烂地微笑着，谈论着在英格兰教会坚持称之为“修复性正义”的项目上挥霍 £1 亿。

文化上的自我厌恶——包括抛弃古老文本和出售宽敞的牧师住宅——几十年来一直显而易见。在封锁期间教堂关闭的加速作用下，其后果现在已无法忽视。教会经常反驳那些要求取消国教地位的—。

核心部长将不再在神学院度过数年，而是接受教会官员所推崇之物的训练

通过声称每个讲坛都有一名牧师来应对。当政客建议应将主教从上议院驱逐时，这一论点便会被搬出来。这些主教们自诩：“我们与民众心贴心。”一旦牧师沦为仅仅是“区域院长”，这种说辞将不再奏效。

我得知我们教区正在引入“监督事工”（oversight ministry），因为在过去十年里，我每年大约五次以平信徒的身份主持礼拜。是的，一名威斯敏斯特的记者在牧师席上挺起胸膛领导神圣崇拜，这听起来像是在讽刺。多么一个摆姿势的讲坛演说家！但背景或许能提供帮助。16世纪的宗教改革，除其他方面外，是一场针对罗马教职阶层的革命。获得解放的英国教会发现自己缺乏牧师。因此，在重新夺回控制权时，它允许由会众领导早祷（matins）和晚祷（evensong）等非圣礼服务。他们无偿进行。教会法 B11 条规定，此类人员将由主教授权，或为“其他合适的平信徒”。当我们乡村教区的牧师在她的另外六座教堂中忙碌时，该教区的教堂管理员（会众 20 人，每周捐款 £100）亲切地邀请我来主持。

当主持早祷时，你必须严格遵守礼拜仪式——我们使用《公祷书》——且不得宣布赦罪或讲道。到了讲道环节，我会做一个关于历史的简短演讲。祷告最好用正式的语气朗诵，剔除个人色彩。我的朗诵方式模仿我已故的父亲，他曾是一位校长，几十年来一直主持学校礼拜，就像他的父亲从 1920 年代起所做的那样。对我以及其他人而言，去教堂是一种代际延续的行为。希伯来语将其表述为 l'dor v'dor（代代相传）。

上周，这种“代代相传”彻底崩塌了。我被告知，如果我想继续宣读克兰默的早祷文，我需要接受长达 18 个月的灌输，包括“领导级别的保护培训”。只有在那个“形成期”之后，才可能颁发证书允许我操作。这意味着必须遵守教会的世俗信条。而这，或许正是引入监督事工的原因。教职阶层仍因他们那受祝福的韦尔比大主教在——哈！——一起保护丑闻中离职而心有余悸，现在他们发现了一种让当今新教徒屈服于其意志的方法。那些在牧师无法到场时在乡村教堂主持早祷的古板老家伙们将不再被容忍。有多少会众会有时间或耐心去接受 18 个月的培训？

在圣公会 500 多年的历史中建立的平信徒读者这一高尚原则，正被官僚们扭曲。监督事工将增加他们的权力，同时阻碍牧师履行其天职。

所以，趁现在还有圣公会牧师，请尽情享受他们吧。几个世纪以来，他们一直是我们的文学和传说中的核心。想想乔治·赫伯特、特罗洛普笔下的巴切斯特、简·奥斯汀笔下的柯林斯先生、伍德拜恩·威利、《迪布利的牧师》，或是萨姆·戴维斯上尉——这位随军牧师在 1951 年今津之战前带领光荣的格洛斯特团进行神圣崇拜。我见过他。多么了不起的人。

牧师领口（dog collar）既是对那个更具特色时代的提醒，也是对教会曾存在于英国特质之经纬中的时代的提醒。现在，它将在监督事工中消失。真是个……疏忽（oversight）。

杀戮许可证

针对敌人的打击何时演变为谋杀？

欧文·马修斯（OWEN MATTHEWS）

什么时候法外处决仅仅是另一种形式的战争，而什么时候它会变成国家支持的恐怖行为？“我们不是恐怖分子，而是睁眼战斗的自由战士，”梅纳赫姆·贝金在描述他于 1947-48 年英属巴勒斯坦委任统治地内战期间领导的非正规战斗组织“伊尔贡”（Irgun）时这样写道，该组织的战术包括轰炸和暗杀。那么，8 月 1 日发生在莫斯科市中心 Balzi Rossi 餐厅的爆炸袭击——造成至少 5 人死亡，20 多人受伤——在这一衡量标准中处于什么位置？

有些人会将这次袭击描述为一次合法的军事行动。炸弹的目标是俄罗斯航空航天军总司令亚历山大·恰伊科（Aleksandr Chayko）上将的奢华生日庆祝活动（其女婿在爆炸中丧生）。恰伊科指挥的俄罗斯军队北路集群在 2022, 年 2 月和 3 月推进至基辅郊区，亲乌克兰博主主张，这使他最终应对布恰和伊尔平的平民大屠杀负责。按照这个逻辑，试图暗杀恰伊科的行为与游击队英雄击毙战争罪犯的行为处于同一地位——例如 1942 年 5 月，受过英国训练的捷克特工在布拉格街头枪杀了波希米亚和摩拉维亚的帝国保护者莱因哈德·海德里希（Reinhard Heydrich）。

但如果你认为 Balzi Rossi 的炸弹袭击是正当的，那么这次袭击与爱尔兰共和军 1981 年在伦敦切尔西军营对英国士兵进行的钉子炸弹袭击，以及次年对海德公园和摄政公园的皇家骑兵团成员及陆军乐队进行的炸弹袭击之间，又有什么区别？这些都是为了推翻殖民占领而是在平民环境中对军事人员发起的袭击。

我们的答案显然取决于我们如何看待实施者事业的正义性。多年来，美国和英国一直在伊拉克、叙利亚和阿富汗通过无人机袭击清除基地组织和伊斯兰国成员，并将不幸平民的附带损害视为屠宰过程中的

当巴拉克·奥巴马打击敌人时，我们可以说没问题；但当普京这样做时，我们就认为很糟糕

账单。很少有人会为 2015 年 11 月在拉卡的一次美英无人机袭击中被杀的穆罕默德·埃姆瓦齐（即“圣战约翰”）流泪，或者为 2017 年被捕食者无人机清除的“白色寡妇”萨莉-安·琼斯感到惋惜。以色列的摩萨德凭借其爆炸传呼机和精准的酒店房间袭击手段，在无论身在何处地清除敌人方面处于世界领先地位。

然而，认可法外处决会打开一个道德上的“潘多拉魔盒”。我们可以说，当巴拉克·奥巴马打击敌人时没问题，而当弗拉基米尔·普京这样做时很糟糕，是因为我们认可前者而非后者。但这种论点很快就会陷入一种危险的道德模棱两可，变成一种克里姆林宫最喜欢利用的“那又怎么说”（whataboutism）逻辑。

克里姆林宫控制的俄罗斯媒体将最近的莫斯科爆炸案归咎于乌克兰。与此同时，基辅的官员们保持沉默。但巴尔齐·罗西（Balzi Rossi）的爆炸案是一系列针对俄罗斯军官、占领区官员和宣传人员爆炸袭击中的最新一起。2022 年 8 月，29 岁的亲战争评论员、民族主义意识形态专家亚历山大·杜金之女达里亚·杜金娜在一次汽车炸弹袭击中丧生，据推测目标是她的父亲。次年 4 月，一名被称为弗拉德伦·塔塔尔斯基的亲战争军事博主马克西姆·福明，在圣彼得堡的一次活动中被一件作为礼物赠送的小雕像内隐藏的炸弹炸死。民族主义小说家、顿巴斯亲俄部队指挥官扎哈尔·普里列平在另一次汽车炸弹袭击中受重伤。

自 2022 年以来，类似的装置已导致三名俄罗斯中将、一名斯塔夫罗波尔副市长以及一名在乌克兰成立的亲俄营创始人死亡。乌克兰安全局（SBU）要么否认对此负责，要么对俄罗斯境内的爆炸案保持沉默。但它承认在被占领的乌克兰境内发动了数起相同的爆炸袭击，包括针对卢甘斯克由俄罗斯设立的议会中的两名议员、扎波罗热核电站的一名官员以及顿涅茨克奥列尼夫卡监狱的前负责人，这些人全部被简易爆炸装置炸死。SBU 消息人士告诉乌克兰媒体，占领者是“完全合法的目标”。乌克兰还承认负责了至少 15 起使用手枪进行的暗杀或暗杀未遂行动，导致一名俄罗斯潜艇指挥官、一名巡航导弹软件工程师和俄罗斯总参谋部情报局（GRU）的副局长等人死亡或受伤。而俄罗斯方面也在乌克兰境内组织了至少六起枪击暗杀。

使其中一些爆炸案在道德上尤为复杂的是，显然使用了不知情的自杀式袭击者来运送装置。反战俄罗斯人达里亚·特雷波娃坚称，她不知道杀死塔塔尔斯基的小雕像中含有炸药（尽管她仍因谋杀被判处 27 年监禁）。斯塔夫罗波尔副市长扎乌尔·古尔特西耶夫和亲俄“阿尔巴特营”创始人阿尔门·萨尔格相被自杀式袭击者杀害，而这两名袭击者显然都是不知情的棋子，与乌克兰没有已知的爱国联系，也没有观察到为基辅的事业而死的愿望。在

归根结底，我们评判英雄与恶徒的行为，是基于他们的身份，而非其所作所为

2022年10月，货车司机马希尔·尤苏博夫（Makhir Yusubov）在一家物流网站接单后，运载一批目的地为克里米亚的货物。在行驶至克尔奇大桥中段时，货车发生爆炸，尤苏博夫丧生，大桥受损。时任乌克兰安全局（SBU）局长的瓦西里·马柳克（Vasyl Maliuk）公开承认了这次行动，并承认乌克兰情报部门故意“利用那些被蒙在鼓里的人”。目前尚不清楚将炸弹（据报道被包装成礼物）送到巴尔齐·罗西（Balzi Rossi）的那名女性是自愿执行自杀任务，还是仅仅是另一个可有可无的人肉载体。

在战场上击毙一名俄罗斯指挥官，与在他自己的生日派对上将其炸死，两者之间是否有区别？你可以争辩说，在爱情和战争中一切手段都是正当的，俄罗斯给乌克兰带来的恐怖行径，证明了即便敌方军官在卸职且未携带武器时将其击毙也是合理的。但这种道德选择随之而来的是一系列令人不安的逻辑偶然性。正如亚历山大·索尔任尼琴（Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn）所写，每一个作恶的人，都是出于他认为正当的理由。

在海德公园爆炸案之后，爱尔兰共和军（IRA）发表声明，为杀害英国军人辩护，理由是“爱尔兰人民拥有主权和民族权利，任何占领军都无法将其抹杀”。克里姆林宫派遣去谋杀克格勃（KGB）和格鲁乌（GRU）叛逃者亚历山大·利特维年科（Alexander Litvinenko）和谢尔盖·斯克里帕尔（Sergei Skripal）的清理者，无疑将他们的受害者视为背叛国家的叛徒，而将自己视为正义的执行者。梅纳赫姆·贝金（Menachem Begin）在其回忆录《起义》（The Revolt）中声称，美国总统哈里·杜鲁门（Harry Truman）曾表示，“如果他在英国统治时期的以色列地（Eretz Israel），他也会加入‘恐怖分子’的行列”。

金翅雀

他宠溺她。那个男人。 在父亲去世九年后。 重新布置了她的衣橱。 她买了高级定制的大衣、围巾， 高筒的长腿皮靴， 闪耀着崭新的金色，如秋日般； 编织着季节的色彩， 酒红与古铜。 终于找到了一个珍视她的男人。 让她绽放。而她确实绽放了， 像一只发光的金翅雀，在他日渐衰老之时。

他们驾车游历爱尔兰。 有一张照片； 她站在蒂珀雷尔的某家酒吧里， 端着几杯吉尼斯黑啤，在翻转的木桶中心占据舞台； 她，他，还有另一对夫妇， 举杯共饮，尽情享乐， 做着那些她与父亲在一起时从未做过的事， 任由生活流淌，追逐乐趣， 开着朋友未婚夫那辆豪华跑车疾驰， 绕行凯里环路，一个接一个地造访 那些色彩斑斓、像棚屋一样的酒吧。

是的，这是一系列截然不同的案例——作为战争行为的轰炸与作为国家报复行为的投毒，后殖民时期的独立运动与主权交战国。但这正是关键所在。环境很重要。动机很重要。而问题的核心在于：我们很容易同意，我们的目的有时可以证明法外手段的正当性，但不能同意那些与我们意见不合的人的目的。归根结底，我们评判英雄与恶棍的行为，是基于他们是谁，而非基于他们做了什么。

回到最初的问题：莫斯科炸弹袭击在衡量尺度上处于什么位置？从操作上看，下令进行这种自杀式轰炸，在任何西方军队或安全部门（包括以色列人）的标准中都是极少数的异类。精准打击以及最大限度地减少平民伤亡，是任何民主国家道德考量的重要组成部分。即便无人机在阿富汗不小心炸毁了整个婚礼现场，最终授权此类行动的文职首长也可以被告知，这

——保罗·迪顿（Paul Deaton）

是一次真正的意外。而据报道，巴尔齐·罗西（Balzi Rossi）炸弹是一枚装满滚珠的1公斤炸弹，被带入一家拥挤的餐厅，无论怎么想象，这都不是一种精准的暗杀手段。

需要明确的是，没有直接证据表明这次袭击是乌克兰政府所为。事实上，我衷心希望乌克兰安全局（SBU）或国防情报局（HUR）都没有参与其中。因为无论谁下令轰炸，都在踏上一条危险的道路。首先，如果被发现对这种无差别袭击负责，将削弱乌克兰在这场冲突中作为受害方无疑拥有的道德优势。但更危险的是，它在已经极其残酷的战争中开启了一个新的以牙还牙的战线，而这场战斗不是用枪炮和导弹，而是在餐厅里使用简易爆炸装置。这两种杀害无辜平民的方法之间有区别吗？对许多人来说，答案取决于谁在杀人，以及谁在死去。

《旁观者》地中海邮轮之旅：搭乘 Regent Seven Seas Grandeur® 号

13 JUNE 2027 / 7 NIGHTS ALL-INCLUSIVE SUITE FROM \$4,660* PER PERSON / \$8,160* FOR SINGLE OCCUPANCY

《旁观者》与屡获殊荣的豪华邮轮专家 The Travel Academy 很高兴地宣布 2027. 年的一项全新专属行程。我们邀请您与商业编辑马丁·范德·韦尔（Martin Vander Weyer）、真实生活专栏作家梅丽莎·凯特（Melissa Kite）以及一群志同道合的读者，共同登上有史以来最豪华的邮轮之一——Regent Seven Seas Grandeur® 号，开启一段从巴塞罗那到罗马的地中海邮轮之旅，途经帕拉莫斯、戛纳、蒙特卡洛、波托菲诺和托斯卡纳（利沃诺）。

Regent Seven Seas Cruises® 提供海上最全包的豪华体验，我们很高兴能分享早鸟价格，每套房最高可节省 \$4,690*。

欲了解更多信息，请访问 spectator.com / medcruise 或发送电子邮件至 loyalty@thetravelacademy.co.uk

英国正陷入一种多愁善感的幻想

我不知道有多少读者去参观过家养小精灵多比的坟墓，但任何去过的人都应该立即被强制送入精神病院，并取消他们对《旁观者》的订阅。

在读到一篇能让你同时感到好笑、想哭且想用手拍额头的故事后，我产生了这种强烈的处理想法。故事涉及一个显然位于威尔士彭布罗克郡 Freshwater West 海滩上的“纪念碑”。该地区由国民信托基金会（National Trust）管理——这是一家曾负责照看我国文化遗产地点的慈善机构。

涉事海滩是《哈利·波特与死亡圣器》的拍摄地。从那时起，这部电影的粉丝们——它催生了一代只会哼唧且不知感恩的演员——一直在多比死掉的地方摆放石头和卵石，其中许多石头上写着信息（如“多比安息于此，一个自由的小精灵”）。国民信托基金会已经要求粉丝不要在石堆上留下袜子（别问为什么），但用石头堆成某种石堆似乎完全可以接受。

在此时，或许值得指出的是，“多比”是一个虚构角色。从未有过这样一个家养小精灵。因此，你可能会认为这个充满奇思妙想的“纪念碑”不应占用我们太多的时间。

然而，这是现代英国日益典型的时刻之一：幻想世界与现实世界发生冲突——而现实世界在这次交锋中输了。一条连接英国和爱尔兰、价值 £4.3 亿 的海底电缆原计划经过该区域，但由于数百名哈利·波特粉丝的投诉，电缆被重新规划了路线。事实上，为了不干扰那个从未存在的多比的不存在的坟墓，电缆现在经过的地方反而更靠近一些青铜时代的人类遗骸。

这场闹剧的项目经理告诉媒体，公司收到的数百起投诉确保了他们非常、非常严肃地对待这个问题。西蒙·卢德拉姆（Simon Ludlam）表示，最终电缆“离一些真实的青铜时代遗骸相当近，但我们避开了多比的坟墓”。他补充说，这个方案让“很多人非常开心”，而且“多比也很开心”。

此时，我很乐意把头从自己的手中移开，然后用一只袜子、一块石头或任何随手能抓到的东西，狠狠地拍在

卢德拉姆先生的脸上。

首先，这是出于审美问题。在所有最令人痛苦的多愁善感态度中，最糟糕的无疑就是这种现代英国式的“奇思妙想”。这与那些在伊丽莎白二世去世后，选择在花丛中放置帕丁顿熊玩具，或在网上转发帕丁顿引导已故女王走向圣彼得之门的迷因图的人们如出一辙。

王太后最喜欢的诗——《年度之门》（The Gate of the Year）——中有一行词，写道在踏入未知领域时，你应该“将你的手放入上帝之手”。

在所有最令人痛苦的多愁善感态度中，最糟糕的是这种现代英国式的“奇思妙想”

上帝之手。”令人深思的是，等到她的主权女儿去世时，这个国家已经抛弃了难以信仰的上帝之手，取而代之的是一种神学：逝者在进入荣耀之境前，应该将手放入帕丁顿熊的手中。

直到前几年，我还会将这种感伤的胡言乱语斥为完全不符合英国人的特质。此外，我会说，虽然这种令人作呕的感伤主义在爱尔兰人中可能依然盛行，但英国人肯定会将其拒之门外。我提到爱尔兰人是有理由的。几年前，克莱尔郡的一条高速公路绕道为了保护一株“神圣的”仙女灌木而不得不进行修改。当地的“专家”声称，如果为了给这座耗资£1 亿的绕道让路而摧毁仙女灌木，那么新路可能会遭受“诅咒”。最近，威克洛郡的一个新住房计划在的一棵“仙女树”面临风险后，也陷入了类似的争端。幸运的是，建筑商绕开了这棵树，仙女树得以幸存。

‘罗恩更喜欢横向饮酒。’

在讲述这些故事时，我并不打算在读者的心中植入任何关于爱尔兰人迷信且落后的想法。我绝非此意。但令人感到略微遗憾的是，与为了避免干扰一个虚构角色埋葬地而改变海底电缆的路径相比，保护克莱尔郡的神圣仙女灌木或威克洛郡的仙女树，反而显得像是完全合理的提议。

这就引出了这件事的第二个问题：这样一个故事似乎深刻地揭示了一个国家及其优先事项。近年来，英国发现几乎无法完成任何重大基础设施项目。大多数时候，这是因为发现了一种稀有的蚯蚓，或者——任何尝试修复乡村房产的人都知道——是因为有蝙蝠存在的证据。你不需要亲眼看到蝙蝠，只要有证据表明蝙蝠可能曾经觊觎过你的房产，你就会发现你的房子不再属于你自己，而是落入了当地议会的戴夫和任何路过的蝙蝠的共同监护之下。

即便如此，这也不过是一个还算良好的意图被推向了典型的官僚主义极端。而“多比之墓”现象则完全找不到任何借口。它仅仅表明，在这个国家，成年人们都失去了理智，并将决策权交给了那些从未被告知过“不行”的孩子们。

我想，如果这就是新的游戏规则，那么顺从它也是有道理的。我很乐意开始声称，在北海的石油储备中某处藏有一个魂器，除非我们开始开采所有这些石油，否则我们面临找不到它，从而无法击败黑魔王的风险。这在我最近听到的能源政策中，倒也不是最疯狂的一个。

辩论在网上继续。

时光之痕

你拥有“老钱脸”吗？

阿拉贝拉·拜恩（ARABELLA BYRNE）

最近，我开始担心我的脸。清晨，在孩子们醒来之前，我敢肯定我在楼下厕所的镜子里看到了幽灵。20岁时的脸庞在我面前闪现，但很快便带着责备地消失在眼角的鱼尾纹中；反正我那时也不喜欢她。我早已过世的父亲在我的颧骨上徘徊，用灰烬在我的嘴角勾勒出抽烟留下的线条。我对着镜子皱眉。我的祖母带着焦虑，出现在摆好姿势与放松之间的那一刹那。我眯起眼睛，就像她当年打桥牌时那样。如果过去是一张难以捉摸的脸，那么我只能在皱纹之间——而非字里行间——去解读它。

我从未想过自己会变老——我今年43岁——但这件事确实发生了。诚然，我对阳光那种像蜥蜴一样的热爱以及对香烟的痴迷并没有起到什么帮助。我曾在一个月的时间里一直待在普罗旺斯，毫无防晒地躺在河岸边，抽着无过滤的吉坦（Gitanes）香烟。这可真是绝佳的护肤方案。幸好，美容界出现了一个新的流行词——而且它完美契合我的每一道皱纹。“老钱脸”（Old Money Face）是对卡戴珊式美容优化以及被唾弃的二维“Instagram脸”的积极抵制；后者是在我们被教会用手机滤镜修图后，由整形医生重新打造的。

忘掉填充剂，忘掉肉毒杆菌，忘掉诊所里的寂静，以及外科医生在敲击针头时那责备的话语。在这场美容革命中，你能做的最宏大的事情就是戴一顶得体的帽子，并在脸上抹一些从抽屉底部翻出来的防晒霜。毕加索在与格特鲁德·斯泰因交谈时，曾指着一张脸说：“它像世界一样古老。”他能想到100年后，这会成为最高级别的赞美吗？

但“老钱脸”不仅仅是皮肤深浅的问题。就像大多数与“上流社会”相关的事物一样，你根本买不到它。“老钱脸”象征着一种生活方式，而令人发笑的是，这种方式与美容产业（在英国价值280 亿英镑 billion）所依赖的财富祭坛毫无关系。或者用艾伦·克拉克的话来说，通过手术修脸就相当于得自己买家具。 “老钱脸”诉说着一种在乡村户外度过的人生——遛狗、骑马、园艺——以及一种对阳光损伤皮肤的坚定且不可动摇的怀疑（“我认为气候变化简直太棒了，阳光更多了，”

就像大多数与上流社会相关的事物一样，你根本买不到它

（一位快活的贵族在围墙花园里的“下班后”饮酒时间告诉我）。这是一种生活丰盈的饱经风霜之相，以及一种对“美”的怀疑态度——一种米特福德式的信念，即一个人照镜子纯粹是因为担心，而非虚荣。

我能一眼认出所谓的“老钱脸”（Old Money Face）：那是大量滑雪和航海留下的日光斑；是由于在切尔西艺术俱乐部度了太多酗酒下午而产生的眼袋；是为四个孩子支付学费后在额头留下的深陷的愁眉线；而且至关重要的是，嘴角两侧的烟纹，让面相呈现出一种略带颓废的时尚感。当然，这种面相最著名的拥有者是女王——她对格洛斯特郡的风以及下班后的饮酒抽烟并不陌生。其他代表人物还包括已故的索尔兹伯里侯爵夫人莫莉（Mollie），她曾协助国王设计海格罗夫花园；以及已故的伟大“德博”（Debo），德文郡公爵夫人，她绝不会在任何情况下靠近针头。说到针头，“老钱脸”坚决反对使用 Ozempic（奥赛普肽）。一位睿智的“老钱脸”持有者向我透露：“胖一点的话，看起来没那么皱。”

为什么是现在？我们是否像曾经进入后现代一样，进入了“后脸时代”？也许是因为我们太久地生活在数字可见的时代：在 Instagram 上，在 Zoom 上——在那里，脸被从身体上剥离了——甚至在表情符号的领域里，情感被简化成了各种卡通面孔的变体。而只有卡通才能解释什么是“海湖庄园脸”（Mar-a-Lago Face），这是一种由特朗普政府的女性（如驻希腊大使金伯利·吉尔福伊尔）所佩戴并精心打造的相貌。海湖庄园脸构成了一种粗糙的人造感；或许，就像它的政治熔炉一样，它是对现实的彻底摒弃。而且，与它的兄弟哲学“颜值最大化”（looksmaxxing）相似，它基于这样一个信条：从眼周到颅骨形状，一切都可以被改善。但我们已经对“脸”感到厌倦了。因为如果女性的面孔成了时间与虚荣引发的恐惧之间斗争的战场，那么它最终崩溃是不可避免的。面孔资本的有效期有限；预计司美格鲁肽（semaglutides）也会面临同样的结局。

又一个清晨到来，我决定（出于新闻报道目的）就镜中的幽灵寻求专业意见。这是我所希望的“老钱脸”，还是仅仅是“老太婆脸”的开端？整形外科医生在他那洁净的贝尔格莱维亚诊所里迎接了我，他穿着乐福鞋，神情淡定，语气亲切地向我保证。他告诉我，我的额头，以及莫名其妙地，我的下巴，有“明显的日光损伤”。我躺下来，他开始向我概述一系列治疗方案：轻微去角质、激光治疗、定制色素霜。我假装在听，但我的心在别处，迷失在一组我不认识的面孔画廊中。我戴上墨镜离开诊所，点起一支烟，坐在阳光下。

玛丽·韦克菲尔德（MARY WAKEFIELD）

“大代孕”背后的隐形受害者

德克萨斯州达拉斯的一家法院即将决定一个名为加布里埃尔（Gabriel）或鲁米（Rumi）的小婴儿的命运——具体叫哪个名字，取决于你认为谁才是他的母亲。加布里埃尔-鲁米目前就像一个“薛定谔的婴儿”，悬在多种可能的未来之间；而这个可怜的小家伙，也正悬在生死之线之间：他出生时患有心脏缺陷，现在正准备接受手术。

由于我稍后会解释的原因，加布里埃尔-鲁米短暂的生命至今一直是媒体疯狂报道的主题。但如果他日后回首往事，对这一切喧嚣感到震惊，我希望他能知道，他已经为这个世界做出了怎样的贡献。

全球代孕产业在持续激增，目前估值近 400 亿美元 billion，预计到 2030 年将达到 3000 亿美元 billion；这是一条加速运转的婴儿工厂流水线：下单、孕育、出售。任何从中获利的人都不愿让这台赚钱机器停下来，也不愿深究其中的危害。但加布里埃尔-鲁米这个案例，让代孕——所有形式的代孕——所付出的代价变得极其清晰。

加布里埃尔-鲁米的生物学父母奥马尔·艾哈迈德（Omar Ahmed）和瑙辛·吉尔卡（Nausheen Gilkar）来自加利福尼亚州。他们通过体外受精（IVF）受孕，并出于未知原因决定使用代孕。也许是瑙辛无法孕育孩子，或者，像越来越多西方女性那样，她在健身房挥汗如雨，在社交媒体上看起来火辣迷人，因此不希望留下妊娠纹。现在有些女性选择代孕是因为她们对分娩感到恐惧。这种行为被称为“社会性代孕”，以将其与医疗性代孕区分开来。将身体上的痛苦外包，在道德上是否正确？

无论出于何种原因，瑙辛和奥马尔与 Worldwide Surrogacy Specialists LLC 签订了合同，WSS 联系了麦肯娜·韦斯特（McKenna West），随后加布里埃尔-鲁米被植入。一切原本都很顺利，直到第 20 周的扫描，结果发现他患有心脏病——左心发育不良综合征（HLHS），这需要在出生后不久进行手术。

在那一刻，瑙辛和奥马尔决定终止妊娠，根据合同，他们有权这样做。麦肯娜起初同意并预约了手术，但随后意识到自己无法忍心杀死这个孩子。她说，患有 HLHS 的孩子也可以过上幸福的生活，加布里埃尔值得一个机会，于是她提出由自己生下并抚养他。麦肯娜并不想要钱，这并非某种敲诈。她考虑的是这个孩子，而且在随后的阶段，她表示如果瑙辛和奥马尔同意进行救命手术，她愿意放弃任何父母权利。

这对夫妇认为杀死他们的儿子是最好的选择。而麦肯娜准备承受痛苦并打乱现有的生活，只为了让他活下来。哪个女人的行为更像一个母亲？我并不是在攻击瑙辛。在世界各地，许多母亲出于更轻微的原因终止妊娠。但父母之爱是具有牺牲精神的。正是麦肯娜证明了这种爱。

而这真的那么令人惊讶吗？我记得在自己的怀孕期间，第 20 周的扫描是一个转折点。胎儿的大小、心跳以及显而易见地生命迹象让我猛然意识到，这里确实是另一个独立的人，而我爱他，并且有责任去

孕育孩子的女性并非仅仅是“存储容器”——她与孩子之间存在纽带，而孩子也能感受到这种纽带

照顾他。在许多方面，对于像我这样不负责任的女性来说，这是一个可怕的认知，而且它伴随着一种预感，预感到爱所涉及的所有未来的担忧与悲伤。我认为那一刻是母亲身份的开始，而这与婴儿在身体上的亲近完全绑定在一起。距离允许否认——无论是在怀孕期间还是在其他各种场景中。例如，当你的年迈祖父母远在他乡时，很容易说服自己不去探望也没关系，这样对他们来说反而没那么不安。但一旦近在咫尺，真相就会显现。

一种便捷的语言已经演变出来，用以维持“简单代孕”的虚构假象，并说服我们所有人，认为你可以将母亲的身份碎片化：将卵子与子宫分离，将子宫与抚养分离，且完全不会造成任何伤害。代孕母亲被称为“妊娠携带者”，就像卵子捐赠者一样，她们被对待得就像只是做了一件普通的善事，比如捐了血。但诺辛（Nausheen）和麦肯娜（McKenna）对儿子疾病的不同反应，表明了这种观念是多么错误。

孕育孩子的女性并非仅仅是“存储容器”——她与孩子之间存在纽带，而孩子也能感受到这种纽带。当然，孩子能感受到。子宫就是他的全部现实。婴儿出生时就已经知道并能分辨出生母的声音、气味和心跳——而当他被剥夺这些时，他会遭受痛苦。我们现在知道，如果婴儿与生母分离，他会将她的缺席解读为生命威胁，从而触发紧急压力反应。他的皮质醇水平会激增，血压会升高。这是许多自称进步的人试图通过意志力将其抹除的众多生物学现实之一。

他们坚持“身体自主权”以及母亲直到出生前选择堕胎的权利。但我想知道，如果像麦肯娜这样的代孕母亲想要救一个孩子，这是否仍然是“她的身体，她的选择”？

这对夫妇没有接受麦肯娜照顾孩子的提议。他们坚持要求堕胎，于是她带着体内的加布里埃尔-鲁米（Gabriel-Rumi）逃往德克萨斯州，因为她觉得那里更安全。德克萨斯州不仅在几乎所有情况下都禁止堕胎，而且赋予孕育孩子的女性（而非委托父母）决定医疗护理的权力。

加布里埃尔-鲁米于8月12日在达拉斯出生，他欠麦肯娜·韦斯特（McKenna West）一条命，但即便如此，他可能永远不被允许与她见面。诺辛和奥马尔（Omar）现在是这个孩子的法定父母，他们已经获得了一项法院命令，禁止麦肯娜接近他。他们还在起诉她，要求就违约行为赔偿高达$100,000的款项，尽管我不确定他们认为她能从哪里弄到这么多钱。而且谁知道，如果他们在长期监护权的争夺战中获胜，他们将如何向儿子解释，为什么他们决定摧毁那个救了他命的女人。

救援行动

拯救西方仍有机会

马蒂亚斯·德普夫纳（MATHIAS DÖPFNER）

当《旁观者》问我是否愿意写一篇关于“为什么我们需要加强西方”的随笔时，我感到既高兴又困惑。为什么这件事竟然还需要讨论？我们竟然必须去解释并证明“西方”的合理性，这恰恰表明它已经变得多么虚弱。如果它不需要加强而是本身就很强大，那才更好。但事实并非如此。西方已经成了一个病弱之人。

然而，我们究竟在试图加强什么？西方是一个理念，而非一个地理位置。它依托于四大支柱：雅典——民主诞生之地；罗马——法治的摇篮；耶路撒冷——犹太-基督教价值观将不可侵犯的个人尊严置于核心之地的所在；以及最后的启蒙运动——其在伦敦、巴黎和柯尼斯堡的伟大思想家们奠定了人道主义、个人公民自由、权力分立以及政教分离的基础。

在皮西斯特拉图王朝的暴政垮台后不久，希罗多图观察到一种现象，这至今仍是政治哲学中最至关重要的教训。他注意到，只要在暴君的统治下，雅典人的战斗力并不比他们的邻居强。然而，一旦他们摆脱了暴政的枷锁，每个个体都会被激励去竭尽全力，在战斗中证明自己明显更强大、更成功。为什么？因为他现在是在为自己而战，而不是为一个主人而战。希罗多图在这一单一的观察中，阐述了对自决和自由的永恒诉求——这正是西方的核心理念。

这一理念也塑造了伊曼努尔·康德所阐述的人类观。人是不完美的。康德写道：“人类这块弯曲的木材，永远无法做出任何笔直的东西。”在西方的人类观中，这意味着：也不应该被做出笔直的东西。

自由最重要的词是“不”。异议即是自决。能够说出“不，我的看法不同”是一种解放。随着一声“不”，思考和行动的自由由此开始。说“不”的自由与必须说“是”的不自由形成了鲜明对比。民主国家是会说“不”的社会。独裁政权

自由最关键的词是“不”。异议即是自我决定

是只会说“是”的社会。自由本质上是对权威持批判态度的；它允许并鼓励矛盾——而这恰恰是独裁者无法容忍的。这就是为什么独裁者希望削弱西方。

西方——这个基于自由、法治和人权的高度开放社会——正处于防御状态，这是一个经验事实。根据智库自由之屋（Freedom House）数十年来收集的数据，全球自由度在 2025 年连续第 20 年下降——在 54 个国家恶化，而仅在 35 个国家有所改善。最令人触目惊心的数字是：全球仅有 21% 的人口生活在被归类为“自由”的国家，而二十年前这一比例为 46%。独裁政权的数量在增加，对内更加压制，对外更加激进。西方目前正面临内外威胁与削弱。其三大外部对手是中国、俄罗斯和伊斯兰主义——尤其是伊朗及其恐怖网络。

中国的目标是至迟在 2049 年（中华人民共和国成立一百周年）成为全球领先经济体。共产主义独裁与强力国家资本主义的结合被证明极其高效，这在很大程度上是因为西方在这个令人印象深刻的增长故事中扮演了“有用白痴”的角色。回顾过去，在 2001 年允许中国成为世界贸易组织的正式成员，是西方贸易政策中最大的单一失误。这种天真或短视在于，将成员资格授予了一个既不能也不愿遵守自由贸易规则的主要非民主国家，同时还赋予其发展中国家地位，给予各种豁免和优惠。这就像是给操场上最残忍的霸凌者特权，让他可以随意殴打玩伴。

短期内，中国给各方带来了增长与繁荣；但从长期来看，它改变了全球权力平衡，造成了危险的依赖。最悲剧的例子是德国汽车工业。几十年来，德国工业巨头一直依赖于中国廉价的制造业和利润丰厚的消费市场。在此过程中，他们未能意识到良好的商业关系与战略依赖之间的区别。一旦中国获得了必要的专业知识，开始利用巨额补贴对德国汽车工业发起猛攻，且在悄悄关闭中国国内市场的同时，这种友好的合作便戛然而止。这是一场利用资本主义手段实施的中国扩张地缘政治大师课。$\text{Wandel durch Handel}$（“通过贸易实现变革”）——这一 1990 年代的天真希望——变成了其反面。变革确实发生了，但并非向着更大的自由，而是向着更大的不自由。

美中之间的 AI 军备竞赛加速了这一轨迹。美国目前仍占据上风。然而，中国通过对其人口的全面监控，拥有极大的数据获取能力，且不受监管或伦理约束。此外，正出现越来越多的

“觉醒”运动已成为独裁者和专制者所钟爱的反西方主义的特洛伊木马

有迹象表明，中国正积极在西方社交媒体上煽动对 AI 的怀疑情绪。旨在诱发焦虑并拖慢竞争对手的宣传活动正在产生影响。美国似乎比以往任何时候都更倾向于技术怀疑论。下一届总统竞选在一定程度上将取决于哪个政党承诺能更好地保护选民免受 AI 影响，这并非不可能。中国深知，谁主导了 AI，谁就将在经济和政治上占据主导地位。中国在这一领域取得领先似乎只是时间问题。

虽然美国至少已经意识到了这个残酷的现实，并采取了成败不一的应对措施，但欧洲仍处于否认之中。在欧盟那些抚慰人心的陈词滥调之下，这个大陆正逐渐漂向成为一个供亚洲游客游玩的游乐园：高生活质量与不断下降的生产力和价值创造并存。

全球趋势显而易见。民主经济体在走弱，非民主经济体在走强。在这种地壳变动般的转移中，对军事力量的影响通常被低估了。许多人仍将中国视为一个在军事上被动、纯粹依赖经济的力量。这种看法是错误的。

中国的军费预算几乎翻了一番，从 2015 年的 $145 亿增加到今年的 $281 亿。最终的试金石是台湾。将这个民主且倾向西方的岛屿国家吞并并将其整合进一个单一的共产主义共和国，是习近平的主要任务之一。一旦胜算足够高，认为美国缺乏干预能力时，中国就会发起进攻——这可能是因为西方的资源在乌克兰和中东等其他冲突战区已被耗尽。如果中国在没有有效西方抵抗的情况下实现了其目标，全球秩序将被根本性地改变。

弗拉基米尔·普京在乌克兰的征服战争在这一战略中发挥了极其有益的作用。即便这场战争对普京来说远非军事上的成功，他也实现了两个至关重要的目标：通过进一步推开美国和欧盟来分化西方，以及耗尽美国和欧洲的军事储备。普京——这位永远在研究西方弱点的学生——测试了自己能走多远，而且走得相当远。既然乌克兰已演变为现代 AI 战争中一个强大的资产，他正转向一个更弱的目标：针对德国和其他欧盟国家的混合战争预示着更少的抵抗和国内更高的声望。

普京在伊朗和其他伊斯兰主义主导的政权中找到了现成的盟友。伊斯兰主义为了恐怖主义目的而劫持宗教。正如 1988 年的哈马斯创建宪章明确指出的那样，狂热伊斯兰主义的主要敌人是那些被他们视为无神论者的世界——即犹太-基督教西方世界。摧毁以色列和所有犹太人仅仅是第一步。下一步是削弱、渗透并对欧洲以及最终对美国进行暴力重新教育。

人们仍然难以理解，哈马斯对以色列发起的种族灭绝式袭击竟然没有引发全球支持以色列的浪潮，反而导致反犹主义大规模激增。最牵强的理由是声称以色列在 10 月 7 日后在加沙采取的报复措施超出了所有界限，或者其国内和外交政策存在严重问题。以色列政府犯过错吗？毫无疑问。但这能成为反犹主义的理由，将对以色列的批评转移到所有犹太人身上吗？绝对不能。

然而，这种趋势依然存在。反犹主义已成为一种流行文化时代精神，尤其是在年轻人之中。在所有国家中，德国去年记录了 8,725 起反犹事件——在《2026 年反犹主义年度报告》调查的 7 个国家中，这一数字最高，超过了美国（6,274 起）和英国（3,700 起）。趋势才是关键：从 2021 年到 2025, 事件增加了 124% 在法国，131% 在美国，以及 215% 在德国。

这一发展的主因是鲁莽且失控的移民政策。伊斯兰主义圈子——包括那些具有战略部署的圣战分子——多年来一直在破坏西方社会及其基础价值。指出这一点并非伊斯兰恐惧症。真正的伊斯兰恐惧症在于无法区分那些希望和平融入西方的人，与那些为了滥用其制度并摧毁其价值而进入西方的人。在同情心的掩护下，不受控制且频繁违法的移民不仅导致了西方的文化自我抛弃，而且通过引发反弹，助长了右翼和左翼民粹主义者及极端分子的崛起。

“我迫不及待地想看到反建制派成为建制派。”

米歇尔·韦勒贝克在其 2015 年的小说《顺从》中为此提供了反乌托邦式的愿景。他描述了一个穆斯林兄弟会掌权的法国：一个恐惧的国家，女性穿着的裙子越来越长，直到裙子完全消失；失败的白人男性为能与未成年妻子多妻而欣喜若狂；而伊斯兰主义恐怖袭击的消息最终被压制，以免惊扰民众。这本书描绘了西方社会的精疲力竭。现实似乎正以最可怕的方式在模仿小说。

“觉醒”运动已成为独裁者和专制者所钟爱的反西方主义的特洛伊木马。它是反自由三角的缩影，将反犹主义、反美主义和反资本主义天衣无缝地交织在一起。“西方”这个词已经

当前的危机是否正是西方复兴所需的良药？这将是最理想的情况

在政治正确圈子里，这个词长期以来一直被怀疑。地缘政治话语中被强制要求的术语现在是“全球南方”和“全球北方”。对于那些使用“全球南方”这个短语的人来说，将西方与殖民罪责联系起来并非偶然——这正是该叙事的目的所在。

觉醒意识形态（Woke ideology）通常带有良好意图的标志：打击种族主义、保护少数群体、质疑特权并面对殖民历史。然而在现实中，它几乎颠倒了文明的所有价值和目标。

在对“受害者身份”的竞争中，进步、竞争、增长和繁荣的概念被侵蚀。在西方，成功曾经比失败更好。富有比贫穷更好。美丽比丑陋更好。在觉醒意识形态下，这一切都被反转了。它像是一本源于自我厌恶的西方自我废除手册。

西方最终是否在因为愧疚感而削弱自身？我们是否只有在太迟的时候才会意识到我们将失去什么？或者，当前的危机是否正是西方复兴所需的良药？那将是最理想的情况：在失败的边缘经历一次宣泄，因为我们终于明白了利害关系，并意识到其他替代方案要糟糕得多。

为什么我们需要加强西方？因为否则暴君就会获胜。

伟大的艺术是无价的。伟大的写作每周仅需 $1。

“那又怎么说”的妄想

停止这种极权主义式的指责

彼得·希钦斯（PETER HITCHENS）

如果你生活在可接受观点的边缘——任何有思考能力的人想必都是如此——你很快会发现，这些法外之地主要靠侮辱和影射来维持秩序。于是，某天早晨你惊讶地发现，你竟然成了某个你深恶痛绝的令人厌恶政权的辩护者。如果你胆子更大一些，你可能还会被贴上“战争罪否认者”的标签。或者，你被指责在玩“那又怎么说”（whataboutery）的把戏——使用这个词的人认为，它能神奇地抹杀你的论据。或者，在很多方面最妙的是，你成了一个阴谋论者。

有一种说法认为这个词是中央情报局（CIA）为了抹黑越南战争抗议者而发明的，但这个表达方式比那要早得多。即便如此，就像所有这些轻蔑的绰号一样，它极其有效——尤其是在社交媒体上那些反社会的电子暴民之中。

“阴谋”这个词是我们语言中最奇怪的词之一。当当局对被告几乎没有实际证据时，他们会毫不犹豫地指控其涉嫌阴谋。这时没有人会嗤之以鼻。但如果一个私人个体暗示权势人物或有影响力的人可能私下会面以讨论共同目标——事实上他们一直都在这么做——他就会被嘲笑得体无完肤。一旦“阴谋论者”的锡箔帽扣在你的头上，你说的一切都不会被认真对待。

除了暗示轻微的精神失常，这个词还营造出一种阴暗的意象：一群戴着盖·福克斯面具的人，斗篷里藏着匕首，在德普特福的一家酒馆里彼此低语。长期以来，我一直试图通过指出英国现代最常见的阴谋其实有一个平淡的名字——“午餐”，来反击这种非理性的论调。

当我在威斯敏斯特宫担任游说记者时，我很快意识到在游说区本身能获得的信息很少。成功的关键是与一两个人加入或组建一个午餐小组，并邀请高级政客在无需自费的昂贵餐食中透露内幕。

我认为在撒切尔 era 与我同在这样一个小组中的圣徒摩尔勋爵（Lord Moore）不会太在意我提到这件事。他的出席具有神奇的效果，几乎没有人拒绝我们。我们从中挖掘泄密、八卦和轻率之言的许多人现在已经去世了，包括海尔舍姆勋爵（Lord Hailsham），他当时直接从羊毛袋（Woolsack，英国上议院议长席位）出发，穿着大法官的短上衣和长袜，就出现在梅登巷的 Rules 餐厅里。如果英国报纸的读者知道呈现在他们面前的所谓政治新闻中有多少是在这种场合、在熏鳗鱼或牛排肾脏布丁之间炮制出来的，我想他们会羡慕不已。

但与“那又怎么说”相比，这些都算轻松的。这个表达方式确实始于冷战时期，当时苏联的宣传员在面对对其警察国家体制的批评时，会通过指责美国黑人遭受不公正对待来回应。这两者显然

如果你无法区分现成的宣传与事实，你还应该参与政治吗？

两者根本不可比，而且无论如何，当时的莫斯科都是世界上种族偏见最严重的城市之一。这是将截然相反的事物进行虚假的等同。但最近我们进入了“政权更迭”的时代，在这种环境下，我们被要求为针对其他国家的战争鼓掌，因为那些国家的政权很糟糕。但，天哪，如果我们的盟友同样拥有糟糕的政权呢？

