Why 'Guernsey'? All I can think of is pieces that cause leftieloons to have a cow, but since Bari and Co. are STILL very much crazed lefties... Cream possibly, but rather obscure whatever. Nevermind; a high calibre piece as per. I might comment further when I feel better; decidedly under the weather today.
I enjoy reading these essays. But that joy is undermined by having to slog through an unnecessarily long preface.
Now I don't intend for my first comment here to come off as impolite, but it is unpleasant to have to go through a bunch of extra text just to get to the meat of the essay.
I’ve got mine, slam shut the door behind me. Keep out the riff raff!
“Western societies are now burdened by institutional overhang from the Emancipation Sequence.”
The mistake was trying to share power. You can share rights under law (dangerous but possible) you cannot share power. This is the madness of Emancipation in any sequence.
Power must be earned, and by risk and proof of commitment- which was always a matter of risking life until Women got the vote. Blacks in America got full equality because of the 20th century’s wars, not Civil Rights.
Civil Rights was a TV show.
But power was shared with those who risking nothing understood nothing... and we’ve represented ourselves into the Polish Diet without the Hussars...
Actually no one’s in charge under any terms. Not here 🇺🇸.
Also - the Sequentially Emancipated can’t run or operate ANYTHING, for you see you wish to have the benefits of what White Men built be it machines, laws, safety, governance, the High Trust society... without the Heterosexual Patriarchal White Males. As it happens NONE of the Emancipated- with the one and done exception of White Male Homosexuals (no children, see?) can run, govern, operate, law, police any of it; because above all there’s no trust.
The last person anyone in Asia would trust of course is their siblings, which rules out the Wright Brothers.
No women can’t with extraordinarily rare exceptions do men’s work- I mean mentally, not physically. Nor can women be trusted as men.
Nor is intelligence without trust or the ability to be a man and speak the true answer a substitute for we who may be passing or we who may yet rally.
You cannot share power as it turns out, perhaps rights, absolutely not power.
The issue of technical incompetence at ANYTHING follows... “I’m not technical..let me bridge a (male) colleague..”
^^That’s The World’s Biggest and most important Clearing House .^^^.
The answer is not to be found in representative anything, but in men who do things taking charge...
And they can be in America at least- and few other places- men of any “race”* provided they prove loyalty to the nation first.
Women are welcome- to help.
Now if you don’t like candor, I won’t apologize, but I’ll offer that it’s an election year, you’ll not want for the opposite of candor.
*race never worked in America, even before we got here, it’s an artificial 19th century cope for Anglo guilt. Genetics tears away what flimsy threads it had...
Well written and well researched, it is utterly depressing just how dysfunctional everything has become and how much any attempts to moderate and remedy all of society's problems are resisted. But one should keep on living, and persist in the face of what is happening no matter what.
“The addition of diversity officers... selects against good character.”
Explicitly so. Consider, for instance, the condemnation of the “bourgeois virtues” (honesty, perseverance, punctuality, thrift, tolerance, hard work, civility) as examples of whiteness and white supremacy. Consider the bullying of minority students who do well in school because they’re “acting white.”
Before the Civil War, most Southern states had laws against teaching slaves how to read. Slave owners understood that knowledge is power. If nothing else, they didn’t want literate slaves who could pass notes between plantations and potentially coordinate revolts.
Today, it’s not slave owners keeping blacks from learning, but other blacks. They understand that victimhood, rather than knowledge, is the way to power in today’s dysfunctional world.
“Equal rights also failed to generate equal outcomes, which has given motivating appeal—and coordinating power—to Hermetic claims of special knowledge about “invisible systems” of oppression.”
Exactly. Progressives had a free hand to build America’s welfare state and the results were disastrous. Before LBJ’s Great Society programs went into effect, the poverty rate had been steadily declining among all ethnicities. Some $25 trillion later, the poverty rate remains about where it was when the programs began. The bottom quintile’s employment rate dropped from about two-thirds to one-third. Fatherlessness, along with its attendant ills (increased dropout rates, drug addiction, alcoholism, unemployment, crime, suicide), has exploded.
Rather than admitting that their policies are counterproductive, the Left has doubled down with predictable results in “blue” cities and states. To explain their unbroken record of failure, the Left now declares that the United States is far more racist and evil than even they had imagined. The failure of their reforms is proof that the country can’t be reformed and must be burned to the ground and replaced.
