Discussion about this post

User's avatar
luciaphile's avatar

I liked this piece very much and it caused me to reflect that the "Omnicause" illuminates a breakdown of the idea of interest groups, or the legitimacy thereof. We now tend to discount the protests of people who are actually impacted by the thing that they protest. I don't find it strange for Jews to be passionate about Israel/Palestine, nor that homosexuals are passionate about gay rights (though their agenda can rather quickly go off the rails). The problem I have with the Omnicause is that it has universally displaced other, including more legitimate, activist causes. There is little focus on conservation any more, at least in the U.S., at least by national-profile groups (preservation efforts go on at the local level, unheralded and inadequately supported). It has been drowned out by Palestine/BLM/Pride/trans etc. There is no longer a Sierra Club; there is only a club that calls itself the Sierra Club and talks about immigration (exclusively, aggressively pro) and Palestine. (Sample headline from their website after 2 second Google search: "Attacks on queer folks are attacks on the environment".) What they don't talk about is conservation; and what they don't do anything about is conservation. All legitimate protest has been co-opted. 

I'm not saying that environmental conservation is the only important cause in the world, but I think it's important to recognize this: we can't talk about it anymore.

Personally I believe that the Omnicause is dangerous, destructive, hateful, insipid, antisocial, and uninterested in reality. But you don't have to agree with any of that to be concerned about the effect it has had on other activism.

Expand full comment
steven lightfoot's avatar

You make a lot of great points here, and you are def on to something important.

Your description of the professional activists 'When all you’ve got is half-smart wordcels' is correct. The arts and humanities in much of modern academia is now highly corrupt - evidenced by the attempts of many such faculties (especially the Grievance Studies faculties) to train political activists (vs providing an education with balanced perspectives).

And they have been taught to be believe they are morally superior.

100+ years ago most of these people would have been farm labourers. Most of all of us would have been working in agriculture, possibly including me.

I think the real answer to this is, simply, that we have become too wealthy, and are suffering from a case of societal affluenza.

I believe this may self correct as we start to get poorer, even at the cost of increased social unrest.

Expand full comment
75 more comments...

No posts