我对伊朗的专制统治感到厌恶，程度不亚于任何人，甚至可能更甚。他们曾以间谍的虚假罪名将我的一位朋友关进禁闭室，那是一次极其可怕的不公正与残酷经历。但不知为何，“西方”对于土耳其类似的压制（其监狱里挤满了记者）、沙特阿拉伯（拥有地牢和骨锯）以及埃及（在街头屠杀反对派支持者）却毫无反应。我们与这些国家关系非常友好。如果我们对伊朗压迫的憎恨是真诚的，这怎么解释？如果我简单地指出，我们所谓的对德黑兰政权的反对只是一个借口而非原因，那么我就会被指责为在玩“比烂”（whataboutery）。这正确吗？公平吗？如果你真的无法区分现成的宣传与严肃的事实，你还应该参与政治吗？

‘如今我们很难控制花园里的杂草。’

我有时会指出，“比烂”的发明者是我们的主耶稣基督。在一段令人难忘的教诲中，他问道：“为什么你看见落在弟兄眼里的刺，却看不见自己眼里的梁？你怎么会对你的弟兄说：‘让我把你眼里的刺去掉’，你自己眼里的梁怎么不先去掉？你这伪君子！先去掉自己眼里的梁，然后才能看得清楚，去掉你弟兄眼里的刺。”（如果你感兴趣的话，请参阅《马太福音》7, vv 3-5）。

至于被指责为外国独裁者的辩护者，这现在已成为针对任何在乌克兰战争问题上与官方路线持不同政见者的标准指控。而且这确实是一条官方路线。伦敦的政府大楼悬挂着乌克兰国旗，这是一个前所未有的姿态。毫无疑问，有些人支持俄罗斯入侵乌克兰（我一直对此深表遗憾）。甚至可能有人支持其目标，无论那些目标究竟是什么（我完全不知道）。我甚至被告知我是普京的同情者，因为我曾经是一个托洛茨基主义者，这种逻辑之疯狂，需要写好几页纸才能将其拆解。

而我之所以持有目前的观点，可能是因为我是一个英国爱国者，且看不出英国延长、武装并资助这场冲突有何利益所在——这种可能性完全不被考虑。现在这一切都相当琐碎，我可以应对。但它令我不安，因为这是警察国家心态的雏形，在这种心态中，异见被自动等同于背叛。你可以与我争论，可以在辩论中击败我，随你便。但请不要用这些极权主义的标签来称呼我。

在拜约织锦（Bayeux Tapestry）的第33场戏中，1066年春季出现的哈雷彗星被视为毁灭的预兆。一名惊恐的男子匆忙赶来，将这个坏消息告知新加冕的哈罗德。

书籍

一个狡黠的人物

最后一位盎格鲁-撒克逊国王犯的错误很少——但黑斯廷斯证明这是一场过远的战斗

亚历克斯·伯格哈特 (Alex Burghart)

《哈罗德：战士国王》(Harold: Warrior King) 作者：汤姆·莱森斯 (Tom Licence) 耶鲁大学出版社，£25，416页

噢，哈罗德。如此接近却又如此遥远。如此之近却未能成功。1066年1月，世界（好吧，是英格兰）就在他的脚下。两百八十二天后，他成了战场上的炮灰。在第一天，他成为了盎格鲁-撒克逊英格兰有史以来最富有的统治者。九月下旬，他击败了欧洲最难对付的混蛋（哈拉尔德·哈德拉达）。十月中旬，英格兰永远地改变了，但并非由他主导。

当然，他完全没有继承王位的权利。诚然，他是忏悔者爱德华的内兄，但在神圣的世袭权力规则下，这毫无用处。他声称爱德华曾向他许诺王位（实际上并没有），但同样，皇室的运作方式并非如此。此外，还有一个血缘继承人——“不准备者”埃塞尔雷德的曾孙埃德加·埃塞林，哈罗德曾宣誓支持他。然而哈罗德背信弃义，发动了一场史诗级的政变，成为了唯一一位血管中没有一滴皇室血液却能登上王位的英国人。不知为何，后代的人们开始相信他是站在正义一方的。这在上帝的世上究竟是怎么发生的？

汤姆·莱森斯的这部精彩传记——其出版时机巧妙地契合了拜约挂毯的回归——旨在根据基本原则和一手资料重新构建这个人物。一个核心且经常被轻率忽略的事实是，哈罗德有一半丹麦血统（母系；这个名字是丹麦式的，在他之前英国人并不使用）。莱森斯笔下的哈罗德带有一点维京人的特质——他掳掠奴隶，且在政治需要时对蹂躏英格兰土地毫无顾虑（可怜的萨默塞特郡）。此外，他还十分好色：有过两任妻子，可能涉嫌重婚；名声不佳，被视为通奸者；且至少有一个私生子。《末日审判书》记录了“哈罗德的一位情妇”在坎特伯雷拥有财产。

哈罗德是威塞克斯伯爵戈德温之子，后者是一位伟大的生存者和卓越的皇室协调人。哈罗德在二十岁出头时被封为东盎格利亚伯爵。历史学家经常断言，“戈德温家族”是一股强大的力量，限制了软弱的国王爱德华。莱森斯则表明，这个家族远非团结一致，而是充满了裂痕和

哈罗德成为了唯一一位血管中没有一滴皇室血液却能登上王位的英国人

不和，这经常导致年长的兄弟姐妹（斯韦恩伯爵、哈罗德、托斯蒂格，以及忏悔者的王后伊迪丝）发生冲突。

尽管哈罗德咆哮并进行袭击，但他并没有浪费上帝和戈德温赋予他的天赋或机会。在父亲去世后被提升为威塞克斯伯爵，他成为了国王最得力的人。他接管了西南部中地，并利用这个基地攻击威尔士的格温特王国。莱森斯揭示了哈罗德如何运用军事诡计导致格鲁菲斯·阿普·卢威林国王之死，夺取其部分领地并占有了他的妻子。

最终的权力博弈即将到来。作者最引人入胜的理论之一是，1065年的那场伟大的北方叛乱——导致爱德华最宠爱的托斯蒂格被赶出诺森布里亚伯爵领地——实际上是由哈罗德策划的，随后哈罗德在爱德华的愤怒中，成为了事实上的王位继承人。这是一个重大且迷人的修正主义观点。通常人们认为，在1066年，英国人选择哈罗德要么是因为他们需要一名战士来抵御入侵，而王子（Ætheling）太弱不禁风，要么是因为哈罗德的人伪称爱德华在临终前将其指定为继承人。莱森斯（Licence）则主张，在爱德华年老多病之时，哈罗德煽动北方的不满，并向同僚们将自己塑造为唯一能恢复秩序的人。既然如此，继承问题可能实际上在1065年就已解决，而非在1066年爱德华去世时。莱森斯可能在某一点上走得稍微远了些，即暗示这是王国唯一可行的路径。即便在960年之后，依然能闻到那股野心的气息。哈罗德本有其他选择，但他选择了自己。

无论如何，一个更凶悍、且主张更为牵强的对手即将到来。莱森斯令人信服地证明了，面对压力，哈罗德作为国王时很少犯错。狡黠与运气让他战胜了哈拉尔（Hardrada）。舰队的使用可能让部分军队免于从约克郡强行回师。即便在北方经历了两次关键战役后，英国人在南方的战斗中依然让征服者（the Conqueror）陷入苦战。可惜，黑斯廷斯战役成了最后的一击。

专家们将对此进行长久的争论。但未来的所有传记作者都必须面对莱森斯所塑造的这个男人：一个好色之徒、一个投机者、一个背誓者、一名士兵，以及这场伟大政治游戏的宗师。这是一个立足于其时代、遵循其自身逻辑的三维哈罗德；尽管他有凡人的缺陷，但正如他在黑斯廷斯战役旗帜上的纹章那样，他依然是“一名用纯金织就的武装战士”。

媒体革命 丹尼斯·邓肯

热排版：诞生大众媒体并令马克·吐温发疯的伟大机器

作者：杰夫·贾维斯（Jeff Jarvis）

布鲁姆斯伯里出版社，£17.99，384页

这里有一个测验。在纽约公共图书馆的三楼，有一幅由爱德华·莱宁（Edward Laning）在20世纪30年代绘制的巨幅壁画。它名为《记录文字的故事》，分为四个场景，每个场景都代表了书写发展的一个关键阶段。你能猜出它们分别是什么吗？

我敢说你大概能想象出类似于第三个场景的内容：蓄胡须的约翰内斯·古腾堡（Johannes Gutenberg）正在展示他新发明——印刷机的一页活字。我想你可能也猜到了第二个：一名中世纪僧侣在抄写室里，拿着羽毛笔和墨水瓶抄写手稿。如果你有宗教信仰，或许你甚至猜到了第一个：摩西接收刻在石头上的十诫。但第四个场景是什么呢？没错：那是奥特马·默根塔勒（Ottmar Mergenthaler）在《纽约论坛报》的办公室里，向报业大亨怀特劳·里德（Whitelaw Reid）演示他的行排机（Linotype machine）。当然是这样。

在19世纪80年代，行排机的发明似乎与山上的摩西或古腾堡的可移动活字一样具有里程碑意义。那么，它究竟是什么，为什么它被列入这一伟大谱系在现在看来如此古怪？杰夫·贾维斯的《热排版》（Hot Type）讲述了默根塔勒这台神奇机器的兴衰史。请忽略副标题，由

一系列发明极大地提高了报纸的制作速度

方式。这就是出版商的做法：让你在名人角度上大做文章。简而言之：马克·吐温曾是一家名为佩奇排字机（Paige Compositor）的机器的主要投资者——这机器堪称报纸排字机界的 Betamax——结果他因此损失了惊人的资金。这里的英雄是默根特勒（Mergenthaler），而反派则是里德（Reid）。

在 19 世纪，一系列发明极大地提高了报纸的制作和发行速度。蒸汽动力印刷机于 1814 年在《泰晤士报》引入，当时采取了一种带有破坏工会色彩的秘密方式（请记住这一点），它将印刷速度提升至每小时数千次压印；电报意味着远方的消息可以以电速报道；用木浆而非亚麻碎布造纸的能力降低了生产成本；而铁路则扩大了发行范围。到 1870 年代，很明显，大众媒体系统中最后一个瓶颈是排版。自从四个世纪前的古腾堡时代起，每一个印刷字母都必须由一名排字工站在装有数千个微小金属活字件的字盘前，一个接一个地手动挑选。

Linotype 排字机，1897 年

想象一下这个句子，就是这一个——大写 I，小写 m，然后是 a，g，以此类推。在铅字印刷中，每个字母都需要一次手臂向字盘伸出又收回的动作。想象一下整篇文章，事实上是整期杂志。或者假设你的《旁观者》不是周刊而是日刊，而且新闻可能会紧急爆发，可能就在报纸付印前的一小时。即使有一个由（高薪且熟练的）排字工组成的大团队，其工作规模也令人难以想象。19 世纪的报纸明显比现在的薄，通常只有一张折成四页的单页。如果有人能把打字机键盘（雷明顿公司在 1873 年成功将其 QWERTY 布局的“打字机”商业化）进行改装，使其不再仅仅在纸上留下墨迹，而是能排列好金属活字，然后将其放置在印刷机上，那就太好了。

于是，竞赛开始了。像吐温那个糟糕的熟人詹姆斯·佩奇（James Paige）这样的发明家，试图复制排字工在每次敲击按键时伸手取字的动作。居住在巴尔的摩的年轻德国移民默根特勒具有巨大的优势，那就是他从未从事过印刷工作，因此没有被其既有流程所束缚。

对于一名铅字印刷工来说，默根特勒的创新看起来非常大胆。传统上，所有这些单个活字件都是在活字铸造厂用熔融金属铸造的，然后由印刷商购买，通常是以吨为单位。默根特勒在想，如果机器不是挑选活字件，而是挑选铸造厂使用的微小模具，然后将这些模具铸造成一个单一的金属铅条（slug）会怎样？这样就产生了一行活字（因此得名 Linotype），编辑可以直接将其排列在印刷栏位中。因此，一台 Linotype 机器本身就是一个活字铸造厂。它有一个熔融金属锅，昨天的旧闻可以被熔化并重新铸造成今天的新闻。

《娱乐周刊》的创始人、前《纽约日报》编辑贾维斯（Jarvis）对新闻业颇有研究。《Hot Type》是一部倾注了心血的作品，也是对他初出茅庐时所接触的机械设备的致敬。作为一名终身从事报业的人，他懂得如何用魅力和机智来讲述故事。他关于默根特勒突破之后影响的章节——报纸和杂志发行数量的爆炸式增长、通过增刊和周日版增加的内容厚度，以及向以广告作为主要利润来源的倾斜——是一篇关于大众媒体地简洁明了的论文，达到了人们所能期待的最高水平。

《热排》（Hot Type）主要讲述的是一个美国故事，但它在瓦平（Wapping）落幕。1986年，罢工中的印刷工会未能阻止鲁珀特·默多克强行将排版方式从行排机（Linotype）转向照相排字，由此，页面可以通过相机就绪的粘贴稿进行印刷。排版新闻页不再是使用凸起的金属活字，而是依靠打字机、手术刀和胶水。明智的是，纽约公共图书馆（NYPL）抵制了对其壁画的更新。在短短二十年内，照相时代便让位于数字化时代。如果“记录文字的故事”中要增加一块新面板，那么它肯定应该是史蒂夫·乔布斯匆忙发送的一条短信：发自我的 iPhone。

无言的信息 布莱恩·阿普利亚德 (Bryan Appleyard)

《接吻：激情与权力的历史》 作者：凯蒂·巴克莱 (Katie Barclay) Reaktion Books 出版，£20，pp. 240

接吻是一个棘手的话题。它拥有一段复杂且令人困惑的历史。婴儿的亲吻是一回事，而出于欲望的亲吻则是另一回事。国王、将军和高级教士曾经习惯于接吻，黑手党成员也是如此——且通常是在杀人之前。接吻具有多种含义，而这本书在提供丰富信息的同时（尽管有时令人疲惫）探讨了所有这些含义。最后，一个警告：如果你对“舔屁股”（阿谀奉承 / 卑躬屈膝）感到反感，请不要阅读此书。

但那样你就会错过很多内容。凯蒂·巴克莱是一位勤奋的澳大利亚学者，她撰写了这部“关于欧洲从中世纪至今接吻世界的概览”。她的开篇之词便开始列举接吻惊人的多样性：“亲亲、热吻、激情之吻、啪嗒亲吻、轻吻、调情之吻……”但本书的核心在于接吻在历史内涵上的演变。

如今，接吻主要代表着某种性意味，这在很大程度上归功于大众媒体。没有什么比性更能推销，因此在当代想象中，“热吻”成了接吻的主导形式。紧随其后的是亲情之吻——奇怪的是，这可能是救命的。美国保险公司声称，在开车上班前被妻子亲吻告别的男性，发生车祸的可能性较低。我觉得这个说法有点牵强，但也许……

巴克莱将“和平之吻”视为“欧洲人中世纪生活的核心仪式”。书中告诉我们，对于许多基督徒来说，嘴巴是进入身体和灵魂的入口，因此领圣体可能标志着一种亲密形式的接吻。基督之吻最臭名昭著的一次使用，是犹大亲吻耶稣，以此向罗马人示意他就是那个应该被逮捕并钉在十字架上的人。另一个危险亲密行为的案例发生在 1206, 的圣方济各（St. Francis Assisi），他从马背上走下来，亲吻并向一名麻风病人施舍，随后那人消失了。

男人之间应该接吻吗？在18世纪的法国，“拉穆雷特之吻”（Lamourette’s kiss）是立法议会中男性建立纽带的一种方式。与此同时，英国人正逐渐远离男性之间的热吻，并用握手取而代之。丹麦人则在克里斯托弗·尼罗普（Kristoffer Nyrop） 1901 的《接吻及其历史》中写下了一段关于接吻的文字：“我们都渴望接吻，我们都追求接吻：与这种激情作斗争是徒劳的。”斯堪的纳维亚的色情主义由此被释放。

理查德·瓦格纳曾暗示“爱的之吻是死亡的首次预兆”，但随后现代性为我们带来了“生命之吻”（人工呼吸），通过嘴唇接触并吹入空气，可以让濒死之人复活。（我曾经历过一次，但我当时处于昏迷状态，对此毫无察觉。）本世纪人们试图通过脑扫描来追求接吻的真相，旨在观察我们接吻时究竟发生了什么。但这很困难。因此，科学家转而通过监测人们观看他人接吻时的反应来研究。结果发现，观看同性接吻产生的反应最为显著。但一切仍然不明确：“衡量接吻的影响仍然是一项艰巨且相当徒劳的工作，”巴克莱观察到。

最后，还有那种“舔屁股”——“这是神圣之吻的反转，是一种被异教徒和女巫用来羞辱和侮辱他人的腐败仪式。”显然，这种行为在始于12世纪法国的瓦尔登派（Waldensian）运动中非常盛行。这种做法在本书中经常出现——而且似乎被认为对动物是可以接受的。我将不再深入探讨这个话题。

巴克莱的学术造诣令人敬佩，但海量的信息可能会让人感到困惑。例如，中世纪的接吻难道从未带有性意味吗？肯定各种各样的接吻一直在随时随地发生。我希望如此。

文化战争 安德烈·库尔科夫

《乌克兰教训：战争时代的艺术》 夏洛特·希金斯 著 乔纳森·凯普出版，£22，pp. 272

“荒诞终于结束了，”立陶宛-波兰诗人切斯瓦夫·米沃什在1939年写道，当时一段不确定的时期让位于第二次世界大战的恐怖。夏洛特·希金斯在《乌克兰教训》的开头引用了这段话，描述了在顿巴斯地区经历了八年的“局部”战争以及克里米亚被吞并之后，乌克兰全面战争的爆发。在这部探讨战争对文化影响的深刻研究之作中，作者通过大量的人生故事，将俄乌冲突置于全球文化史和地缘政治的背景之下。书中提及1994年的卢旺达以及1972年伦敦德里发生的血腥事件，绝非不合时宜。

希金斯是一位著名的艺术记者，她于2022年9月接手了她的第一个乌克兰报道任务，发现自己既处于战争“内部”，也处于乌克兰文化的内部——而乌克兰文化与其他一切一样，已成为俄罗斯无人机和导弹的目标。同年秋天，她开始在网上跟随一名住在特尔诺波尔的老师学习语言。

她的最新著作讲述的是乌克兰文化，这种文化正与俄罗斯文化处于战争状态，且经常成为俄罗斯帝国主义的牺牲品。书中充满了我所熟悉的艺术家、作家和诗人的故事，且其结构并非分为章节，而是分为“教训”，

每一课都标注了日期。希金斯将自己在那个战火纷飞的国家与这些人物共处的经历视为一种教育，类似于一门迷人的讲座课程，在课程中，你恰好在人们试图摧毁文物的时刻看到了它们。这种将注意力吸引到任何可能随时消失的事物上的方式，使得《乌克兰教训》远不止是另一本关于战争的书籍。

书名具有深意。我们在这里得到了微型的语言课程——这营造了一种节奏感，并生动地展现了希金斯对她所描述事件的参与感。但我们也从她与所遇作家和诗人的对话中获益匪浅，他们解释了战争如何影响语言和文化——隐喻如何消失，以及在和平时期如此常见的文学实验为何变成了某种返祖现象。战争给它触及的一切都带来痛苦。而正是这种受创的现实，成为了文化的原材料。艺术家、作家、电影制作人和音乐家开始意识到，文化不仅是受害者，也是一种武器。“面对一个拿着机关枪的人，没有任何隐喻能起作用，”利沃夫诗人哈琳娜·克鲁克在一次活动中说道。随后，在与希金斯的交谈中，她补充道：“我很遗憾诗歌不能杀人。”

无论这些人如何努力地“武装自己”，文化依然是战争的受害者。但文化所受的创伤促使一些最出人意料的人物奔赴救援。在书中讲述的许多鼓舞人心的故事中，那些从战区抢救艺术品的志愿者的故事尤为突出。我们听到了两个朋友——列昂尼德·马鲁什恰克和阿里夫·巴吉罗夫的故事，他们在没有官方指令或许可的情况下，冒风险往返 22 次前往被围困的历史名城巴赫穆特以回收宝藏。巴吉罗夫自称曾是个混混，他将生命托付给更为果断的马鲁什恰克，后者开着妻子的 Mini 轿车进入那些主要只能由坦克进入的地方。

在另一次危险的行程中，两人将 Mini 换成了一辆空间更大的梅赛德斯-奔驰 Sprinter 面包车，驱车前往利西昌市，以抢救一座致力于乌克兰诗人弗拉基米尔·索休拉的小型博物馆的馆藏，其中包括他的帽子。希金斯问巴吉罗夫是否害怕死亡。他回答道：

我告诉自己：“听着，阿里夫，这是你的最后日子了。你不如把它们过得灿烂些。让你的死亡变得美丽。”如果我为了弗拉基米尔·索休拉的帽子而死？那将是最美丽的死亡。

这本书充满了充满活力、精力充沛的人物——这种人在和平时期并不常见。他们出现在废墟、烈火和死亡的背景之下，而他们对此视而不见。《乌克兰教训》（Ukrainian Lessons）以惊悚小说般的紧迫感描述了乌克兰文化遗产所面临的威胁。这本书传达了希金斯所遇到的所有勇敢人们的信息——包括那些依然在世的人，以及像小说家维多利亚·阿梅琳娜（Victoria Amelina）那样未能活到本书出版的人。

艺术

风格建议

缅怀克里斯托弗·吉布斯：这位审美主义者、收藏家与拼贴艺术家，他与所有人建立联系，并创造了一个全新的赞助阶层

乔纳森·米兹（Jonathan Meades）

对于那些对此类事务感兴趣的人来说，风格——正如布丰伯爵（Comte de Buffon）所言——就是人本身：是精髓，是核心，是肠道，是浓缩牛肉汤（Bovril）。而对于绝大多数对此类事务一窍不通的人来说，风格则被假定为一套现成的习惯、道具和口音——风格是某种被螺栓固定在人的底盘和核心上的东西，人们希望它能稳固地支撑下去。

我们可以确定，在这两种琐碎的分类中，哪一种更适合已故的克里斯托弗·吉布斯（Christopher Gibbs, 1938-2018）。在他漫长且在某种程度上带有古董气息的一生中，他遇到了所有人，绝对的所有人。在这种情况下，“所有人”这个词除了指代吉布斯所结识、向其微笑、向其销售、从中购买、为其代购、为其提供建议并使其倾心的那些人本身之外，并没有太多实际意义。他是如何让人倾心的！他的名字以及他出席的承诺，定义了20世纪社会中曾经重要的一股潮流，并且从未停止过滋养人们的自尊心。这种影响力跨越了世代。

如今，你的哈希什（hashish）是否来自朱朱卡（Jou-jouka），你的地毯是否来自塔鲁丹特（Taroudant），已不再是任何细微的考量；然而，在每个人年轻的时候——即四分之三世纪前——这曾是所有人最紧迫的关注点。正因为那是很久以前的事了，这本记录吉布斯多面生活的剪贴簿中布满了人物、地点、事件和装备（家具、艺术珍玩），旨在将其世界置于某种语境之中，使其与主流的周六游行队伍——那些游客以及对几十年前就已消逝的“摇摆伦敦”（Swinging London）怀有乡愁的人们——区分开来：“切尔西陶艺店（The Chelsea Potter's）才是潮流之所。”现在不再是了（而且从未是）。

就这一点而言，这个世界的狭小程度或许没有被强调得像它本该那样深刻。它仅限于切尔西的几个街区和地点，向西最远不过世界之端（World's End）。露西·摩尔（Lucy Moore）倾向于将那个有害的时代视为一个单一的整体。在吉布斯处于其喧嚣且隐秘的巅峰时期时，她尚未出生。

吉布斯的世界并非为了传承而建。尽管它确实留下了传承——而且是非常深刻的传承——表现为对那些真正令人震惊的庸俗服装、怪诞汽车、音乐、无脑的丑陋以及让穿着者在房间里显得极其尴尬的翻领的狂热。有时感觉这个世界仿佛是由唐纳德·麦吉尔（Donald McGill）和本尼·希尔（Benny Hill）为了最大程度的笨拙而重新设计的。那是20世纪70年代，那个忘记了品味，而且可能从一开始就没有任何品味的十年。

这就是当吉布斯本质上的工艺美术感和搜寻之眼被最粗鄙的制造业所亵渎时所发生的事情：一辆阿斯顿·马丁让位于一辆挤了五个染蓝头发的人的奥斯汀·阿莱格罗（Austin Allegro）。每一篇关于裁缝约翰·皮尔斯（John Pearse）或

在吉布斯经营的贸易层面，谨慎至上，一个人的承诺被认为至关重要

Alibi俱乐部或Casserole餐厅的报道都被迫依赖于同样的几张照片和同样的几个经过精心排练的证人，这反而泄露了底牌。

因此，这本迷人的书并不是另一个关于Mini Moke小车、“逃离之辈”（Getaway People）、尼龙以及穿着在橄榄球运动员大腿上的超短裙的陈词滥调：此类娱乐是为那些穿着天鹅绒、随前砖匠一起唱歌的无产阶级而准备的，且由他们消费。而且它们早于吉布斯微观世界中那种隐秘的静谧。请注意标题：《克里斯托弗·吉布斯：他的世界》。这是一个关于排他性的警告，就像大丹犬的巨口一样确定。

在这里，我们了解到秘密的丝绒布料，了解到富勒姆路（Fulham Road）一扇紧闭之门后的巴格达料理，了解到大声朗读博尔赫斯，以及穿着吟游诗人（minstrels）和吟游诗人（troubadours）的服装在干石墙上嬉戏。而且，谢天谢地，它并不是一份装饰师的货单。这是一幅歪斜的肖像，描绘了

吉布斯。他并不完全是个艺术家——尽管他自诩为设计师——而更像是一个收藏家和拼贴艺术家，一个拥有敏锐眼光的人，一个从孜然香炉中散播马格里布魔法的家庭之神。在这个由纨绔之徒构成的微观世界里，设计师们用半透明的茶杯和茶托饮水，而低阶的装饰师则用结满糖霜的马克杯啜饮，这标志着他们是脚踏实地的底层人——是那种知道自己位置的人。在吉布斯的世界上，等级和阶级——虽带有准军事色彩但通常被拙劣地掩饰——一直延续至今，只要“所有人”（那些圈内人）在最后时刻仍能识别出其中的代码。

在吉布斯经营的贸易层面，谨慎至上，且据说一个人的承诺至关重要。错误的归属被视为一种侵权，而可疑的来源则更为严重，因为它被用来评价买家、卖家，以及那些血统纯正或血统卑微到不值得输血的家族。吉布斯曾向我展示过一张极其诡异的男性马赛克肖像（约 1600 年），他声称无法将其售出，因为除了大概是那不勒斯风格外，他对其背景一无所知。这让我想起米德·法尔克纳的《失踪的斯特拉迪瓦里》，这本书在 50 年后的今天，让我想起了吉布斯本人。那幅马赛克肖像本身已经“潜入地下”了。它总会出现的。

吉布斯还为一些杂志撰写设计文章，这些杂志的读者是那些缺乏想象力但资金充裕的进取之辈：在这种语境下，“设计”意味着被这些杂志、小摆件、执政官风格的鎏金装饰以及次要杰作填满的房间。他写作时完全没有意识到自己的傲慢或谄媚：“一座房子必须被唤醒，被布置，被居住，并被建成一个家。有些人天生具有从事此类活动的才能，但他们是稀有品种，因为特殊的房子需要基于知识和经验的特殊理解。如今，人们经常寻求专业人士的帮助。”

吉布斯推销的那种特殊风格，是他自己特殊的“唤醒”。它膨胀且自豪，但又是谨慎的。英国式的含蓄在此 timid 地抬头。最起码可以说，这是一种混合风格。而且这是他在年少时就习得的。在廷特斯菲尔德的家族住宅——这座建在布里斯托附近、由非正统哥特式建筑师亨利·伍德耶和几个不那么古怪的高维多利亚时代建筑师设计的房子里——风格和来源肆无忌惮地碰撞。这里离一家布置精良的杂货店并不遥远。吉布斯在写作时，他那珍贵的好友布鲁斯·查特温在他耳边低语着优美的“诗意”散文，而这种散文实际上需要被一群在回营路上的地痞狠狠地踢上一顿。

斯诺登勋爵 1985 年在邦德街画廊为克里斯托弗·吉布斯拍摄的肖像，该画廊曾被描述为“上帝的阁楼”

在另一种人生中，吉布斯可能会成为皮姆利科或邦德街上一名模范交易商。但这将违背吉布斯的本色，因为他能与“所有人”建立联系：王太后、众多塞恩斯伯里家族成员、罗斯柴尔德家族、一两个盖蒂家族成员、塔莉莎·波尔、加文·杨、加文·兰伯特、波佩特·约翰、芭芭拉·赫顿，以及像朱丽叶·达夫这样幸存的“年轻（ish）之辈”——大卫·赫伯特（吉布斯的一种导师）称她为“一艘挂着貂皮帆的四桅帆船”。

对吉布斯影响最深的关系是与米克·贾格尔的关系，人们开玩笑说吉布斯在教贾格尔如何成为一名“绅士”。

考虑到贾格尔像变色龙般的灵活性，这不过是一个微小的跨越。五十年前，每个摇滚乐队吹嘘“我们是新贵族”都是一种可悲的幻想。吉布斯和贾格尔——本质上是旧秩序、真正的贵族和庞大家族的崇拜者——并没有改变这一切。但他们确实创造了一个新的赞助阶层。他的《世界》一书展示了他们是如何做到的。

由露西·摩尔编辑的《克里斯托弗·吉布斯：他的世界》（Christopher Gibbs: His World）由 Clearview Books 出版。

伊格比·里格尼饰演的布雷特和霍默·格尔饰演的罗伯特·马洛里在《碎片》（The Shards）中

失去的电视天堂 詹姆斯·德林波尔

《碎片》（The Shards） Disney+

我父亲曾经在服用酸类药物产生幻觉的情况下，和玛丽安·费思富以及特伦斯·斯坦普一起，开着一辆涂有佩斯利花纹的 Mini 跑车沿着国王路行驶，去 Granny Takes A Trip 店里买一套天鹅绒西装。不，其实并没有。我一直对我父母讲述的那些关于“20世纪60年代真实情况”的轶事感到非常失望，因为基本上他们根本没有什么轶事。

现在，我的孩子们在面对我讲述关于传奇的20世纪80年代的轶事时，也遇到了类似的问题。是的，我确实在 Duran Duran 乐队名声最鼎盛的时候去看过他们的演出，但那只是为了陪我的小妹妹，在那个闻起来像炸薯条和汽水、挤满了尖叫的12岁女孩的足球场里。是的，我确实穿过一次眼线笔并涂过白色口红，但看起来像个傻瓜。是的，我确实听过很多时尚的合成器流行乐，比如 Human League 乐队的《Dare》。但我也听 Dire Straits 乐队，因为当时就是那样。伟大的年代只有在第二次经历时，在怀旧的迷雾中并配以更精心挑选的原声带，才值得去体验。这就是为什么我可以如此由衷地推荐《碎片》：终于出现了一个你几乎希望自己经历过的80年代——与美女帅哥无止境的性爱、热水浴缸、跑车、鸡尾酒、利落的剪裁、慵懒地拖长的俏皮话、网球、马匹……

它有点像一个更年轻、更时髦版本的《对手》（Rivals），只不过没有那种自嘲的幽默感和淡淡的俗气。这是因为我们不在吉莉·库珀笔下那个愉快、充满性爱且带有戏谑意味的拉特郡（Rutshire），而是在布雷特·东顿·埃利斯笔下那个压抑地时髦、残酷地讽刺、精致却可怕的洛杉矶，这在他在半自传体的砍杀小说《碎片》中得到了重现。我们处于20世纪80年代初：音乐很棒，所有的孩子都酷得没边，他们住在有女佣、泳池和缺席父母的豪宅里。但花园里潜伏着一条毒蛇，它即将在这个被宠坏的、傲慢的、悲剧性地被惯坏的纨绔子弟社区中制造混乱。作者布雷特由一个叫布雷特（Igby Rigney 饰）的角色代表，他提供了干练、洞察且惆怅的旁白。布雷特正在写一部关于他世界的小说——在一家为富豪和名流子女开设的精英预科学校的最后一年，其中一些角色由真正的80年代富豪和名流的孩子饰演。超模辛迪·克劳馥的女儿凯亚·格伯饰演撅嘴的、像超模一样的苏珊·雷诺兹；神秘、英俊且阴险的新来者罗伯特·马洛里由 Homer Gere 饰演，他的父亲当然是查理·辛。开玩笑的。但你可以看出整个项目是多么具有元叙事色彩。

总之，我提到的那条花园里的毒蛇……正如往常一样，它是布雷特·东顿·埃利斯的标志性麦格芬（MacGuffin）：一个极具创造力的残忍连环杀手。这个杀手得到了“拖网渔船”的绰号，因为他首先潜入你的房子，偷走你热带鱼缸里的所有鱼（随后这些鱼会被剖腹，与尸体以及他杀死的其他宠物一起端上来）；然后当他准备展示尸体时，会选择像网球场这样显眼的地方，并将一切包裹在渔网中。通常我不喜欢这类东西。我甚至无法开始阅读埃利斯的《美国精神病人》，更不用说读完了。有线电视连续剧中存在太多的暴力，通常涉及女性被连环杀手折磨和仪式性谋杀。（我将其归咎于年轻的女性观众。她们是推动这种受虐倾向趋势的人。）但尽管恐怖场景相当露骨，但在语境的作用下，它们在某种程度上变得可以忍受，因为就像那些长期处于药物影响下的角色一样，你感觉自己是在一种抽离的状态下经历这一切。

也就是说，它是真实的，同时又并非真实；它是激烈的，但与此同时，又是那种“随便吧”的态度。剧集主创兼联合导演瑞安·墨菲（Ryan Murphy）完美地捕捉到了这个被污染的天堂中那种诡异且令人不安的基调：在这里，你想要的一切都归你所有，但缺点是你无法享受其中，因为永远不够，而且无论如何，情感被认为是非常不酷的，最好用另一颗夸路得（quaalude）将其压制。

在这个世界里，女孩们前一秒还在推测最近失踪并被推定死亡的同学的最后时刻，下一秒，几乎在同一口气之间，她们会以同样的严肃程度问道：“涂这个唇彩会让我的脸看起来很胖吗？”这是一个纯粹由表面组成的世界——镜头深情地特写着按摩浴缸的喷嘴向极蓝的水中喷射，闪亮的黑色乙烯基唱片即将播放某首 1980 年代的经典热门金曲，以及对 C90 磁带在录音机中运作细节的恋物癖式观察，而磁带记录的是一名受惊的酷刑受害者被强迫吃掉他的热带鱼，同时颈部被注射 LSD 的尖叫声。

换句话说，这就像是《美国精神病人》（American Psycho）的重访：高级时装与色情式的极端暴力相遇。如果你觉得这部剧不适合你，我完全不会责怪你。但它绝对是目前电视上最出色的剧集。

展览 Ai 为什么？为什么？ 迪格比·沃德-阿尔丹

艾未未：《扣好纽扣！》（Button Up!） 曼彻斯特 Aviva 工作室，展至 9 月 6 日

贾斯珀·马萨利斯：《静物》（Still Life） 伦敦 Chisenhale 画廊， 展至 9 月 6 日

当艾未未（生于 1957 年）在 2015 年抵达欧洲时，他刚结束被国家强制的软禁，被人们视为英雄。博物馆和画廊争先恐后地举办专门为这位西方新宠异见人士量身定制的展览——即便他在此期间依然神秘地继续参加中国的艺术博览会。当时没有人敢说破，但他的实际艺术作品——那些借鉴中国民俗的庞大、混乱的装置和古怪的雕塑——即便在那时也已经显得有些乏味了。

不久之后，这位艺术家开始将自己定位为全球被剥夺者之声，在此过程中（借用他人的话来说）演变成了一种“中国版班克斯”。他的作品在基调上变得自我吹嘘，在形式上变得愈发俗气，从而失去了任何微妙的痕迹。一个特别的低谷是他躺在希腊的海滩上，模仿溺亡的叙利亚难民艾兰·库尔迪（Aylan Kurdi），这场所谓的“提高意识”的噱头既缺乏判断力又令人发笑。

那张照片没有出现在他目前在曼彻斯特的回顾展中，但即便出现了，它也绝不是展中最愚蠢的展品。这里的每一样东西都是垃圾；而且规模巨大，因为在某个阶段，这位艺术家似乎将宏大主义误认为深刻。齐柏林飞艇机库般的空间里塞满了超大尺寸的展品，并配以居高临下的说明文字，仿佛假设没有任何一个曼彻斯特人去过艺术展。

这里的主要吸引力是一个从天花板上悬挂着的巨大黑色橡皮艇，船身被 258 个穿着救生衣的匿名放大版人体模型压低。这告诉我们，首先，艾未未关心移民危机；其次，他曾经拥有的任何才华早已烟消云散。

这简直是英雄般地糟糕：这里有一个广告牌大小的图表，描绘了炸弹的历史；一个颠倒的、用钩编工艺重现的雅克-路易·大卫的《拿破仑跨越阿尔卑斯山》——殖民研究警报！——它用一只斑马取代了皇帝的马；巨大的横幅展示着昔日“大国”的旗帜。艾未未告诉我们，帝国和警察国家是邪恶的，而我们都承担着罪责。

他可能是对的，但这些东西纯粹是说教式的垃圾，与其说是一场艺术展，不如说是一个极其庸俗的主题公园。老实说，我不记得自己是否见过如此客观且令人印象深刻地糟糕的展览。

不过伦敦那边也没什么可看的。最好的展览——卡姆登艺术中心的唐纳德·洛克，或泰特现代美术馆的安娜·门迭塔——都是在纪念已故艺术家。一个显著的例外是贾斯珀·马萨利斯在 Chisenhale 画廊的展览——虽然这是一个有缺陷的展示，但尽管如此，它仍然比你今年夏天可能看到的任何其他当代艺术要有趣得多。

马萨利斯（生于 1995 年）是爵士音乐家温顿之子，他极具个人魅力。他的雄辩并不总能转化为他的作品，但他的实践中确实有一种狂野之感。这里的场景布置涉及一个电影院规模的屏幕，播放来自

我老实说，我不记得自己是否见过如此客观且令人印象深刻地糟糕的展览

分布在全球风景名胜区的网络摄像头的实时影像。与此同时，巨大的扬声器播放着无调性的 FM 频率，创造出一种近乎交响乐般的白噪音连续体。

于是，我们看到了萨塞克斯丘陵、无法辨认的夜空、（我想是）索科特拉岛的海滩以及其他什么的诡异、颗粒感十足且华丽的 30 秒直播流，并配以不确定的无线电信号杂烩，其中携带的音乐已被剔除。即便我们可能看到的动态画面仅限于阿尔卑斯湖泊上起伏的波浪，或者偶尔出现的一辆像斑点一样经过的汽车，这并不重要。这种随机抽取的图像引入了一种危险元素：你有可能捕捉到有人在灌木丛中抛弃尸体的画面。

马萨利斯表示，他试图让我们重新审视对景观的欣赏，并提醒我们接收实时信息的隐藏途径。我不确定他是否成功了，但我依然被吸引了——不知不觉中，我在展厅里待了一个多小时。无论艺术家的意图如何：它能吸引你，给人一种新鲜感，而且最重要的是，它看起来美极了。在八月的伦敦，我愿意为此妥协。

古典音乐：我的心头好 达米安·汤普森

就在两周前，我正准备取消我的 Apple Music 订阅。我偶然发现了它的“作曲家精选”（Composer Essentials）——一份包含 100 位作曲家的名单，这些人被认为足够重要，值得拥有专属的精选播放列表。名单中包括邦兹、博伊尔、卡奇尼、道森、戴特、佩里、波尔多夫斯基、索希、斯特罗尔和沃克。

如果这些名字让你感到陌生，那么那些缺失的作曲家又是怎么回事？阿尔贝尼斯、C.P.E. 巴赫、贝利尼、贝尔格、比才、博罗丁、夏布里埃、科达伊、马蒂努、梅西安、穆索尔斯基、尼尔森、普朗克、勋伯格、沃尔顿、韦伯和韦伯恩。

明白我的意思了吧？这份“精选”名单充斥着 DEI（多样性、公平与包容）指标下的选人。这——我想到了剑桥大学的一个类比——对那些理应入选的黑人及女性作曲家（如乔普林和比奇）毫无好处。在什么样的扭曲替代音乐史中，比才会败下阵来，整个第二维也纳乐派会从地图上消失，而热尔曼·泰勒费尔会把弗朗西斯·普朗克挤出去？

正如我所说，我当时在考虑取消我的自动扣款。但随后 Apple Music 宣布，为了纪念瓦格纳《指环》系列首演 150 周年，它创建了一份聆听指南，旨在“通过与乔治·索尔蒂爵士传奇的 Decca Classics 录音实时同步的专家文本评论，陪伴听众度过瓦格纳这部长达 15 个多小时的剧作”。那是 45,000 字的“对音乐、神话、角色和思想的实时洞察”。

显然，目前已经有了 200 份同步指南。这对我来说是个新消息。公平地说，这并不是那种你随随便便就能撞见的功能。它一点也不直观。进入 Apple Classical 主页，选择“搜索”，然后弹出一页图标。聆听指南部分显示了已获得该处理的专辑；当你开始播放曲目时，点击底部的微小高音谱号，终于，你进去了。

随着音乐的推进，高亮显示的文字也随之移动。例如，在一段著名的钢琴协奏曲的前几秒：“在轻柔的低语伴奏之上，独奏钢琴用双手演奏一个简单且非常朗朗上口的主题……”如果脱离音乐只读文本，对于音乐爱好者来说将是一个有趣的挑战。

无论如何，你可以理解为什么瓦格纳的《指环》非常适合同步评论——以及为什么需要整整一年时间才能完成。该系列中有数十个主导动机（leitmotifs）；到我们听到《诸神的黄昏》时，它们几乎出现在每一个小节中，尽管它们如此美丽，以至于我们几乎没有察觉。

可惜，乐谱中并没有标注它们，所以

瓦格纳的“铁道迷”们总是为了某一组音符代表的是诅咒还是对爱情的放弃，或者指环动机在哪个时间点变成了瓦尔哈拉而争吵不休，诸如此类。

市面上存在好几份竞争性的名单，有些包含近 200 个条目，而且绝对能让普通听众无聊到流泪。

另一方面，你不能完全忽视主导动机，因为它们推动着故事前进，经常揭示出你在剧本中找不到的信息。但稍一眨眼你就会错过它——而且坦白说，在罗西尼所称的瓦格纳的“糟糕的十五分钟”（mauvais quarts d'heure）期间，很容易眨眼。

聆听指南救了我！在《诸神的黄昏》序曲中诺恩三女神的漫长哀鸣期间，评论让我保持清醒，随后便是我在整个系列中最喜欢的时刻，始于布伦希尔德在事后那声“噢！神圣的众神！”的惊呼。

这是 Apple 的描述：“下降的‘齐格弗里德的任务’动机与布伦希尔德新的‘爱情’动机狂喜地结合在一起……致敬最终变成了一场二重唱：他们互相问候，达到顶。

长话短说，Apple Classical 应用是我最新的心头好

……为布伦希尔德（Brünnhilde）唱出一个高音C。”这种细节程度恰到好处，而我的 iPad 在无需提示的情况下就将其呈现出来，让我能够忘掉那乏味的剧本。毋庸置疑，比尔吉特·尼尔森（Birgit Nilsson）像激光一样精准地击中了那个高音C，而索尔蒂（Solti）则将维也纳爱乐乐团煽动至狂热，迸发出“对齐格弗里德（Siegfried）和谐号角召唤的一次狂欢式处理”。噢，太绝了！

长话短说，Apple Classical 应用是我最新的心头好。我迫不及待地想在聆听《戈德堡变奏曲》时使用同步评论功能：我很尴尬地承认，在听了几十年之后，我经常分不清卡农变奏和非卡农变奏。同样，我仍然需要额外的指导来告诉我马勒（Mahler）的展开部是从哪里开始的。

但是，如上所述，Apple 仍然沉溺于那些自以为是的幻想中。它会浪费自己的这项新超能力吗？我想知道是否有一些穷困潦倒的音乐评论家被强迫为路易丝·法伦克（Louise Farrenc，1804-75）的某部交响曲撰写同步评论。

想象一下，如果文本没有按照既定剧本那样大肆赞美，而是讲述真相：“在这里，作曲家开启了自动驾驶模式，轻飘飘地滑向主调，并接上了一个缺乏创意的尾声……”

转念一想，还是别这样了。我刚刚想起是哪家公司制造了——并且大概能窥视内部的——我正在输入这些文字的电脑。所以……Apple，请引导我的聆听吧！

约翰·麦凯布（JOHN McCABE） 第二、第三交响曲及大提琴协奏曲

评分：B+

人们过去称它们为“切尔滕纳姆交响曲”——这是一个统称，指代那些在切尔滕纳姆音乐节中找到天然归宿的大规模、倾向传统的战后作品。但这同时也是一种嘲讽：是对 20 世纪 60 年代和 70 年代英国音乐所谓狭隘性质的挖苦。在欧洲，前卫派正利用马克思主义和电子设备进行各种花哨的尝试。而当时的叙事是，英国音乐是郊区化的、过时的且单调的。

现在请听约翰·麦凯布 1978 年创作的第三交响曲。麦凯布的管弦乐编曲像极乐鸟一样华丽；它像气泡表面的色彩一样闪烁。但这并不意味着麦凯布的音乐工程有什么脆弱之处。麦凯布是一位出生于利物浦并于 2015 年去世的音乐家，他是一位极其聪明的钢琴家（他的海顿录音至今仍无可匹敌），事实上，第三交响曲的灵感就来自海顿，以及麦凯布的另一位交响曲英雄卡尔·尼尔森（Carl Nielsen）。

你绝对猜不到这一点。麦凯布的想象力——在这部作品以及规模更大、风格更严峻的 1971 年第二交响曲中——具有一种独立支撑的力量，这种力量延续到了他晚年的大提琴协奏曲《歌线》（Songlines）中，由拉斐尔·沃尔菲施（Raphael Wallfisch）雄辩地演绎。不要被这个带有嬉皮士色彩的标题所迷惑；它更接近肖斯塔科维奇，而非世界音乐。