Wokeness is a parasite that will die once it achieves its goal of killing the classical liberal system that is its host. The Left either doesn’t care or doesn’t understand that they can't survive the revolution they so ardently desire. One thing that masks this fact is that their policies, while making things generally worse, improve the statistics of blue cities and states in the short run. As taxes and regulations make life more difficult for lower and middle-income citizens, people on the margin are forced further and further away. This migration tends to increase the mean wealth, income, and educational test scores of the remnant. The Left points to these statistics as proof that their policies work and work well. In the long run, however, no polity can survive the exodus of the those who keep the infrastructure working – the “little people” who take out the garbage and keep the lights on.
It occurs to me that the Emancipation Sequence is itself a problem, not merely that it didn't know when to stop. After all, no good thing ever knows when it ceases to be a good thing. Once good, always good - right? Perfectly Manichean.
It is also the logical extension of Enlightenment principles. There is in reality a vast difference between saying you and I are equal, and saying you and I are equal before the law. In the latter formulation, we are seen as equals not by each other, but by all parties but ourselves, and because we are in a conflict of some type that the law is to resolve. That is a very circumspect equality. The Declaration of Independence does not say we are equal in that small regard, and like the rhetorical sleight of hand blaming George III for acts of Parliament, it isn't entirely honest. The Emancipation Sequence suffers from that same defect - it cannot offer true equality between people but that is what it promises.
Small wonder then that we should come to a time where the returns have diminished to the point of being negative rather than merely approaching zero.
Can someone help? I cannot open essays 42 onwards. They’re not linked on my screen. Id really like to read the rest and discover Lorenzo’s Action Plan.
Why 'Guernsey'? All I can think of is pieces that cause leftieloons to have a cow, but since Bari and Co. are STILL very much crazed lefties... Cream possibly, but rather obscure whatever. Nevermind; a high calibre piece as per. I might comment further when I feel better; decidedly under the weather today.
I enjoy reading these essays. But that joy is undermined by having to slog through an unnecessarily long preface.
Now I don't intend for my first comment here to come off as impolite, but it is unpleasant to have to go through a bunch of extra text just to get to the meat of the essay.
Overhang?
I’ve got mine, slam shut the door behind me. Keep out the riff raff!
“Western societies are now burdened by institutional overhang from the Emancipation Sequence.”
The mistake was trying to share power. You can share rights under law (dangerous but possible) you cannot share power. This is the madness of Emancipation in any sequence.
Power must be earned, and by risk and proof of commitment- which was always a matter of risking life until Women got the vote. Blacks in America got full equality because of the 20th century’s wars, not Civil Rights.
Civil Rights was a TV show.
But power was shared with those who risking nothing understood nothing... and we’ve represented ourselves into the Polish Diet without the Hussars...
Actually no one’s in charge under any terms. Not here 🇺🇸.
Also - the Sequentially Emancipated can’t run or operate ANYTHING, for you see you wish to have the benefits of what White Men built be it machines, laws, safety, governance, the High Trust society... without the Heterosexual Patriarchal White Males. As it happens NONE of the Emancipated- with the one and done exception of White Male Homosexuals (no children, see?) can run, govern, operate, law, police any of it; because above all there’s no trust.
The last person anyone in Asia would trust of course is their siblings, which rules out the Wright Brothers.
No women can’t with extraordinarily rare exceptions do men’s work- I mean mentally, not physically. Nor can women be trusted as men.
Nor is intelligence without trust or the ability to be a man and speak the true answer a substitute for we who may be passing or we who may yet rally.
You cannot share power as it turns out, perhaps rights, absolutely not power.
The issue of technical incompetence at ANYTHING follows... “I’m not technical..let me bridge a (male) colleague..”
^^That’s The World’s Biggest and most important Clearing House .^^^.
Enjoy Retirement.
🤣
I absolutely love Warby’s essays. There are a lot of great Substacks that are informative, but these are truly educational.
The answer is not to be found in representative anything, but in men who do things taking charge...
And they can be in America at least- and few other places- men of any “race”* provided they prove loyalty to the nation first.
Women are welcome- to help.