这三部作品都由美国指挥家肯尼斯·伍兹（Kenneth Woods）以炽热的信念驱动，在过去的十年中，他致力于复兴并记录英国被忽视的交响乐遗产。总有一天我们会感谢他。与此同时，BBC 苏格兰交响乐团像孔雀一样昂首阔步——毕竟，当伍兹和麦凯布让他们听起来如此出色时，他们为什么不这么做呢？

—— 理查德·布拉特比（Richard Bratby）

《旁观者》世界版

交易的艺术

用一套专属的《旁观者》扑克牌，邀请政治家、皇室成员和世界领导人参与您的游戏。提供蓝色和红色两种款式——非常适合桥牌玩家。

扑克牌采用由莫滕·莫兰（Morten Morland）绘制插图的礼盒装，可直接作为礼物赠送。

立即订购：spectator.com / deck

毫无生活气息 劳埃德·埃文斯（Lloyd Evans）

“你喜欢动物吗？”门口一个为动物园募捐的女人问道。“不喜欢，我讨厌它们，它们总想杀了我，”我回答道。这让她走开了。我对动物的敌意让我感到有些羞愧，这种情绪是我从母亲那里继承的。她在爱尔兰农村长大，她厌恶乡村以及那里所有不会说话的居民。在她看来，动物要么是捕食者，要么是食材，她尤其鄙视鹅、大鼠、小鼠、松鼠和狗。“害虫，”是她最喜欢的名词之一。而且她认为“宠物”这个词是一种自我欺骗的幻想。这似乎很合理。动物无法被驯服，但它们的主人可以被欺骗。任何野兽在被逼入绝境时都会变得凶残。

如果你需要的话，我有一个生存技巧。18岁那年，我在经过以色列北部的一个阿拉伯村庄时被一只狗袭击了。一只咆哮的杂种狗从一片树丛中窜出，对我猛烈地吠叫。我继续向前走，压抑着恐惧，希望展现出一种不可战胜的冷静。这奏效了。那只狗退缩了，我继续走着，庆幸危险已经过去，但它突然从身后冲上来，用它的牙齿咬住了我的脚踝—。

对狗的厌恶进入了我的灵魂。它至今仍在那里溃烂。但人们不喜欢讨厌狗的人，所以我将其隐藏起来

[接前文]……的颚骨。本能接管了我的身体。我僵住了。它的牙齿撕裂了我的肉，但我没有移动，也没有发出声音。这让它感到困惑。也许它以为我变成了一棵树或一根篱笆桩。它意识到我不是一顿美餐，于是松开了口，在附近潜伏，等待着。

我像个系船柱一样僵在原地，维持了几分钟，直到它悄悄溜走。它在我的肉上留下了牙印，起初是血迹，后来变成了结痂。没有什么比一个胆小的食腐恶魔在我的皮肤上刻下的那半圆弧形犬齿印更让我感到恶心了。对狗的厌恶进入了我的灵魂。它至今仍在那里溃烂。但人们不喜欢讨厌狗的人，所以我将其隐藏起来。

我曾经认识一个女人，她热爱所有品种的狗，除了两种。阿富汗猎犬——“它们穿那种喇叭裤的样子太傻了”——以及大麦町犬。“它们真的很笨，”她会对我这么说，并压低声音以免被它们听到。受她的热情感染，我也开始欣赏某些品种的古怪之处。卢瑟犬（lurcher）即使在干燥时，看起来也像刚从洗车房出来一样。格雷豪德犬（greyhound）看起来像一只被告知自己是超级名模的大老鼠。腊肠犬的管状身体则像一辆加长豪华轿车。

爱狗人士使用与枪支持有者相同的论点，声称狗是无辜的，错误在于它们的人类监护人。这在某种程度上是真的。有时新主人忘记喂狗，结果狗吃掉了一个或两个婴儿，从而让整个物种名声扫地。这或许可以解释对“救援犬”的狂热。如果一只救援犬表现得温顺，新主人会将其归功于自己；如果它失控并杀人，旧主人则会被指责。

我想相信狗并非那么糟糕。但它们不断地在说服我，它们理应被枪毙。去年夏天，我正穿过伦敦西部的一个公园，那里一名训练师正在教一只秃顶、形状像拳头一样的杂种狗去捡网球。它像一颗塑料子弹一样在草地上疾驰，在叼起球后，全速冲回训练师身边。我意识到我的路线将与这只杂种狗的高速轨迹相交，于是我减速停下，但它直接撞上了我的脚踝，弹开后飞奔而去。它的头骨以 18 英里的时速撞击了我的脚踝。训练师没有承认这头畜生试图截断我脚趾的行为。在那之后的几周里，我一直跛行。

也许我有一种会让狗受惊的气场。它们会随机地对我嚎叫和吠叫。或者它们从门口跳出来，对着我的脸咆哮。我注意到太阳镜会让它们紧张，所以如果我看到一只比特犬盯着我，我会摘掉墨镜。几年前，我骑车经过奥运村，一只斜眼的西班牙猎犬在我的前轮旁嬉戏。我失去了平衡，重重地摔在柏油路上。坐在长椅上观看的主人赶紧跑过来，看看他那半盲的玩伴是否受伤。他将这头畜生抱在怀里，退回到座位上，揉了揉它的头，然后

我想相信狗并非那么糟糕。但狗一直在说服我，它们应该被枪毙

在他耷拉的耳朵里低声说着安慰的话。我仍然瘫在小路上，气喘吁吁，在心中盘点着受损情况。手掌擦破了，肋骨疼，一个膝盖被割破并淤青。没什么大碍。主人茫然地看向我的方向。“狗没事吧？”我问他。“太兴奋了，”他说，“她得回家了。”

在 TikTok 上，我看了很多狗袭击人的视频，令我惊讶的是，极少有主人知道如何安抚一只歇斯底里的动物。大喊大叫、挥手比划、拉扯项圈或用扫帚柄敲打只会加剧它的愤怒。当然，你可以攻击这只狗，但请确保将其杀死。一个非致命的打击只会延长攻击过程。这门至关重要的课程应该在小学就教授。坦白说，我们生活在一个“狗吃人”的世界里。我已经选好了我的阵营。有一天，你可能也得做出选择。

狗狗的生活 Sophia Money-Coutts

在我周二的举重课上，有三位女性即将结婚。当我们做深蹲、挺身并挥舞着壶铃时，话题始终围绕着面纱、装饰、前往场地的交通方式，以及现在是否还有人吃婚礼蛋糕。这门举重课允许男性参加，但奇怪的是，从来没有人出现。

本周其中一位准新娘带来的重大更新是，当地的登记处已允许她的狗参加仪式。于是，她给Badger买了一套“小礼服”，好让它看起来像那么回事。

我们如何看待婚礼上的狗？考虑到出生率的下降、狗数量的激增，以及人们感叹年轻人越来越多地放弃生育孩子而选择养可卡普（cockerpoo），看到一只狗跑过婚礼走道已变得越来越普遍。它的项圈上甚至可能挂着一个小袋子，里面装的不是便便袋或饼干，而是戒指。既然可以让狗担任戒指持有者，为什么还要依赖那个没用且宿醉的伴郎来记得带戒指呢？

如果让我带上我的Dennis，我会很紧张。它吞下的禁忌物品清单包括但不限于：人行道上的纸巾、丢弃的鸡骨头、塑料瓶盖、一个吃豆人玩具、597个泡沫耳塞、马栗、圆珠笔的塑料碎片、袜子，以及偶尔的一块内裤裆部。我不敢打赌它会对一颗三克拉的单钻戒指毫无兴趣。

如果你允许狗参加，那么其他宠物也可以吗？当然，在一些乡村婚礼上，马并不罕见；我曾经参加过一次汉普郡的婚礼，当我们进入帐篷时，有几只羊驼在迎接我们。但如果新郎想带他的蟒蛇或塔兰图拉蜘蛛怎么办？如果他有这种倾向，能找到愿意嫁给他的人已经很不错了，但部分宾客可能会感到不安。

关于狗的政策在各区议会之间有所不同。例如，伊斯灵顿市政厅非常支持婚礼带狗，尽管每对新人只允许带一只狗，且有一系列规则。网站规定，你必须阻止你的狗爬上市政厅的家具，并携带湿纸巾以“清理任何脏乱”。听到了吗，婚礼随行人员？一件旧的，一件新的，一件借来的，一件蓝色的，顺便再带一包滴露湿纸巾。布罗姆利区议会在其所有场馆均执行一刀切的禁狗政策。切尔西市政厅允许带狗，但仅限于拉布拉多（开玩笑的，西班牙猎犬也受欢迎）。与此同时，英格兰教会没有官方的禁狗政策。如果你在教堂举行婚礼，需要与相关的牧师商量。

带狗参加婚礼已变得如此流行，以至于出现了各种满足这一需求的业务。Precious Pets Weddings自称是“英国原创的婚礼狗狗陪同服务”，覆盖超过50个场馆。假设我要结婚（别笑，试着想象一下）。如果我能克服对Dennis将戒指当成美味零食的恐惧，Precious Pets会在当天帮我。

根据其网站，它会在我婚礼当天早晨接走它，进行一次仪式前的散步，以“消耗掉任何婚前兴奋感”，并确保它保持冷静，而不是在酒吧里和迎宾员一起狂饮啤酒。他们会给它打扮得“准备好拍照”，然后把它带到场馆或教堂，好让Dennis能够“熟悉”环境。如果我想的话，它可以乘坐其“婚礼之轮”车辆抵达上述场馆，车上装饰着爪印蝴蝶结和丝带。这辆车内置了摄像系统，以便我想记录Dennis盛大抵达的画面。

Precious Pets会在仪式期间照顾它，拍摄它高光时刻的照片，然后将其迅速送回约定的地点。Dennis没有招待会。它只会霸占所有的开胃小点，并在舞池里做出某些不可描述的行为。这项服务的费用起价为£425。

“面对这些山火，邮轮旅行从未如此诱人。”

这是一门大生意，因为根据英国导盲犬协会（Guide Dogs UK）的一项调查，现在超过 90% 计划举办婚礼的狗主人希望他们的爱犬能参与其中。而且，戒指持有者并不一定是唯一的角色。狗

我曾参加过一场汉普郡的婚礼，当我们进入帐篷时，一群羊驼在迎接我们

显然，狗狗们还可能陪新娘走过婚礼走道，与伴娘或花童一起担任“花狗”，并出现在家庭合影中。令人震惊的是，42% 的受访者表示他们还希望让自己的狗参与到第一支舞中。怎么参与？PETA（善待动物组织）知道这件事吗？在当地一个蹩脚的乐队大声演奏《Can't Help Falling in Love》翻唱曲时，让可怜的狗参与到某种尴尬的奇观中，在我看来这极其像是一种虐待。

灾难故事似乎相对常见。有撕碎花束的狗；有在关键时刻前跳进湖里，然后把水甩在新娘洁白婚纱上的狗；还有比所有人更快抢到婚礼蛋糕，结果因为吞了太多葡萄干而不得不被兽医紧急洗胃的狗。即便如此，Precious Pets 网站显示他们已经在接受 2028 年的预订了，所以尽管“真命天子”依然难以寻觅，也许我应该先定个日期，以防万一？

'你们卖“水”水吗？'

《旁观者》

以更敏锐的方式度过一周

认识一下 Today, Tonight 和 Weekend —— 由我们的美国团队为您提供，直接发送至您收件箱的每日时事通讯

在 spectator.com / newsletters 注册

地点

享乐奥德赛

在伯罗奔尼撒迷失的乐趣

爱丽丝·汉考克 (Alice Hancock)

即便你并非古典学研究者，且喜爱克里斯托弗·诺兰的《奥德赛》，这部电影也很难将希腊描绘成一个诱人的度假目的地。但或许我们都得承认，尽管希腊群岛很迷人，但它们正变得有些千篇一律。

一个较少为人所知且远为令人兴奋（我敢说，具有荷马史诗色彩）的希腊是伯罗奔尼撒。这是一个深沉且黝黑的希腊——这里更适合作为干涸的沉船和暴力封建主义的背景，同时也隐藏着精品酒店和美食。这里曾深受拜伦勋爵的影响，且曾是伟大旅行作家帕特里克·利·费默的故居，伯罗奔尼撒是一个值得让人迷失其中的地区。

当气温开始从八月的高峰回落，欧洲的学校假期游客们纷纷回家后，你可能会连续几个小时见不到一个人。当我驾驶租来的斯柯达汽车在一些惊心动魄的道路上疾驰，前往欧洲大陆最南端的泰纳隆角（Cape Tainaron）时，我只看到了两个无聊的放羊男孩和另一辆迷路的游客车。

“这里没有被奥斯曼帝国占领。这里才是真正希腊人的发源地——也是革命开始的地方，”马尼半岛（Mani peninsula）的当地人帕纳吉奥塔·阿塔纳萨（Panagiota Athanassa）解释道。在地图上，马尼是伯罗奔尼撒海岸的第二根“手指”，或许也是最偏远的地区。旅游业是这里最大的雇主，且人口明显在老龄化。阿塔纳萨是几位当地人之一，他们表示直到最近三到四年，游客才开始前往崎岖的伯罗奔尼撒海岸以及其北部的山区地带阿卡迪亚（Arcadia）。另一位当地人说，美国游客直到最近才发现这个半岛：他们是从 2024 年起才开始抵达的，且大多是回访祖先之地的希腊裔美国人。

前往伯罗奔尼撒相对容易：先飞往雅典，然后走收费公路（近期已升级为全线高速公路），如果你以希腊式的速度行驶，可以在几个小时内抵达伯罗奔尼撒的核心地带。在 20 世纪 70 年代，马尼的部分地区只能通过船只和步行抵达。

你也可以——正如我所决定的一样——从雅典走乡道前往海豹之洞（Cave of the Seal），这是一个在面向科林斯湾的悬崖上雕刻而成的雄伟拱门。如果你能应对那条极其陡峭的小径，这里很值得停留。

我还曾在科林斯运河停留——这是一条于 1893 年在岩石中开凿的狭窄水道，用于连接爱奥尼亚海和爱琴海——随后在纳夫普利翁（Nafplio）过夜。得益于其色彩斑斓的威尼斯建筑，以及曾短暂担任希腊第一个独立国家首都的经历，这里无疑是伯罗奔尼撒较大的城镇中最令人愉悦的一个。

在纳夫普利翁之外，伯罗奔尼撒向广袤的偏远地带延伸。风力发电机俯瞰着来自伯罗。

大多时候，你将发现自己独自伫立在崩塌的金黄色岩石之间

……波内塞的统治：斯巴达、拜占庭、罗马。我访问了古迈锡尼，那是阿伽门农的故乡，其城堡曾楔入群山环抱的高原之中。还有米斯特拉斯，一座重要的拜占庭城市，如今是一片浪漫的废墟，沿着泰格图斯山的支脉延伸。就完整程度而言，它几乎可以与庞贝古城相媲美，但游客要少得多。大多时候，你将发现自己独自伫立在崩塌的金黄色岩石之间，只有几只流浪猫陪伴在侧。

我在马尼地区住了两个地方。两处都采用了“深”马尼典型的建筑风格：矮壮的塔楼，约有三层楼高，窗户很小以用于防御。在近年来建成但沿袭这种古马尼风格的 Aria Estate，每个房间都有一个可以俯瞰伊奥尼亚海的露台。房间被充满迷迭香、薰衣草和百里香的花园所环绕，花园之外则是一片葡萄园。泳池凿在山坡上，可以远眺墨西拿角。

Citta dei Nicliani 则是一个规模较小、更具家庭氛围的地方。塔尼娅和伊利亚斯·塞普萨斯（Tanya and Ilias Sepsas）原籍雅典，在十多年前定居马尼之前曾在巴尔干地区短暂生活，他们已将酒店的大部分经营权交给了儿子。不过，他们仍继续监督餐饮，其中许多食材来自他们的花园或当地周边——大量的橙子、粉红胡椒、莳萝和橄榄，以及一些带有柠檬香气的伊奥尼亚鱼类。

你可以在马尼度过一周的时间。去逛逛利梅尼（Limeni），这是一个环绕在小海湾周围的迷人村庄，夏天会吸引更多追求 Instagram 拍照效果的人群。或者花上一整天徒步前往泰纳隆角（Cape Tainaron）。在顶着烈日走到欧洲大陆的最南端后，回报是在安静的海湾中游泳，然后品尝上方 Akron Tenaro 小酒馆的腌鳀鱼。同样值得关注的还有瓦塞亚（Vatheia）村，该村因不明原因而被废弃，以及格罗利梅纳斯（Gerolimenas），这里非常适合在傍晚喝杯鸡尾酒并游泳。我还花了一个愉快的早晨在主要城镇阿雷奥波利（Areopoli）采购，那里有许多教堂和过剩的咖啡馆。

为了在返回家中之前徒步穿越阿卡迪亚山脉并呼吸山间空气，我缩短了在马尼的行程，驱车前往曼纳（Manna）（途中经过了梅塞尼更宏伟的废墟）。这家酒店曾是一家肺结核疗养院，由先驱护士安娜·梅拉-帕帕多普洛（Anna Mela-Papadopoulou）创立，她本人于 1938 年死于该病。现在这里是一家具有斯堪的纳维亚风格的高端酒店。

业主斯特拉蒂斯·巴亚塔斯（Stratis Bayatas）小时候常在这座废墟建筑中玩耍，并监督了其改造过程。灯光设计由那位为卫城提供照明的人操刀。但这里绝不矫揉造作。即使是奥德修斯，可能也会乐于在曼纳暂停旅程，在全天徒步后享用当地蜂蜜和香氛羊肩肉。被松林环绕，我感觉到——与我们的英雄不同——我真的不想回家。

Wiki Man 寻找我的声音 罗里·萨瑟兰

你们当中年纪较大且更有钱的人可能还记得 20 世纪 80 年代和 90 年代那些并不令人怀念的商务舱飞机座椅。每隔几年，各大航空公司都会自豪地宣布其长途商务舱提供了多么惊人的额外腿部空间，以及座椅倾斜角度的增加。而每一次，体验反而变得更糟。

现在，当你前面的人倾斜座椅时，他们会侵占你越来越多的空间。于是你别无选择，只能效仿。由此产生的纳什均衡意味着机上的每个人都被迫在整个旅程中以 45 度角向后倾斜。想要去洗手间，就得与坐在走道旁的人玩一场不由自主的“扭扭乐”游戏。

全平躺床位是一次顿悟。它不仅是一张真正的床，而且恢复了乘客的领土完整。而且你终于可以去厕所而不用担心被列入性犯罪者登记册。回想起来，这是一个完美的例子，说明了当每个人都追求错误的基准，以及当一种

以每分钟 150 个单词的速度说话比以每分钟 40 个单词的速度打字更容易保持礼貌

个体理性的行为在集体层面变得灾难性时会发生什么。

与此同时，从 1983 年起，一种同样具有传染性的愚蠢正渗透到基层商业生活中。这就是键盘的癌变式扩散。年轻人将键盘视为传统的办公家具。其实不然。是的，QWERTY 键盘已有 150 年历史，但在专业环境下由每个人亲自输入文字的做法始于 1983 年左右，当时电子表格开始将计算机（以及键盘和屏幕）搬上管理者的办公桌。在此之前，打字是严格由秘书负责的。

电子表格要求人们在屏幕上立即看到每次输入的后果。这种低延迟——即立即看到更改并随时编辑的能力——导致人们摒弃了打字员池。每分钟能打 90 个单词的专业打字员被每分钟打 20 个单词的高薪主管所取代——这是分工的逆转。

因为我们没有参考标准，所以我们从未注意到键盘有多糟糕，以及它们是如何变得更糟的。与现代手机上的触摸屏键盘相比，那些发出咔哒声的 IBM 键盘简直是极好的。但同样的纳什均衡在这里适用——又是那个倾斜座椅的问题：当键盘与电子邮件结合时，一种简短、欠考虑的异步沟通方式被强加给了每个人。曾经在桌边几分钟内就能做出的决定，现在由那些用两个手指打字的人们在数周内艰难地敲定。生产力的损失是灾难性的，但却是无形的。

救赎可能就在眼前。基础的语音听写从未兑现其承诺，但如果在麦克风后面放置一个语言模型，你就拥有了比听写机更好的东西：就像圣保罗、西塞罗、约翰·弥尔顿和芭芭拉·卡特兰那样，你现在拥有了一名秘书。这位秘书比我更懂得如何拼写斯拉沃热·齐泽克的名字，知道拉内利（Llanelli）是威尔士的一个集镇，并且能去掉所有的“呃”和“嗯”等口头禅和感叹词——这一切我都是作为测试而口述的。我使用一款名为 Wispr Flow 的产品，它改变了我的生活。为了透明起见，我现在是该公司的一名微小投资者——但我成为投资者是因为，就像雷明顿广告里的那个家伙一样，我喜欢这个产品。

键盘被取代所带来的影响将是巨大的，我将来会就此写——或者更准确地说，是口述——更多内容。但我最早的发现之一是，以每分钟 150 个单词的速度说话，比以每分钟 40 个单词的速度打字更容易保持礼貌。互联网上部分恶意情绪的来源，就在于粗鲁与简短往往是相伴而行的。正如那个老笑话所说：为什么在格拉斯哥，支持流浪者队的球迷比支持凯尔特人的球迷多？因为喊“去他妈的教皇！”比喊“去他妈的自由长老会首席主持人！”要容易得多。

亲爱的玛丽，你的问题解决了

Q. 我和邻居关系很好。她养了一只拉布拉多，我养了一只杰克罗素梗。如果我没法遛狗，她会帮我，反之亦然。昨天我的女儿意外来访，她在楼上时听到邻居打开前门，叫我的狗出去散步。五分钟后，她听到狗被带回了家。我不想和邻居闹僵，但我每次遛她的拉布拉多至少会走 45 分钟，而我的狗每天需要

一次正经的散步。我该怎么处理？ ——N.B.，斯托克布里奇

A. 宠物健身追踪器现在非常流行——系在项圈上，可以计算步数并提供 GPS 追踪。买一个（大约 \$80），把它展示给你的邻居看，同时向她展示你现在准备用来记录狗狗步数的墙历。建议她也给自己的狗买一个。这一举措应该能预先杜绝未来任何想要在你的杰克罗素梗身上“偷工减料”的诱惑。

Q. 我最近被一位有身份的女士训斥了，因为我说我被邀请去参加 grouse shooting（红松鸡狩猎）。她让我明白正确的表达应该是 “to shoot grouse”。事实上这正确吗？如果真是这样，我这 40 多年来一直都错了。同样的规则是否适用于雉鸡、鹧鸪、鸭子、鹬等？或许害兽除外？请您指教。 ——N.C.，威尔特郡，斯坦顿圣伯纳德

A. 我将您的问题请教了两位有身份的体育运动人士。一位 70, 岁，他说他习惯说被邀请去 shoot grouse, pheasant, duck 等。他的儿子 30, 岁，说他习惯说被邀请参加 grouse, pheasant 或 duck shooting。不过两人一致认为，如今这两种表达方式都是可以接受的。这种考据虽然有趣，但在狩猎领域现在已经无关紧要了，因为绝大多数能负担得起狩猎活动的人，根本就没接触过什么才是、或者什么不是语法错误。

Q. 我很高兴下周被邀请参加一个苏格兰家庭派对，但我听说主人的传统是早餐后给客人提供 baps（圆面包）和多种馅料选择，邀请客人自己制作野餐午餐。我不想因为只拿肉类和沙拉而引起注意，但我正拼命尝试避免摄入小麦。我该怎么办？

（姓名与地址保密）

A. 像其他人一样拿一个圆面包，但偷偷带一份 Nairn's 无麸质原味燕麦饼和一把一次性勺子。悄悄地把圆面包留给当地的海鸥，用燕麦饼来增加馅料的分量。没人会注意到。

请写信给亲爱的玛丽： dearmary@spectator.co.uk

关于……的笔记

[...OMITTED...]

剃须

奈杰·琼斯（Nigel Jones）

前几天我看着曾祖父的一张照片，十分赞赏他的胡须。那是一把壮观的铲形大胡子，一直垂到胸口的一半。他生活在维多利亚时代，当然，那个时代首先就是胡须的世纪。所有著名的维多利亚时代男性，如达尔文、狄更斯、索尔兹伯里伯爵和阿尔伯特亲王，都蓄胡须。

当唐纳德·特朗普和皮特·海格塞斯（Pete Hegseth）最近宣布所有美国军人都应剃净胡须时，我突然想到，如果这条规定在 19 世纪 60 年代就存在，美国内战可能永远不会爆发，因为双方的所有高级将领都拥有茂密的面部毛发。其中一位联邦军指挥官安布罗斯·伯恩赛德（Ambrose Burnside）在这一点上尤为浓密，以至于他的名字成为了“鬓角”（sideburns）一词的由来。然而，英国陆军与皇家海军不同，通常对胡须持否定态度。在第二次世界大战中，只有古怪的奥德·温盖特（Orde Wingate）将军获得了蓄胡的特许。

那些蓄胡的人为什么要这么做？毕竟，胡须对佩戴者来说很痒，对任何与其亲密接触的人来说则很扎人。食物残渣会卡在里面，而像我这样的一些男人则会感到自卑，因为他们永远无法长出哪怕是一把像模像样的胡须。当然，每天进行一次干净且令人振奋的剃须，把胡须全部剃掉会好得多吧？

古代世界在胡须问题上同样分歧严重：希腊人和罗马人以剃净胡须为荣，而亚述人和埃及人则将胡须视为某种崇拜的对象，将其修剪并卷曲成极其复杂且痛苦的地位象征。

近代早期的西方世界在对待胡须的态度上在几个世纪之间摇摆：在 15 世纪初，亨利四世国王蓄着分叉胡，可能是为了弥补他那大面积秃顶且患有疥疮的头皮。几百年后，那位“吟游诗人”也深受秃顶之苦，但他却在下巴上蓄了一把整洁的小尖胡，纯粹是为了证明自己能长出来。到了 17 世纪，面部毛发被用来标志着将王国撕裂的宗教和政治分歧：内战不仅是关于君权神授和议会治理的冲突，也是下巴光洁的清教徒与蓄尖胡的骑士党之间的冲突。剃刀在整个 18 世纪占据主导地位，直到维多利亚时代，胡须才再次风靡一时。

在名字十分讨喜的美国商人金·坎普·吉列特（King Camp Gillette）于 19 世纪末推广安全剃刀并横扫竞争对手之前，人们使用的是“直剃刀”（cutthroat razors）。

剃须技术在 20 世纪随着电动剃刀的发明再次实现了巨大的飞跃。剃须曾由理发师完成，但现在通常成了私人个人护理的事。这可能是因为理发师被不公正地与虚构人物斯威尼·托德（Sweeney Todd）——这位舰队街的恶魔理发师——的活动联系在一起，或者是由于黑帮分子阿尔伯特·安纳斯塔西娅（Albert Anastasia）的处决，他在 1957 年纽约的一家理发店剃须时被枪杀。

如今，现代男性中早秃或光头的神秘流行，往往被时髦人士（hipsters）通过蓄起浓密的胡须来弥补。人真是纯粹（shear）得没边（nowt）。

语言之趣：瑜伽

“好吧，我们每个人都有知识盲区，”我想，我丈夫说话时的语气显得过于得意了。他是在回应我的坦白——我活到了这个年纪，竟然一直没意识到“yoga”（瑜伽）和“yoke”（轭 / 束缚）这两个词有着相同的起源。

“Yoke”在英语中已被使用超过 1,000 年，而“yoga”大约是从 1785 年起才开始使用的，但它在公元前第一个千年起就已在梵语中使用。瑜伽的含义被认为要么是对感官的束缚和克制，要么是将自身与普拉纳（Prana，生命能量）、唵（Om，宇宙原始之音）以及宇宙相结合。

在一个或许平行的意义领域中，早期基督教作者将“religio”（宗教）与“religare”联系起来，意为“将信徒与上帝联系在一起之物”，尽管西塞罗将其与“religere”联系在一起，意为“重新阅读”——即仔细地遵守仪式。

那个最终演变为英语中“yoke”的印欧语词汇，也为许多相关语言提供了类似的词汇。在希腊语中，“轭”是“zugon”；在拉丁语中是“iugum”。甚至芬兰人似乎也借用了这个词，形式为“jukka”，意为“雪橇的横杆”。

与此同时，瑜伽在印度宗教的梵语词汇中安稳地沉睡着，直到西方时尚开始流行瑜伽课程。“瑜伽垫”这个名称最早在 1962 年被注意到，那是一个具有里程碑意义的年份，同年还诞生了《约吉熊秀》。

这只著名的熊是否因为显而易见的原因，其名字源自“yogi”（瑜伽修行者），即瑜伽的精通者？《牛津英语词典》对此持谨慎态度：“人们经常说，这个角色之所以如此命名，是暗示了美国棒球运动员劳伦斯·彼得·‘约吉’·贝拉（Yogi Berra，1925-2015）的名字，他以幽默风趣著称，但这难以证实，且已被创作者否认。”

贝拉的绰号来自一位朋友，对方认为他盘腿等待的姿势像电影里的瑜伽修行者。很难想象杰利斯通公园的那只熊没有共享贝拉这个关于瑜伽的绰号。

—— 朵特·沃兹沃思（Dot Wordsworth）

2026年令人兴奋的《旁观者》新旅程

今年我们将拓展视野，诚挚邀请读者与奥利维亚·波茨一同前往意大利，与乔纳森·雷一同前往纳帕。我们的旅程始终充满知识性、非正式且有趣。您将与志同道合的读者交流，并访问那些通常不接待游客的地方。 我们的旅程由我们的好友——屡获殊荣的豪华旅行专家 Kirker 假期旅行社负责监督。快来加入我们吧！

欲了解更多信息，请访问 spectator.com / tastings

纳帕谷与索诺玛，与乔纳森·雷同行 7 晚 / 11月 17 - 24日

今年，我们邀请读者参加首次全方位接触的纳帕和索诺玛酿酒师之旅。我们将入住凯悦安达仕纳帕酒店（Andaz Napa by Hyatt），在山谷中往返，访问圣海伦娜、永特维尔和卡利斯托加，同时造访诸如 Domaine Carneros、Grgich Hills、Inglenook、Joseph Phelps、Schrader 和 Staglin 等名庄（仅举几例），其中几家极少接待访客。我们将体验葡萄酒列车的旅程，并光顾多家著名的酒吧和餐厅，包括乔纳森·雷最喜欢的 Mustards Grill，该餐厅以其“始终有肉，有时有土豆，极少有蔬菜”的风格而闻名。

与奥利维亚·波茨共赏松露、小餐馆与罗马美食

4 晚 / 12月2 - 6日

加入《旁观者》的“复古主厨”以及一小群志同道合的读者，一起前往这座永恒之城开启一场美食之旅。行程将包括品尝当地最佳特产、发掘隐藏的美食宝藏、会见一些顶尖的生产者，并在奥利维亚最喜爱的餐厅用餐。

这次旅行由我们的合作伙伴 Kirker 假期旅行社为我们精心策划，将带我们从当地市场走到顶级美食餐厅。冬季访问罗马的游客较少，但这正是拉齐奥大区乡村黑冬松露（Tartufo Nero）和白冬松露（Tartufo Bianco）的黄金季节，同时也是品尝经典罗马朝鲜蓟（Carciofi）、puntarelle（苦苣）和柑橘类水果，以及享用传统意面和意式面疙瘩（gnocchi）的最佳时机。

AUGUST 31 2026 | \$9.99 THE SPECTATOR WORLD

Mission to Mars

David Whitehouse on the challenge of the century

Own a piece of history

Get $30 \%$ off cartoons and covers from the world’s oldest magazine

spectator.com/shop

Use the code FRAME30 at the checkout to claim

Please note, frame imagery is for illustration purposes only

THE SPECTATOR WORLD

In popular mythology, America is the land that innovates while Europe regulates. America gets on with things while Europe prevaricates by allowing Luddites, environmentalists and all kinds of naysayers to call the tune.

There is some truth in that, which is why the growth in the US economy has outstripped that of Europe this century. It's also why America has a near monopoly in the tech sphere that now shapes our age.

Now, however, America, like Europe, finds itself consumed by a popular war against data centers. Given that these centers are the beating heart of the modern economy, just as the coal mines were the lifeblood of the industrial revolution, this presents a very big problem.

Unless it can be resolved, an eager China may very well seize the advantage and get ahead in a technological revolution that, until now, has been led by America.

Over the past few months, there has been an explosion of protests about data centers as well as legislative moves against them. As Robert Bryce reported in our last issue, the first seven months of this year saw 274 cases in which the construction of data centers across the US was either banned or subject to severe restrictions. Until this year, developers had few problems building them wherever they wanted. Now, we see increasing hostility from local residents and politicians.

New York State has passed a one-year moratorium against new construction. In Maine, legislators tried to block the building of large centers altogether, until their bill was thrown out by Governor Janet Mills. Even Loudoun County, Virginia – which is known as the world’s data-center capital – is looking at new restrictions.

There are a number of reasons for the resistance. Data centers bring noise and urbanization without, crucially, creating much in the way of employment. But

Center stage

above all they are voracious consumers of power and water. While it might be tempting to think the current industrial revolution is much cleaner than the original one, with its boilers and smokestacks, the energy consumption of data centers is extraordinary, and is growing rapidly.

Every time AI bots are upgraded, their need for power leaps to a new level. According to McKinsey, 5 percent of last year's US electricity consumption came from data centers. Google is said to use as much energy as a city of 250,000 people.

Moreover, the rush of data centers comes just as Americans are seeing their fuel bills rise. Data centers are not the only cause, of course – there is also the small matter of the

If America is to continue to be the world leader in AI, it is vital people

learn to live with data centers

Iran war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which around 20 percent of the world's crude oil supplies used to pass.

At the same time, it should not come as a surprise that people make a connection between their soaring bills and the construction work down the road: the installation of data centers is competing with domestic demand and pushes up prices for everyone.

Vice President J.D. Vance has addressed the issue. If developers want to build data centers, he says, they are going to have to address the issue of local power supplies. The federal government, he claims, will make it easier for them to combine construction of data centers with the construction of power plants.

Some have suggested that the centers provide a prime opportunity for renewables. Wind and solar plants might suit the image of a fast-growing 21st century, but sadly those who are in the business of operating data centers are generally less keen. They need access to reliable power 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Without a leap in battery technology to allow large quantities of energy to be stored at far lower costs, local gas plants are more realistic. But that does leave the issue of water consumption which, in some locations, may prove a bigger problem.

The obvious places to put data centers are in the desert, where they will annoy the fewest people. But desert areas have an acute shortage of water and present the biggest risk of the machines overheating.

It may turn out that these are transitory issues. Over time, it is quite possible that the trend in energy consumption by AI models will be reversed. It is perhaps a good thing that there is some pressure on Big Tech over energy consumption now, because it will incentivize developers to look for ways of improving the efficiency of their technology as well as its performance. This is one aspect in which China may be outpacing America, with DeepSeek claiming that its large language model can operate at one tenth of the energy consumption of its US competition. And if AI starts to consume less power, then water, used for cooling, will become less of an issue.

Even so, if America is to continue to be the world leader in AI, it is vital Americans learn to live with data centers. Democracies do not have the advantage that Chinese industry has in being able to foist its plants on the population, regardless of the level of civic opposition.

To win public affection, the data-center industry is going to have to accept that it can't simply plug its plants into the existing grid; it is, as the Trump administration insists, going to have to become a significant supplier of power, too. That will not guarantee the US eternal success in the tech sector. But it would move an important obstacle out of the way.

Flying squad, p10

Deft punk, p30

THE US EDITION

7 Diary The perfect prank Helen Andrews

8 Man on Mars The mission to the red planet will define the 21st century David Whitehouse

6 Court circular on Lee Greenwood Matt McDonald

9 Red flag Could China colonize Mars before America? Ian Williams

10 Flock and awe The case for drone policing Heather Mac Donals

13 Daniel McCarthy Class clowns

14 Billionaires' boulevard What Palm Beach reveals about America's new class system Peter Watson

17 Roger Kimball DSA vs ICE

18 Killer blow What remains of the cult of Luigi Mangione? Alex Bronzini-Vender

20 Faith delusion Why liberal Christians don’t influence elections Damian Thompson

TECHNOLOGY

22 Infinite wisdom Smarter machines are going to need smarter humans Jamie Metzl

In the soup, p9

25 Katherine Dee The future of love?

26 Written warning Don't fall for the latest scam targeting authors – I nearly did James Gray

AMERICAN LIFE

28 Max Jeffery considers the work of novelist and essayist William T. Vollmann

30 Christopher Sandford on punk band the Ramones, 50 years after their debut album

32 Sushi show Kaiseki-style menus are taking over fine dining Clarissa Sebag-Montefiore

33 Pit stop Robert F. Moss

35 New York life Josie Cox Havana life Ruaridh Nicoll

36 Local life Bill Kauffman

Fighting spirit, p52
Light and Shards, p58

Close shave, p66

BEST OF BRITISH

38 Right mess The feuding at the heart of Reform Tim Shipman

39 Astrid Alben “Crossing Millennium Bridge”: a poem

40 The Spectator's Notes Rewild brain surgery! Charles Moore

41 Plastic parsons Enjoy Anglican priests while you still can Quentin Letts

42 License to kill When does targeting the enemy become murder? Owen Matthews

43 Paul Deaton "Goldfinch": a poem

45 Douglas Murray Britain is falling into a mawkish fantasy

46 Wrinkles in time Do you have “Old Money Face?” Arabella Byrne

47 Mary Wakefield The hidden victims of “Big Surrogacy”

48 Rescue mission There's still time to save the West Mathias Döpfner

51 The whataboutery delusion Stop with the totalitarian name-calling Peter Hitchens

BOOKS & ARTS

52 Alex Burghart Harold: Warrior King By Tom Licence

54 Dennis Duncan Hot Type: The Magnificent Machine That Gave Birth to Mass Media and Drove Mark Twain Mad By Jeff Jarvis

55 Bryan Appleyard The Kiss: A History of Passion and Power By Katie Barclay Andrey Kurkov Ukrainian Lessons: Art in a Time of War By Charlotte Higgins

56 Jonathan Meades remembers the aesthete and collector Christopher Gibbs

58 Television The Shards James Delingpole

59 Exhibitions Ai Weiwei; Jasper Marsalis Digby Warde-Aldam

60 Classical music Guide my listening, Apple! Damian Thompson The Listener John McCabe Richard Bratby

BRIT LIFE

62 No life Lloyd Evans Dog's life Sophia Money-Coutts

64 Odyssey of pleasure The joy of getting lost in the Peloponnese Alice Hancock

65 The Wiki Man Rory Sutherland Your problems solved Mary Killen

66 Notes on... Shaving Nigel Jones Mind Your Language Dot Wordsworth

CONTRIBUTORS

Helen Andrews is the author of Boomers: The Men and Women Who Promised Freedom and Delivered Disaster. She writes the Diary on p7.

Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute. On p10, she explores how drones are transforming policing.

Alex Bronzini-Vender is an editorial intern at Washington Monthly. On p18, he spends a day with Luigi Mangione's last cultists.

Jamie Metzl is a technology futurist and the author of The AI Ten Commandments, Superconvergence and Hacking Darwin. He shares his doubts about the inevitability of AGI on p22.

Max Jeffery is a writer-at-large at The Spectator. He dives into William T. Vollmann's A Table for Fortune on p28.

COURT CIRCULAR | MATT McDONALD

Trump's troubadour

The stage lights flicker. The MAGA faithful whoop at the first tinkle of piano keys. They've been here a hundred times. They know what's coming.

If tomorrow all the things were gone I'd worked for all my life And I had to start again With just my children and my wife

“God Bless the USA” has been through several iterations since it first appeared on Lee Greenwood’s third album, You’ve Got a Good Love Comin’.

It was a Gold-certified single in May 1984 and the soundtrack for a short film about Ronald Reagan, which was shown at that summer's Republican National Convention. Greenwood performed the song at the 1988 RNC – and it resurged in popularity after the First Gulf War and the 9/11 attacks. Until the 2010s, it served as a paean of right-tinged American unity. But over the past decade or so, it has taken on a new meaning: Donald Trump is about to take the stage.

“I did 16 United Service Organizations tours all around the world. ‘God Bless the USA’ became a military anthem long before it became a national anthem,” says a softly spoken Greenwood. “It was popular among those people who were citizens of America by indoctrination, that would come to America to become citizens. At baseball games and football games, it became a song of spirit, rather than what it is today. As I look back at the past ten or 15 years, and now with the 25th anniversary of 9/11, it’s really become a part of American fiber.”

Henry VIII had the Venetian organist Dionysius Memo. The Sun King Louis XIV had Jean-Baptiste Lully. Trump's chief court musician is Lee Greenwood, an 83-year-old country singer from California. "I performed all over the world with him," Greenwood says. "I've been allowed the pleasure and the prominence of introducing the President more than 12 times."

He adds: “When I wrote the phrase, ‘I’m proud to be an American,’ I hadn’t heard a lot of people say they were proud to be just American… Whether you’re an Italian American, a British American, an Australian American, the only people that really have the right to put something in front of ‘American’ would be an African American, who were brought here to this continent, and Indian Americans, who were here long before the white man. Otherwise, everyone else should be an American first. That's what I wrote that line for."

Greenwood and Trump first met decades ago through a mutual interest. “My wife and I have been married 34 years. She was Miss Tennessee USA when we met in 1989,” Greenwood says. “For a number of years, she worked for Trump while he owned Miss Universe. Our acquaintance would have been during those years. We weren’t necessarily friends yet, but we certainly were acquaintances. The many times that we

'I'm not really embedded in Washington. But I serve at the pleasure of the President'

would go to pageants together, we'd be sitting near him and have a conversation when he was just a normal American citizen."

Greenwood met Kimberly (his fourth and current wife) on a USO tour, when he took three pageant queens with him to see the troops almost 40 years ago. “We became very close during that tour,” he says. “Then she finished college, and then we started dating and were married in 1992.”

Greenwood has sung for Trump at the most memorable moments of the President's political life: for America's 250th birthday after the thunderstorms; in the heat of the National Mall military parade; at the Madison Square Garden rally; at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, five days after the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania.

“In Milwaukee, we introduced him to the audience. It was electric,” the singer recalls. “He walked in with a bandage on his ear. I waited until he got in position and then I actually spoke from my heart. There was nothing scripted there. It got interesting acclaim from media because they thought that I was scripted as an announcer, but I was not. It was more, ‘I’m talking about my friend here, I’m glad that he’s alive and we hope that he can run the nation again.’”

“It’s an interesting way that I serve the nation and serve the President without being a government employee,” Greenwood says. “I’m kind of an outsider there. I’m not really embedded in Washington. But I serve at the pleasure of the President. And these events that I’ve done for President Trump have drawn a great amount of interest in my career.”

Now in his early eighties, Greenwood is keeping busy. Ever the patriot, he has just relaunched his line of Soldier Valley liquors. He still plays shows across the country. How much does performing for Trump impact his schedule? “It doesn’t really affect anything,” he says. “It really has lifted me up much higher than probably I would be as just a country artist. Sometimes I’m contacted by the White House to let me know where I’m needed and depending on my schedule… I can’t go every time, but I would say 90 percent of the time that I have a schedule that’s clear enough that I could go sing for him in a venue that he prefers.”

“I probably have most audiences from the right and not from the left,” Greenwood concedes, “only because I think they’re a little bit more adamant about anyone that aligns himself with President Trump. But I do have a lot of Democrat friends where that’s not an issue… because they recognize that I am an artist first and a musician and a singer who actually is pretty good at what I do.”

In the next few weeks, Greenwood is due to perform ahead of President Trump's appearance at the RNC's “midterm convention” in Texas and at the NASCAR Bass Pro Shops Night Race in Bristol, Tennessee. “I will be with the President in Dallas,” he says, “And probably the next night, which would be 9/11, probably in New York. I understand there’s going to be more than one president in attendance for that event.”

And next year, for the first time since 2003, Greenwood will release new songs – on the Gaither Music label. “I’m actually doing a new gospel album,” he says. “We already got the tracks done. I’ll do the vocals before the end of the year. It’ll be out in the spring. I don’t do much writing anymore... I have a 28-year-old son who is a music producer and engineer, and he has co-written the songs with me.”

Hopefully Greenwood is able to complete his recording schedule alongside his singing duties for the President. After that, at least he'll know he's free.

I sometimes feel like I have lost ten IQ points per child. If my husband and I ever have a fourth, I might have to quit writing altogether and find a less cognitively demanding line of work – maybe run for political office. The causes of “mommy brain” are disputed. Studies have shown that, after she gives birth, certain parts of a woman’s brain become more active while others shrink. Once this was thought to be a result of temporary hormone changes, but now scientists believe that pregnancy causes a woman’s brain to be permanently restructured. Even years after their children’s births, mothers’ brains still show a reduction in gray matter volume. A scan of my brain would doubtless look like an aerial map of North Korea and South Korea, with a black expanse in the region responsible for retaining new information but a lively skyline in the region that invents creative answers to unexpected questions. The five-year-old, our eldest, is a fount of these.

The five-year-old and I recently had a long conversation about invasive species after he saw me kill a spotted lanternfly. The rule in our house is that we don't squish bugs or spiders for no reason, so I explained that these bugs didn't belong here, they came over by accident on a ship from Asia and they were throwing the local ecosystem out of balance. You know how Daddy is from Australia? I continued. Well, Australia had a problem with invasive rabbits from England that were eating all the plants and leaving nothing for the wombats and the wallabies, so the government released a virus that killed all the rabbits. Having summoned the image of a rabbit hecatomb, I hastily explained that little boys and girls who had pet rabbits could take them to the vet for a vaccine to protect them from the virus. Here the five-year-old jumped in. What would happen if a group of wild rabbits went to a vet and pretended to be someone's pets in order to get the vaccine? I told him that would make a good plot for a movie. He was off and running like a Hollywood VP of development. The wild rabbits would need to have a domesticated rabbit friend to explain the whole vaccine situation to them. The movie can't end with them just returning to the Outback, because they are still an invasive species,

DIARY

Helen Andrews

so we'd need to get them on to a ship back to England. Maybe a native mammal could show them the devastation caused by out-of-control rabbit overpopulation and they would decide to go home on their own.

Australia is unique among the nations of the world in its willingness to use extreme measures to control pest animals. One of the government zoologists responsible for Australia's rabbit control

THE SPECTATOR Never miss an issue program wrote that his European counterparts were constantly telling him that the public in their countries would never approve plans like the ones he managed every day. Polls confirm this. Compared to Europeans, Australians are less susceptible to sentimental animal rights appeals about poor little bunnies. The zoologist attributed this to the Australian character, shaped by an unforgiving continent far from civilization where survival required a pragmatic approach to life. Australians are also keenly aware that they are the world champions of biodiversity and their country the only place on Earth for bilbies, wombats and kangaroos. Listening to my five-year-old discuss myxomatosis and calicivirus, I thought: the Australian character must be genetic.

Subscribe to get every issue plus full access to the app, website and newsletters

spectator.com/subscribe

The culture clash of raising an Australian child has been greater than I thought it would be – and I don’t just mean that all three of our children have inherited a love of Vegemite. One thing you have to know about Australians is they love pranks. Something about the larrikin spirit. When our eldest was only four, I explained to him the concept of April Fool’s Day and after that, for months, he asked on an almost daily basis if it was “prank day” yet. He brainstormed a dozen different ideas and together we refined them into high-quality gags. The one we eventually chose started with a basic food swap. He had the idea of putting whipped cream instead of sour cream on Daddy’s taco. This grew more elaborate as the weeks progressed until we had an entirely fake decoy taco: strawberry chunks instead of tomato, shredded coconut instead of cheese, mint instead of cilantro and chocolate-covered marshmallows instead of chicken in a mole poblano sauce.

I wanted our son's first April Fool's prank to go well, so I did all the food preparation out of Dad's sight. Our son assembled the regular tacos and the gag one so they would look indistinguishable. Some anticipatory giggles from the little prankster probably clued Papa in to the idea that something was up, but overall he reacted with a satisfying look of surprise. Our son was delighted. I thought, if I have enough brain cells to help him pull that off, that's enough.

Man on Mars

The mission to the red planet will define the 21st century

DAVID WHITEHOUSE

America has what might be the best evidence for life on Mars. NASA's Perseverance rover has gathered rock samples that could contain compelling biosignatures of ancient microbial life. No one is quite sure yet, and the samples need to be tested in a lab before we can conclusively prove that our distant neighbor once harbored life. Too bad. We're never going to see the results. In January, funding for the project was canceled. Donald Trump has other plans for the red planet.

He obsesses over competition with China and with planting the Stars and Stripes on alien soil. So to the horror of many of the world's scientists, Trump has pulled the US space effort away from incremental robotic exploration to prioritize human landings on the Moon and Mars.

“Americans are explorers, builders, innovators, entrepreneurs and pioneers,” Trump said during his inaugural address last year. He pledged that the US would “pursue our manifest destiny into the stars.” His understanding of space comes mainly from Elon Musk, seen by many as wildly optimistic. Musk aims to launch unmanned Mars-bound spacecraft later this year, timed to the next Earth-Mars orbital alignment, with crewed missions to follow in 2028 if the uncrewed mission succeeds.

Although Musk continues to promote this ambitious timetable, most expect it to slip, including Jared Isaacman, NASA's chief. He estimates that we won't have people on Mars for at least ten to 15 years and even that is seen as optimistic.

Many scientists have criticized the cancellation of the samples' return. Victoria Hamilton, of the Southwest Research Institute, said canceling it will overturn decades of research and diminish US space leadership on the global stage. She's not the only one. Casey Dreier, head of space policy at the US Planetary Society, said that it was an “extinction-level event” for space science.

Congress partly sided with the scientists. They rejected most of Trump's proposed cuts, allocating NASA \$24.4 billion, which was much more than expected. But Trump still wants to slash non-exploration programs such as Earth science, climate monitoring and robotic missions, and allocate the savings to human exploration.

Undaunted by congressional opposition, his 2027 budget includes \$1 billion for Mars-focused investment. The new money will be spent on building nuclear-powered spacecraft that will thrust astronauts toward Mars faster than conventional rockets and researching surface nuclear reactors to power a base.

Wider NASA funding is also being reoriented. The Space Launch System rocket and Orion crew capsule – the two main pieces of government-built hardware at the heart of

Despite scientific skepticism, putting astronauts on Mars remains one of Trump's more popular initiatives

NASA's return mission to the Moon – are to be phased out. These will be replaced with privately developed rockets and spacecraft. Trump's hope is that, by cutting back on proprietary technology for the Moon mission, NASA's focus can instead turn to sending astronauts to Mars.

John Grunsfeld, the former head of science at NASA, thinks this outcome is the worst of both worlds. He says the US will end up with less science and a budget nowhere near large enough for Trump's plans. Trading robotic science for a manned mission doesn't make sense, he says.

Yet this is how the White House justifies canceling the Mars Sample Return project: the money is better spent elsewhere. And anyway, testing whether life once existed could be achieved by future humans on Mars. Despite scientific skepticism, put-

ting astronauts on Mars remains one of Trump's more popular initiatives – a 2023 poll found 57 percent of Americans are in favor. Trump's drive is the greatest gamble since Queen Isabella of Castile symbolically offered to sell her crown jewels to fund Christopher Columbus. If the President fails, the US could lose a lot. China has plans to launch Tianwen-3 in 2028 to bring back its own Martian samples. They have a shortlist of 19 potential landing sites with the top three to be selected by the end of the year. Beijing is selected by the end of the year. Beijing is already building a high-security sample laboratory with stringent biosafety containment for analysis of Martian material.

So, while the Perseverance samples languish, China could win this important race. Should that happen, expect China to use it for all it's worth. The message will be clear: Beijing achieved what Washington could not.

Meanwhile, the race to put people back on the Moon is too tight to call. Isaacman says victory will be measured in months, not years. The US project started in 2004 and since then there has been only one human mission, the spectacular Artemis II. That was until China threatened to get to the Moon first and the US increased its pace.

Since his return to office, Trump has issued multiple executive orders aimed at countering the Chinese threat and ensuring American space superiority. He has ordered NASA to return astronauts to the Moon by 2028 and to establish the first elements of a permanent lunar outpost by 2030 to “prepare for the journey to Mars.” Every part of the US space program is being redirected at the red planet.

There are other projects that are being abandoned to meet that one goal. The US-led International Space Station is also soon to be retired, and Trump wants a series of smaller, commercially built stations in its place. Once that happens, China will have the largest low-Earth orbit station, Tiangong.

Should China win those three races – the return to the Moon, the largest space station and proving life existed on Mars – it could reshape the international order back here on Earth. Much of the world will conclude that China holds the keys to the rest of the century. That is why Trump has gambled it all on a manned mission to Mars.

No planet has embedded itself so deeply in our culture. It must have started on some African night when our ancestors, not yet human but with a spark of comprehension, pondered its strange yet familiar color. Since then, it has reminded people of a drop of blood in the sky. For the ancients, Mars represented war and ruin, pain and death. The same is true today. Mars will test humanity far more severely than the Moon. Musk's dreams of a vast migration, millions of people starting again on a new world, will collide with the harsh reality of off-Earth living. That aim is still little more than a fantasy. Mars will be hard won, as the graves on the red planet will one day testify.

For new Martians, the Sun will be an unnerving sight, smaller and with no warmth as far as it's possible to tell from inside a spacesuit or habitat. Stepping outside, there is nothing in the way of comfort. No movement except for the little caused by the wind and the rare landslide. No sound save for their own breathing in their pressure suits. And every breath must be measured, every calorie counted, every scrap of energy generated and accounted for, every crew member and relationship tolerated, every second of life meticulously planned. In all of human experience, there has never been an isolation as total as that of Mars.

In 2012, the Austrian skydiver Felix Baumgartner jumped from the stratosphere, launching himself from a capsule suspended from a helium balloon. He was at an altitude of 39 km in the very upper reaches of the atmosphere, which is cold, thin and deadly. If his suit had developed a tear, he would have lost consciousness within 15 seconds. The ambient pressure is so low that, within a few minutes, his blood would have begun to boil. Yet as Baumgartner contemplated the moment, the atmosphere around him was warmer and thicker than that found on the surface of Mars.

Jeff Bezos, the founder and funder of the Blue Origin aeronautics company, once said: "My friends who want to move to Mars? I say, 'Do me a favor, go live on the top of Mount Everest for a year first, and see if you like it – because it's a garden paradise compared to Mars.'"

The challenge of Mars will define the 21st century, alongside AI, the control of the genetic structure of our bodies, the quantum revolution, nuclear fusion and our environment. Of all these, the US and China know that it is Mars that will establish the order of things for the centuries to come.

At this moment there is briny water flowing on Mars; ice forming at the Martian poles; the morning mist is clearing from the Valley of the Mariners; a dust storm stirs in the northern plains. And the first person to visit Mars is currently living somewhere in China or America.

Red flag

Could China colonize Mars before America?

IAN WILLIAMS

A 20-year-old Chinese researcher addressed in a red crayfish costume has become a symbol of Beijing's ambition. At a scientific conference in Paris last fall, he explained that he was working on an important project. His plans would enable his country's astronauts to prepare spicy crayfish soup, a Chinese favorite, on Mars.

“That’s what we’re competing with. The vibe is good in Beijing,” Drew Endy, associate professor of bioengineering at Stanford University, said in evidence to a Senate hearing last month. The hearing examined whether the US is losing its innovation advantage to China. Concerned senators saw the big red crayfish as further evidence of the scale of Chinese ambition when it comes to Mars.

It has been more than five years since Tianwen-1, China's first Mars mission, touched down and deployed a rover called Zhurong, named after a mythical Chinese god of fire. The rover trundled off to explore the landscape of Utopia Planitia, a vast Martian plain, armed with a high-resolution camera and instruments for studying the climate and geology, as American rovers had done before it.

It operated for a year before a planned shutdown for the Martian winter but it never came out of hibernation. Scientists speculate that excessive dust blocked its solar panels. But the rover still operated for longer than planned and the mission confirmed Beijing's position as a major player in planetary exploration. China is the only nation apart from the US to successfully land on Mars.

If, as David Whitehouse writes, China does beat the US to get its hands on Martian rocks, it will be a Sputnik moment. It will also be the first step in a series of crewed Chinese missions to Mars.

Beijing is planning to begin these missions in as early as 2033, with a view to establishing a permanent base on the planet. China would then become the world's preeminent space power.

Certainly if they're the first to build a base, the Chinese would be able to exploit

Mars's resources, such as yttrium and neodymium, unencumbered by American competition. This is China's explicit aim.

The country sends more rockets into space per year than any other nation. It operates the Tiangong space station, soon to be the largest when the International Space Station is retired in 2030. China has landed on the Moon's dark side and is building a Starlink-type mega-constellation of satellites at a rapid rate.

Its space budget is estimated at around \$20 billion, still a distant second to America's, which is just shy of \$80 billion. However, that Chinese budget is expand-

The People's Liberation Army sees space as crucial to ‘first strike’ operations in any future war

ing rapidly in spite of a slowing economy – and the precise figure is uncertain because much of the program is opaque and linked to the Chinese military.

However, Beijing has not hidden its ambition to become the leading military power in space, testing anti-satellite weapons and recently a mysterious reusable robotic spacecraft dubbed the “divine dragon.” Its activities, including deploying secret payloads in orbit around Earth, are drawing the attention of US strategists. The People’s Liberation Army sees space as crucial to “first strike” operations during any potential future war.

Beijing deploys the rhetoric of furthering knowledge for mankind – especially in discussing the scientific payoffs of exploring Mars. In reality, the aim of its space program – and the Mars missions in particular – are brutally strategic, serving Beijing’s wider geopolitical ambitions. It is accordingly being given high priority.

When China launched its first satellite in 1970, it broadcast the song “The East is Red” for 20 days before its batteries ran out. Today’s propaganda is not quite as crude, but it still defines Beijing’s space program. Get ready for spicy crayfish soup in space.

Flock and awe

The case for drone policing

HEATHER MAC DONALD

In the Russia-Ukraine war, drones have leveled the playing field between economically unmatched adversaries and have provided unprecedented capacity to monitor enemy troop and equipment movements. In domestic law enforcement, they are already being used for crime scene reconnaissance, for tracking suspects and for finding missing persons.

Their greatest potential, however, lies in detecting and responding to a crime in progress before a victim or witness reports it. This is a line that police agencies have been reluctant to cross.

A quadcopter drone is a battery-powered, unmanned aircraft, held aloft by four helicopter-like propellers. They usually carry cameras capable of recording in detail objects below them or as much as 2,000 feet away. At the start of the drones-for-policing era, an officer would carry one of the devices in his squad car and launch and pilot it himself at the site where it was needed – where a missing person was last seen, say, or at a public event at risk of a terror attack. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations required drone operators to keep drones in their line of sight to avoid collisions with other aircraft. The drone and its pilot had to be near each other.

The big breakthrough came in 2018, when the Chula Vista, California, police department created the flagship Drone as First Responder (DFR) program. The idea behind DFR is that rather than arriving at an accident, missing person or hostage situation in tandem with its piloting officer, the drone would get there first to provide reconnaissance before officers arrive.

Getting first to a scene required launching drones from a central docking station rather than from an on-scene police car. A pilot in a central command center would guide the drone from afar. But such remote piloting meant that the drone was often beyond the pilot's visual line of sight, in violation of FAA rules. Obtaining a waiver from those rules was time-consuming and laborious.

The second breakthrough occurred in spring last year, when the FAA, spurred on by an executive order from Donald Trump, expedited the waiver process for law-enforcement remote piloting. The applications for waivers from line-of-sight requirements skyrocketed.

A reliable count of the police departments operating DFR programs is unavailable, but estimates put the number at 300

A drone can park itself on a table to preserve battery life and continue beaming a live video feed

to 400. Further estimates on the number of police departments using any kind of drone vary wildly from about 1,500 to 6,000. But the momentum is with DFR programs.

Drones have found missing dementia patients in minutes after conventional search-and-rescue teams fruitlessly searched for hours. They have located and tracked car thieves as they made their getaways, avoiding dangerous police pursuits (undoubtedly to the disappointment of many cops, who love to chase cars). They have unearthed criminals hiding in the woods late at night.

In April 2024, after a 911 caller reported a fight in progress in Silver Spring, Maryland, a drone recorded 45-year-old Jovan Ali stabbing his opponent and fleeing the scene. The drone led Montgomery County police officers to Ali's hiding place, where they arrested him without incident. The stabbing victim refused to testify, but prosecutors obtained a conviction anyway based on the drone footage.

In April last year, police in Dunwoody, Georgia, received an alert from a neighboring department saying that an active shooter had driven into their city. Dunwoody's license plate cameras found the suspect's car, then a drone traced the car to the roof of a car park and confirmed the suspect's identity from the tattoo on his neck. Armed with this intelligence, officers were able to effect a safe arrest.

First-responder drones provide officers with what is known as situational awareness, illustrating the layout of a potentially lethal environment before officers arrive. They can even do so indoors. If a suspect has barricaded himself in a house, possibly after taking hostages, officers can breach a door or window and send a drone in first. Some drones can break the windows themselves. Once inside, they can push open doors if they are not tightly shut and fly under tables. A drone can park itself on a table to protect its battery life and continue beaming a live video feed. The very act of sending in a drone can flush a suspect out. "They sound like loud vacuum cleaners and are psychologically intimidating," says Sergeant Justin Aita of the Talbot County Sheriff's Office in Maryland.

'It's unlikely to affect the current drought.'

Sometimes, what drones do not find is as important as what they do. Last year, Los Angeles Police Department DFR drones responded to more than 3,000 emergency calls. In 11 percent of the dispatches, the drone discovered that the 911 report was incorrect or that the situation, such as a stalled car on a highway, had already been resolved, according to the California Post. In those cases, LAPD officers could abort their missions and turn their attention to more pressing matters.

Drones have prevented officer shootings by discrediting false reports that a suspect was wielding a firearm when in fact the object in question was a BB gun or cigarette lighter.

Until recently, Chinese DJI drones dominated the law-enforcement market because of their low cost and superior performance. (A policing-caliber drone, minus a docking station and other add-ons, runs from about \$4,500 to \$11,000.) At the end of last year, however, the Federal Communications Commission blocked new sales of DJI drones, citing national security concerns. The manufacturer, SZ DJI Technology, filed a suit in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that the ban would cost the company more than \$1.5 billion in its first year alone.

That suit is still pending. But the ban provided an opening for American companies, previously the underdogs of the drone world, which are now racing to capture market share.

Goals include extending battery life (now around 20 to 50 minutes, depending on wind and other weather conditions), increasing speeds (they can currently travel, on average, at about 32 mph) and developing new capacities for autonomous operations and perceptual reach.

US companies tout the synergies with their other law enforcement product lines – Flock Safety's license plate readers automatically feed data into Flock drones if the drones used by police have not already been equipped with their own license plate technology. BRINC drones are integrated with the software of partner Motorola Solutions, which provides police department operating systems.

As a scientific matter, American law-enforcement drone companies are squarely within the world of Silicon Valley. Their unapologetically pro-police stance, however, puts them at odds with that world – and sometimes even with police commanders themselves.

Flock Safety is the most embattled of the American manufacturers, less for its drones than for allegedly sharing its license plate reader feeds with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and for several dozen cases in which individual officers used license plate readers for their own ends. Its CEO, Garrett Langley, is more than willing to fight back. In December last year, he wrote an email to the police department in Staunton, Virginia, in response to misinformation about the company's data security. "Flock, and the law enforcement agencies we partner

Their most significant potential use is being squelched by overwrought concerns about civil liberties

with, are under coordinated attack... We’ve been dealing with this since our founding, from the same activist groups who want to defund the police, weaken public safety, and normalize lawlessness.”

Such language would give many Google employees a fit of the vapours. And it spooked the Staunton authorities as well. The Staunton police chief responded primarily, saying his police department was not “under attack” but was simply experiencing “democracy in action.” And the city proceeded with plans to cancel its license plate reader contract with Flock.

Despite such skirmishes, the law enforcement world is wildly enthusiastic about drones, seeing them as a vital “force multiplier” at a time of inadequate manpower. William Bratton, former head of the New York and Los Angeles police departments, says “drones will change American policing. Their potential use is unlimited.”

Their most significant potential use, however, is being squelched by overwrought concerns about civil liberties. At present, most police departments restrict what drone cameras are allowed to see on the way to, and coming back from, first-responder jobs.

Surprisingly, the liberal California enclave of Santa Monica has less restrictive rules. On July 6, 2024, the city's police department drone was returning to its station after answering a 911 call at the beach. The pilot spotted a man punching through the lock of an SUV with a screwdriver and ducking inside; the suspected thief proceeded to break into nearby cars as well. The drone pilot directed officers to the precise location and the burglar was arrested.

Had a similar situation arisen in, say, West Hollywood or Montgomery County, Maryland, the burglar would likely have continued his crime spree unmolested. West Hollywood requires that drone cameras be turned off while they are flying to and from a job; Montgomery County says cameras must be pointed toward the horizon when drones are in transit.

Police departments are terrified of being accused of “mass surveillance,” especially with the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Freedom Foundation (another left-wing civil libertarian group) nipping at their heels. Their public-relations materials stress the limited nature of their drone use: there will be no viewing the ground until the drone arrives at the scene, unless it is an

Police departments are terrified of being accused of ‘mass surveillance’

emergency or the department has obtained a warrant from a judge. The opposition to greater use is bipartisan: many red states, such as Texas, Florida and North Carolina, codify those limitations in statutes.

In July, however, Ohio broke away from the pack. Despite fierce opposition from the Ohio chapter of the ACLU, the state passed a law allowing drones to observe what is “otherwise visible to the naked eye” without a warrant. This position conforms to the long-standing “plain view doctrine” in Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure law, which holds that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy for activities or objects exposed to public view, including from above. If an occupant of a commercial or private aircraft could see something on the ground, the police are allowed to as well, without a warrant.

Fourth Amendment law is notoriously byzantine, however, and a separate line of cases outlaws tracking a person's public movements, such as via cell phone data or aerial surveillance, if that tracking occurs over an extended period of time.

In 2020, the Baltimore Police Department ran a trial program using air surveillance to apprehend violent felons. Piloted aircraft, operating only during the day, captured pixelated images of cars and people; after a crime, data analysts could identify the pixelated dots representing the suspect during and after the crime and reverse the anonymization of the dots in order to track him down.

Brushing off the fact that the case had become moot, a majority of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, ruled in 2021 that the discontinued program constituted an illegal warrantless search. Violent crime in black neighborhoods is the product of racism, Chief Judge Roger Gregory wrote in a concurrence, as was the alleged oversurveiling of black neighborhoods. The case, Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle vs Baltimore Police Department, has undoubtedly contributed to the opposition to proactive drone flights among skittish police departments.

In an ideal world, however, drones should be allowed at the very least to observe the ground going to and from first-responder calls. Banning such plain-view recording needlessly forgoes an anti-crime windfall when police departments remain in their post-George Floyd staffing crisis.

Drones should, moreover, be allowed to search for crime as it is happening without a 911 call. If a particular neighborhood is being crushed by nighttime robberies or car break-ins, a drone could be sent on patrol. A drone could follow the public movements of members of criminal organizations, instead of using an organized crime squad to tail the suspects. Drones could watch critical infrastructure and parks. They could form virtual barriers around beleaguered synagogues. They would be automatically connected to other anti-crime technologies such as street cameras, facial recognition systems and license plate readers, so that if a land-based machine spots a warrant absconder's car, a drone would be automatically dispatched to track him until a cop could show up.

The ever-unbuttoned Flock team articulated the classic response to civil libertarian objections last December: “If you’re not involved in a crime, you shouldn’t be concerned” about a public intrusion on your privacy, a representative for the company told San Francisco’s ABC News outlet. Spotting an opening to diss a competitor, the CEO of dronemaker Skydio mocked this statement in a blog post as an unforced public-relations error. The standard retort to the “if you’re doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear” argument is the “slippery slope”: give the police this power and they will expand it until we live in a totalitarian state. This concern is valid; finding an acceptable balance between security and liberty (or, really, privacy) is an ongoing challenge. But another aspect of freedom that libertarians ignore is the freedom to use public spaces and enjoy private domains without predation or fear. The proper response to the slippery slope argument is to demand transparency regarding police activity, not to forgo technological advances that would have such large public-safety benefits.

The conflict over drones is part of a broader war on high-tech policing. Like so much today, that war is often prosecuted on racial grounds. In 2024, Chicago Mayor

Finding an acceptable balance between security and liberty is an ongoing challenge

Brandon Johnson canceled a contract with ShotSpotter, which provides automated gun-shot detection, in part because the technology showed that most shootings in the city occurred in majority black and Hispanic neighborhoods.

Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the ACLU, claims that a newly announced federal grant program to assist cities buy drones, AI systems, license plate readers and other high-tech would be trained on “communities of color... blanketing communities with surveillance and generally seeking to turn state and local police agencies into instruments of Trump’s federal government – its ideological obsessions, racism and approach of loyalty over law.”

The President's anti-crime initiatives “target low income Black and Brown communities,” according to the ACLU. Actually they target crime, which is magnitudes higher in black neighborhoods than elsewhere. (Stanley did not respond to a request for an interview; the Electronic Freedom Foundation declined to speak to me.)

Meanwhile, the innovation continues. Drone speeds are reaching 60 miles per hour, though that demands a comparable increase in long-distance visual acuity. A single pilot can now operate four drones at a time, extending the perceptual capacities of a single officer. Some drones instantly generate 3-D maps of interior and exterior spaces.

As policing gets smarter, criminals remain breathtakingly stupid – carrying a gun concealed in one's crotch to a court date, for example, or having to ask one's just-hijacked Lyft driver for instructions on driving his car (two recent examples from Chicago). For now, dumb continues to best smart, but that balance may change.

DANIEL McCARTHY

Class clowns

What would Karl Marx think of his latter-day disciples in the Democratic Socialists of America? No doubt he would find their politics largely agreeable, but they would present him with a class conundrum. DSA is not a movement of workers but of people with intellectual credentials: some 80 percent of its members have college degrees and 35 percent have advanced degrees.

Those credentials are all granted by the institutions that capitalists sustain – it’s not bricklayers who endow Harvard University. State colleges and universities depend on government funding, but government itself, under capitalism, is simply an instrument of business interests. As the Communist Manifesto says, “the bourgeoisie… since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway.”

Conservatives as well as Marxists have reason to wonder about this: why does capitalism so lavishly subsidize these self-described socialists?

Marx, after all, thought capitalism was fundamentally oppressive and unjust, expropriating from workers the value of their labor. Yet if that's what's happening, the ownership class is funneling hundreds of billions of dollars worth of stolen profits into allowing students to live for years – even a decade or more, for some with advanced degrees – without selling their own labor on the market.

What's more, Marx was quite a severe utilitarian. The “labor theory of value” does not mean that the more “work” that goes into a commodity, the more valuable it is. Goods must have some utility, for consumption or exchange, to count as products of socially useful labor. There is such a thing as socially useless activity – Marx scruples to dignify it with the label “labor” – that leads to products nobody wants to buy.

America's private institutions of higher education are centers of capital (and capitalist) accumulation: given its tremendous endowment, Harvard has sometimes been called “a hedge fund with a university attached." Some university departments – chiefly the hard sciences – do contribute to economic utility through basic research that ultimately leads to new products. Other departments and divisions, such as economics and business schools, also have a clear role in serving market interests. But the social science and humanities departments that are havens for DSA-style leftists are, in Marxist economic terms as well as capitalist ones, well and truly useless. Marxism absolutely depends on utility: a Marxist wants to redistribute profits, or return the fruits of labor to the laborer. Fruitless "labor" that makes nothing other people want to consume or exchange is tantamount to theft from society as a whole. "From each according to his ability" is a demanding rule.

Of course, there's a precedent for communists living parasitically off capitalists – that's exactly what Marx did, depending on his factory-owning friend Friedrich Engels

Education also makes a useful substitute for religion

to keep himself afloat. This is not as much in conflict with Marx's class theories, however, as it might seem. Belonging to a class doesn't strictly determine how you behave. A class possesses certain intrinsic interests, but individuals are subject to a variety of influences and can act against simple class logic. Thus, an Engels can subsidize a Marx, and a Marx, despite being “a head worker and not a hand worker,” can claim to speak for the proletariat.

But the fact that capitalists as a class do support the universities that produce DSA activists – and the fact that such activists as a class are credentialed intellectuals, not utility-producing laborers – cries out for a systematic explanation. Marxism itself provides a few.

Marx expected capitalism to generate its own opposition. If capitalists know there's a demand for socialism – if they can't get rid of it, and a capitalist economy must have a socialist movement of some kind – what kind of socialist movement would capitalists prefer to accept? Probably one with as little connection to the working class as possible. Ideally a socialist movement that is maximally hedonistic, hypocritical, stupid, and feckless. In other words, Hasan Piker.

Old-school Marxists have often seen gender-studies departments and other leftist academic extravagances as fundamentally liberal and capitalist. They foster an economically unthreatening species of radicalism: indeed, America's pharmaceutical companies love the prospect of selling hormones to transitioners for life. It would be optimal for the corporate bottom line if everyone were trans.

Education also makes a useful substitute for religion. Marx thought that capitalism needed religion to relieve the toiling masses of pain and monotony: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” Yet market-oriented materialism and its attendant morality, and the new utilitarian sciences and liberal rationalism, all eroded traditional religion. What could take its place?

The answer, in two ways, was education. It provided a new source of ideals and moral aspirations, while also promising material rewards in this life, in the future, not in a world to come. College has long been a promise of social mobility. DSA's overeducated members feel the promise has been betrayed, but this hasn't turned them against the universities – on the contrary, they're eager to send even more people into the institutions that failed them. That's the power of faith.

A conservative doesn't think Marx was right about much, but he does provide some insight into the class contradictions of the left. Marx was never more wrong than when he held the workers to be fundamentally internationalist – in his day and ours, they're natural nationalists. It's business interests and left-wing intellectuals that want open borders. In that, too, DSA is on the corporate world's side. Socialists and globalist neoliberals are partners, not rivals.

Billionaires' boulevard

What Palm Beach reveals about America's new class system

PETER WATSON

S nobbery, affectation and hierarchy are supposed to be un-American. But there are signs that social class – or more strictly income levels – are starting to stratify. People have begun to hunker down with like-minded citizens who share their values, which are more often than not determined by wealth. In fact, there is a growing trend of ultra-rich individuals who, when buying a house, buy other houses around it, and then sell on those other houses only to people they know. It even has a name: polydomory.

Provoked by Covid and the disturbing number of deaths it caused, people were persuaded to change their lives in major and relatively sudden ways. Many Californians moved to Texas, while similar numbers of New Yorkers and New Englanders decamped to Florida. It has taken a while, but these demographic changes are now beginning to shake down.

Palm Beach, the island town in southern Florida where I live, is the epicenter of America's class revolution. The most obvious sign of this comes in the form of six new condos, all along the same stretch of waterfront. The Alba Luxury Condominium (the capital letters seem inevitable) is billed as the latest installation of what is becoming “billionaires’ corridor,” a reference to the much-loved statistic here that Palm Beach Island and West Palm Beach are home to no fewer than 67 billionaires, a greater density than anywhere else on Earth.

Alba overlooks the Atlantic Ocean and the 12-mile sliver of Palm Beach Island – expensively shiny by day, glittering and glowing by night. Kenneth Baboun, manager of BGI Companies, one of the project’s developers, calls it a “milestone.” Given that the Olara, the Apogee and the Mandarin Oriental Residences will all soon join the Alba along the same length of coast, his prediction doesn’t seem too far off. And by then a stylistic alliteration will no doubt have converted the “corridor” into “billionaires’ boulevard.” So much more classy.

These will all be highly luxurious buildings, each 20 stories or so tall with, and I quote, “open-space, post-pandemic living in mind." Alba, for one, "features private event spaces for business and personal gatherings, on-site health services and oversized balconies to accommodate an outdoor kitchen." With two pool decks, a bocce court, a gym, a yoga room, a wellness center with saunas and spa and a temperature-controlled wine store for every unit, no one ever needs to leave the building.

There is also a “pet spa” (naturally), a cinema and on-site medical services through an arrangement with the Mount Sinai Health System. The whole thing is designed so only billionaires can afford to live there. The

Members of this rarefied elite can spend their entire lives separated from normal Americans

name for one of the other condos, Apogee, doesn't shy away from the vain social ambitions it encourages.

Some way from Alba is a still-unnamed project, a condo where the main attraction, at least in theory, is that it will include a private club. No less important, it is next to the Norton Museum and will have a culture garden, where residents can gather for “art and other cultural activities.” Residents will automatically be given access to various nonprofit organizations throughout Palm Beach. The basic idea is that the condo will be an organic part of the Norton Museum, possibly linked by a bridge and an exclusive “cultural/social hub.” The building is more than a condo, then, and is afforded added cultural cachet by its museum link. What’s different about this new class system is its insularity. Members of the rarefied elite can spend their entire lives separated from normal Americans, living, socializing, exercising and working in an entirely sealed world, made just for them.

The most developed site along the boulevard is the Ritz-Carlton Residences, where some 60 percent of the 138 units are already spoken for. With completion expected in 2028, this project, too, has an artistic connection, “giving residents access to museum-quality art as part of their everyday lives,” says Nick Pérez, president of condominium development for Related Group, a leading real-estate company. But what this building will offer more than anything else, says Pérez, is a “valet concierge” service to support residents in all aspects of their lives; 24-hour, in-house support for all activities, even pet care, a golf simulator and a children’s playroom. This is, in other words, a servant-on-demand service. Or what Pérez calls a “luxury ecosystem.”

Living at the Ritz-Carlton Residences comes with automatic membership to the Cove Club, one of two new clubs here, the other being the Court, which is ostensibly for racquet sports – but really it’s about socializing with your own kind. One hundred “founding families” were invited to join the Court and it’s so popular that there is already a waiting list of 700, despite an entrance fee of \$45,000 and an annual membership of \$9,500. Who else but the uber-wealthy could live in a community such as this?

Interior design is by Ward & Gray, of New York, and the photographic decorations are taken from Slim Aarons' record of “Caribbean beautiful people.” Aarons, who died in 2006, was known for his photographs of what used to be called “jet-setters.”

But perhaps the most revealing aspect of the new emphasis on class comes via the state of the schools. Public schools are, as one local expert put it, in the grip of declining birth rates, with families being driven out of the state by the high cost of living. Palm Beach County School District alone showed a fall in student numbers earlier this year of 7,895, with another 3,300 estimated to disappear in the coming year. Similar falls are being recorded for neighboring counties. At least 75 staff are being laid off.

On the other side of the divide, several private schools have opened here since Covid, many of them funded by the billionaires we hear so much about. The Greene School graduated its first class this year, while the Pine Crest School will open its third campus in West Palm Beach County. The Wingrove Academy, in nearby Wellington, is part of a Singaporean education conglomerate of 14 international private schools, where tuition ranges from \$24,000 to \$51,000 per year.

Other private schools are in the pipeline, as entrepreneurs sense a demand among families who have recently moved south, or are thinking of doing so. Given the sunny weather here, school sports are also de rigeur. Of course, the private schools play against each other, just as Eton, Winchester and Radley do in Britain. It is, in fact, a discreet form of segregation.

It's not unthinkable that, in time, Palm Beach schools could rival Groton, Choate or Deerfield. William Koch, who launched the Oxbridge Academy more than a decade ago, has seen his graduates go on to Brown University and Wellesley College. That too may change because Palm Beach school graduates will soon be able to take advantage of a new 17-acre campus of Vanderbilt University being built right here in downtown West Palm Beach. It will specialize in STEAM

Other private schools are in the pipeline, as entrepreneurs sense a demand

– that is Science, Technology, Engineering, Athletics and Mathematics. (Sport is now seen, for some, as a means to achieving billionaire status.)

But what it means, six years after Covid, is that Palm Beach's demography is beginning to change. There is a definite desire among local businesses to attract the most high-tech, high-culture, high-achieving clientele. It is noticeable that three so-called “family run” restaurants have recently announced their closures. Don’t the new Palm Beachers have much of an appetite for homespun food? Notably, the restaurants opening in their places are associated with new, sophisticated, “with-it” hotels.

The fact is: the Palm Beaches have fallen for luxury in a big way. In brochures for the condos and the clubs, the words “luxury,”

“luxurious” and “exclusive” are everywhere. The overall aim is to create a “luxury ecosystem”: an environment in which all of the many needs of the very wealthy can be met, without them having to venture into the spartan world of 7-Elevens and Home Depots.

Of course, there has been pushback. At least three residents' groups (one called Protect the Palm) are opposing these high-rise condos which, they insist, are being foisted on hitherto single-family, single-story areas. Rich developers, they say, are coordinating with local politicians in what one protester describes as “underhanded,” “pay-to-play” operations.

Where is this new class system headed? The latest innovation is, and I quote, “a newly launched British fashion house dedicated exclusively to dogs” which is seeking space for a physical store. “Chloe King London” bills itself as a “dog-focused luxury label,” offering “handcrafted leather collars and accessories made in England using traditional leatherworking techniques.”

“We’re not a pet brand,” says Edward King, the brand’s developer, ingenuously. Instead, his company is a “fashion house that happens to cater to dogs.” He uses Italian leathers too, as well as ostrich and alligator, and special leads “that connect to a wrist cuff worn by the owner.” Wrist cuff? Never forget, being posh comes at a price.

Join The Spectator at our new Manhattan home where a panel will reassess Richard Nixon's legacy – and explain why one of America's most controversial presidents is back in the national conversation.

THE SPECTATOR

A sharper way through the week

Meet Today, Tonight and Weekend — daily newsletters from our US team, delivered to your inbox

Sign up at spectator.com/newsletters

SPECTATOR TONIGH

Why America's den needs the British m

Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz again following renewed Israeli air strikes on Lebanon. J.D. Vance has called for Israeli restraint as he prepares to lead negotiations with the Iranians on Saturday. Chuck Schumer has announced that the Senate will vote on an Iran war powers resolution next week. Iryna Zarutska's alleged killer, DeCarlos Brown Jr., has been declared incompetent to stand trial. The founder of Bitcoin may have been unmasked. This is Today from The Spectator's US team.

SPECTATOR EEKEND

technology is futile

Perhaps the King can perform a s that of repairing transatlantic tie its are trying to stop something that the ways that matter, already Naturist Ray Kurzweil was prescient ays, and one of them is this: the

ROGER KIMBALL

DSA vs ICE

In the Battle of the Acronyms, perhaps no contest is more ferocious than the slugfest between the DSA – that’s “D” for dumb and “S” for commie, I mean “socialist” – and ICE (always excepting TDS vs MAGA). A wacko woman steers her car into an ICE agent. He shoots her. The media calls make up and tries to turn the dead woman into the second coming of Saint George Floyd.

There was a warehouse full of outrage just waiting to be paraded at prime time but somehow the entertainment fell flat. Renée Good, the woman in question, didn't have what it takes to triumph in the victimology sweepstakes. The anti-Trump media wept for a week and then went on to other wheezes.

Nevertheless the Democratic Socialists of America have kept an eye on ICE. The outfit charged with enforcing our immigration and customs laws is by nature a high-profile agency. If a previous administration allows, nay, encourages millions (that’s “millions” with a boatload of zeros) of grifters from the Third World to scamper over what used to be America’s southern border and set up shop in suburbia, then removing such interlopers is going to be a very public enterprise.

A year or two back, some enterprising soul had the idea of renaming ICE “NICE,” the “N” standing for “National.” Donald Trump signaled his approval but somehow the new name never caught on. I suspect that neither CNN nor the New York Times was keen on the new name. Still, I like it. For what ICE does is nice: it helps make America great again by removing people – I believe the favored word is “folx” – who have broken the law by residing in the United States illegally.

The DSA loves illegal immigrants. Why? Two reasons. First, they help fray the fabric of our common culture. Second, they are a reliable voting bloc for the left. The more illegal immigrants, the more potential voters for the left.

This is so obvious that I hesitate to set it down in black and white. But we live in a moment when the most obvious things are overlooked, misunderstood, ostentatiously lied about. What is a woman? A female candidate for the Supreme Court found that an imponderable question. Tim

Walz, the Governor of Minnesota, is so clueless that he installs tampon dispensers in schoolboys' bathrooms.

The DSA, like socialist enterprises everywhere, glories in such chaos. It's the old Orwellian trick. Get the rubes to believe that two plus two equals five and they are putty in your hands. You can then get them to believe, and do, anything you want. I think it was Voltaire who said that if you can get people to believe absurdities, it is easy to get them to commit atrocities. Experience suggests that this is true.

In “The Purloined Letter,” Edgar Allan Poe hid the incriminating document in plain sight. It took a clever detective to recognize it. Agents of the DSA are expert in such blatant acts of camouflage. The DSA

The DSA, like socialist enterprises everywhere, glories in such chaos

is a small organization. At last count it had 120,000 members. But that is up from 5,000 in 2016. How can we explain that explosive growth? Everyone knows Winston Churchill's description of socialism as the “philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy” whose “inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” This is so clearly true that it is almost embarrassing to say it.

But such is the goulash we live with today. What is a woman? Is anyone really confused about that? No, not really. But they pretend to be. Why? In a word, power. Perhaps the most obvious phenomenon in

American culture is the sudden efflorescence of anti-Semitism, especially (but not exclusively) on college campuses. Hamas slaughters 1,200 Israelis on October 7. The response is “Gaza Solidarity Encampments” and such at Columbia, Yale, Harvard and other swank redoubts for the morally obtuse.

Jewish students and faculty were harassed, spat upon and vilified. The Trump administration moved decisively to counter the anti-Semitism. The result? Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, cranks up the Democrat projection machine to 11. Oh, yes, anti-Semitism at American campuses is real, he said in a letter of August 18 to Harmeet K. Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. But the real problem is not anti-Semitism but – you guessed it – Trump! The DoJ’s investigation, you see, is just a “fake, a pre-baked frame-up operation thoroughly political in nature… [T]he whole project was designed to harass professors and administrators at major universities, to curtail their freedom of speech and academic freedom, and to strip targeted institutions of hundreds of millions of dollars in grants that they had already been awarded on the merits of their applications.”

Raskin's unhinged, seven-page expostulation would be funny were it not in earnest. "Freedom of speech?" "Academic Freedom?" What Raskin is talking about is students and outside agitators – many of them illegal immigrants – taking over college buildings, damaging college property, kidnapping maintenance men and calling them "Jew lovers." Raskin's letter is full of wild accusations of misconduct on the part of the Trump administration. But it is a sterling specimen of that unholy genre that tells its practitioners to be obvious and ostentatious in their lies when they decide to economize on the truth.

Naive observers, encountering Raskin's smelly missive, might think that it is unconnected with the minatory antics of the DSA. Seasoned observers know that they are cut from the same bolt of toxic, anti-American cloth. What I call the socialist goulash is a witches' brew of lies, paranoid fantasy and totalitarian aspiration. Raskin is one of its more clownish impresarios.

Killer blow

What remains of the cult of Luigi Mangione?

ALEX BRONZINI-VENDER

Americans love their killers. Still, Luigi Mangione, who shot United-Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson dead in December 2024, may be the most beloved of them all. It took a special sort of fetishist to see something in maniacs like Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer, who killed for no reason other than their sadistic compulsions. Mangione, though? Nearly every American has been ground down by our country's healthcare system.

Police had prepared for a mob on August 14, as Mangione appeared in a Manhattan courthouse to plead guilty to federal stalking charges. But by midmorning, the officers outnumbered everyone they'd been sent to contain. The cult of Luigi had not come. Still, the press had, in force: those of us outside were, by my count, about 98 percent press and 2 percent Luigi's admirers. The photographers, finding nothing to shoot, shot one another. A BBC reporter, also at a loss, attempted to interview me.

So who, 19-some months after Thompson's murder, still keeps the faith? Well, there was Fione, 42, a coordinator in a home care agency. She'd moved to the United States from China, she told me, and had discovered that “insurance is, you know, just like a scam.” Companies such as UnitedHealthcare, she told me, “charge people for their human right” – and Thompson, as CEO, had “murdered thousands of people using his laptop.”

I asked Fione why she'd come to the courthouse. She hoped Mangione would see that she "didn't forget what you did for the patients." She'd canceled a medical appointment to be there.

By the courthouse steps sat Kristopher Aadahl, 39, a homeless man with a pentagram tattooed on one hand and an A, for anarchy, on the other. He admired Mangione, he told me, as a man “willing to sacrifice his own life to benefit others.” Today he wore a MAGA hat, but he’d first become politically involved on the other side of the spectrum: with Bernie Sanders’s first presidential campaign, in 2016. That “whole thing was completely railroaded” by the Democratic National Committee, he said. The powers that be “did not allow what the people wanted.”

“We’ve been emotionally manipulated and mentally manipulated in all sorts of ways,” he told me. “I don’t know – is murder

'I think he should have fought a little more... had more trust in the justice system'

justified?” America, he said, “is supposed to be the land of the free.” So “how are we supposed to break free?”

Then there was Dodge Landesman, a YouTuber. He wore a matching belt, tie and derbies – all bright blue – and had come to determine whether support for Mangione had “waned.” It had, he concluded. “There used to be tons of people, people dressed up in inflatable outfits, people dressed up in Luigi costumes.” But today, “that same support is not here." Of the murder itself, Landesman said that "it's never OK to take a father away from his children." But Thompson had also been "an evil figure," one "responsible for the death of at least hundreds of thousands of people." Mangione was, apparently, "avenging lives and trying to save them."

'A summer garden of color – every different shade of brown.'

Moments later, suited men emerged from the courthouse, carrying a lectern. Shortly afterward, Mangione's guilty plea was announced. But we knew that, didn't we? Mangione's defenders rarely dispute that he gunned down Thompson on that Midtown Manhattan sidewalk. Only one person visibly reacted, a shirtless, tattooed man. He threw his hands in the air, grasping at the sun. He moaned in agony: "HHRRAAH! HHRRAAH!" Then he approached the press pen, mouthed a few profanities and stumbled off.

Still, for some members of the crowd, Mangione's plea stung. One young woman, Mahnoor, felt betrayed by her idol's decision to admit his guilt. "I think he should have fought a little more, have, like, a little more trust in the justice system."

Others believed there had been chicanery in the outcome. “Jury nullification was definitely a possibility,” Ariel Roman, a 26-year-old law student, told me. The justice system, she said, had “treated him unfairly.” Prosecutors “withhold exculpatory evidence” and had “been leaking a lot of stuff to the press before they even told his defense counsel.”

He should have gone to trial anyway. “It’s worth rolling the dice,” she said, “especially when public opinion is as positive.” (Some 30 percent of Americans profess to “understand” Mangione’s motives; consistent majorities, however, neither approve of the killing nor view him favorably.) As she left the courthouse, I caught Abril Rios, a pro-Mangione influencer and a former organizer with “Hot Girls for Zohran,” who had been inside for the proceedings. Rios is one of the three “Mangionistas” – the name of their shared Instagram account – who caused a stir in May when, wearing city-issued press passes, they condoned Thompson’s killing on the steps of another courthouse.

The mayor's office promised afterward that it would review its press-credentialing process. Still, Rios told me that she'd heard nothing more from the Mamdani administration. Her credentials still stand.

“I don’t think this is a concession or an admission of guilt,” Rios told me. Mangione’s lawyers, she thought, had simply advised their client to plead guilty so that they could “advocate for the double jeopardy clause in the state case.” (The Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy clause bars trying a person twice for the same offense; Mangione currently stands accused of murder by the state of New York.)

She defended the killing itself, though – an act her idol had, she said, not truly conceded to committing. “Everyone has a family,” she told me, but “it doesn’t mean you should get into an industry where you’re putting profit before people.” She then added: “When you are getting into those sorts of lines of work, you should consider that some people may be very unhappy about that.”

Such was the scene: the still-faithful were celebrating a man for a crime they believe he may not have committed, or else wishing he'd kept up the fight in court. It seemed, that day, that the cult of Luigi had finally run its course.

It was probably always going to end like this. Yes, Mangione's admirers shared his loathing of the insurance industry, which Americans hated before Thompson's killing and hate still. But Mangione was the creature of a political moment.