Now if you don’t like candor, I won’t apologize, but I’ll offer that it’s an election year, you’ll not want for the opposite of candor.
*race never worked in America, even before we got here, it’s an artificial 19th century cope for Anglo guilt. Genetics tears away what flimsy threads it had...
Well written and well researched, it is utterly depressing just how dysfunctional everything has become and how much any attempts to moderate and remedy all of society's problems are resisted. But one should keep on living, and persist in the face of what is happening no matter what.
Is there further reading on the 3 causes of non-autocratic state failure?
Brilliant stuff
“The addition of diversity officers... selects against good character.”
Explicitly so. Consider, for instance, the condemnation of the “bourgeois virtues” (honesty, perseverance, punctuality, thrift, tolerance, hard work, civility) as examples of whiteness and white supremacy. Consider the bullying of minority students who do well in school because they’re “acting white.”
Before the Civil War, most Southern states had laws against teaching slaves how to read. Slave owners understood that knowledge is power. If nothing else, they didn’t want literate slaves who could pass notes between plantations and potentially coordinate revolts.
Today, it’s not slave owners keeping blacks from learning, but other blacks. They understand that victimhood, rather than knowledge, is the way to power in today’s dysfunctional world.
“Equal rights also failed to generate equal outcomes, which has given motivating appeal—and coordinating power—to Hermetic claims of special knowledge about “invisible systems” of oppression.”
Exactly. Progressives had a free hand to build America’s welfare state and the results were disastrous. Before LBJ’s Great Society programs went into effect, the poverty rate had been steadily declining among all ethnicities. Some $25 trillion later, the poverty rate remains about where it was when the programs began. The bottom quintile’s employment rate dropped from about two-thirds to one-third. Fatherlessness, along with its attendant ills (increased dropout rates, drug addiction, alcoholism, unemployment, crime, suicide), has exploded.
Rather than admitting that their policies are counterproductive, the Left has doubled down with predictable results in “blue” cities and states. To explain their unbroken record of failure, the Left now declares that the United States is far more racist and evil than even they had imagined. The failure of their reforms is proof that the country can’t be reformed and must be burned to the ground and replaced.
Wokeness is a parasite that will die once it achieves its goal of killing the classical liberal system that is its host. The Left either doesn’t care or doesn’t understand that they can't survive the revolution they so ardently desire. One thing that masks this fact is that their policies, while making things generally worse, improve the statistics of blue cities and states in the short run. As taxes and regulations make life more difficult for lower and middle-income citizens, people on the margin are forced further and further away. This migration tends to increase the mean wealth, income, and educational test scores of the remnant. The Left points to these statistics as proof that their policies work and work well. In the long run, however, no polity can survive the exodus of the those who keep the infrastructure working – the “little people” who take out the garbage and keep the lights on.
It occurs to me that the Emancipation Sequence is itself a problem, not merely that it didn't know when to stop. After all, no good thing ever knows when it ceases to be a good thing. Once good, always good - right? Perfectly Manichean.
It is also the logical extension of Enlightenment principles. There is in reality a vast difference between saying you and I are equal, and saying you and I are equal before the law. In the latter formulation, we are seen as equals not by each other, but by all parties but ourselves, and because we are in a conflict of some type that the law is to resolve. That is a very circumspect equality. The Declaration of Independence does not say we are equal in that small regard, and like the rhetorical sleight of hand blaming George III for acts of Parliament, it isn't entirely honest. The Emancipation Sequence suffers from that same defect - it cannot offer true equality between people but that is what it promises.
Small wonder then that we should come to a time where the returns have diminished to the point of being negative rather than merely approaching zero.
Helen - Lorenzo
Desire for power well known.
Recalls this ancient example . . .
“ Give the word that these two sons of mine may sit down, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your Kingdom .’’
Yep, this family wants political power.
What did the teacher (king) respond?
“The greatest among you should be your slave.’’
Closer to a business model. Serve the people. They don’t serve you.
I’m serving people, giving my life for them.
Not a popular doctrine.
Religious, political, scientific, academic authority wants to require others to serve them.
Not what this famous teacher required.
Thanks
Clay
Can someone help? I cannot open essays 42 onwards. They’re not linked on my screen. Id really like to read the rest and discover Lorenzo’s Action Plan.
Thank you. Bit of a duh!