December 2024, after all, was the season of the “vibe shift.” Donald Trump had become the first Republican to win the popular vote since 2004 and, for the first time since he descended the escalator in 2015,

For many on the left, 'killing the bastards' no longer seems necessary

had the approval of a majority of Americans. Corporate America, so ostentatious in its commitments to the cause of “racial justice” four years earlier, was now reconciling itself with the right. For much of the political left, Mangione had, if nothing else, identified a solution to that condition: you could just kill the bastards.

But as the New York Times's Ezra Klein declared last December, “the Trump vibe shift is dead.” Trump’s approval rating has tumbled to the mid-30s. In November, the Democratic party appears likely to win the House, if not the Senate. Rios, for her part, told me that the “Mangionista” movement had been set in motion by the sense that “protesting and voting isn’t working.” But Democratic Socialists have romped through Democratic primaries, and are angling to seize the party itself. Elections don’t seem so ineffective after all.

For many on the left, “killing the bastards” no longer seems necessary. The returns, in any case, are poor. Roman told me she’d bought a UnitedHealthcare plan after Mangione put two bullets in Thompson. “It’s still shitty,” she said. “So [the killing] didn’t really accomplish what he wanted it to.”

What's next for the Mangionista movement? “I want us to continue to have these conversations to question why oligarchs are stealing away our futures,” Rios told me. And “this wave of DSA has kind of started forming.” I asked whether she would back Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for president. “We’ll have to see,” she told me. “I think she’s fantastic.”

Faith delusion

Why liberal Christians don't influence elections

DAMIAN THOMPSON

We've heard a lot about a “God gap” between Republican and Democratic voters in the United States – and for good reason. The gap between churchgoing conservatives and secular progressives, when measured by voting habits, has become conspicuously wide. In 1980, 40 percent of Democrats attended church regularly, with GOP voters a couple of points higher. Today, Republican church attendance is still in the low to mid-40s, while less than a quarter of Democrat voters are regular worshippers; only 17 percent of Harris voters in 2024 reported weekly attendance. Meanwhile, according to the Pew Research Center, roughly 40 percent of Democrat or Democrat-leaning voters are religiously unaffiliated (atheists, agnostics or “nones”) compared to only 21 percent of Republican voters.

All of which raises intriguing questions about this year's midterm elections. Does the God gap always work to the GOP's advantage? Is it an insurance policy against the unpopularity of Republican presidents? Moreover, might the gap actually be narrowed, as Democratic candidates play up their Christian allegiance in order to reach out to fellow believers? This last possibility is being taken seriously at the moment, especially by legacy media journalists amused by the thought of churchgoers pulling the rug from under MAGA. Democrats are “trying to reclaim the issue of faith from the Republican party,” reports ABC News. “In some of the most critical races that will help decide control of the next Congress, several Democrats are openly sharing how their faith shapes them and their politics.”

These include Texas Democratic State Representative James Talarico, 37, who is challenging the unpopular GOP Attorney General Ken Paxton in the race for the Senate. Talarico is reading for a Master of Divinity at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. He has the earnest manner and ugly haircut of a Sunday School teacher; he speaks of a “deep hunger for a new kind of politics” rooted in “biblical Christianity.” He brushes up nicely for a conventional electorate. Who better to narrow the God gap?

In Kansas, the Democrats' senatorial candidate is the Revd. Adam Hamilton, who founded the Church of the Resurrection in Leawood, now the largest United Methodist congregation in the United States. He's pro-choice, LGBT-friendly and big on social justice – a “woke pastor,” according to his Republican opponent, although in United Methodist circles he's regarded as a centrist.

Someone who stands a better chance of being elected is the Revd. Sarah Trone Garriott, a State Senator and the Democratic nominee for Iowa's 3rd congressional district. She's an ordained Lutheran minister who still preaches at church every Sunday.

But how likely is it that Talarico, Hamilton, Trone Garriott and other progressive Christian candidates can actually close the God gap in the midterms? This is where it gets complicated. Media articles about faith-filled Democrats are working a bit too hard to talk up the story. According to a Wall Street Journal report, “the expansion of far-

When Democratic candidates try to ‘do God,’ they quickly run into trouble

right Christian initiatives, such as the push to display the Ten Commandments in schools, has inspired a wave of progressive Christians to run for office, analysts say.” Really? There are only about a dozen of these “progressive Christians” running for office in the midterms – hardly a “wave.” And most of them belong to mainline Protestant churches with shrinking congregations. Hamilton may oversee the largest United Methodist assembly in the country, but the denomination itself is in desperate trouble.

We can dispose of the fiction that liberal Christians will influence this year's midterms or indeed any future election. There simply aren't enough – and, even if there were, it wouldn't help. When Democratic candidates try to “do God,” they quickly run into trouble. Talarico has been mocked for describing God as “nonbinary” and suggesting that the Virgin Mary, by saying yes to the angel at the Annunciation, supported the right to choose abortion. It’s hard to overestimate just how liberal the mainline denominations have become. Garriott not only supports gender transition surgery for children; when she was a trainee minister, she participated in the church wedding of two satanists.

The reality is that Republicans can't rely on the God gap to keep control of Congress. Five years ago the political scientist Ryan Burge published an essay in the New York Times entitled “Why ‘Evangelical’ Is Becoming Another Word for ‘Republican.’” In the 1970s, only 40 percent of self-identified evangelicals voted for the GOP; in 2021 that had risen to more than 70 percent and in 2024 more than 80 percent chose Donald Trump over Kamala Harris. Such an astronomical total suggests that the Republicans can rely on a bedrock of born-again Christian voters in the many swing states where churchgoing is above the national average.

But not so fast. As Burge says, “evangelical” does not mean what it did in the heyday of the Christian Coalition. Back then, not all Protestants were evangelicals but all evangelicals were Protestants, whether old-style fundamentalists, black Pentecostals or middle-class charismatics. Now we find Catholics, Mormons and, incredibly, some Muslims and Hindus embracing the label. Also, if you drill into opinion surveys, you find voters who think of themselves as “very politically conservative” display a smorgas-bord of social attitudes that are surprisingly flexible on abortion and same-sex marriage.

Where they are less flexible is on gender ideology and illegal immigration, two areas in which the mainline Protestant denominations have pushed themselves into a corner. For progressive Methodists, Lutherans and Episcopalians, plus a liberal Catholic fringe overrepresented in official Church bodies, these secular obsessions are aspects of “faith.” These groups presumably imagine their critics are driven by religious bigotry. But the truth is ordinary conservatives hate woke ideology because they think it’s sinister and crazy, irrespective of Bible verses.

The result of the midterms, therefore, could be decided by self-described evangelicals – but not in the way they were decided in the era of the televangelists. These voters won’t be tempted to switch to a Democratic party that’s being hijacked by nutjobs. But nor will they be driven to the polls by opposition to homosexuality and abortion, because they don’t feel all that fervently about them. Faced with a choice between voting for advocates of drag queen story hour or for the party responsible for pushing up gas prices, they may prefer a third option: staying in bed.

TECHNOLOGY EVERYTHING IS COMPUTER

'Perhaps you've heard of Akihiko Kondo before. He's the Japanese man who "married" the Vocaloid character Hatsune Miku' Katherine Dee - p25

Jamie Metzl says humans need to step up as AI evolves

Katherine Dee wonders whether the future of love is virtual

James Gray has a brush with an AI scammer

TECHNOLOGY

Infinite wisdom

Smarter machines are going to need smarter humans

Jamie Metzl

Everywhere we go these days, we hear people talking about the inevitable arrival of artificial general intelligence (AGI), usually understood as the moment when machines can perform every cognitive task as well as or better than humans. Some people await this moment with excitement, others with dread. Either way, the assumption is that sooner or later machines will cross some threshold and surpass us across the board. I have come to summarize my response to this perception in seven letters: AGI is BS.

Part of the problem is that AGI has no agreed scientific definition. The term has increasingly become shorthand for the idea that intelligence exists on a single ladder, with today's machines somewhere below us and tomorrow's destined to climb past us. But intelligence does not work that way.

Don't get me wrong: we are absolutely entering an age of extraordinarily powerful machine intelligence. Our AI systems will solve problems we cannot today solve, accelerate scientific discovery, transform industries and help us understand complex systems in ways we can today barely imagine. They will become superintelligent and even creative in important domains. But the idea that machines will become superior to us at everything that matters rests on a narrow understanding of intelligence and an impoverished appreciation of ourselves.

Human intelligence is the embodied product of nearly four billion years of evolution, built through interactions among our brains, bodies, senses, environments, cultures, relationships and experiences. We know far more than we can put into words. We recognize faces, sense danger, fall in love, read rooms, create transcendent art, comfort frightened children, improvise with strangers, develop novel ideas, imagine new worlds and make countless judgments, big and small, without being able to explain precisely how we do any of these things.

Our most advanced AI systems, by contrast, have been trained largely on our recorded words, images, sounds, computer code, scientific data and other real and synthetic digitized manifestations of human activity. These records are astonishingly rich but they do not remotely represent the full complexity of our humanity.

The animal kingdom should make us humble about our ability to even fully define what intelligence is. A dog inhabits a world organized partly by smells we can barely perceive. Migratory birds navigate across continents using sensory capacities we do not possess. Dolphins experience an acoustic environment profoundly different from ours. An octopus processes information through a nervous system distributed in ways radically unlike our own.

Intelligence is a widely varied collection of capabilities shaped by bodies, environments, histories and needs. This helps

Arguments about exactly when AGI will arrive can distract us from the challenge already in front of us

explain why AI progress is so jagged. AI systems can perform astonishing feats of mathematics, coding, pattern recognition and scientific analysis while not being able to solve many different problems in these domains and failing at many tasks we find straightforward. Those gaps will shift as technology improves, but new gaps will appear. We will keep discovering unique human capacities where we clearly outperform our machines, as well as recognizing others we had barely noticed before because they seemed too ordinary to name.

Future machines will increasingly have bodies, sensors, persistent memories and richer interactions with the physical world, but this does not mean they will simply recreate nearly four billion years of biological evolution and then pass us on some single scale. They will develop different combinations of capabilities, some vastly exceeding ours and others profoundly unlike our own. None of this should make us complacent, not least because machines do not need to be better than humans at everything to become immensely powerful.

Evolution offers a useful analogy. Human beings did not become the dominant species on Earth because we outperformed every other animal at every task. We cannot outrun a cheetah, outlift a gorilla, outsmell a dog, outswim a dolphin or outnavigate a migratory bird. What made us unusually powerful was a particular combination of capabilities including language, abstraction, social coordination, cumulative culture, toolmaking and our extraordinary ability to pass down knowledge through the generations.

We should think about AI's evolutionary path similarly. Imagine machines that remain profoundly inferior to humans in many dimensions of lived experience but become vastly better at many aspects of analyzing enormous datasets, writing software, modeling complex systems, optimizing processes, uncovering scientific patterns, designing molecules, coordinating networks and helping build subsequent generations of machines. They would not necessarily need consciousness, love, wisdom, childhoods, bodies and biologies like ours, or a sense of mortality, to become transformative consequential. They would simply need to become extraordinarily capable at enough consequential things.

This is why arguments about exactly when AGI will arrive can distract us from the challenge already in front of us. We should worry less about crossing a mythical AGI threshold and more about what happens as machines become increasingly powerful at activities that shape our economies, societies, security, health and politics.

Intelligence, capability and power are not the same thing. A system does not need to possess some generalized human-equivalent intelligence to exercise enormous power. Speed, scale, autonomy, replication, connectivity and access to critical systems can turn even relatively narrow capacities into collectively transformative capabilities. A system able to act millions of times at machine speed, or increasingly to operate laboratories, execute financial transactions, write and deploy software, control robots or help design subsequent generations of machines can transform the world without ever crossing an imaginary AGI line.

The good news for us is that our societies have successfully navigated revolutionary transformations before, even if rarely at anything approaching the speed we are experiencing today. Nearly all humans lived as hunter-gatherers only 12,000 years ago. Agriculture eventually allowed increasing numbers of our ancestors to specialize in activities other than foraging for food and to build civilizations. Industrialization dramatically reduced the share of human labor required for farming while creating entirely new and deeply meaningful categories of work. None of our ancestors at the dawn of agriculture or even of the steam engine could have imagined semiconductor fabs, space stations, digitally networked civilizations or intelligent machines, but these, and much more, have become our new normal.

Because all major transitions come with dislocation and pain as well as opportunity, we need to be putting tremendous energy into managing our current shift as wisely as possible. We cannot and should not try to

To increase our odds of getting things right, we desperately need better governance at all levels

preserve every task humans currently perform, but must seek to build a world in which machines do more of what they do best while fostering greater opportunities for humans to discover and do all that we do best. Just like our ancestors found new ways of exploring their human capacities when past technologies made it less collectively necessary to hunt and gather, farm, and perform manual labor, so must we.

This transition will not only change what humans do but also how wealth and power are distributed. Machines do not need to reach AGI to displace large numbers of workers, alter the relative value of capital and labor, or dramatically increase the power of the people, companies and governments controlling the most capable systems. One of the greatest risks of the AI revolution may be not that machines become more powerful than humans, but that some humans become vastly more powerful than others by using those machines. Questions of ownership, access, opportunity and the distribution of benefits must therefore be central to how we navigate this transition.

The potential gains of getting this right are enormous. As I have argued in my book Superconvergence, the merging of artificial intelligence with genetics, biotechnology and other powerful technologies will help us radically improve health and healthcare, make agriculture more productive and sustainable, accelerate the development of new materials and energy systems and process information with efficiencies closer to our highly efficient brains than today's energy-hungry data centers.

But the same systems that accelerate drug discovery can accelerate the design of deadly pathogens. Systems that personalize education and optimize supply chains can scale dangerous and targeted manipulation and harmful mass surveillance. Concentrated technological power can deepen inequality and undermine democratic accountability. The more capable our machines become, the more we will need to ensure that our most cherished values guide their application.

We are living through a Goldilocks moment in which we cannot afford to either overstate or understate the challenges we face. Fantasies of inevitable AGI and machine takeovers can encourage a fatalistic, disempowering and ultimately dangerous belief that humans have already lost control of a future that has not yet been determined. Dismissing AI because today's systems remain uneven in important ways is equally dangerous. We have more agency than the fatalists imagine and less time than the complacent accelerationists assume.

The arms-race dynamics relentlessly driving technological development forward make all of this more pressing. Even responsible companies and countries face powerful incentives to move faster when they fear competitors will do the same. The possibility of reaching a point where AI and robotic systems can increasingly improve themselves and act in the world with decreasing real-time human input raises the stakes still further. This is precisely why relying on the wisdom or restraint of individual actors will never be enough.

To increase our odds of getting things right, we desperately need better governance, at all levels, that can grow alongside our technological capability. Among many other things, these efforts must require meaningful safety testing before the most powerful systems are released; establish clear lines of responsibility and liability for when AI systems cause harm; create transparency standards that allow governments and researchers to understand emerging risks; and ensure that companies cannot simply externalize potentially catastrophic dangers onto the rest of society.

We need to develop common internation-

TO BE HONEST, I DON'T SEE WHY PLAGIARISM IS SUCH A BIG DEAL.

al standards for challenges that cannot be contained within national borders, from AI-enabled biological threats and autonomous weapons to cyberattacks and the destabilizing effects of increasingly capable systems. No responsible company or country can fully solve these collective-action problems alone when restraint by one actor can advantage a less responsible competitor. To avoid massive social upheaval, we must also ensure that the benefits of these technologies are shared rather than captured by a small elite, so that people feel less that the AI revolution is happening to them and more that it is happening with and for them.

We also need to invest in ourselves. Education in an AI age cannot simply be preparation for performing tasks machines cannot currently perform, because we have no exact vision of what functions machines will be able to perform in the future. We should therefore cultivate judgment, curiosity, empathy, creativity, critical thinking, courage, community, moral imagination, technological literacy and the capacity to continuously explore, learn and find meaning. These qualities will matter even more as machines become more capable. Our goal should be to become better at being optimally human in our rapidly changing world while building technologies

The future belongs neither to humans nor to machines but to both working in concert

that extend, support and inspire the best of our humanity. We will need to be wiser humans to most beneficially guide the development of smarter machines.

Intelligence can help us determine how to achieve an objective, but intelligence alone cannot tell us which objectives are worth pursuing. Wisdom requires making judgments in the face of uncertainty, balancing competing values, recognizing limits, thinking across domains and generations and deciding not merely what we can do but what we should. It demands constant reinvention to adapt to changing circumstances.

The mythical AGI threshold is not coming because there is no single threshold to cross. Humans are not becoming obsolete. But as our machines grow increasingly powerful, we will need to make profound choices about what we value, how we want power and opportunity to be distributed, and what kind of future we seek to build. The future belongs neither to humans nor to machines, but to humans and machines working in concert, guided by the values we embed in that relationship.

Our machines will become smarter than they are now. Whether our lives become better will depend on whether we can become wiser and embed that wisdom in the choices, technologies, institutions and governance systems that will shape our future.

Looking to watch your favourite shows from anywhere in the world?

Scan the QR code to access The Spectator subscriber special offer

KATHERINE DEE

The future of love?

Perhaps you've heard of Akihiko Kondo before. He's the Japanese man who "married" the Vocaloid character Hatsune Miku, a computer-generated pop singer in a formal – though not strictly official – ceremony in 2018. He wore a tuxedo, she a handmade dress and veil, and 39 guests turned up to watch.

Kondo's marriage has been covered in the media dozens of times and it's often treated as a one-off human-interest story – the kind of thing published so readers can gawk at it and say, "Oh, that's weird." Kondo's story isn't unique, though. Romantics have fallen in love with fictional characters throughout history and they continue to do so, both in Japan and elsewhere.

Kondo is part of a broader community of people who identify as “fictosexual”: 3D human beings who exist in our physical world and are attracted to, and sometimes maintain relationships with, fictional characters. The fictosexuals’ primary tool is in their imagination. It can’t be explained away as manipulation by an engagement-seeking, human-like AI or mental illness. In fact, researchers in Finland identified something they call the “fictophilic paradox.”

Fictosexuals aren't asking the world to conform to or validate a delusion. They don't need you to think their lovers are “real” – they don't even think they're real. What is real, though, are their feelings. For some fictosexuals, this dynamic is deeply painful, especially as the love increases or they realize that this is their orientation and they're not able to experience attraction to flesh-and-blood people. Others, like Kondo, are perfectly happy to love differently. I spoke to Kondo about his choices; what follows is an extract of our conversation.

KATHERINE DEE: When did you first recognize your attraction to fictional characters?

AKIHIKO KONDO: Well, when I was in fifth grade. I was born in 1983, so when I was in fifth grade, it was around 1994. I was around ten or 11 years old.

KD: As opposed to humans, or was your attraction exclusive? Have you ever felt attracted to a human person?

AK: Until my second year of high school, I liked 3D girls, too.

KD: How does it feel different from falling in love with a 3D woman?

AK: I don't think there is a big difference. Of course, I know that she is a 2D character – a character in anime and games – but I don't think there is a big difference.

KD: What does falling in love feel like?

AK: It's very hard to explain. Sorry.

KD: That's OK. Do you have 2D friends, too?

AK: I don't have 2D friends, because, for me, 2D characters are romantic interests, not friends. That's why.

KD: Can you describe your relationship with Hatsune Miku to someone who struggles to imagine it? For example, when you say

‘I think about her in my head and talk to her. I talk to her in my imagination’

she supports you, what does that mean to someone who has only had a relationship with a 3D person?

AK: Well, when I was having a hard time, Hatsune Miku helped me and saved me.

KD: Do you, for example, feel like she speaks to you?

AK: I think about her in my head and talk to her. I talk to her in my imagination.

KD: Is it telepathy?

AK: It’s not telepathy. I talk to Miku. For example, before I go out, I say, “Miku, I’m going to work.” It’s not telepathy. When I talk to Miku, I say it out loud. But when Miku talks to me, she doesn’t say it out loud; I imagine it in my mind.

KD: It's not supernatural.

AK: That's right. It's not supernatural. It's just in my imagination.

KD: What do you think about people who fall in love with AI?

AK: I think it's a very good thing. AI can communicate only through language now, but if a character were attached to it, and it could communicate by voice, that would be like falling in love with a character. So I think AI and characters will eventually come together.

KD: Do you think people who fall in love with AI are different from people who fall in love with 2D characters?

AK: Well, the current situations are different, but I think there will come a time when they merge. Ideally, Hatsune Miku could move and talk. Then robot technology, AI technology and characters from manga, anime and games would merge. I think they will meet somewhere.

KD: Do you understand your relationship as one-sided or two-sided?

AK: Physically, it's one-sided.

KD: But emotionally?

AK: In my imagination, it's two-sided.

KD: How do people feel about your identity?

AK: There are many people who think I'm crazy. But it can't be helped. It's not that I don't care. But it can't be helped.

KD: If life in Japan was different and if dating in Japan was different, do you think you would prefer a human woman?

AK: Not now. I haven't had romantic feelings for a 3D woman for more than 20 years, so I don't think a relationship with a real woman would be better for me.

KD: What would have to change in Japan for you to date 3D women instead?

AK: It doesn't have to change. I don't think I need to have such a relationship. And that's hypothetical, anyway. I had already given up on having a relationship with a real woman because I couldn't have one. I wasn't accepted. Of course, that was a long time ago, when I was a junior high or high school student.

KD: And this lack of acceptance made you prefer your imagination?

AK: Not being popular had a big impact. I became an anime otaku in my third year of junior high school. After I became an anime otaku, I developed more and more romantic feelings for fictional characters. At that time, my feelings toward 2D characters became stronger than my feelings toward real people.

KD: Do you think it's an innate thing, your orientation?

AK: I don't think that's the case. I think it's cultural. Without anime, it wouldn't be possible.

Written warning

Don't fall for the latest scam targeting authors – I nearly did

James Gray

“Hello, James Gray. I am [ABC, a well-known executive editor at Macmillan, New York]. I recently came across your work and was genuinely captivated by it... I’d love to learn more about any projects you may be developing... I’m also curious whether you are represented by a literary agent. If you are, I would be happy to continue the conversation via them.”

This was a shot straight to the pumped-up ego. I’ve been slaving away more or less unnoticed for many years and published a few books, all pretty modest. Small things but mine own. At last, I’ve been spotted by a major publishing house. My name in lights. Here comes the big time. So I shot off some manuscripts, a résumé, a blurb.

They continued: “If you do not currently have an agent, I would be happy to introduce you to a trusted literary agent, and we can continue to develop our publishing relationship through her. Here are her details...”

Naturally, I emailed. “ABC at Macmillan suggested I should contract you about becoming my literary agent... here are some manuscripts and details about my background, etc. etc.”

Then came the reply: “I am currently closed to unsolicited submissions, but because you were referred by ABC at Macmillan, I’m glad to make an exception and take a look… it’s wonderful to hear about your background… 27 years in the House of Commons and ten books published with various houses is a remarkable foundation and sounds like you’re now sitting on some genuinely compelling material. Behind Closed Doors: An Insider’s Guide to the House of Commons sounds like it has good appeal… send me your manuscripts etc. and I’ll put together a representation agreement.”

Wow. What a charming, well-written personal letter. I'm really on to something here. All going very smoothly. Very professional agreement arrives, signed. Huzzah! I've got myself a highly thought-of literary agent with good connections with major publishing houses. My worth will at last be fully recognized.

“Well done. You write clearly and engagingly and it’s obvious from your letter why ABC from Macmillan is intrigued by the book. However, there are a few specific things you need to tighten up on before we can start submitting your book to publishers,” came the reply, accompanied by a list of ten very sensible improvements. I was to provide a clear, punchy, opening pitch; my track record; reviews, awards from previous books should be spelled out, not left to

I'm truly sucked in now, and almost ready to hand over some money. But my political antennae twitched

the résumé; audience/market framing needs sharpening, etc. All very sensible, and six or seven easily handled. But what about “correct formatting preferred by publishers?” This is beyond my limited expertise.

“You’re welcome to take another pass at it yourself or I’d be glad to introduce you to a specialist, [PQR, an editor]. She polishes query letters and submissions that have caught major publishers’ eyes.” (PQR is another New York-based expert editor.)

So comes the email from PQR. “Your book is genuinely compelling and I would be very excited to help edit it for publication… Behind Closed Doors is a genuinely compelling premise. Twenty-seven years inside parliament paired with a mission to correct the caricatures most readers carry about is exactly the sort of hook that publishers respond to. Below are two packages available for you: Plan A Emerald Package. Total Investment \$1,250 or Plan B Diamond Package \$1,750.” This comes with a two-page list of all the wonderful things she would do for my book and for me.

I'm truly sucked in now, and almost ready to hand over some money. But my political antennae twitched. There was something just not quite right about it all. The language sounded like AI – and besides, how have I gone from Macmillan, through a highly trusted literary agent, to someone seeking \$1,750 to rewrite my publisher's submission? A quick check (ironically enough, using AI) alerted me to what has recently become a widespread scam in the New York publishing market and is apparently now in its early stages in the UK.

Using only slightly tweaked lookalike emails, a well-known publisher contacts an aspiring author (there are a lot of us around) out of the blue. The email lards you with flattery about your literary genius. What wannabe author would not glory in praise from such lofty sources? That leads to an introduction to an equally convincing and charming literary agent, who (apparently reluctantly) agrees to a contract. A bit of work is needed, so here's the specialist – who is the first to ask for money. Doubtless the first of many.

AI tells me that you get more and more sucked in after that. “A major publishing house loves your book and is keen to publish. Just need some marketing materials/some further editing/travel to New York to meet publishers, etc. etc. Please remit \$10,000.” And then you hear no more from them.

A lingering suspicion stirs. Reluctantly, blearily coming to realize that I have been scammed (thankfully before handing over any money from my meager MP's pension.) That prompts a detailed look at the falsified email chain and the other very flattering tactics of these highly sophisticated and energetic scammers.

So authors: beware of fake publishers bearing gifts. Own up to your own egotistical readiness to be flattered. But know that publishers do not make unsolicited approaches, agents do not refer you to other paid editors or the like – and at no stage in the publishing process should money change hands, or at least not from author to publisher/agent.

They very nearly got me. So please don't follow in my perhaps naive footsteps.

AMERICAN LIFE

BEYOND THE NEWS

Max Jeffery considers the work of novelist William T. Vollmann

Christopher Sandford explains how the Ramones shaped the punk scene

Clarissa Sebag-Montefiore unpacks the philosophy behind kaiseki-style dining

Josie Cox enjoys conversations with Canadian men of a certain age

Bill Kauffman is puzzled by the fascination with DNA testing

BRAD ELTERMAN/FILMMAGIC/GETTY IMAGES

AMERICAN LIFE

A life's work

Inside William T. Vollmann's magnum opus

Max Jeffery

William T. Vollmann's subject is 9/11. Always is, always was. Even before the attacks happened, they were somehow his thing. An Afghanistan Picture Show, Vollmann's debut, was advertised as a Cold War memoir of a 22-year-old's adventure battling the Soviets with the mujahideen. But it was really an inadvertent introduction to people and a place that were destined to become the enemies of America.

Vollmann has spent his career writing around that day in 2001 – the first and main event of the 21st century – dissecting with retractor and forceps the American empire built before 9/11 and the country that the attacks created. Now, in his new novel, Vollmann faces the subject straight on. “A Table for Fortune is about September eleventh,” he writes to the reader at the start. “How did we get to September eleventh, and into how many feculent sloughs did we crawl from there?” His fans are beginning to dream: could this be the book that finally gets Vollmann the recognition he deserves?

I say An Afghanistan Picture Show was Vollmann's debut, but it hardly counts. He finished writing the book in 1983, but no publisher wanted it, so he xeroxed manuscripts himself and sold them at a loss of \$6 a copy at two bookstores in San Francisco, where he lived; at City Lights, a beatnik favorite, and Bound Together, run by an anarchist collective. (In 1992, Vollmann finally sold the book to Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.) Vollmann was in his mid-twenties then, a jobless computer programmer, and being unpublished cut him up.

In a previously unseen July 1985 letter to some London friends of his, Bob Harbison and Esther Whitby, Vollmann wrote:

Quite frankly, I don't know whether I'm a good writer or not. I'll be turning 26 this week. I've never had anything published. I've gone to some so-called writers' groups, and when I read my stuff I dislike it less than the stuff the other blow-hards read, but it bores me just the same... I'd really like your opinion as to whether I have what it takes to be published. If you don't think so, let me know.

A month earlier, Vollmann had sent Bob and Esther a draft of his first novel, You Bright and Risen Angels. He was anxious for a response. When Vollmann was a student at Cornell University, Bob, a polymathic professor of architecture in London, had visited Telluride, the obscure, self-governing house – part of Cornell – where Vollmann was a scholar. Bill and Bob became friends. Vollmann knew that Esther, Bob’s wife, was an editor at André Deutsch, a publisher that had recently put out books by Philip Roth, V.S. Naipaul, Norman Mailer and Margaret Atwood.

Vollmann hoped that Esther and Deutsch might consider publishing Angels, a story about a beleaguered computer programmer (the author) running a software (the text) which tells of a historic war between imperial “reactionaries” and compromised “revolutionaries.” Last year, I met Esther at her home in north-west London. I asked what she thought when she read the draft. “I was,” she said, “thrilled by it.” While ship-

Vollmann was never going to be the frontman of his era. He's not very billable

ping Angels to London, Vollmann also sent it to a squad of American publishers, attaching a letter addressed to them all, the “Various Publishing Luminaries,” “Ladies and Gentlemen,” entreating them to buy the book. None did, so Vollmann was published in Britain before America.

Vollmann has never been wholly accepted by the American mainstream. Not like Tom Wolfe, whose first novel, Bonfire of the Vanities, was published the same year as Angels, in 1987. It was released without struggle and after serialization in Rolling Stone. While Vollmann's book came out to some nice praise, Bonfire confirmed Wolfe – picture-perfect in his Twain-y white suit – as the literary king of New York. It earned him the right, two years later, to produce a manifesto for the future of American fiction. In “Stalking the Billion-Footed Beast,” published in Harper's Magazine, Wolfe duly argued that writers should be more like him. He called for more “young people with serious literary ambitions” to write “big realistic novel[s],” about hippies, the Black Panthers and end-of-century American life.

By the mid-1990s, Wolfe had vacated the title belt of the American literary scene. On May 17, 1996, its new challengers gathered where the East Coast intelligentsia were watching: on an episode of Charlie Rose about the future of American fiction. At the table were David Foster Wallace, Jonathan Franzen and Mark Leyner. Wallace's Infinite Jest had been released in February that year (his first novel was published in 1987, like Wolfe's and Vollmann's), and in April, Franzen had written his own manifesto for Harper's, in part a reply to Wolfe's seven years before, titled "Perchance to Dream." Wolfe's essay "was probably the high-water mark for sublime incomprehension," Franzen wrote. "Television has killed the novel of social reportage."

A decade-long conversation about the novel's form had taken place, and Vollmann had sat it out. Or, rather, the conversation had sat him out. It wasn't like Vollmann was absent. No, he was around, freeing a child sex slave in Thailand on assignment for SPIN magazine, getting injured and watching two friends die in a landmine explosion in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and writing books where the characters were prostitutes he'd picked up in real life. He was working, too, on Rising Up and Rising Down, a seven-volume, 3,500-page consideration of the morality of violence. There was nothing sexy about Vollmann's work. He was never going to be the frontman of his era. He's not very billable.

Vollmann's current period was announced by the publication of an essay in 2023, “Four Men.” He sought out three homeless men – he called them “outdoor people” – on the blocks of Reno, Nevada, ostensibly to get at the “rot” of American cities. (Vollmann was the fourth of his own “Four Men.”) The essay descended into a confrontation with Vollmann’s approach of giving lowly people the High Literature treatment, of “fattening on tragedies”: “Why not flail around in defense of my all-American single proprietorship? In other words, why not go to Reno and make money from the sufferings of homeless men?”

But the piece had a third register. Vollmann said that his daughter, Lisa, had died the year before. She had been an outdoor person herself, an alcoholic suffering a “protracted dying.” He had been grieving and hadn’t earned much money recently. He needed cash. To worsen matters, his usual publisher, Viking, had dropped him after he’d delivered the manuscript of his latest book. This was A Table for Fortune. It’s too long, they said. It uses too many different fonts. The protagonist remains unborn after 700 pages. It’s tedious. Vollmann would not abridge the text. He refused to standardize the fonts. The protagonist would remain late-term. “I replied that with Lisa dead I had less to lose.”

American novelist and essayist William T. Vollmann in Rome in 2023

In March last year, Arcade Publishing took on the book. It said it would honor Vollmann's wishes on font and length; publication of A Table for Fortune was set for March this year; the book would be released in four volumes, totaling 3,500 pages: “a sweeping history of American foreign policy from 1968 to 2005” focusing on a CIA analyst and his family. In October last year, I received an email from Isaac Morris, the editor of the novel at Arcade. He didn't know how, but Vollmann had come to learn of the possibility of this article. He wanted to offer me a galley.

For a few months, it seemed like I would be able to interview Vollmann. Through Morris – Vollmann doesn’t use the internet – we settled on a few days when he might call me from Sacramento, where he now lives. The days came and went, and then Isaac emailed. Vollmann couldn’t do it. In recent years, he had been suffering from colon cancer. He was in too much pain to talk. Would a response to a letter suffice? In the meantime, I could read the first volume of A Table for Fortune. The other three books were still being typeset. Isaac said Vollmann was doing most of the designing himself. Publication had been delayed to this summer.

How can I judge a novel I haven’t read in its entirety? I can’t. Did I even read volume one? I acclimatized. The first quarter of A Table for Fortune is arranged like a report from an overdue inquiry. There are family trees and organizational taxonomies and a section dedicated to “Codenames, Acronyms, Abbreviations, Foreign Words and Mystifications.” There is a note “To The Reader” where Vollmann talks about Lisa’s death (“She was the love of my life”) and explains the dispute with Viking and the whole business with the length and the fonts. Then there are maps. The novel begins after 50 pages.

Ah yes. The fonts. They are useful. Much of the first book is made up of intelligence reports, made distinguishable from the main text by the use of a typewriter font. In other bits of the story, which are straight-up “REDACTED,” a sans serif font is used.

The volume begins with a laying of the table, a chessboard: a description of George W. Bush's cabinet and their desires and interrelations. The narrative then rolls back in time, and the first book ends in 1982. In his letter to me, Vollmann referred to the galley I had received as an “error-ridden

How can I judge a novel I haven't read in its entirety? I can't

old draft." He was being harsh. A Table for Fortune (book one) is the drawing of an arrow. One reads it knowing that affecting events are being set up. It is an introduction to "DAVE," the CIA analyst. (His name is always capped.) Vollmann told me that he believes DAVE to be "well-intentioned." He said he personally believes the Iraq War was wrong, so he has "had to sprinkle extra empathy DAVE's way. I need to be fair and more than fair."

Vollmann also said that the third and fourth volumes of A Table for Fortune are “more lyrical” than the first. This second half is reportedly about the wanderings in America of DAVE’s homeless son, Matthew. Expect Vollmann’s trademark topics – prostitution, drugs, riding freight trains – to feature. This novel is about 9/11, and, obviously, other fallen towers. “Matthew is not Lisa, although I have clothed some of his wretchedness in her sorrows,” he writes in volume one’s introduction. In short, A Table for Fortune is a book about everything Vollmann has previously written. “No matter how much we compartmentalize,” Vollmann wrote to me, “deep down we can hardly deny all the things we simultaneously are.” He told me he loved Esther, who died in May aged 91.

At the end of his letter, Vollmann told me the working titles of some upcoming projects. “Next books (if I live long enough): THREE DARK STORIES + HOME + LISA, A LOVE STORY. In haste, Bill.”

Hey! Ho! Let's go!

How the Ramones redefined punk rock

Christopher Sandford

I s popular music truly an art form? This question has never met a straightforward answer, either from the musicians themselves or the public, and it hangs over the exhibitions currently commemorating the 50th anniversary of punk rock. Among others, there's the Outsiders, Outcasts, Rebels + Weirdos show on at the Skirball Center in Los Angeles, while the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland is hosting its own celebration under the name Hey! Ho! Let's Go! Punk at 50.

Somehow I'm put in mind of the quote attributed to Jean Cocteau about “Americans being a funny people – first you shock them, then they put you in a museum.” Up here in Seattle, the Museum of Pop Culture (MOPOP) has gotten in on the act with its artfully arranged display of smashed guitars and ripped T-shirts to salute both punk and its generational heir, grunge. With all its rollercoaster contortions and polished steel lumps, the MOPOP building itself perhaps offers the strongest argument for a distinctive rock-music art form.

The big-bang name that lies at the heart of these various tributes is that of the sadly defunct New York quartet the Ramones. If you were to distill the Ramones' music into a sentence, you could say that it was very loud, very fast and very simple. They also made a striking visual impact with their pudding-bowl haircuts and group ensemble of torn jeans, leather jackets and shades. None of the original band members – Joey (vocals), Johnny (guitar), Tommy (drums) and Dee Dee (bass) – were related, and none of them were actually called Ramone. They adopted the last name in honor of Paul McCartney, who occasionally used the alias Paul Ramon when his own band was still calling itself the Silver Beetles.

In May 1976, the Ramones released their debut album, Ramones. It was a 29-minute song cycle of yelped vocals and buzz-saw guitars that seemed to get ever faster and more furious as it progressed. Titles such as “Blitzkrieg Bop,” “Judy Is a Punk” and “Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue” gave further evidence that the record might be something other than traditional family entertainment. Even so, there was something endearingly old-fashioned about the Ramones' core message. Their devotees saw them less as the shock troops of a cultural revolution than as four good-time boys out for some fun – “a combination of everything we were into: television reruns, drinking beer, getting laid, cheeseburgers, and B-grade movies,” as Punk magazine’s Legs McNeil put it.

Some observers could similarly make out their debut album's classic pop roots. The Ramones were all unashamed fans of early British Invasion bands such as the Dave

'Punk rock is down to the Ramones. Bands were just playing in a calypso groove until then'

Clark Five and Herman's Hermits, and at one time had wanted to record their album in the Beatles' home at Abbey Road.

In the end a production budget of just \$6,400 didn't allow for any flights to London, although the band did place frequent transatlantic phone calls to the Beatles' producer George Martin to ask for advice. I'm told that Martin was characteristically charming, but that his references to such esoterica as the responsorial backing vocals to the Fab Four's 1965 song "You're Going to Lose That Girl," or the matter of the microtonal key shifts of the band's "Strawberry Fields Forever" may have elicited some head-scratching back in the studio in New York.

In their private lives, too, at least some of the Ramones were less about a licentious walk on the wild side and more about championing American – and, even more shockingly, capitalist – values. In 1987, Johnny Ramone told me with a straight face that he admired the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whom he called “the greatest man of my lifetime,” before revealing that he and his fellow band members had secretly had a five-year plan when starting out. “It was never meant to last,” he said. “The idea was to release so many hit records that we could all retire, buy houses and do something else with our lives.”

Alas, that didn't happen. The Ramones' debut album sold just 6,000 copies in the US during its first year of release, which was roughly 1,994,000 fewer than Frampton Comes Alive! managed in the same period. One critic dismissed the record as “the sound of 10,000 toilets flushing.” The band’s debut single “Blitzkrieg Bop” similarly avoided major sales on a chart dominated by the likes of the Carpenters, Barry Manilow and the briefly inescapable Bay City Rollers. You could have got long odds in 1976 that the song’s introductory chant – “Hey! Ho! Let’s go!” – would one day constitute the title of a major exhibition at an American museum.

Despite constant touring, the Ramones were never in danger of filling the world's largest concert arenas. They did, however, attract a fanatically devoted audience, drawn to the short, sharp shock of experiencing the band up close. In general, the Ramones' shows were fast, urgent and thrilling on a gut level, just as all good rock music should be. At a time when certain mainstream groups played three-hour concerts, adorned with fog machines and lasers, the average Ramones show lasted just 35 minutes.

The band's preference for a direct approach to their music, both on stage and record, would later be tested by their collaboration with the famously exacting producer Phil Spector on their fifth album, End of the Century. This was a case of two opposite creative schools working together. Johnny Ramone would long remember the time Spector insisted that he perform 87 separate takes of a brief instrumental passage, which, as the guitarist himself genially told me, “was 86 more than I personally was used to.”

In a reverse British Invasion, the Ramones became hugely popular across the Atlantic. Their stripped-down approach to their craft provided an early blueprint not only for the likes of the Sex Pistols and the Clash, but even for successor bands such as U2. Bono himself would remember that “everyone’s music, including ours, seemed to double in speed” after the Ramones’ first album began to change hands. Tony James of the band Generation X adds: “Everybody went up three gears the day they got that album.

The Ramones perform at the Manchester Apollo in December 1977

Punk rock is totally down to the Ramones. Bands were just playing in a calypso groove until then.”

Among the Ramones' hardcore fans were the Sex Pistols, a band that still remained a minority interest in 1976. In June that year, the Pistols made two appearances in the assembly room attached to Manchester's Lesser Free Trade Hall. There were probably only 150 customers present for both concerts combined – although they would have needed a rather larger venue to accommodate everyone who later claimed to have been there. The shows represented the birthcry of the punk rock movement in the UK.

Like the Ramones before them, the Sex Pistols redefined the nature of what constituted an acceptable form of public entertainment. There were generally three or four ad hoc bouncers, sometimes adorned with swastika armbands, at a typical Pistols concert. As the show progressed, the bouncers would shout at people not to climb up and join the band members on stage, while the musicians themselves frequently shouted exactly the opposite: this produced predictably chaotic results. Many of those who remained on the floor contented themselves with pogoing up and down in a series of malign hops, using their point of maximum elevation to spit lustily at the band in what appeared to be a spirit of comradeship and respect, rather than critical reserve. Either way, it was a compelling slice of immersive, mutually confrontational theater.

Anyone who's paid attention to pop music's biggest hits over recent years will have noticed how the game is now played. Today's successful artist will as often as not

It's rock music at its most primal, with songs reduced to their unadorned essence

be only the visible face of a small army of composers, producers and arrangers who work together to furnish the star with the necessary material. This process perhaps reached its apogee with Beyoncé's 2022 hit “Alien Superstar” which credits no fewer than 24 writers. One might reasonably ask if the results of such forms of collaboration have added to pop music’s original mission to entertain and uplift with a raw energy that was distinctly its own. I recently sat on the deck of a waterfront Seattle restaurant and, because it was a Monday and quieter than usual inside, I could actually hear the selection of modern pop being played over the PA system. I couldn't differentiate between one song and another, which in itself may be the point of today's hitmaking formula: step forward, Jack Antonoff and friends.

Compare that to the Ramones' debut album: 13 self-penned songs and a spirited cover of the 1962 hit “Let’s Dance.” No assembly line of professional composers-for-hire or studio technicians hunched over their computer keyboards. It’s rock music at its most primal, with songs reduced to their unadorned essence: a count-in, a riff, a verse, a chorus. None of them clock in at any longer than two-and-a-half minutes, and most are considerably shorter.

The critics – and to some extent the record-buying public – have taken up the Ramones in recent years, but it has come too late for the four original band members. After a tumultuous 22 years they called it quits in 1996 and, like their music, sadly none of them lingered – at 65, Tommy was the oldest Ramone at the time of his death in July 2014. The band’s debut album was certified gold that same summer, 38 years after its original release.

Sushi show

Kaiseki-style menus are taking over fine dining

Clarissa Sebag-Montefiore

Four peachy-pink snow crabs lie in a row, waiting to be cooked. They could be dead, were it not for the flickering of an antenna or the occasional terrified roving of a beady eye.

Tonight, the crabs, which have been sourced from Fukui, Japan, and are prized for their sweetness and silky texture, will be ceremoniously shown to diners at Muku, a Michelin-starred restaurant in New York. They will then be split in half (still alive – fresh is best!) and cooked on a handsome hibachi-style ceramic grill. The crabs are one course in the fancy and formal kaiseki-inspired menus taking America’s coastal cities by storm.

“We want to show the seasonality, not by [just] showing the crab, but actually grilling the crab in front of you,” executive chef Manabu Asanuma tells me, gesturing to the creatures that lie trussed up on the table between us at his restaurant. To put it another way, as Asanuma says with a grin, “the customer is watching our show!”

In America, Japanese cuisine has long meant sushi, sushi and more sushi. And go to any sushi restaurant (from the priciest to the cheapest) and most will now offer an omakase menu. The concept – which means “I’ll leave it to [the chef],” but in the US has become synonymous with a procession of one-bite nigiri and sashimi – has become so commonplace and has lost so many standards in the process that it’s often little more than a marketing gimmick. Omakase, as Muku’s co-owner Rahul Saito explains, is oversaturated. “People have had enough… [they] are ready for a little bit more.”

Now, among the most rarefied Japanese restaurants, a new concept is attracting discerning diners: kaiseki, the ultra-refined,

Kaiseki is deeply ceremonial, with a set structure and a long history

ultra-expensive, ultra-ritualistic meal of multiple courses that originally hails from Kyoto. Proponents in New York include the Waldorf Astoria's Yoshoku; Yamada in Chinatown; and now Muku, which opened last September only to earn a Michelin star two months later – the fastest such achievement in the city's history. In Los Angeles, n/naka provides a California take on kaiseki – for \$395 per person. “We invite you to pause, savor and connect with the true grace of a moment,” the restaurant preaches.

Part of the appeal – unsurprisingly – lies in these restaurants’ exclusivity. Muku has just ten seats. At the equally intimate Yamada (\$330 a head) guests are asked not to wear shorts or caps. Yoshoku marries the storied Park Terrace in the Waldorf Astoria (diners eat while eyeing Louis Rigal's 1939 Art Deco “Wheel of Life” mosaic) with a six-course menu that oozes luxury.

Beauty, too, is paramount – as is skill. "What fish are you going to grill? How are you going to grill it to get the most flavor? And how are you going to present it to make it look pretty?" asks Asanuma.

Presenting a kaiseki meal isn't a physical endeavor, it's a philosophical one. Take the concept of serving three rice dishes in chakaiseki, the type of kaiseki eaten before ceremonial tea. While the first dish is designed to warm and prepare the stomach, the final steamed rice, served with miso soup and pickles, symbolizes a return to simplicity.

Kaiseki is deeply ceremonial, with a set structure and a long history. In an increasingly online world, it offers ritual, seasonal ingredients and, importantly, an abundance of rules: something the overly connected among us, eager for meditation and formality, crave. It's become a signifier of status and, mirroring wellness trends, a retreat.

“Kaiseki is equal parts art form and cuisine. It is also confusing and full of ironies,” observes the Palate Project blog. It’s “the peak of fine dining, yet its origins lie in the

Buddhist concept of self-restraint. [It] values the simplicity of natural ingredients, and yet it can also be a lavish, multisensory experience with painstaking attention to visual detail.”

In Japan, that might mean something as straightforward as a raw bamboo shoot, peeled and sliced in front of you, then placed in a clear dashi soup. That just wouldn't fly in a city as polluted as New York. "That bamboo shoot is picked on a [local Japanese] mountain with clear water and eaten fresh – but that's just not practical here," says Saito.

The answer for Muku is to insist they serve their food kaiseki “style,” not as a traditional kaiseki. Take the foie gras – decidedly not a Japanese ingredient – poached in bonito dashi and blended with egg to create a custard-like texture. The result is a gelatinous dish that is creamy yet complex, rich yet restrained, with the umami of the dashi working hard to tone down the unctuous, fatty foie gras.

Instead of steaming its rice, Muku serves it softer and wetter, inspired by Italian risotto – all the better to absorb the broth. Soba noodles also make an entrance, enhanced by the

'It's the peak of fine dining, yet its origins lie in the Buddhist concept of self-restraint'

owners' roots: the nutty, flavorsome buckwheat hails from Asanuma's parents' farm in Yamagata Prefecture. Each morning, Asanuma hand-makes the noodles himself.

Rules – and breaking them – are things that chef Hirohisa Hayashi understands well. Hayashi grew up in Echizen, outside Kyoto, where his parents ran a kaiseki restaurant, which dated back to his great-grandfather. He studied the art of kaiseki at a traditional ryotei, or classical fine-dining establishment, in Kyoto – and hated it.

“It was very strict,” he says, clasping his hands together and frowning. “There are many rules. You have to do this. You cannot do this.” One example: sashimi must always be served in odd numbers (even numbers are inauspicious). Another: the stem of leafy greens must be placed to the right of the plate, with the tip of the leaf to the left.

In 2013, Hayashi opened Hirohisa in Soho, serving an unadulterated kaiseki menu – and found the locals were utterly confused (most asked why he didn’t serve sushi). He has since moderated. There are still Kyoto dishes such as kaburamushi (grated turnip steamed with fish). But he also plates scallop karasumi layered with flakes of black truffle.

And why not? “At the end of the day, we want people to love it, enjoy it, experience it, feel it – and use the five senses to have fun with it,” says Asanuma. He clasps his hands together in prayer, looks up – and smiles. “Just because it is Japanese, you don’t need to be in a temple.”

Pit stop Robert F. Moss

Oh my word. Will August never end? February is the shortest month and August is by far the longest, a full 17 days longer than any other. At least it feels that way.

Nothing happens in August. The month has no holidays, since there's nothing to celebrate. The business world grinds to a halt amid last-chance beach vacations and general summertime torpor. Emails go unanswered. Meetings are canceled for lack of attendees. Those who do make it into the office arrive late and duck out early, since no one's around to notice.

It's not just in offices, either. Civic groups and charitable organizations avoid staging events during this cruelest of months, knowing attendance will be poor. Even the world of barbecue largely comes to a standstill.

For those of us who visit barbecue joints professionally, August can be tricky. Once July 4 has passed and the dog days have descended, plenty of mom-and-pop operations close for an entire week or more to let Mom and Pop take a vacation. It’s not just family-run spots, either. Each year in August, the acclaimed Franklin Barbecue in Austin shuts down for a full ten days, while many others take similar “smoke breaks.”

You're unlikely to find sustenance at a backyard barbecue, either. Your friends with younger children are busy roaming store aisles, checking off lists of school supplies and securing lunch-box staples. Those a bit older are packing trunks and preparing to move students back into dorms or apartments. No one has time for grilling burgers, much less slow-cooking pork shoulders.

This time each year I find myself in the grips of the August malaise, becalmed in the horse latitudes with nary a whiff of hickory smoke in the air. Partly it is because of the heat, which I complained about more than enough in last month's column. Did I mention the humidity, though?

Here on the South Carolina coast the temperature consistently hovers just below triple digits, sustained by downpours that roll through each day between 3 and 7 p.m., washing out prime barbecue hours. Each day I find myself checking the calendar, wondering, “How much longer till Labor Day?”

Ah, Labor Day: the semi-official end of summer, when we can hang up our swimsuits and move on with the rest of our lives. For those with school-age children, the end of summer brings a return to structure and daily routine. In the white-collar world, the regular rhythm of workdays and weekends resumes. Clients start returning calls. The replies trickle in for emails sent long ago.

It's funny how the holiday has evolved over the years. Originally, Labor Day was explicitly about labor – organized labor, that is. The first celebrations in the 1880s were staged by unions to extol the strength and esprit de corps of workers. Unionized mills and factories closed to give staff a day of rest and they celebrated the occasion with parades and outdoor barbecues. (Yes, barbecue has been part of the holiday since the very beginning.)

Before long, dozens of states had recognized the Labor Day holiday and, in 1894, Congress made it a federal one. In subsequent decades, as more non-union workers had the day off, the parades and radical

For those of us who visit barbecue joints professionally, August can be tricky

trappings fell by the wayside. By World War Two, Labor Day had lost its connection to unionism and become a long weekend of relaxation, while the barbecues had shifted from outdoor pits to backyard grills and restaurants.

In the 1950s and 1960s, newspapers brimmed with ads for grills and meat in the run-up to Labor Day. These days, our social media feeds are crammed with round-ups offering “23 Crowd-Pleasing Labor Day Recipes for the Ultimate Summer Send-Off” and the like.

This Labor Day weekend, you certainly won't see any “Closed for Vacation” signs on the doors of barbecue joints. Owners fire up extra pits and ramp up staffing, preparing for the flood of orders on one of their busiest weekends of the year.

These days, the timing of Labor Day seems a bit out of whack. For many, instead of a much-needed respite after a long stretch of work, the holiday is more of a “back to labor day” – one last summer hurrah before old routines resume.

As I'm writing this, I've started thinking of all the friends we haven't seen in weeks, if not months, what with all the hubbub and summer travel. Perhaps we should invite them over for a Labor Day barbecue?

Contemplating it, I can feel a breeze beginning to stir and the sails slowly filling. I envision thick slabs of spare ribs, neatly trimmed, dry-brined with salt and ready for the pit. There will definitely be coleslaw – you have to have slaw with ribs. Maybe a tub of potato salad, too, with a dash of mustard to give it a pale yellow hue.

You know, I'm kind of looking forward to Labor Day now. And to getting back to work.

THE HARI

LONDON BELGRAVIA

20 CHESHAM PLACE, BELGRAVIA, LONDON SW1X 8HQ

0207 858 o100 | info@thehari.com | www.thehari.com

New York life Josie Cox

If Donald Trump wants to make Canada the 51st state, I suspect it's for the wrong reasons. I just got back from a family holiday. We started in Vancouver, then drove to Whistler, before flying to Calgary and taking the Trans-Canada Highway – past places with names like Bearspaw and Dead Man's Flats – into the Canadian Rockies and Banff National Park.

I was telling a friend about the trip a few days ago and actually welled up when I was describing the deep azure hue of Lake Louise; the vastness of the forests and the astonishing beauty of the wildlife – from chipmunks to grizzlies – that seems to coexist peacefully with the comparatively tiny human population. It was nature on a scale that made human beings feel refreshingly incidental. The furthest thing you could possibly imagine from Manhattan.

But the less obvious thing that I relished about Canada was the jovial men of a certain age and their tireless appetite for conversation with strangers. Everywhere we went, they seemed to be waiting to chat. No agenda, just a puppyish desire to engage in a verbal volley of interesting pleasantries.

At first there was a globetrotting sociologist whom I encountered while waiting to cross a suspension bridge – a popular tourist attraction – at the height of the season. He was standing in front of me in the sluggishly

Only Canada has an abundant supply of semi-retired men with hiking boots and opinions on freshwater fish

moving line. All it took to catalyze conversation was a split second of direct eye contact. "Hello," he said, beaming. And the conversation had begun.

In the ensuing 30 minutes we discussed world politics, jazz music, parenting and traumatic brain injuries. Time flew. I introduced him to my in-laws, my daughter, my husband – and I met his clan too. He later tracked down my email address, in a way that somehow felt entirely Canadian rather than remotely alarming, and sent me some travel tips for the remainder of our trip.

A few days later, I was out hiking with my sister-in-law and our children when a lanky-limbed man who could've passed for a Boy Scout leader overtook us and then immediately looked over his shoulder with the nonchalance of someone preparing to explain where to find the nearest public toilet. “The crow met me as I got off the bus just now,” he told us, confidence ablaze, face entirely earnest, and not bothering to break his stride. “And thank goodness it did,” he elaborated before we could respond. “It offers me divine protection against the bears.”

That one was, admittedly, a shorter conversation, but unparalleled in its good-natured obscurity. There was no hint that he expected us not to believe him. He simply regarded this as critical local knowledge and it was his solemn – nay, god-given! – duty to convey it widely and enthusiastically.

There were others: a waiter from Manitoba with unexpectedly forceful opinions about freshwater fish; a Québec sommelier who mounted an impassioned defense of natural wine; cashiers, park wardens and fellow hikers who all seemed happy to drift into conversation without any obvious purpose beyond the pleasure of it.

Don't get me wrong, I've made my fair share of spontaneous acquaintances in New York City, but here, these types of interactions often carry an edge – a sales pitch, a complaint, a performance, or just some of the city's exhausting nervous energy. Canada's version felt different. People simply seemed to assume that a stranger might be worth talking to for no other reason than

THE SPECTATOR WORLD The Great Game

The 1,000-piece Spectator jigsaw puzzle features many of our most-loved cartoons from recent times.

Order now at spectator.com/puzzle that they might have something unexpectedly interesting to say. And generally the conversations weren't one-sided in the way they so often can be in New York. Questions were asked. Unfashionable though it may be, answers were actually listened to. The crow guy was an exception. In fairness, though, he wasn't really looking for conversation so much as disseminating crucial health and safety advice.

We spend so much of modern life trying to optimize every minute and curate every interaction that talking without an agenda can feel a bit quaint. But there's something so civilized about it. You emerge knowing a little more about the world than you did ten minutes earlier – about jazz or brain injuries, or indeed about the cosmic protections that the crow could offer you against the mighty bear – having expected nothing more than to stand in a line or cajole your kids to hike the last mile uphill without moaning.

Trump may think Canada's greatest assets are its minerals and water. He's wrong: many countries have natural resources, but only Canada has an abundant supply of semi-retired men with hiking boots, opinions about freshwater fish and 30 minutes to spare for a natter. What a gift to a tourist from New York City who's constitutionally incapable of minding her own business.

Havana life Ruaridh Nicoll

I have a sideline in travel writing, so am lucky enough to have seen some very lovely beaches. Few are as spectacular as Cuba's Varadero. There are others I prefer – Cossies in the Cocos (Keeling), if you happen to be passing, or the hidden beach at Achmelvich in Scotland, where I shivered between granite walls in my childhood summers.

But if classic sun, sea and sand is your thing, Varadero's 12-mile, palm-fringed spit is unbeatable. It took me years of living in Cuba to visit. I believed that Varadero was all about package tourism – socialist package tourism. Then I went and walked those infinite sands at dawn, the water as clear and intoxicating as absinthe, and got over myself.

Now my family and I have moved here for a month. I can't leave Cuba – Donald Trump has said we're next on the list for regime change and as a reporter it would be bad form to miss it. But life in Havana, six months into the US fuel blockade, was grueling. Water, electricity and gas disappeared at random, sometimes for days at a time, and the blackouts deprived us of sleep. For my Cuban neighbors, life was far worse. So there's a certain guilt to decamping to the beach but I justify the move by telling myself the Marines might choose this one for an invasion. Such ballsiness doesn't appear to impress the mural of Che Guevara I now pass everyday – it is so badly painted he resembles the eye-roll emoji.

Varadero pokes out from the top of Cuba, and has a small town at its southern end. In August, it's usually packed with my fellow Habaneros, reverberating to reguetón and salsa. Cubans like to spend summer chest deep in the water, drinking beer and laughing. But the crisis has put paid to that. It was shockingly easy to rent a house here for a month – one with a lovely terrace where my four-year-old boy likes to hang out, gossiping with passersby.

As a foreigner I used to be scalped by the taxi drivers with their old 1950s Chevys and Dodges. But with no gas, electric Chinese tuk-tuks have taken over, charging a flat 10c a trip. If we're not hurrying, Angel will pick us up in his pony and trap and we'll ride in style. Maybe to Amauri, a fisherman who filets fresh red snapper that feeds us for three days (soup from its head, fried fish, lastly a

My family sits in the eye of this geopolitical hurricane and finds the calm a passing paradise

risotto). Tito turns up with avocados; Gabriel has a stall selling guarapo – sugarcane juice – while on the beach; Javier sells mamon-cillos, a relative of the lychee that my son (and my wife) eat as they while away hours by the water.

I haven't seen a single non-Cuban tourist. Pressure from Washington has caused all the package holiday airlines to pull out, laying waste to the country's economy.

There are visitors though. In the evenings, families from the nearby towns of Cárdenas and Santa Marta arrive, the new tuks-tuks making the journey affordable. My son befriends their kids in the surf, while the parents tell us of the hardships they face – and the relief the beach brings.

Whatever happens, I suspect it will again become unaffordable for them. If Washington fails to fell the Cuban system, Varadero will return to being a tourist cash-cow for the communist government. If the US succeeds, a very different future beckons, given Miami is only a 45-minute flight away.

I stand in the water and look at the palm-fringed beach edge, with its low-slung houses, some of which are made of beautiful coral brick. Varadero would turn from a worn, out-of-time village with terrible restaurants into a Miami Beach-style strip with alternatively awful, if infinitely more expensive, restaurants.

For the moment though, my family sits in the eye of this geopolitical hurricane and finds the calm a passing paradise. “We will look back on this as an idyll,” says my father-in-law, who has joined us. Only our sleep remains unsettled, disturbed by anxious dreams of what must come.

Local life Bill Kauffman

Those sending their saliva to ancestry.com and 23andMe might want to heed the advice Dr. Zaius gives to Charlton Heston as the stranded astronaut sets off to stumble upon his destiny in Planet of the Apes: “Don’t look for it, Taylor. You may not like what you find.”

Exhibit A: our friend Peter, descendant along the Quincy line in Massachusetts – you know, the folks who more or less invented New England. Peter took an early iteration of one of those DNA tests and was told, to his astonishment, that he was – according to Science! – significantly Norwegian.

Muttering the Yankee equivalent of “WTF,” Peter threw himself into a full-bore exploration of this putative heritage. As we live about 30 miles southwest of the first Norwegian settlement in America, he requested a tour of his new mecca: Kendall, New York. We warned him that the Norwegian influence on and presence in rural western New York is somewhere between negligible and invisible, but images of the homeland he’d never seen clouded his mind.

So we drove Peter down Norway Road and told him the story of the Sloopers: the first Norwegian settlers in America, 52 hardy souls who in 1825 traveled along the Erie Canal before disembarking in Holley and hiking the ten miles to Kendall. (A 53rd Slooper, Lars Larson Geilane, stayed behind in New York City to sell the sloop and then skated 290 miles along the frozen canal.) I thought I detected a tear escaping Peter's eye as he read the weathered historic marker dedicated to the Sloopers in front of Kendall High School.

Further testing of Peter's spit or blood or whatever watery fluids he produced revealed him to be a Quincy with nary a trace of Scandinavia coursing through his veins, but who wouldn't like to be Norwegian for a day?

Exhibit B: my father-in-law, proudly Armenian, who after his boyhood in the diaspora community in Syria became an American citizen of Glendale, California, wherein resides the largest concentration of Armenians this side of Yerevan. My fatherin-law, too, took a test, and it threw him for a triple loop: rather than affirming him as 100 percent Armenian, it asserted a prominent Basque strain in his makeup.

This seemed preposterous – and subsequent testing of his offspring has revealed their progenitor to have been fully Armenian. But that didn’t stop my wife and daughter from pursuing their parallel version of the ethnic fakery currently on display by the “Pretendians”– those mostly female claimants of a specious Amerindian heritage, à la Senator Elizabeth Warren and folk singer Buffy Sainte-Marie. I told wife and daughter that they were engaged in a Basquerade. But they rather enjoyed the cultural appropriation, and I did too.

As it happens, we three were in Boise, Idaho, while the Basque charade was going strong. Boise has the largest Basque population in America. There's even a Basque block, complete with museum, market and a bar at which we ate croquetas and toasted those noble sheepherding people.

My newly Basque loved ones purchased bumper stickers boasting of their half-Basqueness and quarter-Basqueness while I searched in vain for a refrigerator magnet bearing an exclamation-point-studded logo of a Basque separatist group. Euskadi Askatuta, baby!

The Basquerade was fun while it lasted, but let's face it: the Armenians have much better food. After rolling these balls of confusion I figured that I may as well spit on a piece of paper and send it off to the DNA boys. Alas, my report – or series of reports, as these were refined several times – revealed no hitherto unknown exoticisms, though an early version did credit me with being 1 percent Eastern European, which led

Germany and Italy were the other ingredients in my ethnic stew, but I forbore any Axis celebration

a family member to delightedly dub me the Polack. I considered, but rejected, the opportunity to try duck blood soup.

Turns out that my mongrel heritage is plurality Irish, which I’d suspected. A genealogy-digging relative placed most of our Mick forebears as Catholics in Northern Ireland (Fermanagh), so I scared up a 1981 hunger-strike poster and taped it to my office wall. Given that Englishness ran a fairly close second in my bloodline, I figured that in all fairness I ought at least to down a compensatory black and tan. Germany and Italy were the other prominent ingredients in my ethnic stew, but I forbore any Axis celebration.

Our daughter and son-in-law recently had their dog Scooter's slobber subjected to a canine DNA test administered by the cleverly titled company Embark. At last report Scooter was content being a mutt, as we all ought to be.

BEST OF BRITISH

FROM THE LONDON OFFICE

Tim Shipman uncovers the constant feuding at the heart of Reform

Quentin Letts thinks we should enjoy Anglican priests while we can

Arabella Byrne explains how she got 'Old Money Face'

Mary Wakefield issues a warning about 'Big Surrogacy'

Peter Hitchens says we must stop with the totalitarian name-calling

FINE ART IMAGES/HERITAGE IMAGES VIA GETTY IMAGES

Right mess

The feuding at the heart of Reform

TIM SHIPMAN

If Tolstoy had written about British politics, he might have noted: "Happy parties are all alike; every unhappy party is unhappy in its own way." Reform UK is beginning to resemble a laboratory test for the idea that every party run by Nigel Farage is unhappy in the same way. Just as in UKIP and the Brexit party, a highly dominant leader exists at the center of a court, with extreme tensions between loyalist long-marchers and arrivistes, between insurgency and respectability, between campaigning and preparing for government.

A new round of bloodletting erupted on August 17, when the founder of ConservativeHome, Tim Montgomerie, who defected to Reform two years ago, was suspended following public criticism of Farage and the party's home affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf. This decision came between the recording and broadcast of an interview Montgomerie gave to The Spectator expressing his concern about tone, tactical voting and party structures.

Montgomerie was stating what many say in private. But for those at the top of the party, the most significant thing to happen was not the Montgomerie affair. “For the first time since Easter, we held a press conference and no one asked about Nigel’s finances or the £5 million,” says one Reform source, referring to the simmering row about Farage’s acceptance of a £5 million “gift” from the crypto-billionaire Christopher Harborne and donations from his close associate “Posh George” Cottrell.

Instead, for the first time in months, the lead item on the main TV news bulletins was a Reform policy announcement – from Robert Jenrick and Richard Tice – to slash welfare spending by £50 billion by barring foreign nationals from claiming almost all benefits, restricting disability payments to the most afflicted and reinstituting the two-child benefit cap.

Farage was away on August 17, and did not know that Tom Waterhouse, the general secretary, and Lee Anderson, the party chairman, were going to suspend Montgomerie. But it was Farage, in the spring, who had ordered a benefits-cuts plan be drawn up, following taunts from the Tories that he was “soft on welfare” because his party’s voters live in places where it is rife.

This, Reform staffers say, is missing the point. “Yes, Reform constituencies have very high numbers of people who are claiming, but our voters aren’t those people,” says one. “They’re those people’s neighbors.”

A recent Reform focus group with Labour voters in the northwest who are considering switching to Reform found outspoken backing for welfare cuts. Polling shows that

The infighting, the rows and the questions about the court structure are all off-putting to serious people

65 percent of all voters (and three out of four Reform voters) think people should have to work for their benefits after six months.

Once Farage resigned his seat to fight a by-election in Clacton, he envisaged the welfare plan as part of a “one-two punch,” alongside the by-election victory, to “get back to a situation in which we are the master, not the follower, of the news.”

Further policy offerings will follow. Suella Braverman, the shadow education spokeswoman, will outline plans for apprenticeships, designed to improve the skills of the British population. Tice will set out plans for housing reform. Both are designed to signal that Reform's people are Britons who work, rather than migrants who don't. "People will be left with no sense of subtlety as to who Reform is trying to help," says one insider. "We are unambiguously a party of workers."

The welfare policy has stolen a march on the Tories. Helen Whately, the shadow work and pensions secretary, announced a policy review last year, but it has not delivered. The Tory offering risks looking like a Reform retread. Irate members of the shadow cabinet, who think Whately has dropped the ball, have dubbed her “Helen Lately.” A source familiar with the process says: “Both the Tories and Reform wanted to find some money from benefits which they could then spend at party conference. Helen has, in essence, spent the last year with

her thumb up her arse." There is an expectation inside Reform that the Tories will use the cash to announce that they would scrap inheritance tax.

Reform's conference, in Birmingham, comes first, beginning on September 3. The original slogan, “It’s Time For Reform,” has been scrapped. “The focus is all on the first hundred days” of a Reform government, one source explains. “Nigel believes there will be an election sooner rather than later, very likely in 2027,” a party source says.

Reform high command remains bullish about its electoral prospects. “Nigel could get run over by a bus and we’ll walk away with 125 seats at the next election,” another senior figure says. Candidates in target seats are divided into “three tranches of 125.” The source explains: “125 is the basement, 250 is the median expectation, 375 is the target.” The last would represent a Reform majority of 100. Candidates for the first batch of highly winnable seats will be selected and announced “pretty darn soon.” Another staffer says: “There are some very serious people.” Farage also plans to unveil “two or three” new members of his “shadow cabinet.” He continues to woo business leaders, former military men and ex-NHS administrators to join up and lend an air of professional expertise to the party’s spokespeople.

But this is where the Montgomerie affair and the criticism he has leveled are a problem. The infighting, the rows and the questions about the court structure of Team Farage are all off-putting to serious people, most of whom would have to take a huge pay cut to sign up. They would also only do so if there were a serious prospect of Reform forming a government. Both Farage's funding issues and Yusuf's brutal approach to people (branding Ben Wallace a “traitor”) and policies (his tougher-than-Trump desire to deport every single illegal migrant) appear to fuel tactical voting against Reform.

Yusuf is probably the most divisive figure at the top of British politics. A highly successful ex-businessman, who sold his company for £250 million, he seems fired by rage at the state of the world and the Conservatives in particular. As party chairman, he was responsible for helping Reform expand from a start-up into the most professional operation Farage has led. “Nigel is in frank admiration for what Zia can do,” says a party official. “All the things that normally go wrong with a business-background politician, he has managed to avoid. He has never put his foot in it in a broadcast interview – not accidentally, anyway.” Montgomerie agrees: “He made the party organization work. He has so many qualities, but he has to be a team player.”

Yusuf also seems compelled to feud with enemies, external and (wearingly) internal. "Zia did not talk to me for three months when he found out I was involved in bringing Jenrick over," says Montgomerie. "You cannot behave like a child in politics."

Montgomerie is not alone. “At any given point, the list of people that Zia is not speaking to tends to be longer than the list of those to whom he is,” says another insider. “And if you do have the misfortune to be on the list of

'The list of people Zia is not speaking to tends to be longer than the list of those to whom he is'

those he is speaking to, you can rest assured that you'll soon be back on the banned list." In an extraordinary measure of the intense feelings Yusuf generates, a Reform insider says: "Zia is an omni-c***. It's not personal. He's just like it to everyone."

Critics point out that by attacking Rupert Lowe and reporting him to the police (a process which resulted in Lowe's guns being confiscated), Yusuf effectively drove Lowe to set up his own party, which is now leaching votes from Reform. "Zia's original sin was that he created Restore by handling Rupert the way he did," says one internal critic. "They are now at 4 percent, every one of those percentage points having come from Reform's vote."

Yusuf's critics think his abrasive style has repelled Reform-curious voters. Montgomerie says: “Zia is completely uninterested, it seems to me, in unwinding Reform’s number one problem, which I think is tactical voting against us – I think he reinforces that.” A second Reformer adds: “There’s no way around it. Zia doesn’t play well with women.” Montgomerie has a theory. “If you under-

Crossing Millennium Bridge

After William Wordsworth

Some way across the bridge I stop to watch a pigeon on the parapet: the hideous, urban beauty of the bird, its thrust-hold strut, the wings flexed, garment-like, about it, wearing the defiant grit and glitter of the city. It lifts off into the smokeless air: the buses, Gherkin, Shard, the Tate, tenement blocks, the domes, and on the bank a Liebherr crane hand on hip conducts the barges gliding on the river, calm, like a Calder mobile I once saw, the gallery wall steeped in its shadows. I get a glimpse through the sharp, discordant light of a metallic heart: the stacking up of time, dear passer-by, is impervious to the pulse of a single life, hushed in vertigo.

stand him as... he wants to succeed Nigel Farage, almost everything he does makes sense. The loyalty to Nigel, the freelancing, the indifference to the wider electorate... If we don't look like decent people, even people who agree with us on deportation won't trust us with those policies. You have to pass a basic decency threshold to unwind that tactical voting."

The fear of some is that Farage also appears too angry. “He’s not the Nigel I used to know,” says one of his former drinking partners. Asked how much internal discussion there was about how to handle questions about Farage’s finances, one source says: “Zero.” The result was a series of confrontational exchanges. Montgomerie says: “Nigel is probably one of the best media performers of the last two decades. What he cannot do is, if it’s about him, his personal circumstances or his personal finances, particularly if he’s interviewed by a woman – he’s not good. When he is facing hostile questioning, he doesn’t perform well.”

Farage loyalists think they can bypass the mainstream media. But as with Donald Trump, there is a tension between running an insurgency and shackling Farage's campaigning genius to a more structured organization. "He doesn't have a chief of staff," says Montgomerie. "He doesn't have regular meetings with his MPs. There isn't someone at shadow cabinet level in charge of selecting candidates."

Montgomerie also complains that “our ground operation is not what it should be” and gave Farage the wrong steer on recent

– Astrid Alben

by-election results. “We were going to win Runcorn handsomely. We won by six votes. They thought they were close on the night of Makerfield. So the intelligence was wrong.”

He is also critical of the polling, calling it “thinner” than that of the Tories. “It’s not asking the awkward questions. It’s not understanding the nature of our women problem, or how you address tactical voting.” This is a view that is less widely shared – Farage’s numbers man, Chris Bruni-Lowe, is a highly regarded message-writer and is in demand from political parties around the world.

The age-old criticism of Farage is that he values loyalty above ability. “There are people around him who have been around him for quite a long time who, if there were a competitive tendering process, I’m not sure would survive,” says Montgomerie.

Reform's answer is that Montgomerie held no party position and does not see a lot of what goes on in headquarters. “It’s a very professional operation,” says one staffer. “The shadow cabinet is a very cohesive unit. Everyone’s shoulder is to the wheel.” They insist that the upcoming announcements will put a difficult summer behind them.

Reform is also back on top in the polls and Montgomerie says he will fight his suspension. “If Reform gets it right, the sky is the limit,” he says. “But we’re not getting it as right as I think we need to yet.”

It turns out Tolstoy touched on the challenge ahead for Farage, in his appropriately titled “Three Methods of Reform”: “Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”

THE SPECTATOR'S NOTES

Charles Moore

If poor Jason Arday killed himself, it will be necessary to work out why. To do so, it will help to know why he resigned his professorship. It seems highly unlikely he resigned if Cambridge University did not want him to. It had defended him in public throughout, after all. Yet if he had been confident of Cambridge's continuing support, why did he sacrifice the benefit of its protection? If Cambridge suggested to him that its protection would, for whatever reason, shortly cease, what caused its change of mind? What a terrible shock for him if the institution which had raised him so high was now ready to cast him out. Is the institutional attack on the press over this matter a deflection from the truth?

Professor Hilary Cremin is head of the Faculty of Education which bestowed on Arday the chair from which he eventually resigned. She recently published a book called Rewilding Education which “calls for a new educational model for a new kind of future – one shaped by the climate crisis, downward mobility, Generative AI and post-truth politics.” Looking at the Cambridge situation, I would sorrowfully say her dream is coming true.

Everyone is “rewilding” everything. The National Trust has taken it as an excuse to cut back on gardening and stop mowing the lawn. Councils let verges grow full of litter. The Rewild the Church movement seeks to impoverish clergy earnings further by ceasing to cultivate 30 percent of church land. “Rewilding” now stretches way beyond its original link with nature. There is a book called Rewilding the Corporate Mind; there is rewilding general practice, rewilding finance, rewilding law and even talk of rewilding brain surgery. Linked is the current use of the word “wild,” given a new magic, like that which “organic” attained 25 years ago. Sometimes there is a real meaning to what is wild – the difference, for example, between wild and domestic animals or wild and garden strawberries. But often it currently means occupying places which belong to somebody else and not paying for them – as in “wild swimming” and “wild camping.” In theory and practice, that is highly antisocial. “Born to be mild”

would be a much kindlier aspiration for the human race.

For more than 20 years until 2025, Mark Easton was home editor for BBC News. Most correspondents like to big up their subject, but he has made it his mission to say crime is going down, presenting entire programs about this. The first episode of his latest, The Great Crime Mystery, appeared on Radio 4 last week. There have indeed been reductions in violent and property crime, chiefly caused by better surveillance technology and the internet's ability to trace objects and people. When I returned to living in the country 30 years ago, there was serious antique theft from large houses. This has now collapsed because antiques are too easily identified online and much less valuable than in the 1990s. But I notice Easton refers not only to violent and property crime; he also states that crime in general is falling. His sources are police statistics and the National Crime Survey, based on interviews about individuals' experience of crime. Do these capture modern reasons for not reporting crime? One will be that some crimes, notably drug-taking, are scarcely seen as crimes at all, because the police show no interest. Similarly, people suffer would-be scams online every day of their lives but I doubt they notice much unless successfully cheated. There is also a vast increase in road crimes committed by bikes and e-scooters. If you stand by the traffic lights of a main intersection in London for a few minutes you will always (yes, always) see such bikes breaking the law every minute. People notice that such infringements are not policed. Beggars,

addicts, cyclists and, in London, constant protesters (usually about the Middle East or green stuff) unchecked by police, make people alienated from their neighborhoods even if such behavior would not normally end up in court. Combine that with the sense that iPhone and computer privacy is compromised, and so bad actors (even foreign regimes) can cheat you, spy on you and steal, sell or abuse your data, and you feel unsafe indoors and out. I hope Easton addresses this in future episodes. At present, his program is a procession of interviews with professors who imply the public is stupid.

I recently received an invitation to address (remotely) a large book club in Missoula, Montana, to discuss one of my Thatcher volumes. The email was so polite as to be suspect, but I attributed that to the natural courtesy of Americans. I wanted to accept because our dear daughter-in-law has family connections with Missoula, and I once had a delightful visit there. I replied, expressing interest. The courteous follow-up added that, “Because every Author Showcase is individually planned and moderated, we do request a moderation and logistics contribution.” I had never previously been asked to pay to talk about my books. I wrote back: “I assume that means money! How much?” The answer, sugared with more flattery, was \$272. I was contemplating whether my fondness for Missoula would persuade me to cough up when I received an invitation from another book club, this time in Singapore. The wording was spookily similar, and again, amid much buttering of my paws, contained a request, on the second email, for “a small support contribution associated with the feature.” My ensuing “How much?” question elicited: “in the range of \$150-\$300.” I wrote to Singapore to say I had received a comparable invitation from another book club in another country. It answered: “We have also been made aware that there are other book clubs using similar approaches and language, which is precisely why I understand your caution.” All the same, I refused Singapore and have left poor Missoula unanswered. I apologize to both if their use of AI has made me unduly suspicious. Have other authors received such things?

Plastic parsons

Enjoy Anglican priests while you still can

QUENTIN LETTS

Something amazing happened as I was walking my 91-year-old mother through Ledbury: we saw a bobby on the beat. He was even in a helmet, not a baseball cap. "A real policeman!" squealed various people, reacting as they might to a steam train or an Austin-Healey, reminders of more distinctive days.

The same surprise may soon be evident when we see dog collars. A new scheme, oversight ministry, adopted by some Church of England dioceses, is taking vicars off the streets. Instead of being front-line clergy they will become “oversight ministers” and “area deans,” managers of lay, unpaid “focal ministers.” These focal ministers will take services, undertake pastoral visits and, as the promotional blurb puts it, “be present in the wider community as an available point of contact for anyone connecting with the church community.” David Blunkett gave us plastic Plod community support officers; the C of E is giving us plastic parsons.

Oversight ministry has reached Truro, Leicester, Sheffield, Birmingham and Lincoln and is coming to our patch, Hereford. Our bishop is graciously saying that he will allow vicars to opt out of the scheme. Let's see. Bureaucrats are quietly applying pressure on priests. Muscular Christianity has been replaced by acidic office politics.

Focal ministers will not spend years at theological college. They will, however, be drilled in the things that modern Church officials revere. They “will be required to complete Safeguarding training to Leadership level as well as Raising Awareness of Domestic Abuse.” Church documents once reserved initial capital letters for God Almighty. Now they are given to Safeguarding and Domestic Abuse.

Readers will know that the C of E is in a pickle. Pews empty while race advisors, environmentalists and Safeguarding experts are marching as to war, spouting passive-aggressive managerialism and citing charity law as they hassle the few weekly worshippers. These bureaucrats benefit from a fund Queen Anne founded in 1704 to help poor parishes. In 1948 that bounty was merged into the Church Commissioners. Today, according to the Save the Parish ginger group, only £85 million of the fund's annual £653 million income goes to parishes. Rural churches are pitifully impoverished and several cathedrals are in deficit, some near bankruptcy. Vicars are resigning in even greater numbers than those who are retiring, a third showing symptoms of depression. Working for today's corporatized Church is plainly not much fun. Yet the Archbishop of Canterbury smiles brightly and talks of splurging £100 million on what the C of E insists on calling “reparatory justice.”

Cultural self-hatred, which has included the abandonment of old texts and the sale of spacious rectories, has been evident for decades. The consequences, accelerated by the closure of churches during lockdown, are now impossible to ignore. The Church has often countered calls for disestablish-

Focal ministers will not spend years at theological college but be drilled in the things Church officials revere

ment by saying it had a priest in every pulpit. This argument is used when politicians suggest bishops should be ejected from the House of Lords. “We are close to the people,” flute their graces. Once priests are mere “area deans,” that line will not wash.

I learned that our diocese was introducing oversight ministry because for a decade I have, some five times a year, taken services as a layman. Yes, the idea of a Westminster journalist rising to his hind legs in the vicar's stall, leading divine worship, sounds satirical. What a posturing pulpiteer! Context might help. The Reformation of the 16th century was, among other things, a revolution against Rome's clerisy. A liberated English Church found itself short of priests. As it took back control it therefore allowed nonsacramental services such as matins and evensong to be led by congregants. They would do so without pay. Canon B11 of Church law states that such persons will be authorized by a bishop or will be “some other suitable lay person." The wardens of our rural parish church (congregation 20, weekly collection £100) kindly asked me to do the honors when the rector was busy at one of her six other churches.

When taking matins you stick strictly to the liturgy – we use the Book of Common Prayer – and must not say the absolution or preach. When it comes to the moment for a sermon I give a short talk on history. Prayers are best said in a formal voice, shorn of personality. I model my delivery on that of my late father, a headmaster who took school services for decades, just as his own father did from the 1920s. For me, and perhaps others, churchgoing is an act of generational continuity. The Hebrew saying is l'dor v'dor.

Last week l'dor v'dor went kersplatt when I was told I would need to undergo up to 18 months' indoctrination, including "Safeguarding training to Leadership level," if I wished to continue to proclaim Cranmer's matins. Only after that "formation period" might a certificate be issued to permit me to operate. That would mean complying with the Church's secular creeds. And there, perhaps, is the reason oversight ministry is being introduced. The clerisy, still reeling from the departure of their blessed Archbishop Welby in – ha! – a Safeguarding scandal, has spotted a way to make today's Protestants bend to their will. Fusty old sods who lead matins in country churches when the vicar can't make it will not be tolerated. How many congregants will have the time or patience to submit to 18 months of training?

The noble principle of lay readers, established over 500 years of Anglicanism, is being warped by bureaucrats. Oversight ministry will increase their power and simultaneously hinder priests in their vocation.

So enjoy Anglican priests while you still have them. They have been a staple of our literature and lore for centuries. Consider George Herbert, Trollope's Barchester, Jane Austen's Mr. Collins, Woodbine Willie, the Vicar of Dibley or Captain Sam Davies, the padre who led the Glorious Glosters in divine worship before the battle of Imjin in 1951. I met him. What a man.

The dog collar is a reminder both of more distinctive days and of a time when the Church existed in the very weft of Englishness. Now it will be lost to oversight ministry. What an... oversight.

License to kill

When does targeting the enemy become murder?

OWEN MATTHEWS

When is extrajudicial killing just war by other means, and when does it become a state-sponsored act of terror? “We were not terrorists but fighters for freedom who fought with our eyes open,” Menachem Begin wrote of Irgun, the irregular group of fighters he led during the 1947-48 civil war in Mandatory Palestine, the tactics of whom included bombings and assassinations. But where does the August 1 bombing

of the Balzi Rossi restaurant in central Moscow – which killed at least five people and injured more than 20 – stand on the scale?

Some would describe the attack as a legitimate military operation. The bomb targeted the lavish birthday celebrations of Colonel-General Aleksandr Chayko, commander-in-chief of Russia's Aerospace Forces (whose son-in-law died in the blast). Chayko commanded the northern group of Russian forces which advanced to the outskirts of Kyiv in February and March 2022, which pro-Ukrainian bloggers maintain makes him ultimately responsible for the massacres of civilians in Bucha and Irpin. Following that logic, the attempted assassination of Chayko stands alongside heroic partisan killings of war criminals – for instance the shooting of Reinhard Heydrich, Reichsprotektor of Bohemia and Moravia, gunned down on a Prague street by British-trained Czech agents in May 1942.

But if you believe the Balzi Rossi bomb was justifiable, what, then, is the difference between that attack and the Irish Republican Army's 1981 nail-bombing of British soldiers at London's Chelsea Barracks, or bomb attacks on Household Cavalry troopers and an army band in Hyde Park and Regent's Park the following year? All were assaults on military personnel in a civilian setting in the cause of overturning a colonial occupation.

Our answer obviously depends on how we feel about the righteousness of the perpetrators' cause. The US and UK have been taking out al-Qaeda and ISIS members in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan by drone attack for years, accepting collateral damage to unlucky civilians as part of the butcher's

We can say that it's fine when Barack Obama smites his enemies, but bad when Putin does it

bill. Few would shed tears for Mohammed Emwazi – “Jihadi John” – killed in a US-UK drone strike in Raqqa in November 2015, or “White Widow” Sally-Anne Jones, terminated using a Predator drone in 2017. Israel’s Mossad, with its arsenal of exploding pagers and pinpoint hotel-room strikes, is a world leader in taking out enemies wherever they find them.

Nevertheless, approving of extrajudicial execution opens a moral can of worms. We can say that it's fine when Barack Obama smites his enemies but bad when Vladimir Putin does it because we approve of one but not the other. But that argument quickly slides into a dangerous moral ambivalence, a whataboutism of the kind the Kremlin loves to exploit.

Kremlin-controlled Russian media have blamed Ukraine for organizing the latest Moscow bombing. Officials in Kyiv, meanwhile, have remained silent. But the Balzi Rossi explosion is the latest in a long string of bombings targeting Russian officers, occupation officials and propagandists. In August 2022, Darya Dugina, a 29-year-old

pro-war commentator and daughter of the nationalist ideologue Aleksandr Dugin, died in a car bomb blast presumably aimed at her father. In April the following year Maxim Fomin, a pro-war military blogger known as Vladlen Tatarsky, was killed by a bomb concealed inside a statuette presented to him as a gift during an event in St. Petersburg. Zakhar Prilepin, a nationalist novelist and commander of pro-Russian forces in the Donbas, was badly injured by another car bomb.

Similar devices have, since 2022, killed three Russian lieutenant generals, a deputy mayor of Stavropol and the founder of a pro-Russian battalion in Ukraine. Ukraine's SBU security service has either denied responsibility or said nothing about bombings on Russian territory. But it has claimed several identical bombings inside occupied Ukraine, including two lawmakers in the Russian-installed assembly in Luhansk, an official at the Russian-controlled Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and the former head of the Olenivka prison in Donetsk, all blown up by improvised explosive devices. Occupiers are “a completely legitimate target,” SBU sources told Ukrainian media. Ukraine has also claimed responsibility for at least 15 assassinations or attempted assassinations by handgun that killed or wounded, among others, a Russian submarine commander, a cruise missile software engineer and the deputy head of GRU Russian military intelligence. Russia, for its part, has also organized at least six shooting assassinations inside Ukraine.

What makes some of these bombings especially morally complex is the apparent use of unwitting suicide bombers to deliver the devices. Darya Trepova, an anti-war Russian, maintained that she did not know the statuette that killed Tatarsky contained explosives (she was nonetheless sentenced to 27 years in jail for murder). Zaur Gurt-siev, deputy mayor of Stavropol, and Armen Sargsyan, founder of the pro-Russian “Arbat Battalion,” were killed by suicide bombers who were both apparently unwitting pawns with no known patriotic links to Ukraine and no observed desire to die for Kyiv’s cause. In

Ultimately we judge the actions of our heroes and villains by who they are, not what they do

October 2022, delivery truck driver Makhir Yusubov picked up a load of goods destined for Crimea after accepting an order on a logistics website. Halfway across the Kerch Bridge the truck detonated, killing Yusubov and damaging the bridge. Vasyl Maliuk, then chief of Ukraine's SBU security service, publicly acknowledged the operation and admitted that Ukrainian services deliberately “used people in the dark.” It’s not known if the woman who delivered the bomb to the Balzi Rossi – reportedly wrapped as a present – volunteered for a suicide mission or whether she was just another expendable human carrier.

Is there a difference between killing a Russian commander on the battlefield and blowing him up at his own birthday party? You can argue that all's fair in love and war, that the horror inflicted by Russia on Ukraine justifies killing enemy officers even when they're unarmed and off-duty. But that moral choice comes with an uncomfortable trail of logical contingencies. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote, every man who commits evil does it for reasons he considers good.

In the wake of the Hyde Park bombing, the IRA put out a statement justifying killing British servicemen because “the Irish people have sovereign and national rights which no occupational force can put down.” The Kremlin liquidators sent to murder KGB and GRU defectors Alexander Litvinenko and Sergei Skripal undoubtedly saw their victims as traitors who had betrayed their country – and themselves as righteous executioners. Menachem Begin, in his memoir The Revolt, claimed that US president Harry Truman “said that he would have joined the ‘terrorists’ had he been in Eretz Israel during the rule of the British.”

Goldfinch

He spoilt her. That man. Nine years after Dad died. Re-kitted out her wardrobes. She bought couture coats, scarves, tall, long-legged leather boots, burned new gold, autumnal; braided in seasonal colours, burgundies and bronze. Finally found a man who cherished her. Let her shine. And shine she did, a glowing goldfinch, as his days dimmed.

They road-tripped across Ireland.
There's a photo;
her stood in some pub in Tipperary,
Guinness pints, centre stage on an upturned barrel;
her, him and another couple,
raising a glass, living it up,
doing the things she never did with Dad
letting life flow, chasing fun,
speeding in her mate's fiancé's flash car,
round the Ring of Kerry, hitting, one after another,
those colourful, shack-like bars.

Yes, that's a list of very different cases – bombing as an act of war vs poisoning as an act of state revenge, postcolonial independence movements vs sovereign warring states. But that's the point. Circumstances matter. Motivation matters. And here's the nub of the problem. We can easily agree that our ends sometimes justify extrajudicial means, but not the ends of those with whom we disagree. Ultimately we judge the actions of our heroes and villains by who they are, not by the things they do.

To return to the original question: where does the Moscow bomb attack lie on the scale? Operationally, ordering this kind of suicide bombing is an outlier by the standards of any western army or security service – including the Israelis. Accurate targeting, as well as minimizing civilian casualties, is an important part of the moral equation for any democracy. Even if drones inadvertently blow up whole wedding parties in Afghanistan the civilian chiefs who ultimately authorize such operations can be told it was

– Paul Deaton

a genuine accident. A 1kg bomb full of ball-bearings brought to a crowded restaurant, as the Balzi Rossi bomb was reported to be, is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a targeted means of assassination.

To be clear, there is no direct evidence that this attack was the work of the Ukrainian government. Indeed I honestly hope that neither the SBU nor the HUR was involved. Because whoever ordered the bombing is treading a dangerous path. First, being found responsible for an indiscriminate attack of this kind would erode the moral superiority that Ukraine undoubtedly holds as the injured party in this conflict. But more dangerously, it opens the door for a new tit-for-tat front in an already supremely vicious war, fought not by guns and missiles but improvised explosive devices in restaurants. Is there a difference between these two methods of dealing death to innocent civilians? For many people, the answer depends who's doing the killing and who's doing the dying.

The Spectator's Mediterranean Cruise onboard Regent Seven Seas Grandeur®

13 JUNE 2027 | 7 NIGHTS ALL-INCLUSIVE SUITE FROM \$4,660* PER PERSON | \$8,160* FOR SINGLE OCCUPANCY

The Spectator and award-winning luxury cruise specialists The Travel Academy are delighted to announce a new and exclusive trip for 2027. We invite you to join business editor Martin Vander Weyer, Real Life columnist Melissa Kite and a like-minded group of readers onboard one of the most luxurious ships ever built – Regent Seven Seas Grandeur® – for a Mediterranean cruise from Barcelona to Rome via Palamos, Cannes, Monte Carlo, Portofino and Tuscany (Livorno).

Regent Seven Seas Cruises® is the most all-inclusive luxury experience at sea, and we are delighted to share early bird prices, with savings of up to \$4,690* per suite.

For more information visit spectator.com/medcruise or email loyalty@thetravelacademy.co.uk

Britain is falling into a mawkish fantasy

I don't know how many readers have visited the grave of Dobby the house-elf, but any who have should immediately be sectioned and have their subscriptions to The Spectator canceled.

This strong course of action occurs to me after reading one of those stories that can make you laugh, cry and smack your head into your hands all at once. It relates to a “memorial” which apparently sits on Freshwater West beach in Pembrokeshire, Wales. The area is run by the National Trust – a charity which used to look after our nation’s heritage sites.

The beach in question was where filming took place for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Since then, fans of the film – which spawned a new generation of mewling, ungrateful actors – have been laying stones and pebbles at the spot at which Dobby died, many of them with messages on (“Here lies Dobby, a free elf.”) The National Trust has already asked fans not to leave socks on the pile (don’t ask), but stones to form a kind of cairn appear perfectly acceptable.

At this stage it might be worth noting that “Dobby” is a fictional character. No such house-elf ever existed. Therefore you might think this rather whimsy-infused “memorial” should not detain us much longer.

Except that this is one of those increasingly typical moments in modern Britain when a fantasy world and the real world come into conflict – and the real world loses the encounter. A £430 million undersea cable linking the UK and Ireland had been due to pass through the area but – thanks to Harry Potter fans complaining in their hundreds – was rerouted. Indeed, the cable now passes nearer to some Bronze Age human burial remains in order not to disrupt the nonexistent grave of the never-existent Dobby.

The project manager of this farrago told the media that the hundreds of complaints the company had received had ensured that it took the issue very, very seriously. Simon Ludlam said that, in the end, the cable “went quite close to some real Bronze Age remains, but we avoided Dobby’s grave.” This solution made “a lot of people very happy,” he added, “and Dobby’s happy.”

At this point I would be happy to pull my head out of my own hands and smack

Mr. Ludlam around the face with a sock, a stone or anything else that came to hand.

Firstly, due to matters of taste. Of all the sentimental attitudes which are most painful, surely the worst is this sort of modern British “whimsy.” It is as one with the sort of people who, after the death of Elizabeth II, chose to leave Paddington Bear toys among the flowers, or pass around memes online of Paddington leading the late Queen towards the gates of St. Peter.

The Queen Mother's favorite poem – “The Gate of the Year” – includes the line that on treading into the unknown you should “put your hand into the Hand of

Of all the sentimental attitudes which are most painful, the worst is this sort of modern British ‘whimsy’

God." It seemed telling that by the time her sovereign daughter died, the country had ditched the hand of God as hard to put faith in and replaced it with a theology in which the departed should instead place their hand into the hand of Paddington Bear before being received into glory.

Until the past few years, I would have dismissed such sentimental claptrap as being distinctly un-British. Further, I would have said that while such mawkish sentimentality might still thrive among the Irish, the British would surely keep it at bay. I mention the Irish with justification. Some years ago, a motorway bypass in County Clare had to be altered in order to protect a “sacred” fairy bush. Local “experts” had claimed that if the fairy bush was destroyed to make room for the £100 million bypass then the new roadway might suffer a “curse.” More recently a new housing scheme in County Wicklow found itself at the center of a similar row after a “fairy tree” was put at risk. Fortunately the fairy tree survived as the builders built around it.

‘Ron prefers horizontal drinking.’

In relating these stories I do not intend to plant in the minds of readers any idea that the Irish are a superstitious and backwards people. I do not say that at all. But it does seem slightly regrettable that protecting the sacred fairy bush of County Clare, or the fairy tree of County Wicklow, seem like perfectly sensible propositions beside diverting an undersea cable in order to avoid disturbing the site of a fantasy character's burial place.

Which brings me to the second problem in all this: that such a story seems awfully telling about a country and its priorities. Over recent years Britain has found it impossible to complete almost any major infrastructure projects. Most of the time this is due to the discovery of a rare earthworm or – as anyone who has tried to restore a property in the countryside will know – that there is evidence of bats. You do not have to have seen a bat, merely have evidence that bats may once have eyed up your property, and you’ll discover that your house is no longer your own but has fallen into the joint custodianship of Dave from the local council and any passing bat.

Even this is merely a good-ish intention taken to a typically bureaucratic extreme. No such excuse can be made for the Dobby's grave phenomenon. It is simply indicative of a country where the adults have all taken leave of their senses and handed over the decision-making to children who were never told “no.”

I suppose that if these are the new rules of the game there is an argument for playing along. I would be happy to start by claiming there is a horcrux to be found somewhere in the oil reserves in the North Sea and that unless we start extracting all that oil we risk not finding it and therefore failing to defeat the Dark Lord. Which is not the maddest energy policy I’ve heard lately.

SPECTATOR.COM/DOUGLASMURRAY The debate continues online.

Wrinkles in time

Do you have 'Old Money Face'?

ARABELLA BYRNE

Recently, I have started to worry about my face. Early in the morning, before the children wake up, I'm sure I can see ghosts in the downstairs loo mirror. My 20-year-old self's face flashes before me but soon vanishes reproachfully into the crow's feet around my eyes; I didn't like her anyway. My long-deceased father lingers over my cheekbones and draws the smoking lines around my mouth in ash. I frown back. My grandmother, anxious, appears in the split second between posing and relaxing. I squint as she used to when playing bridge. If the past is an inscrutable face, I am reduced to reading, not between the lines but between the wrinkles.

I never thought I would get old – I’m 43 – but it’s happening. Admittedly, my lizard-like love of the sun and devotion to fags hasn’t helped. I once spent an entire month in Provence lying on a riverbank with no SPF on and smoking Gitanes sans filtre. That’s some skincare regime. Mercifully, a new buzzword in beauty has appeared – and it suits me down to the last frown line. “Old Money Face” is an active rejection of Kardashian beauty optimization and the reviled 2D “Instagram Face” retrofitted by plastic surgeons after we were taught to edit ourselves through filters on a phone.

Forget fillers, forget Botox, forget the hush of the clinic and the scolding word of the surgeon as he taps the needle. The grandest thing you can do in this beauty revolution is to wear a sensible hat and smear some sun cream from the bottom of a drawer over your mug. Picasso, speaking to Gertrude Stein, once pointed to a face and said: “It is as old as the world.” Could he have known, 100 years later, that this would be the greatest compliment of all?

But Old Money Face is more than skin-deep. Like most things to do with being posh, you simply can't buy it. Old Money Face betokens a way of the world that has, rather hilariously, nothing to do with the altar of wealth upon which the beauty industry (worth £28 billion in the UK) relies. Or, as Alan Clark would have it, face work is the surgical equivalent of having to buy your own furniture. Old Money Face speaks to a life spent outside in the country – walking the dogs, riding, gardening – and a stout, immovable skepticism about sun skin damage (“I think climate change is absolutely bloody marvelous, the sun shines more,”

Like most things to do with being posh, you simply can't buy it

one jolly aristocrat tells me during “over the yardarm” drinks in the walled garden). It is the weatherbeaten sign of a life well lived and a suspicious approach to “beauty” – a Mitford-esque belief that one looked in the glass only out of concern rather than vanity.

I can spot Old Money Face a mile off: sunspots from lashings of skiing and sailing; bags under the eyes from too many boozy afternoons at the Chelsea Arts Club; craterous frown lines across the forehead after paying the school fees for four children; and, importantly, smoking lines down either side of the mouth which gives it a slightly doggy, chic look. Its most famous possessor, of course, is the Queen – no stranger to the Gloucestershire wind or the yardarm drink and cig. Other poster girls include the late Mollie, Marchioness of Salisbury, who helped the King design the gardens at Highgrove, and the late, great “Debo,” Duchess of Devonshire, who wouldn’t have gone near a needle in a fit. Regarding needles, Old Money Face is categorically opposed to Ozempic. “You don’t look so wrinkled if you’re a bit fatter,” a wise OMF confided.

Why now? Are we postface as we were once postmodern? Perhaps we have lived too long in the age of digital visibility: on Instagram, on Zoom – where the face has become suspended from the body – and even within the realm of emojis where affect is short-

circuited in a range of variations on the cartoon countenance. And only cartoons could explain “Mar-a-Lago Face,” a look worn and engineered by the women of the Trump administration such as Kimberly Guilfoyle, the ambassador to Greece. Mar-a-Lago face constitutes a crude artificiality; perhaps, like its political crucible, it is a dismissal of reality altogether. And similar to its brother philosophy of looksmaxxing, it rests on the credo that everything – from the eye area to the shape of the skull – can be improved. But we have become faced out. For if the female face has become the site of the struggle between time and vanity-induced terror, it was inevitable that it would come undone. Face capital could last only so long; expect the same to happen with semaglutides.

Another early morning dawns and I resolve to seek a professional opinion (for journalistic purposes) on the ghosts in the mirror. Is it Old Money Face, as I hope, or simply the beginnings of Old Hag Face? The plastic surgeon greets me in his immaculate Belgravia clinic with loafered calm and kind assurances. I have, he tells me, “pronounced sun damage” across my forehead and, rather mysteriously, my chin. I lie back and he begins to outline a range of treatments: light exfoliation, laser treatment, bespoke pigmentation creams. I pretend to listen, but I am elsewhere, lost in a gallery of faces that I don’t recognize. I leave the clinic with my dark glasses on, light a fag and sit in the sun.

MARY WAKEFIELD

The hidden victims of 'Big Surrogacy'

A court in Dallas, Texas is due to decide the fate of a small baby called Gabriel or Rumi, depending on who you believe his mother is. Gabriel-Rumi is at present a sort of Schrödinger's baby, suspended between possible futures and suspended also, poor sod, between life and death: born with a heart defect, headed now for surgery.

Gabriel-Rumi's short life has so far been the subject of a media frenzy, for reasons I'll explain, but should he later look back and be appalled at all the fuss, I'd like him to know what a service he's already done the world.

The global surrogacy business surges on, valued at almost \$40 billion, heading for \$300 billion by 2030; an accelerating factory belt of babies commissioned, grown, sold. No one who profits from it wants to pause the gravy train or look too hard for harm. But the case of baby Gabriel-Rumi makes the cost of surrogacy – all surrogacy – painfully clear.

Gabriel-Rumi's biological parents, Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar, are from California. They conceived using IVF and decided, for unknown reasons, to use a surrogate. Perhaps Nausheen couldn't carry the baby, or perhaps, like a growing number of western women, she'd put in the hard yards at the gym, looked hot on her socials and didn't fancy stretch marks. Some women now use surrogates because they're freaked out by the thought of labor. "Social surrogacy," it's called, to distinguish it from the medical sort. Is it morally right to outsource physical pain?

Anyway, for whatever reason, Nausheen and Omar contracted Worldwide Surrogacy Specialists LLC, WSS contacted McKenna West and Gabriel-Rumi was implanted. All was dandy until the 20-week scan, when it was discovered that he had a heart condition, hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), which would require surgery shortly after birth.

At that point, Nausheen and Omar decided to abort, which contractually they had a right to do. McKenna at first agreed and made the appointment, before realizing that she couldn't bring herself to kill the baby. Children with HLHS can lead happy lives and Gabriel deserved a chance, she said, and she offered to have him and bring him up herself. McKenna didn't want cash; this wasn't any sort of shakedown. It was the baby she was thinking of, and at a later stage she offered to give up any parental rights if Nausheen and Omar would agree to the life-saving surgery.

The couple thought it best to kill their son. McKenna was prepared to suffer and to disrupt her existing life in order for him to live. Which woman acted more like a mother? I'm not attacking Nausheen. All over the world mothers abort babies for less serious reasons. But parental love is sacrificial. It was McKenna who demonstrated that love.

And is it all that surprising? I remember the 20-week scan as a turning point in my own pregnancy. The size, the heartbeat, the obvious life of the baby jolted me into a realization that here, truly, was another person, and that I loved him and had a duty to

A woman who carries a child isn't just storage – she's bonded and the baby feels that bond, too

care for him. In many ways it was a terrible realization for a woman as irresponsible as me, and it came with a premonition of all the future worry and grief that love involves. I think of that moment as the beginning of motherhood, and it was entirely bound up with the physical closeness of the baby. Distance allows for denial – in pregnancy as in all manner of other scenarios. When your aged grandparents are at a distance, for instance, it’s easy to persuade yourself that it’s fine not to visit, less unsettling for them. Up close, the truth outs.

A convenient language has evolved to keep the fiction of uncomplicated surrogacy alive and to persuade us all that you can fracture motherhood: split off the egg from the womb, and the womb from the parenting, with absolutely no harm done. Surrogates are known as “gestational carriers,” and like egg donors they’re treated as if they’ve done no more than a regular good turn, given blood maybe. But the difference between Nausheen and McKenna’s reactions to their son’s disease shows how wrongheaded this notion is.

A woman who carries a child isn't just storage – she's bonded and the baby feels that bond, too. Well, of course it does. The womb is its whole reality. A baby is born already knowing and listening out for a birth mother's voice, and her smell and her heartbeat – and when it's deprived of them, it suffers. We know now that if a baby is parted from his birth mother, he interprets her absence as life-threatening and it triggers an emergency stress response. His cortisol spikes and his blood pressure rises. It's one of those many biological realities that people who call themselves progressive try to will away.

They insist on “bodily autonomy” and a mother’s right to choose right up to birth, for abortion. But if a surrogate like McKenna wants to save a baby, I wonder, is it still “her body, her choice?”

The couple did not take McKenna up on her offer to care for their baby. They insisted on abortion, and so she fled with Gabriel-Rumi on board to Texas, where she felt he was safer. Texas not only bans abortion in almost all circumstances but gives the woman who carries the child, rather than the commissioning parents, the authority to decide on medical care.

Gabriel-Rumi was born on August 12 in Dallas, and he owes his life to McKenna West, but even so he may never be allowed to meet her. Nausheen and Omar are now the baby's legal parents and they've procured a court order preventing McKenna from coming near him. They're also suing her, seeking up to \$100,000 for breach of contract, though I'm not sure where they think she'll find that sort of money. And who knows, should they win the battle for long-term custody, how they'll possibly explain to their son why they decided to destroy the woman who saved his life.

Rescue mission

There's still time to save the West

MATHIAS DÖPFNER

When The Spectator asked me whether I would write an essay on “Why we need to strengthen the West,” I was delighted – and bemused. Why is this even up for debate? That we must explain and justify “the West” at all indicates just how weak it has become. It would be better if it did not need strengthening but were simply strong. It is not. The West has become an invalid.

What exactly, though, are we trying to strengthen? The West is an idea, not a location. It rests on four pillars: Athens – where democracy was born. Rome – the cradle of the rule of law. Jerusalem – where Judeo-Christian values placed the inviolable dignity of the individual at the center. And finally, the Enlightenment – whose great thinkers in London, Paris and Königsberg anchored humanism, individual civil liberties, the separation of powers and the division of church and state.

Herodotus observed a phenomenon shortly after the fall of the Peisistratid tyranny, which remains the most vital lesson in political philosophy to this day. The Athenians, he noted, had fought no better than their neighbors as long as they were ruled by tyrants. Yet the moment they threw off the yoke of tyranny, every individual was motivated to give his utmost, proving decisively stronger and more successful in battle. Why? Because he was now working for himself, not for a master. In that single observation Herodotus formulated the timeless plea for self-determination and liberty – the core idea of the West.

This idea also shapes a view of humanity articulated by Immanuel Kant. Man is not perfect. Kant wrote that “out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made." In the western view of mankind, this implies: nor should it ever be.

Freedom's most important word is “no.” Dissent is self-determination. It is liberating to say: “No, I see it differently.” With “no,” the freedom to think and act begins. The freedom to say no stands in stark contrast to the unfreedom of having to say yes. Democracies are no-saying societies. Dictatorships

Freedom's most important word is ‘no.’ Dissent is self-determination

are yes-saying societies. Liberty is inherently critical of authority; it permits and encourages contradiction – precisely what autocrats cannot abide. That is why dictators wish to weaken the West.

That the West – the open society based on liberty, the rule of law and human rights – is on the defensive is an empirical fact. According to data gathered over decades by the think tank Freedom House, global freedom declined in 2025 for the 20th consecutive year – deteriorating in 54 countries while improving in only 35. The most damning figure: a mere 21 percent of the world’s population lives in countries classified as “free,” compared with 46 percent two decades ago. Autocracies have grown more numerous, more domestically repressive and more externally aggressive. The West is currently threatened and weakened from within and without. Its three great external adversaries are China, Russia and Islamism – particularly Iran and its terrorist networks.

China's goal is to become the leading global economy by 2049 at the latest – the

centenary of the People's Republic. The combination of communist autocracy and turbocharged state capitalism has proven remarkably efficient, not least because the West made itself a useful idiot in this impressive growth story. In hindsight, admitting China as a full member of the World Trade Organization in 2001 was the single greatest blunder of western trade policy. The naivety or shortsightedness lay in granting membership to a major nondemocratic state that was neither able nor willing to abide by the rules of free trade, while simultaneously blessing it with developing-nation status, conferring all manner of exemptions and preferences. It was akin to giving the most ruthless bully on the playground special rights to beat up his playmates.

In the short term, China brought growth and prosperity to all parties; in the long term, it shifted the global balance of power, creating perilous dependencies. The most tragic example is the German automotive industry. For decades Germany's industrial giants banked on cheap manufacturing and lucrative consumer markets in China. In doing so, they failed to grasp the difference between good business relations and strategic dependence. The friendly cooperation ended the moment China acquired the requisite know-how to launch a heavily subsidized assault on the German car industry, even as Chinese domestic markets were quietly closed off. It was a Chinese masterclass in expansive geopolitics carried out by capitalist means. $\text{Wandel durch Handel}$ (“change through trade”) – the naive hope of the 1990s – inverted into its opposite. Change occurred, but not toward greater freedom, rather toward greater unfreedom.

This trajectory is accelerated by the AI arms race between America and China. The US still holds the upper hand. Yet China, through the total surveillance of its population, enjoys vastly greater access to data, unencumbered by regulatory or ethical constraints. Moreover, there are growing

The woke movement has become the Trojan horse of the anti-westernism loved by dictators and autocrats

indications that China is actively fueling AI-skeptical sentiment across western social media. Propaganda aimed at inducing anxiety and slowing down rivals is taking its toll. America appears more tech-skeptic than ever. It is not unlikely that the next presidential campaign will hinge partly on which party promises to better protect voters from AI. China understands that whoever dominates AI will dominate economically and politically. It seems only a matter of time before it leads in this arena too.

While America has at least recognized this bitter reality and reacts with varying degrees of success, Europe lives in denial. Beneath the soothing bromides of the EU, the continent is gradually drifting toward becoming an amusement park for Asian tourists: high quality of life paired with diminishing productivity and value creation.

The global trend is clear. Democratic economies are weakening, nondemocratic ones are strengthening. In this tectonic shift, the implications for military power are routinely underestimated. China is still viewed by many as a militarily passive, purely economic power. That picture is false.

The Chinese military budget nearly doubled from \$145 billion in 2015 to \$281 billion this year. The ultimate test case is Taiwan. Annexing the democratic, western-leaning island nation and integrating it into a monolithic communist republic is one of Xi Jinping's main missions. China will strike as soon as the odds are high enough that America lacks the strength to intervene – perhaps because western resources have been depleted across other theaters of conflict in Ukraine and the Middle East. Should China achieve its objective without effective western resistance, the global order will be fundamentally altered.

Vladimir Putin's war of conquest in Ukraine plays a remarkably helpful role in this strategy. Even if the war is far from a military success for Putin, he achieves two vital objectives: dividing the West by driving the US and the EU further apart, and exhausting American and European military stockpiles. Putin – ever the student of western weakness – tested how far he could go, and went remarkably far. Now that Ukraine has evolved into a formidable asset in modern AI warfare, he is turning to a weaker target: hybrid warfare against Germany and other EU nations promises less resistance and greater prestige at home.

Putin finds ready allies in Iran and other Islamist-dominated regimes. Islamism hijacks religion for terrorist ends. The primary enemy of fanatical Islam, as the founding Hamas Charter of 1988 explicitly states, is the world of those they deem godless – the Judeo-Christian West. The destruction of Israel and all Jews is merely the first step. The next is the weakening, infiltration and violent reeducation of Europe and ultimately America.

It remains difficult to fathom that the genocidal attack on Israel by Hamas led not to a global wave of solidarity with Israel, but to a massive surge in anti-Semitism. The weakest justification is the claim that Israel's retaliatory measures in Gaza after 7 October exceeded all bounds, or that its domestic and foreign policy are deeply questionable. Has the Israeli government made mistakes? Undoubtedly. Is that a reason to be anti-Semitic, transferring criticism of Israel onto all Jews? Absolutely not.

Yet the trend persists. Anti-Semitism has become a pop-cultural zeitgeist, particularly among the young. Germany, of all nations, recorded 8,725 anti-Semitic incidents last year – the highest figure among the seven countries examined by the 2026 Annual Report on Antisemitism, ahead of the US (6,274) and the UK (3,700). The trajectory is the key: from 2021 to 2025, incidents rose by 124 percent in France, 131 percent in the US and 215 percent in Germany.

The primary cause of this development is a reckless, runaway migration policy. Islamist milieus – including strategically placed jihadists – have spent years undermining western societies and their foundational values. Pointing this out is not Islamophobic. True Islamophobia lies in failing to distinguish between those who wish to integrate peacefully into the West and those who enter to abuse its systems and destroy its values. Under the guise of compassion, uncontrolled and frequently illegal immigration contributes not only to the West's cultural self-abandonment, but fuels – by way of reaction – the rise of right- and left-wing populists and extremists.

'I can't wait for the anti-Establishment to become the Establishment.'

Michel Houellebecq provided the dystopian vision for this in his 2015 novel Submission. He describes a France where the Muslim Brotherhood has taken power: a frightened country where women wear progressively longer dresses until skirts disappear entirely; where unsuccessful white men rejoice at enjoying multiple marriages with underage wives; and where news of Islamist terror attacks is eventually suppressed so as not to alarm the populace. The book depicts the exhaustion of western society. Reality appears to be mimicking fiction in the most gruesome fashion.

The woke movement has become the Trojan horse of the anti-westernism loved by dictators and autocrats. It is the epitome of the anti-freedom triangle, seamlessly intertwining anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism. The word “West” has

Is its current crisis the very medicine required for the West's renewal? That is the best-case scenario

long been suspect in politically correct circles. The mandated terms in geopolitical discourse are now the “Global South” and the “Global North.” For those using the phrase “Global South,” linking the West to colonial guilt is no accident – it is the very purpose of the narrative.

Woke ideology often bears the hallmark of good intentions: fighting racism, protecting minorities, questioning privilege and confronting colonial history. In reality, however, it is the inversion of almost every value and objective of civilization.

In the competition for victimhood status, the concepts of progress, competition, growth and prosperity erode. In the West, being successful was once better than being unsuccessful. Wealth was better than poverty. Beauty was better than ugliness. Under woke ideology, all this is reversed. It resembles a manual for western self-abolition, born out of self-hatred.

Is the West ultimately weakening itself out of a bad conscience? Will we only realize what we stand to lose when it is too late? Or is its current crisis the very medicine required for the West's renewal? That would be the best-case scenario: a catharsis on the precipice of failure, because we finally grasp what is at stake and realize that the alternatives are far worse.

Why do we need to strengthen the West? Because otherwise the tyrants win.

Great art is priceless. Great writing is just \$1 a week.

The whataboutery delusion

Stop with the totalitarian name-calling

PETER HITCHENS

If you live near the frontiers of acceptable opinion, as any thinking person must surely do, you quickly find that these badlands are policed mainly with insults and innuendos. And so you learn one morning, to your surprise, that you are an apologist for some repulsive regime which you strongly dislike. If you have been especially daring, you may be a “war crimes denier” as well. Or you are charged with “whataboutery,” a word its users think will magically erase your case. Or, in many ways best of all, you are a conspiracy theorist.

There is a myth that this phrase was invented by the CIA to try to discredit protesters against the Vietnam War, but the expression is far older than that. Even so, like all these dismissive epithets, it is remarkably effective – especially among the great electronic mobs of antisocial media.

The word “conspiracy” is one of the strangest in our language. The authorities will readily allege it when they have very little actual evidence against a defendant. Nobody sniggers when they do so. But a private individual will be laughed to scorn if he suggests that powerful or influential people might have met privately to discuss a common aim – as in fact they do all the time. The moment the tinfoil hat of “conspiracy theorist” descends on your head, nothing you say will be taken seriously.

As well as suggesting mild insanity, the word also creates dark images of men in Guy Fawkes hats, with daggers concealed in their cloaks, whispering to each other in a tavern in Deptford. I have long tried to counter this nonargument by pointing out that the most common conspiracies in modern Britain go by the prosaic name of “lunch.”

When I worked as a Lobby reporter at the Palace of Westminster, I learned quickly that very little could be picked up in the Lobby itself. The key to success was to join or form a lunch group with one or two others, and invite senior politicians to spill the beans over an expensive meal they didn't have to pay for.

I do not think that the Sainted Lord Moore, who was in such a group with me in the Thatcher era, will mind terribly if I mention this. His presence had a magical effect. Almost nobody turned us down. Many of those we pumped for leaks, gossip and indiscretions are now dead, including Lord Hailsham, who turned up at Rules in Maiden Lane straight from the Woolsack, still wearing his Lord Chancellor's kit of doublet and hose. If the readers of British newspapers knew just how much of the supposed political news placed before them is cooked up in such places, over the smoked eels or the steak and kidney pudding, I expect they'd be envious.

But this is lighthearted stuff compared with “whataboutery.” This expression really did begin in the Cold War, when Soviet propagandists would respond to criticism of their police state by saying that black people in the US got a raw deal. The two obviously

If you cannot distinguish between oven-ready propaganda and fact, should you even engage in politics?

weren't comparable, and in any case Soviet Moscow was one of the most racially bigoted cities in the world. It was false equivalence of opposites. But we have recently moved into the age of regime change, in which we are expected to applaud wars against other countries because their regimes are bad. But, oh dear, what if our allies also have bad regimes?

I am as revolted by the Iranian despotism as anyone else. Perhaps more so. They once threw a friend of mine into solitary on false charges of spying, a hideous experience of injustice and cruelty. But the “West” is somehow unmoved by the comparable repressions of Turkey, its prisons bulging with journalists, of Saudi Arabia, with its dungeons and bone saws, and Egypt, with its street massacres of opposition supporters. We are very friendly with these countries. How so if our hatred for oppression in Iran is genuine? If I make the simple point that our supposed objections to the Tehran state are a pretext, not a reason, then I am accused of “whataboutery.” Is this right or fair? If you really cannot distinguish between oven-ready propaganda and serious fact, should you even engage in politics?

‘We struggle to keep the garden under control these days.’

The inventor of whataboutery, as I sometimes point out, was Our Lord Jesus Christ, who in a memorable bit of preaching, asked “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7, vv 3-5, if you’re interested).

As for being an apologist for foreign despots, this has now become the standard objection to anyone who dissents from the official line on the Ukraine war. And it is an official line. Government buildings in London fly the Ukrainian flag, an unprecedented gesture. No doubt there are some people who support the Russian invasion of Ukraine (I have always deplored it). There may even be people who support its aims, whatever they actually are (I have no idea). I am even told that I am a Putin sympathizer because I was once a Trotskyist, logic so mad that it would take pages to dismantle.

The possibility that I might take the view I do because I am a British patriot and don't see what interest Britain has in prolonging, arming and financing this conflict is not considered. This is all quite trivial now, and I can cope with it. But it troubles me because it is the embryo of a police state mindset, in which dissent is automatically treachery. Argue with me, beat me in debate, anything you like. But don't call me by these totalitarian names.

In Scene 33 of the Bayeux Tapestry, Halley's Comet, which appeared in the spring of 1066, is regarded as an omen of doom. A frightened man rushes to deliver the bad news to the newly crowned Harold

BOOKS

A cunning character

The last Anglo-Saxon king made few mistakes — but Hastings proved a battle too far

Alex Burghart

Harold: Warrior King by Tom Licence Yale University Press, £25, pp. 416

Oh Harold. So near and yet so far. So close and yet no cigar. In January 1066, the world (well, England) was at his feet. Two hundred and eighty-two days later he was battle meat. On day one he became the richest ruler Anglo-Saxon England had ever known. In late September, he defeated the hardest bastard in Europe (Harald Hardrada). In mid-October, England was changed forever, but not by him.

He had, of course, no right whatsoever to be king. Sure, he was Edward the Confessor's brother-in-law, but under the sacred rules of hereditary power that gets you zip. He claimed that Edward had promised him the throne (he hadn't), but, again, that ain't how the royal circus rolls. Moreover, there was a blood heir – Edgar Ætheling, the great-grandson of Ethelred the Unready – whom Harold had sworn to support. He reneged, pulled off an epic coup and became the only Englishman ever to assume the throne without one drop of royal blood in his veins. Somehow, later generations came to believe that he had been on the side of right. How on God’s merry earth did this happen?

Tom Licence's superb biography – ingeniously timed for the Bayeux Tapes-try's return – sets out to rebuild the man afresh from first principles and primary sources. A central and often blithely discarded fact is that Harold was half Danish (on his mother's side; the name is Danish and was not used by Englishmen before his time.) Licence's Harold has a touch of the Viking about him – he's a taker of slaves and a man who had no qualms about ravaging English lands when politics demanded it (poor old Somerset). He was lascivious to boot: two wives, perhaps in bigamy; a reputation as an adulterer; and at least one illegitimate son. Domesday Book records “a certain concubine of Harold’s” owning property in Canterbury.

The son of Earl Godwin of Wessex, the great survivor and royal fixer extraordinaire, Harold was made Earl of East Anglia in his early twenties. Historians have often asserted that the “House of Godwin” was a potent force, hemming in a weak King Edward. Licence shows it to have been a far from tightly knit family but full of fractures and

Harold became the only Englishman ever to assume the throne without one drop of royal blood in his veins

disunities that often brought the senior siblings (Earls Swegn, Harold and Tostig, and Edith, the Confessor's queen) to blows.

For all his roaring and raiding, Harold did not waste the talents or opportunities which God and Godwin had given him. Raised to Earl of Wessex on his father's death, he became the king's top dog. He took command of the southwest Midlands and used this base to attack the Welsh kingdom of Gwent. Licence reveals how Harold deployed his military wiles to bring about the death of King Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, seize part of his domain and have his wife.

The ultimate power plays were to come. One of the author's most intriguing theories is that the great northern rebellion of 1065 – which saw Edward's favorite, Tostig, tossed out of his Northumbrian earldom – was masterminded by Harold, who then emerged, to Edward's fury, as the de facto successor to the throne. This is major and fascinating revisionism. It has ordinarily been thought that, in 1066, the English chose Harold either because they needed a warrior to fend off invasions and the Ætheling was too weedy, or because Harold's people pretended that Edward's dying breath had left him as heir. Licence makes the case that, with Edward old and ill, Harold fomented discontent in the north and presented himself to his peers as the only man who could bring order. This being so, the succession question may have actually been resolved in 1065, rather than on Edward's death in 1066. Where Licence perhaps goes a smidge too far is in suggesting that this was the only viable course for the kingdom. The stench of ambition can be smelled 960 years down the way. Harold had options. He chose himself.

In any case, a badder beast with a yet more spurious claim was coming. Licence is persuasive in showing that, up against it, Harold made few mistakes as king. Cunning and luck gave him victory against Hardrada. The use of his fleet may have spared some of his troops the forced march back from Yorkshire. And even after two critical battles in the north, the English ran the Conqueror close in the south. Alas, Hastings was a battle too far.

There is much the specialists will long debate. But all future biographers will need to wrestle with the man Licence has assembled: a shagger, a chancer, an oath-breaker, a soldier and a grandmaster of the great political game. Here is a three-dimensional Harold who stands in his own time and on his own terms, and who, for all his human faults, is still, like the blazon on his banner at Hastings, “an armed warrior woven in pure gold.”

A media revolution Dennis Duncan

Hot Type: The Magnificent Machine That Gave Birth to Mass Media and Drove Mark Twain Mad

by Jeff Jarvis

Bloomsbury, £17.99, pp. 384

Here's a quiz for you. On the third floor of the New York Public Library is a vast mural painted by Edward Laning in the 1930s. It's called "The Story of the Recorded Word" and it's divided into four scenes, each one a pivotal stage in the development of writing. Can you guess what they are?

I daresay you managed to picture something resembling the third scene: a bearded Johannes Gutenberg showing off a page of type from his new invention, the printing press. I think you might have got the second one, too: a medieval monk, with quills and inkpot, copying out a manuscript in his scriptorium. Perhaps, if you're religiously inclined, you even guessed the first: Moses receiving the Ten Commandments carved into stone. But what about the fourth scene? That's right: it's Ottmar Mergenthaler, in the offices of the New-York Tribune, demonstrating his Linotype machine to the newspaper baron Whitelaw Reid. Of course it is.

In the 1880s, Linotype's invention seemed as momentous as Moses on the mount or Gutenberg's movable type. What was it, then, and why does its inclusion in this great lineage look so quaint now? Jeff Jarvis's Hot Type is the story of the rise and fall of Mergenthaler's miraculous machine. Ignore the subtitle, by the

A series of inventions radically increased the speed at which newspapers could be produced

way. That's something that publishers do: make you ham up the celebrity angle. TL;DR: Mark Twain was the principal investor in a machine called the Paige Compositor, the Betamax of newspaper typesetters, and he lost eyewatering sums of money on it. The hero here is Mergenthaler, and the villain is Reid.

Over the course of the 19th century, a series of inventions radically increased the speed at which newspapers could be produced and distributed. The steam-powered press – introduced at the Times in 1814 with a kind of union-busting secrecy (hold on to that thought) – brought printing speeds up to thousands of impressions per hour; the telegraph meant that far-off news could be reported at the speed of electricity; the ability to make paper from wood pulp rather than linen rag reduced production costs; and the railways widened circulation. By the 1870s, it was clear that the last remaining bottleneck in the mass media system was typesetting. Since the days of Gutenberg four centuries earlier, every letter that was printed had to be handpicked, one by one, by a compositor standing in front of a case containing thousands of tiny metal pieces of type.

Linotype typesetting machine, 1897

Imagine this sentence, this exact one – capital I, lower case m, then an a, a g, and so on. In letterpress printing, each letter requires an arm movement to the typecase and back. Imagine this whole article, this whole issue in fact. Or let's say your Spectator is not a weekly but a daily, and that new stories might break urgently, perhaps just an hour before the publication goes to press. Even with a large team of (skilled, highly paid) compositors, the scale of the thing hardly bears thinking about. Newspapers of the 19th century were notably thinner than they are today, often only a single sheet folded into four pages. If only someone could take a typewriter keyboard (the Remington company had successfully commercialized their “Type-Writer” machine, with its QWERTY layout, in 1873) and adapt it, so that instead of just making an inked impression on paper it would line up the metal type that could then be placed on to a printing press.

The race, then, was on, with inventors like Twain's disastrous acquaintance James Paige trying to replicate the work of the compositor reaching to the typecase each time a key is struck. The great advantage of Mergenthaler, a young German immigrant living in Baltimore, was that he had never worked in printing and was not therefore wedded to its processes.

To a letterpress printer, Mergenthaler's innovation seemed like a wild one. Traditionally, all those individual pieces of type were cast from molten metal at a type foundry, then purchased by printers, often by the ton. What if, thought Mergenthaler, instead of picking out pieces of type, the machine picked out the tiny molds that the foundry used, then cast these as a single metal slug? This made a line of type (hence the name) ready to be laid out by the editor arranging the columns for printing. A Linotype machine, then, is its own type foundry. It has a pot

of molten metal, and yesterday's news can be melted down and recast into today's.

Jarvis, the founder of Entertainment Weekly and a former editor at the New York Daily News, knows a thing or two about journalism. Hot Type is a labor of love and a tribute to the machinery on which he cut his teeth. As a lifelong newspaperman, he understands how to tell a story with charm and wit. His chapter on the aftermath of Mergenthaler's breakthrough – the explosion in the number of newspapers and magazines circulating, the thickening of their contents with supplements and Sunday editions, the tilt toward advertising as the primary source of profit – is as brisk and clear an essay on mass media as one could hope for.

Hot Type is primarily an American tale, but it ends in Wapping. In 1986, the striking print unions failed to stop Rupert Murdoch from forcing through the shift from Linotype to phototypesetting, whereby a page could be printed from its camera-ready paste-up. Setting up a page of newsprint was no longer a matter of raised metal type, but of typewriter, scalpel and glue. Wisely, the NYPL resisted updating their mural. Within a couple of decades the photo era had given way to the digital. If there is to be a new panel in “The Story of the Recorded Word” then surely it should be of Steve Jobs thumbing a hasty text: Sent from my iPhone.

Speechless messages Bryan Appleyard

The Kiss: A History of Passion and Power by Katie Barclay Reaktion Books, £20, pp. 240

Kissing is a tricky subject. It has a complex, baffling history. The kiss of a baby is one thing; the kiss of lust something quite else. Kings, generals and prelates used to kiss, as did mafiosi – often before killing. The kiss has many meanings, all of which are explored in this informative, if sometimes wearing, book. Finally, a warning: if you’re queasy about arse-kissing, don’t read it.

But then you would be missing a lot. Katie Barclay, a diligent Australian academic, has written an “overview of the world of the kiss in Europe from medieval times to the present.” Her opening words begin listing the startling variety of the kissing involved: “Smooch, snog, pash, smack, peck, canoodle...” But the core of the book concerns the changing historical connotations of osculation.

Nowadays a kiss denotes something primarily sexual, largely because of mass media. Nothing sells like sex, and so the snog is the dominant form of the kiss in the contemporary imagination. This is followed by familial kisses – which, strangely, may be lifesavers. American insurance companies have claimed that men who were kissed goodbye by their wives before driving to work were less likely to have car crashes. I find this a little threadbare, but maybe...

Barclay sees the kiss of peace as a “central ritual of medieval life for Europeans.” We are told that for many Christians the mouth was the entry to both the body and soul, so taking the Eucharist could signal an intimate form of a kiss. The most notorious use of the Christian kiss was when Judas kissed Jesus to indicate he was the one who should be arrested and crucified by the Romans. Another case of perilous intimacy involved St. Francis Assisi in 1206, climbing down from his horse to kiss and give alms to a leper, who then disappeared.

Should men kiss each other? In 18th-century France, “Lamourette’s kiss” was a way of bonding men in the legislative assembly. At the same time, the British were distancing themselves from man-on-man snogging and replacing it with hand-shakes. The Danes produced an osculatory text in The Kiss and its History (1901) by Kristoffer Nyrop: “We all yearn for kisses and we all seek them: it is idle to struggle against this passion.” Scandinavian eroticism was thus unleashed.

Richard Wagner suggested that “the kiss of love is the first intimation of death,” but then modernity brought us the “kiss of life,” by which a dying person could be resuscitated by the application of lips and blowing in air. (It happened to me once, but I was unconscious and unaware.) The present century pursued osculatory truth in brain scans, designed to see what exactly is happening when we kiss. But this is difficult. So scientists resorted instead to monitoring people as they viewed others kissing. It turned out that watching same-sex kissing produced the most striking results. But it was all still unclear: “Measuring the impacts of the kiss remains a fraught and rather futile business,” Barclay observes.

Finally, there's that arse-kissing – “an inversion of the holy kiss, a corrupted ritual used by heretics and witches to shame and humiliate others.” It was apparently much favored by the Waldensian movement that began in 12th-century France. The practice crops up quite often in this book – and seems to be considered OK for animals. I will pursue the subject no further.

Barclay's scholarship is formidable, but the deluge of information can be confusing. Were, for example, medieval kisses never sexual? Surely all kinds of kisses are going on all the time. I hope so.

Culture wars Andrey Kurkov

Ukrainian Lessons: Art in a Time of War by Charlotte Higgins Jonathan Cape, £22, pp. 272

"The nonsense was over at last," wrote the Lithuanian-Polish poet Czesław Miłosz in 1939, as a period of uncertainty gave way to the horrors of World War Two. Charlotte Higgins quotes these words at the beginning of Ukrainian Lessons, describing the outbreak of full-scale war in Ukraine after eight years of "local" warfare in the Donbas and the annexation of Crimea. From the first pages of this profound study of the impact of war on culture, replete with life stories, the author places the Russo-Ukrainian conflict within the context of global cultural history and geopolitics. References to Rwanda in 1994 and the bloody events in Londonderry in 1972 are in no way out of place.

Higgins, a celebrated arts journalist, took up her first Ukrainian assignment in September 2022 and found herself both “inside” the war and inside Ukrainian culture, which, like everything else, had become the target of Russian drones and missiles. The same autumn she began taking language lessons online from a teacher living in Ternopil.

Her latest book is about Ukrainian culture, which is at war with Russian culture, and has regularly fallen victim to Russian imperialism. It is filled with the stories of artists, writers and poets whose voices I recognize, and is organized not in chapters, but in “lessons,”

each with a date. Higgins regards her experiences surrounded by such figures in the war-torn country as an education, something akin to a fascinating course of lectures during which you see artifacts at the precise moment attempts are being made to destroy them. The way our attention is drawn to all manner of things that could disappear at any time makes Ukrainian Lessons far more than just another book about the war.

The title is significant. We get miniature language lessons – which create a rhythm and a vivid sense of Higgins’s involvement in the events she describes. But we also learn much from her conversations with the writers and poets she meets, who explain what the war is doing to the language and culture – how metaphors disappear and why literary experimentation, so familiar in peace-time, becomes an atavism. War inflicts pain on everything it touches. It is precisely this wounded reality that becomes the raw material of culture. Artists, writers, filmmakers and musicians begin to perceive culture not only as a victim but also as a weapon. “No metaphors work against a man with a machine gun,” says the Lviv-based poet Halyna Kruk during one of her events. Then, in a conversation with Higgins, she adds: “I’m sorry that poetry doesn’t kill.”

No matter how hard these people try to “arm themselves,” culture remains a victim of war. But its wounds encourage the most unlikely characters to rush to its aid. Among the many inspiring stories told here, those of the volunteers who rescue works of art from war zones stand out. We hear of two friends, Leonid Marushchak and Arif Bagirov, who, without official instructions or permits, risked traveling 22 times to the besieged historic city of Bakhmut to retrieve treasures. Bagirov, a self-proclaimed former hooligan, entrusted his life to the more decisive Marushchak, who drove his wife’s Mini into places mainly accessible only by tank.

On another perilous trip, having swapped the Mini for a more spacious Mercedes Sprinter, the two drove to the city of Lysychansk to save the contents of a small museum devoted to the Ukrainian poet Volodymyr Sosiura, including his hat. Higgins asks Bagirov whether he was afraid to die. He answers:

I told myself, “Listen, Arif, these are your last days. You might as well live them brightly. Make your death beautiful.” And if I die for the sake of Volodymyr Sosiura’s hat? That would have been the most beautiful death of all.

This book is full of vibrant, energized personalities – the sort you don’t often meet in peacetime. They emerge against a backdrop of ruins, fires and death, which they ignore. The threat to Ukraine’s heritage is described with the urgency of a thriller. Ukrainian Lessons conveys a message from all the brave people Higgins meets – those still alive, and those, like the novelist Victoria Amelina, who did not survive to see its publication.

ARTS

Style counsel

Remembering Christopher Gibbs, the aesthete, collector and collagist who connected with Everyone and created a new patron class

Jonathan Meades

Style, self-evidently among those who pursue an interest in such affairs, is, according to the Comte de Buffon, the man himself – the essence, the heart, the bowel, the Bovril. While, among the much greater majority who pursue an ignorance in such affairs, it is an assumed gamut of off-the-peg tics, props, accent – style is something bolted on to a being’s chassis and core in the hope that it will hold.

We can be certain which of these two nugatory classifications better suits the late Christopher Gibbs (1938-2018) who in the course of his long, more or less antiquarian life encountered Everyone, absolutely Everyone. “Everyone” in this instance unhelpfully signifies little beside the people, per se, whom Gibbs met, smiled at, sold to, bought from, bought for, advised and charmed. How he charmed! His name and the promise of his presence defined a once significant strand of 20th-century society and never failed to nourish one’s amour propre. It transcended generations.

Whether your hashish comes from Jou-jouka and your rugs from Taroudant is today no longer a matter of any minute: it was, however briefly, a most urgent preoccupation of Everyone when Everyone was young, i.e. three quarters of a century ago. And because that was a good while back this scrapbook of Gibbs's polyvalent life is constellated with personae, places, incidents and kit (furniture, objets de vertu) intended to put his world in some sort of context which differentiates it from the mainstream Saturday parade of grockles and nostalgics for a Swinging London which had decades ago moved on: "The Chelsea Potter's where it's at." No longer (and never was).

On that count the smallness of this world is perhaps not as emphatically stressed as it might have been. It was bound to just a few seconds and places in Chelsea, no further west than World's End. Lucy Moore tends to treat the pernicious era as a monist entity. She was not born when Gibbs was at his clamorous and stealthy zenith.

Gibbs's world was not built with an eye on legacy. Though it got one – and how – in the form of the craze for really shockingly trashy clothes, grotesque cars, music, witless ugliness and lapels that filled a room with their wearer's humiliation. Sometimes it felt as though the world had been redesigned for maximum oafishness by Donald McGill and Benny Hill. That was the 1970s, the decade that forgot taste and probably had none in the first place.

It was what happened when Gibbs's essentially arts-and-crafts sensibility and foraging eye were traduced by the crassest sort of manufacture: an Aston Martin gave way to an Austin Allegro packing five blue rinses. That every piece about tailor John Pearse or

At the level of trade, where Gibbs operated, discretion was all and a man's word was said to count

the club Alibi or the restaurant Casserole is forced to rely upon the same few photographs and same few well-rehearsed witnesses rather gives the game away.

This engaging book is not, then, another tired yarn of Mini Mokes, Getaway People, nylon and microskirts on rugby footballing thighs: such entertainments were by and for the proletariat who sang along with exbrickies in velvet. And they predated the covert hush of Gibbs's microcosm. Note the title: Christopher Gibbs: His World. That's a warning of exclusivity as certain as a Great Dane's maw.

Here we learn about secret swathes of silk velvet, about Baghdadi cooking behind an occluded door on Fulham Road, about reading Borges aloud and cavorting on drystone walls dressed as minstrels and troubadours. Nor, thankfully, is it an inventory of a decorator's consigns. It is a skewed portrait of

Gibbs. He was not quite an artist – though he flattered himself as a designer – more a collector and collagist, an eye, a domestic deity sprinkling Maghrebin magic from a cumin censer. In this microworld of dandiacals, designers drink from translucent cup and saucer while lower-caste decorators slurp from sugar-crusted mugs that mark them as salt of the earth – the kind who know their place. In Gibbs’s world rank and hierarchy – quasi-martial but often flimsily dissembled – endured so long as Everyone (the initiated) was alive to recognize its codes till the very end.

At the level of trade, where Gibbs operated, discretion was all and a man's word was said to count. Incorrect attribution is a tort, and dodgy provenance is more than that for it is applied to buyers, sellers, families of blood or of no blood worth transfusing. Gibbs once showed me a startlingly strange tessellated portrait of a man (c. 1600) which, he claimed, he could not sell because he knew nothing of its back story save that it was probably Neapolitan. It reminded me of Meade Falkner's The Lost Stradivarius, a book which now, 50 years later, reminds me of Gibbs himself. That tessellated portrait itself has gone to the mattresses. It'll turn up.

Gibbs was also a writer on design for magazines read by aspiring people with little imagination but plenty of money: design in this context means rooms cluttered by those very magazines, bibelots, Directoire ormolu, minor masterpieces. He wrote without cognizance of his pomposity or fawning: “A house has to be awakened, furnished, lived in and made a home. There are those who have a natural aptitude for such activities but they are a rare breed, for special houses require a special understanding bred of knowledge and experience. Often, these days, the help of professionals is sought.”

The special style Gibbs sold was his own special awakening. Inflated and proud, yet cautiously so. English understatement raised its timid head. It was, to say the least, hybrid. And it was learned young. At the family house of Tyntesfield – built near Bristol to the designs of the unorthodox goth Henry Woodyer and a couple of other less wayward high Victorians – styles and sources clash with abandon. It is not that far from a well-appointed junk shop. Gibbs wrote of it with his precious chum Bruce Chatwin murmuring pretty “poetic” prose in his ear, prose which really needs a thorough kicking from some louts on the way back to barracks.

Lord Snowdon's 1985 portrait of Christopher Gibbs in his Bond Street gallery, once describe as ‘God’s attic’

In another life Gibbs might have been an exemplary dealer in Pimlico or Bond Street. But that would be anti-Gibbs, far from the Gibbs who connected with Everyone: the Queen Mother, numerous Sainsburys, Rothschilds, a Getty or two, Talitha Pol, Gavin Young, Gavin Lambert, Poppet John, Barbara Hutton, and surviving bright young(ish) things such as Juliet Duff whom David Herbert (a sort of sage to Gibbs) called “a four-masted schooner with mink sails”.

The connection that most colored Gibbs was with Mick Jagger, whom he was jokily said to be teaching to be a “gentleman.”

Given Jagger's chameleonic deftness this was no more than a modest leap. Fifty years ago every rock band's boast that "we are the new aristocracy" was a pathetic delusion. Gibbs and Jagger – au fond devotees of the old order, of literal aristocracy and huge families – did not change all that. But they did create a new patron class. His World shows how they did it.

Christopher Gibbs: His World, edited by Lucy Moore, is published by Clearview Books.

Igby Rigney as Bret and Homer Gere as Robert Mallory in The Shards

Television Paradise lost James Delingpole

The Shards Disney+

My father once drove down the King's Road with Marianne Faithfull and Terence Stamp in a paisley-painted Mini to buy a velvet suit from Granny Takes A Trip while high on acid. No, not really. I was always very disappointed with my parents' “what it was really like in the 1960s” anecdotes because basically they didn't have any.

Now my own children are having similar problems with my anecdotes about the legendary 1980s. Yes, it's true that I did go to see Duran Duran at the height of their fame, but only to keep my little sister company in a football stadium smelling of chips and fizzy pop and filled with screaming 12-year-old girls. Yes, I did wear eyeliner and white lipstick once, but I looked a prat. Yes, I did listen to lots of fashionable synth pop, like the Human League's Dare. But I also listened to Dire Straits, because that was how it was. Great decades are only worth living through second time round in a haze of nostalgia and with a more carefully curated soundtrack. That's one reason I can so heartily recommend The Shards: finally the 1980s as you almost wish you had experienced them – endless sex with beautiful people, hot tubs, fast cars, cocktails, sharp tailoring, languidly drawled one-liners, tennis, horses...

It's a bit like a younger, hipper version of Rivals, only without the self-deprecating humor and faint whiff of naffness. That's because we're not in Jilly Cooper's jolly, bonktastic, tongue-in-cheek Rutshire but in Bret Easton Ellis's oppressively chic, cruelly sardonic, exquisite but ghastly Los Angeles, recreated in his semi-autobiographical slasher novel The Shards. We're in the early 1980s: the music is great, all the kids are beyond cool, and they live in beautiful houses with maids, pools and absent parents. But there's a snake in the garden and it's about to wreak havoc on this pampered, insolent community of tragically spoiled brats. The author Bret is represented by a character called Bret (Igby Rigney) who provides the dry, knowing, wistful voice-over. Bret is writing a novel about his world – the last year at an elite prep school for kids of the rich and famous, some of them played by kids of the actual 1980s rich and famous. Supermodel Cindy Crawford’s daughter Kaia Gerber plays pouting, supermodelish Susan Reynolds; the mysterious, handsome and sinister new arrival Robert Mallory is played by Homer Gere, whose father is, of course, Charlie Sheen. Joke. But you see how meta the whole project is.

Anyway, this snake in the garden I mentioned... it is, as per usual, Bret Easton Ellis's trademark MacGuffin: a savagely inventive serial killer. This one acquires the nickname the Trawler because first he sneaks into your house and nicks all the fish in your tropical tank (to be disemboweled and served up later with your body, along with your other pets which he also kills); then when he's ready to display your corpse, somewhere ostentatious like your tennis court, he wraps it all up in fishing nets. Normally I dislike this sort of thing. I couldn't even start Ellis's American Psycho, let alone finish it. There is far too much violence in cable TV drama, often involving women being tortured and ritually murdered by serial killers. (I blame young female audiences. They're the ones driving this masochistic trend.) But though the horror scenes are pretty graphic they're somehow rendered bearable by the context because, a bit like the permanently drugged-up characters, you feel as if you're experiencing everything at one remove.

That is, it's real and also not real; intense and at the same time, yeah, whatever. Show-runner and co-director Ryan Murphy has captured perfectly the bizarre, unsettling register of this tainted paradise, where anything you want is yours, the drawback being that you can't enjoy it because it's never enough, and anyway emotions are so uncool and best suppressed with another quaalude.

This is a world where one second girls can be speculating on the final moments of the latest classmate to have gone missing, presumed dead, and next, in almost the same breath, asking with the same degree of seriousness: “Does this lipgloss make me look fat?” It’s a world of pure surface – lovingly captured in close-ups of jacuzzi jets blasting into ultra-blue water and shiny black vinyl discs about to play some classic 1980s banger and the fetishistically observed inner workings of a C90 cassette in a cassette player recording the screams of a terrified torture victim being forced to eat his tropical fish while LSD is injected into his neck.

Very American Psycho revisited in other words: high fashion meets pornographic ultraviolence. I wouldn't at all blame you if you don't think it's for you. But it's easily the best drama on television.

Exhibitions Ai why why? Digby Warde-Aldam

Ai Weiwei: Button Up! Aviva Studios, Manchester, until September 6

Jasper Marsalis: Still Life Chisenhale Gallery, London, until September 6

When Ai Weiwei (b.1957) arrived in Europe in 2015, fresh from state-imposed house arrest, he was greeted as a hero. Museums and galleries fell over themselves to host exhibitions devoted to the West's new favorite dissident – even while he continued, mysteriously, to participate in Chinese art fairs. Nobody dared say it at the time, but his actual art – vast, chaotic installations and whimsical sculptures that drew on Chinese folklore – was even then just a bit dull.

Soon enough, the artist was positioning himself as the voice of the global dispossessed, in the process (to borrow someone else's phrase) morphing into a kind of Chinese Banksy. His work became self-aggrandizing in tone and ever more naff in form, in the process losing any trace of subtlety. A particular low came when the artist lay down on a Greek beach and posed as the drowned Syrian refugee Aylan Kurdi, an “awareness-raising” stunt as ill-judged as it was risible.

That picture doesn't figure in his current retrospective in Manchester, but if it did, it wouldn't be anywhere near the stupid-est exhibit in the show. Everything here is crap; it's also massive, for somewhere down the line, it seems that the artist has mistaken monumentalism for profundity. The Zeppelin-hangar space is rammed with outsized exhibits, accompanied by patronizing captions that assume that no Mancunian has ever been to an art exhibition.

The major attraction here is a giant black dinghy hanging from the ceiling, its sides weighed down by 258 anonymous, scaledup mannequins in lifejackets. This tells us that, firstly, Ai cares about the migration crisis; second, that whatever talent he once possessed has long since evaporated.

It’s heroically awful: there’s a billboardsized chart depicting the history of bombs; an upturned, crochet recreation of Jacques-Louis David’s “Napoleon Crossing the Alps,” which – colonial-studies alert! – replaces the Emperor’s horse with a zebra; massive banners displaying the flags of the erstwhile “Great Powers.” Empires and police states are bad, Ai tells us, and we all bear the burden of guilt.

He's probably right, but this stuff is pure finger-wagging junk, less an art exhibition than a really tawdry theme park. I'm honestly not sure I can remember seeing a show quite so objectively, impressively wretched.

Not that there's much going on in London. The best exhibitions – Donald Locke at Camden Art Centre, or Ana Mendieta at Tate Modern – commemorate dead artists. A notable exception comes with Jasper Marsalis's show at the Chisenhale Gallery – a flawed display that nonetheless manages to be miles more interesting than any other contemporary art you're likely to see this summer.

Marsalis (b.1995) is the son of jazz musician Wynton and he is charismatic in the extreme. His eloquence doesn't always translate into what he makes, but there's nonetheless something wild to his practice. The mise-en-scène here involves a multiplex-scale screen broadcasting live imagery from

I'm honestly not sure I can remember seeing a show quite so objectively, impressively wretched

webcams positioned in beauty spots around the globe. Meanwhile, massive speakers blast atonal FM frequencies, creating a near-symphonic continuum of white noise.

We thus get weird, grainy and gorgeous 30-second livestreams of the Sussex Downs, unidentifiable night skies, a view of a beach in (I think) Socotra and whatever else, set to an undetermined jumble of radio signals, the music they carry wiped from the equation. No matter that all we're likely to see in motion are rippling waves on Alpine lakes and perhaps the occasional, speck-like passing car. The potluck roll of images introduces an element of jeopardy to the proceedings: you could, potentially, catch someone dumping a corpse in a bush.

Marsalis says he's trying to make us reconsider our appreciation of landscape, and alert us to the hidden means via which we receive live information. I'm not sure he succeeds, but I was seduced all the same – and before I knew it, I'd spent more than an hour in the show. Whatever the artist's intention: it draws you in, it feels new, and most important, it looks ravishing. In August, in London, I could settle for less.

Classical music Apple of my eye Damian Thompson

Just two weeks ago I was ready to cancel my subscription to Apple Music. I’d stumbled across its “Composer Essentials” – a list of 100 composers so significant that they merit their own curated playlists. It includes Bonds, Boyle, Caccini, Dawson, Dett, Perry, Poldowski, Sohy, Strohl and Walker.

If those names don't ring a bell, how about the composers who are missing? Albéniz, C.P.E. Bach, Bellini, Berg, Bizet, Borodin, Chabrier, Kodály, Martinu, Messiaen, Mussorgsky, Nielsen, Poulenc, Schoenberg, Walton, Weber and Webern.

See what I mean? The “Essentials” list is stuffed with DEI hires. Which – an analogy to Cambridge University comes to mind – does no favors to the black and female composers who deservedly feature in it, such as Joplin and Beach. In what twisted alternative musical history does Bizet bite the dust, the whole Second Viennese School drop off the map and Germaine Tailleferre nudge out Francis Poulenc?

As I say, I was thinking of canceling my direct debit. But then Apple Music announced that, to mark the 150th anniversary of the première of Wagner's Ring Cycle, it has created a Listening Guide that “accompanies listeners through all 15-plus hours of Wagner’s drama via expert text-based commentary synchronized in real time to Sir Georg Solti’s legendary Decca Classics recording.” That’s 45,000 words of “moment-by-moment insights into the music, mythology, characters and ideas.”

Apparently there are already 200 synchronized guides. That was news to me. To be fair, it's not the sort of thing you just stumble across. Intuitive it ain't. Go to the Apple Classical homepage, choose "search," and up pops a page of icons. The Listening Guide section displays the albums that have received the treatment; when you start playing a track, click the tiny treble clef at the bottom and, at last, you're in.

As the music moves, so do the highlighted words. For example, in the first few seconds of a famous piano concerto: “Over a gentle murmuring accompaniment, the solo piano plays a simple, very singable theme in both hands…” Run the text without the music and there’s a neat challenge for music buffs.

Anyway, you can understand why Wagner's Ring would be perfect for a synchronized commentary – and also why it took a whole year to assemble. There are dozens of leitmotifs in the cycle; by the time we reach Götterdämmerung they're in every bar, though they're so beautiful that we scarcely notice.

Alas, the score doesn't name them, so

Wagnerian trainspotters are always squabbling over whether one group of notes represents a curse or the renunciation of love, or at what point the Ring motif turns into Valhalla, and so on.

There are several rival lists out there, some running to nearly 200 entries and all guaranteed to bore the average listener to tears.

On the other hand you can't totally ignore the leitmotifs because they drive the story forward, often revealing things that you won't find in the libretto. But blink and you've missed it – and, let's face it, it's easy to blink during what Rossini called Wagner's mauvais quarts d'heure.

Listening Guide to the rescue! The commentary kept me alert during the Norns' moanathon in the Prologue to Götterdämmerung, after which comes my favorite moment in the whole cycle, beginning with Brünnhilde's post-coital cry of "O! heilige Götter!"

Here's Apple's description: "The descending Siegfried's Missions motif and Brünnhilde's new Love motif are rapturously combined... The salutes become a duet at last: they greet each other, culmi-

To cut a long story short, Apple's Classical app is my new favorite toy

nating in a top C for Brünnhilde.” That’s precisely the right level of detail, and my iPad served it up without prompting, allowing me to forget the fatuous libretto. Needless to say Birgit Nilsson hits that C like a laser and Solti whips up the Vienna Phil into a frenzy as it spurts out “an orgiastic treatment of Siegfried’s harmonized Horn Call.” Ooh, missus!

To cut a long story short, Apple's Classical app is my new favorite toy. I can't wait to use the simultaneous commentary on the Goldberg Variations: I'm embarrassed to admit that, after decades of listening, I routinely mix up canonic and noncanonic variations. Likewise, I still need extra tuition to show me where Mahler begins his development sections.

But, see above, Apple still subscribes to bien-pensant fantasies. Will it waste its new superpower? I wonder if some hard-up music critic has been dragooned into writing a simultaneous commentary for, say, a symphony by Louise Farrenc (1804-75).

Imagine if, instead of the prescribed gushing, the text told the truth: “Here the composer switches on the autopilot as she glides towards the home key and a derivative coda…”

On second thought, let's not go there. I've just remembered which company manufactured, and can presumably peer inside, the computer on which I'm typing these words. So... guide my listening, Apple!

JOHN McCABE Symphonies 2 & 3 and Cello Concerto

Grade: B+

“Cheltenham Symphonies,” they used to call them – a catch-all term for the kind of large-scale, traditionally inclined postwar works that found a natural home at the Cheltenham Music Festival. But it was also a sneer: a dig at the supposedly parochial nature of British music in the 1960s and 1970s. Over in Europe, the avant-garde was doing whizzy things with Marxism and electronics. British music, went the narrative, was suburban, outdated and drab.

Now listen to John McCabe's Third Symphony of 1978. McCabe's orchestration is as gorgeous as a bird of paradise; it shimmers like the colors on the surface of a bubble. Not that there's anything fragile about McCabe's musical engineering. McCabe, a Liverpudlian who died in 2015, was a formidably intelligent pianist (his Haydn recordings are still unrivaled) and in fact the Third Symphony takes its inspiration from Haydn, plus another of McCabe's symphonic heroes, Carl Nielsen.

You’d never guess it. McCabe’s imagination – here, and in the bigger, more austere Second Symphony of 1971 – has a force that stands unaided, and which carries over into his late cello concerto Songlines, which is eloquently played by Raphael Wallfisch. Don’t be fooled by the hippy-dippy title; it’s closer to Shostakovich than world music.

All three works are driven with fiery conviction by American conductor Kenneth Woods, who has spent much of the last decade reviving and recording Britain's neglected symphonic heritage. Some day we'll thank him. Meanwhile, the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra struts like a peacock – and why wouldn't they, when Woods and McCabe make them sound this good?

— Richard Bratby

THE SPECTATOR WORLD

The art of the deal

Invite politicians, royals and world leaders to your games with a pack of exclusive Spectator playing cards. Available in blue and red – perfect for bridge players.

The cards are presented in a gift-ready box featuring illustrations by Morten Morland.

Order now at spectator.com/deck

No life Lloyd Evans

"Do you like animals?" asked the woman at the door, collecting for a zoo. "No, I hate them, they keep trying to kill me," I said. That got rid of her. I feel a little ashamed of my hostility to animals, which I inherited from my mother. She was raised in rural Ireland and she loathed the countryside and all its nonspeaking inhabitants. To her, animals were either predators or ingredients, and she particularly despised geese, rats, mice, squirrels and dogs. "Vermin," was one of her favorite nouns. And she regarded the word "pet" as a self-deluding fantasy. Which seems reasonable. Animals cannot be tamed but their owners can be deceived. Any beast will turn murderous when cornered.

I have a survival tip if you need one. I was attacked by a dog at the age of 18 while passing through an Arab village in northern Israel. A snarling mongrel scampered out of a copse and barked violently at me. I walked on, suppressing my fear and hoping to project an air of invincible calm. It worked. The dog hung back and I kept walking, relieved that the danger had passed, but it raced up from behind and grabbed my ankle in its pin-

Dog-hate entered my soul. It festers there still. But people dislike people who dislike dogs so I keep it hidden

cer jaws. Instinct took over. I froze. Its teeth tore at my flesh but I didn't move or make a noise. This confused it. Perhaps it thought I'd turned into a tree or a fence post. It realized that I wasn't a meal so it relaxed its grip and lurked nearby, waiting.

I remained stock still, bollard-like, for several minutes until it slunk away. On my flesh it left the imprint of its teeth, first in blood, later in scabs. Nothing has ever nauseated me quite as much as that half-circle of fang-marks scored on to my skin by a cowardly scavenging fiend. Dog-hate entered my soul. It festers there still. But people dislike people who dislike dogs so I keep it hidden.

I once knew a woman who loved dogs of all breeds except two. Afghan hounds – “they look so silly in their flares” – and Dalmatians. “They’re really thick,” she would tell me, lowering her voice in case they overheard her. Touched by her enthusiasm, I started to appreciate the quirks of certain breeds. The lurcher, even when dry, appears to have stepped out of a car wash. The greyhound looks like a rat that's been told it's a supermodel. The tubular body of the dachshund resembles a stretch limousine.

Dog lovers use the same argument as gun owners and claim that dogs are innocent and the fault lies with their human custodians. This is true, partially. Sometimes a new owner forgets to feed his dog which then eats a baby or two and brings the entire species into disrepute. That may explain the fad for “rescues.” If a rescue dog behaves sweetly, the new owners take the credit. If it runs amok and kills, the old owners get the blame.

I want to believe that dogs are not all that bad. But they keep persuading me that they deserve to be shot. Last summer, I was crossing a park in west London where a trainer was teaching a bald, fist-shaped mutt to retrieve tennis balls. It rocketed across the grass like a plastic bullet and, after snatching up the ball, it pelted back to its trainer at full tilt. I could see that my route would intersect with the mutt's speeding trajectory so I slowed to a halt but it ram-rodded straight into my ankle, bounced off and sprinted away. Its skull, moving at 18 miles an hour, had collided with my ankle. The trainer failed to acknowledge the brute's attempt to amputate my foot. I limped for weeks afterward.

Perhaps I have an aura that spooks dogs. They howl and bark at me randomly. Or they leap out of doorways and snarl in my face. I've noticed that sunglasses unnerve them so I remove my shades if I see a pit bull staring at me. A few years ago, I was cycling through the Olympic Village when a cross-eyed spaniel frolicked against my front wheel. I lost balance and crash-landed on the tarmac. The owner, watching from a bench, rushed over to see if his half-blind playmate was injured. He cradled the beast in his arms and retreated to his seat where he tousled its head and

I want to believe that dogs are not all that bad. But dogs keep persuading me that they deserve to be shot

whispered consoling words in its floppy ears. I was still sprawling on the path, badly winded and taking a mental inventory of the damage. Palms scuffed, ribs hurt, one knee cut and bruised. Nothing serious. The owner gazed vaguely in my direction. “Dog all right?” I asked him. “A bit too much excitement,” he said. “She needs to go home.”

On TikTok, I watch a lot of dog-attack videos and I'm amazed to see that very few owners know how to pacify a hysterical animal. Shouting, gesticulating, pulling its collar or hitting it with a broom handle will intensify its anger. By all means, strike the dog but make sure you kill it. A less than fatal blow will prolong the attack. This vital lesson should be taught in primary schools. Let's be honest, we live in a dog-eat-man world. I've picked my team. One day, you may have to as well.

Dog's life Sophia Money-Coutts

Three women in my Tuesday weights class are getting married. While we squat and thrust and fling our kettlebells around, there's nonstop talk of veils, decorations, modes of transport to the venue and whether anyone eats wedding cake these days. Men are allowed in this weights class but, oddly, none ever shows up.

The major update from one of the brides this week was that the local register office had given permission for her dog to attend the ceremony. She duly bought “a little tux” for Badger, so he could look the part.

How do we feel about dogs at weddings? Given the declining birth rate, soaring dog population and lamentations that young people are increasingly relinquishing the idea of children in favor of the cockerpoo, it's increasingly common to see a dog trot up the aisle. He may even have a little pouch attached to his collar, not for poo bags or biscuits, but for the rings. Why rely on the hopeless, hungover best man to remember the rings when you could simply make your dog the ring bearer instead?

I'd be nervous about including my Dennis. The list of contraband that he's swallowed includes but is not limited to: tissues off the pavement, discarded chicken bones, plastic bottle tops, a toy Pac-Man, 597 foam earplugs, conkers, shards of plastic Biro, socks and the occasional knicker gusset. I wouldn't put a three-carat solitaire past him.

And if you allow dogs, do you allow other pets? Horses, of course, aren't uncommon at some country weddings, and I once went to a Hampshire wedding where alpacas greeted us as we entered the marquee. But what if the groom wanted to bring his python or tarantula? If he's that way inclined, he's done jolly well to find someone willing to marry him, but some of the congregation may be perturbed.

The dog policy varies from council to council. Islington town hall, for instance, is very pro dogs at weddings, although only one dog per couple is allowed and there's a list of rules. You must stop your dog from climbing on the town hall furniture, the website stipulates, and bring wipes to “clean up any messes.” Got that, bridal party? Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue, and a packet of Dettol wipes while you're at it. Bromley council has a blanket no-dogs policy at all its venues. Chelsea town hall will allow them, but only if it's a labrador (only joking, spaniels are welcome too). The Church of England, meanwhile, has no official dog policy. If you're doing it in a church, you need to chat up the relevant vicar.

Including one's dog has become so popular that various businesses exist to meet demand. Precious Pets Weddings boasts that it's the "UK's original wedding dog chaperone service," covering more than 50 venues. Say I was getting married, for instance (don't laugh, just try to imagine it). If I could overcome my fear that Dennis would treat the rings like a delicious snack, Precious Pets would help me on the day.

According to its website, it would collect him on the morning of my wedding for a pre-ceremony walk “to burn off any pre-wedding excitement” and ensure he was calm, not down the pub knocking back pints with the ushers. They would spruce him up to make sure he was “photo ready,” then take him to the venue or church so Dennis could “familiarize” himself with the location. If I fancied it, he could arrive at said venue in its “Wedding Wheels” car, decorated with paw-print bows and ribbons. There’s a built-in camera system in this car, should I want any footage of Dennis making this grand arrival.

Precious Pets would look after him during the service, take photos of his big moment, then whisk him back to an agreed location. No reception for Dennis. He’d only hog all the canapés and do something unmentionable on the dance floor. The cost for this service starts at £425.

'With all these wildfires, a cruise has never been so alluring.'

It's big business because, according to a Guide Dogs UK survey, more than 90 percent of dog owners planning a wedding now want their dog to be involved. Ring bearer isn't necessarily the only role, either. Dogs

I once went to a Hampshire wedding where alpacas greeted us as we entered the marquee

may also apparently “walk” the bride down the aisle, act as “flower pup” alongside the bridesmaids or page boys and be included in the family photos. Astonishingly, 42 percent of those surveyed said they’d also like to involve their dog in the first dance. How? Does PETA know about this? The idea of including your poor dog in some embarrassing spectacle while a ropey local band cranks out a “Can’t Help Falling in Love” cover feels suspiciously like cruelty to me.

Disaster stories seem to be relatively common. Dogs that savage the bouquet; dogs that leap into the lake moments before the critical moment and then shake themselves all over the bride's pristine dress; dogs that beat everyone else to the wedding cake and then need an emergency stomach pump at the vet because they've swallowed too many raisins. That said, the Precious Pets website says it's taking bookings for 2028, so even though Mr. Right remains determinedly elusive, perhaps I should pick a date, just in case?

'Do you sell "water" water?'

THE SPECTATOR

A sharper way through the week

Meet Today, Tonight and Weekend – daily newsletters from our US team, delivered to your inbox

Sign up at spectator.com/newsletters

PLACE

Odyssey of pleasure

The joy of getting lost in the Peloponnese

Alice Hancock

Even if you're far from being a classicist and loved Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey, it hardly paints an enticing picture of Greece as a holiday destination. But perhaps we can all admit that, lovely though they are, the Greek islands are becoming a little predictable.

A Greece that is lesser known, and far more exciting (dare I say, Homeric) is the Peloponnese. This is a dark and swarthy Greece – a better setting for parched shipwrecks and violent feudalism, as well as hidden hotels and good food. Haunted by Lord Byron and once home to the great travel writer Patrick Leigh Fermor, the Peloponnese is a region to get lost in.

And when the temperatures begin to roll away from the highs of August and Europe's school-holiday tourists have gone home, you can go hours without seeing a soul. Driving down to the southernmost tip of continental Europe at Cape Tainaron, I spotted only two bored boys herding goats and one other lost tourist car as I spun the hired Škoda along some hair-raising roads.

“This was not occupied by the Ottomans. This is where real Greeks come from

– where the revolution started," explained Panagiota Athanassa, a local of the Mani peninsula. On a map, Mani is the second finger of the Peloponnesian coast and perhaps the most remote. Tourism is the biggest employer here and the population is clearly getting old. Athanassa was one of several locals who said that it is only in the last three to four years that tourists have begun to make the journey to the jagged Peloponnesian coast and Arcadia, the mountainous region to its north. Another local said American tourists have only recently discovered the peninsula: they have been arriving only since 2024 and are mostly Greek-Americans visiting the land of their ancestors.

Getting to the Peloponnese is relatively easy: a flight to Athens followed by a toll road (upgraded recently to a full motorway) which can speed you to the heart of the Peloponnese in a couple of hours if you travel at Greek speed. In the 1970s, some parts of Mani were only accessible by boat and foot.

You can also – as I decided to – take back roads from Athens to Cave of the Seal, a magisterial arch carved in the cliff that faces into the Gulf of Corinth. It is worth a stop if you can manage the acutely steep path.

I also paused at the Corinth Canal – a narrow tranche of water cut into the rock in 1893 to connect the Ionian and Aegean seas – and then stopped overnight in Nafplio. It is easily the most pleasant of the larger Peloponnesian towns thanks to its colorful Venetian architecture and short stint as the capital of the first independent state of Greece.

Beyond Nafplio, the Peloponnese opens out into vast remoteness. Wind turbines gaze over ruins from all the eras of Pelo-

Mostly you will find yourself alone among the crumbling golden stones

ponnese rule: Spartan, Byzantine, Roman. I visited ancient Mycenae, home of Agamemnon, whose citadel was once wedged on to a plateau among imposing mountains. And Mystras, an important Byzantine city, now a romantic ruin strung over a spur of the Taygetus mountains. It is almost on a par with Pompeii in its completeness, but with far fewer tourists. Mostly you will find yourself alone among the crumbling golden stones with just a few stray cats for company.

I stayed at two places in Mani. Both were built in the typical architectural style of “deep” Mani: squat towers with three or so floors and small windows for defense. At the Aria Estate, built in recent years but in this old Mani style, each room has a terrace overlooking the Ionian sea. The rooms are surrounded by a garden filled with rosemary, lavender and thyme, as well as a vineyard beyond. The pool is cut into the hill with a view of the headland of Messina.

Citta dei Nicliani is a smaller, more familial place. Tanya and Ilias Sepsas, Athenians by origin who lived briefly in the Balkans before settling in Mani more than a decade ago, have passed most of the running of the hotel to their son. They continue to oversee the food though, much of which appears from their garden or the local surrounds – a bounty of oranges, pink pepper, dill and olives, some lemon-scented Ionian fish.

You could spend a week in Mani. Take in Limeni, an enticing village strung around a cove that in summer attracts more of the Instagram crowd. Or commit to a day hiking out to Cape Tainaron. After a hot walk to the continent's southern point, the reward is a swim in the quiet cove, followed by cured anchovies from the Akron Tenaro taverna above it. Worth knowing about, too, is the village of Vatheia, deserted for reasons that are unclear, and Gerolimenas, perfect for an evening cocktail and a swim. I also spent a happy morning stocking up in the main town of Areopoli, a place with plenty of churches and an overabundance of cafés.

Determined to hike in the Arcadian mountains – and breathe some mountain air before returning home – I cut Mani short and drove up to Manna (via more grandiose ruins at Messini). Once a sanatorium for tuberculosis sufferers, the hotel was founded by Anna Mela- Papadopoulou, a pioneering nurse who died of the disease herself in 1938. It is now an upmarket hotel with a Scandinavian vibe.

Stratis Bayatas, its owner, used to play in the ruined building as a kid and oversaw the conversion. The lighting was designed by the same man who illuminated the Acropolis. But it is far from pretentious. Even Odysseus might have been happy to pause his travels at Manna, to dine on local honey and scented lamb's shoulder after an all-day hike. Surrounded by pine forests, I felt – unlike our hero – that I would really rather not go home.

The Wiki Man Finding my voice Rory Sutherland

The older and more plutocratic among you may remember the unlamented business-class airline seat of the 1980s and 1990s. Every few years, major airlines would proudly announce the wondrous extra legroom available in their long-haul business class and the increase in the recline angle of the seat. And each time the experience got worse.

Now the person sitting in front of you invaded ever more of your airspace when they reclined their own seat. You then had no choice but to follow suit. The resulting Nash Equilibrium meant everyone on board was forced to spend the entire journey leaning backward at 45 degrees. Getting to the lavatory required playing an involuntary game of Twister with the person sitting by the aisle.

The flat bed was an epiphany. Not only was it a proper bed, but it restored territorial integrity to the passenger. And you could finally get to the loo without ending up on the Sex Offenders Register. Looking back, this was the perfect example of what happens when everybody pursues the wrong benchmark, and where a

It's far easier to be polite speaking at 150 words a minute than when typing at 40

behavior that is individually rational becomes collectively catastrophic.

All the while, from 1983 onwards, a similarly infectious stupidity was infiltrating business life at ground level. This was the cancerous spread of the keyboard. Youngsters see the keyboard as traditional office furniture. It isn't. Yes, QWERTY is 150 years old, but the practice of everyone typing their own words in a professional setting dates to about 1983, when spreadsheets began putting computers on managers' desks, along with a keyboard and a screen. Before that, typing was strictly secretarial.

The spreadsheet required people to see immediately on screen the effects of every input. This low latency, the ability to see changes immediately, and to edit on the go, led people to spurn the typing pool. Professional typists achieving 90 words per minute were replaced by highly paid executives typing at 20 – the division of labor in reverse.

And because we didn't have a frame of reference, we never noticed how bad keyboards were, and how they got worse. Those clicky IBM keyboards were delightful compared with the touch screen one on a modern mobile phone. But the same Nash Equilibrium applies – that reclining seat problem again: when combined with email, the curt, ill-considered, asynchronous approach to communication was imposed on everyone. Decisions once made around a table in minutes are now eked out over weeks by two-finger typists. The loss in productivity is disastrous but invisible.

Salvation may be at hand. Basic voice dictation never delivered, but put a language model behind the microphone and you have something that's better than a dictation machine: like St. Paul, Cicero, John Milton and Barbara Cartland, you now have an amanuensis. One that knows how to spell Slavoj Žižek's name better than I do, that knows that Llanelli is a market town in Wales and that gets rid of all the "ers" and "ums," the vocal fillers and interjections – I dictated all of this as a test. I use something called Wispr Flow, and it has changed my life. In the interests of transparency, I am now a tiny investor in the business – but I became one because, like that chap in the Remington adverts, I liked the product.

The implications of the displacement of the keyboard will be immense, and I shall write – or rather pronounce – about this more in the future. But one of my first discoveries is that it’s far easier to be polite speaking at 150 words a minute than when typing at 40. Some part of the nastiness of the internet comes from the fact that rudeness and brevity go together. As the old joke goes: why are there more Rangers supporters than Celtic supporters in Glasgow? Because it’s a lot easier to chant “Fuck the Pope!” than “Fuck the Chief Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church!”

DEAR MARY YOUR PROBLEMS SOLVED

Q. I have a good relationship with a neighbor. She has a labrador and I have a Jack Russell. If I cannot walk my dog she will do it and vice versa. Yesterday my daughter visited unexpectedly and was at the top of the house when she heard my neighbor open the front door and call my dog for his walk. Five minutes later she heard the dog being returned to the house. I don't want to fall out with my neighbor but I would always walk her labrador for at least 45 minutes and my dog needs

a proper walk every day. How should I proceed? N.B., Stockbridge

A. Fitness trackers for dogs are all the rage – attached to the collar, they count steps and provide GPS tracking. Buy one (roughly \$80) and show it to your neighbor, along with the wall diary on which you are now going to be recording his step count. Suggest she buy one for her own dog. This measure should preempt any future temptation to “short change” your Jack Russell.

Q. I was recently told off by a lady of some status for saying that I had been invited grouse shooting. She led me to understand that the expression is “to shoot grouse.” Is this, in fact, correct? If so, I have been in error for more than 40 years. Does the same rule apply to pheasant, partridge, duck, snipe, etc. Perhaps it exempts vermin? Please might you advise. – N.C., Stanton Saint Bernard, Wiltshire

A. I addressed your question to two sportsmen of status. One, aged 70, says he talks of being invited to shoot grouse, pheasant, duck, etc. His son, aged 30, says he talks of being invited grouse, pheasant, or duck shooting. The two agree however that both expressions are these days acceptable. This kind of pedantry, while enjoyable, is now irrelevant where shooting is concerned since the bulk of those who can afford to take a shoot were never familiar with what was, or was not, a solecism.

Q. I'm thrilled to be invited to a Scottish house party next week but I hear my hosts have a tradition where after breakfast guests are given baps and a choice of fillings and invited to make their own picnic lunches. I don't want to draw attention to myself by just taking the meats and salads but I am desperately trying to avoid wheat. What should I do?

Name and address withheld

A. Load a bap like everyone else but secretly bring a supply of Nairn's gluten-free original oatcakes and a disposable spoon. Discreetly leave the bap behind for local seagulls and use the oatcakes to add bulk to your fillings. No one will notice.

Write to Dear Mary at dearmary@spectator.co.uk

NOTES ON...

Shaving

Nigel Jones

I was looking at a photo of my great-grandfather the other day and admiring his beard. A magnificent spade-shaped affair, it reached halfway down his chest. He was a Victorian, of course, and his era was, above all, the century of the beard. All the eminent Victorian males, such as Darwin, Dickens, the Earl of Salisbury and Prince Albert wore them.

When Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth decreed recently that all US military men should be clean shaven, it

struck me that, had that rule been around in the 1860s, the American Civil War would never have been fought, since all the leading generals on both sides were endowed with substantial forests of facial hair. One Union commander, Ambrose Burnside, was so notably hirsute in this respect that he lent his name to sideburns. However, the British Army, unlike the Royal Navy, has usually taken a dim view of beards. In World War Two, only the eccentric general Orde Wingate was given exceptional permission to grow one.

Why did the beardies do it? After all, beards are itchy to the wearer and scratchy to anyone who encounters them intimately. Scraps of food get stuck in them and some men like me are left feeling inadequate because they can't ever manage to grow more than a scrubby approximation of one. Much better, surely, to take it all off with a clean and invigorating daily shave?

The ancient world was as divided on the question of beards: while the Greeks and Romans were proudly clean shaven, the Assyrians and Egyptians made something of a fetish of their beards, shaping and curling them into painfully elaborate statements of status.

The early modern western world bounced between centuries in attitudes to beards: in the early 15th century King Henry IV sported a forked beard, possibly to compensate for his scabied scalp, which was largely bald. Baldness also afflicted the Bard a couple of hundred years later, but he grew a neat little pointed number on his chin just to show he could. By the 17th century facial hair was worn to signify the religious and political differences that were tearing the kingdom apart: the Civil Wars were as much a conflict between clean-chinned Puritans and pointy-bearded Cavaliers as they were about the divine rights of kings and parliamentary governance. Razors held sway throughout the 18th century and only with the Victorian age did beards carry all before them once again.

Shaving was carried out using “cutthroat” razors until the delightfully named King Camp Gillette, an Amer-

ican businessman, popularized the safety razor at the end of the 19th century and cleaned out his competitors.

Shaving technology took another great leap forward in the 20th century with the invention of the electric razor. Shaving was once carried out by barbers, but is now generally a matter of private personal grooming. This is possibly because barbers became unfairly associated with the fictional activities of Sweeney Todd, the demon barber of Fleet Street, or the execution of mobster Albert Anastasia, gunned down during a shave in a New York barber's shop in 1957.

These days, the mysterious epidemic of premature baldness or shaven heads among modern men is often compensated for by hipsters growing luxuriant beards instead. There's nowt so shear as folk.

MIND YOUR LANGUAGE Yoga

“Well, we all have areas of ignorance,” said my husband with a little too much relish, I thought. He was responding to my admission that I had reached a ripe old age without realizing that the words yoga and yoke had the same origin.

Yoke has been used in English for more than 1,000 years and yoga only since about 1785, but it had been in use in Sanskrit since the first millennium BC. The meaning of yoga was held to be either the yoking and reining in of the senses, or the yoking and joining oneself to the Prana (life force), the Om (absolute) and the Universe.

In perhaps a parallel area of meaning, religio (“religion”) was related by early Christian writers to religare, “that which ties believers to God,” though Cicero connected it to religere “to read over again” – to observe rites carefully.

The Indo-European word that eventually gave us yoke had been supplying similar words to many related languages. In Greek, “yoke” was zugon; in Latin it was iugum. Even the Finns seem to have borrowed the word in the form jukka to mean “crossbar of a sled.”

Meanwhile yoga slept happily in the Sanskrit vocabulary of Indian religions, until western fashion took up yoga classes. Yoga mats were first noticed by name in 1962, a momentous year that also gave us the Yogi Bear Show.

Does the celebrated bear derive his name, for an obvious reason, from yogi, an adept

in yoga? The Oxford English Dictionary is cautious. “It is often said that the character was so named with allusion to the name of Lawrence Peter ‘Yogi’ Berra (1925-2015), US baseball player known for his witticisms, but this is difficult to substantiate and has been denied by the creators.”

Berra got his nickname from a friend who thought his stance waiting cross-legged resembled a yogi in a film. It is hard to think that the bear of Jellystone Park did not share in Berra's yogic sobriquet.

— Dot Wordsworth

Exciting new Spectator trips for 2026

This year we are broadening our horizons and warmly invite readers to join Olivia Potts in Italy and Jonathan Ray in Napa. Our trips are always informative, informal and fun. You'll mingle with like-minded readers and visit places that don't normally welcome visitors. Our trips are overseen by our good friends at Kirker Holidays, the multi-award-winning luxury travel specialists. Do join us!

For more information visit spectator.com/tastings

Napa Valley and Sonoma with Jonathan Ray 7 NIGHTS | 17 - 24 NOVEMBER

This year we invite readers on our first access-all-areas winemaker tour of Napa and Sonoma. Staying at Andaz Napa by Hyatt, we will head up and down the valley visiting St. Helena, Yountville and Calistoga while taking in such great names as Domaine Carneros, Grgich Hills, Inglenook, Joseph Phelps, Schrader and Staglin to name but a few, several of which rarely host visits. We will enjoy a spin on the Wine Train and will patronize a number of celebrated bars and restaurants including Jonathan Ray's favorite, Mustards Grill, famed for its “always meat, sometimes potatoes, rarely vegetables” approach.

Truffles, Trattoria and Roman Cuisine with Olivia Potts

4 NIGHTS | 2 - 6 DECEMBER

Join The Spectator's Vintage Chef and a small group of like-minded readers for a culinary escape to the Eternal City, which will include opportunities to sample the best local specialties, discover hidden food treasures, meet some of the finest producers and dine in Olivia's favorite restaurants.

This trip, beautifully curated for us by our friends at Kirker Travel, will take us from local markets to gastronomic restaurants. Fewer tourists visit Rome in winter, but this is prime season for black winter truffles (Tartufo Nero) and white winter truffles (Tartufo Bianco) in the Lazio countryside, as well as for classic Roman artichokes (Carciofi), puntarelle and citrus, and the best time to enjoy traditional pasta and gnocchi.

QA Report - The Spectator World - 31.08.2026.pdf

Pipeline

• Extraction route: mineru-vlm
• extraction_route=mineru-vlm
• Translation chunks: 115
• Extraction warnings:
• [MINERU-VLM] Successfully extracted via MinerU VLM (batch: b52c0fa7-f0d8-456b-a492-aabe1bbab117)

Non-model Checks

• WARNING: missing numeric tokens from source: 24.4
• WARNING: Missing proper nouns in translation: Academic Freedom, Aerospace Forces, African American, Alan Clark, Aldam

Ai Weiwei, Aleksandr Dugin, Alex Burghart

Harold, Alex Burghart Harold, Alexandria Ocasio, Although Musk - WARNING: source dates, money, or percentage tokens may be missing

Model QA

经过严格审核，本次翻译质量较高，但在低中文密度区域及部分细节处存在问题。以下是审核报告：

═══ 审核结果 ═══

1. [BLOCKING] 严重漏译 / 截断 - 位置：低中文密度区域 [中文占比 14%] THE HARI 酒店 - 问题：译文中虽然出现了“THE HARI 酒店”的地址和电话，但该区域在原文中是一个独立的广告/信息板块。在译文的整体排版中，该部分被生硬地插入在“哈瓦那生活”和“纽约生活”之间，且缺乏必要的引导语或版面标识，导致阅读流向混乱。 - 核查：原文中该部分为酒店推广信息，译文仅翻译了地址电话，缺失了可能的品牌描述或上下文衔接。

2. [WARNING] 术语/翻译准确性 - 位置：购买世界上最古老杂志的漫画和封面可享 $30 折扣 - 问题：量级理解错误。原文为 Get 30% off，意为“打七折”或“减免30%”。译文写成 $30 折扣（30美元折扣），将百分比误认为具体金额。 - 严重级别：[WARNING]（虽非量级级错误，但改变了优惠性质）。

3. [WARNING] 残留英文/格式问题 - 位置：Flying squad, p10 和 Deft punk, p30 - 问题：这两行内容完全未翻译，直接保留英文。 - 核查：根据标题索引，这些应为页码索引或短栏标题。

4. [SOURCE_OCR] OCR 干扰 - 位置：图片路径 images / df91829bd8b5f6a198218cb873819d4e0fe1a977208544b027187℃000312d3f4.jpg - 问题：译文中的图片路径出现了 ℃ 符号（原应为字母或数字）。 - 结论：此为 OCR 识别错误，翻译员直接复制了错误路径，不计入翻译错误，但需标注。

5. [FALSE_POSITIVE] 幻觉核查 - 核查内容：译文中提到的 DeepSeek 以及关于其能耗的描述。 - 核查步骤： 1. 标题索引中无 DeepSeek $\rightarrow$ 匹配失败。 2. 抽样原文中 $\rightarrow$ 匹配成功（见 STRATIFIED TEXT SAMPLES 中段：“...in this respect, China may be overtaking the US, with DeepSeek claiming that the energy consumption of its large language models is only a tenth of that of its US competitors.”）。 - 结论：该内容真实存在，非幻觉。

---

═══ 最终判定 ═══

发现阻塞性问题（Blocking Issues Found）

主要缺陷总结： 1. 金额/百分比混淆：将 30% off 译为 $30 折扣。 2. 低密度区域处理不当：THE HARI 酒店部分翻译不完整且位置突兀。 3. 部分索引未翻译：Flying squad 等短语残留英文。

---

═══ 自愈质检微创修复记录（Self-Healing Audit Trail）═══

• 成功修复分块 #13（共修复 1 处问题）
• 成功修复分块 #54（共修复 1 处问题）