"There is a powerful argument that societies need religion for resilient social cohesion."
As an atheist I very much agree with this. There is need for the sacred, that which cannot be traded or negotiated in order for society to persist through time.
Another good essay; thanks. But I baulk at the idea of granting the modern tyrants and social bullies their own lying title for themselves: "progressive". After all, this is a group that has taken Lenin's bureaucratic despotism, Stalin's cultural controls, Hitler's ideas that race is the driver of history and that there exists in the world a race of world poisoners, and Mao's thought and speech controls, and amalgamated them in into a single poisoners ideology! Progressive they emphatically are not.
"And yet, and yet: yes, it does represent a clear evolution of Left thought. But still, something seems wrong calling this self-serving elitism—which so obviously despises the working class, and is so deeply inegalitarian in its performative commitment to equality—Left."
Only if you elect to believe that the Bolsheviks (and every other Marxist cadre ever to seek or seize power) were actually about revolution for the benefit of the masses, and not simply so they could consolidate power into their own hands. I honestly don't know how you could grant them that. The great "advance" of DEI is that it is conducting a mostly bloodless revolution. Sure, some lives get ruined but they are hardly amassing a body-count like their predecessors.
I'm very much looking forward to how you think accountability can be raised up. It seems to me that our prosperity has allowed us to paper over the vast decline in accountability (across our entire economy and government) and the only hope for bringing it back is via a precipitous loss of general wealth (i.e. when the people who make bad decisions will actually have to suffer for doing so). I pray there is a better, and better targeted, approach.
"While folk often talk about freedom of speech and thought in the language of rights, it’s much more useful to see it in terms of authority: specifically one’s authority as a citizen.
A citizen has the authority to express themselves, to make their own decisions and judgements."
This is an interesting change in language. In the US the core ideas are that we have natural rights (from God or Nature) merely because we are human with a unique set of evolved capabilities, and that We The People are sovereign over our own government/governance.
But our "authority" for this sovereignty is really expressed in our Constitution as our version of foundational law [even if the Declaration of Independence also expresses some of our "Rights"] . So our "rights" are sort of given, while our authority is based on the limitations and foibles of human creators [rather than a divine one]. Constitutions are changed (and do need to be changed) occasionally. The nature or basis of this authority also evolves, but at a cultural pace.
I suppose in principle, a despot may be able to constrain your expression of your "rights", but you still retain them, while this despot can deny your authority as a citizen by abrogating your constitution.
IIRC, Helen said in Australia the law is more dependent upon written legislation and has no truck with fairy ideas about rights outside of written law. ???
Another good piece, with which I have no substantive gripes. But one item deserves a quick comment:
"Rudyard Lynch, Mr Whatifalthist, likes to point out that Communism—i.e. the Dialectical Faith in power—was a geopolitical boon to the US."
That's true only if you come at it from a zero-sum mindset where for us to win, someone else must lose. Had Russia and China not destroyed millions of lives (and untold wealth) to communism but instead joined the West in democratic capitalism, had we been able to direct our resources toward trade with partners instead of defense from adversaries, _all_ of us -- not just Russians and Chinese -- would likely be better off than we are today.
China and Russia choosing to cripple themselves is a "boon" to the U.S. in the same way that the neighbors burning down their houses is great news because it will reduce your property taxes.
So, the woke “religion” confers status, not on accomplishment, but to membership in a “marginalized” group - either natural (that is, through the accident of birth) or manufactured - and to the ability to verbalize approved grand intentions.
Relative success - either material or prestige - gleaned through accomplishment is proof of sin and is therefore discouraged. Relative failure is proof of marginalization and is rewarded, creating incentives for self-marginalization.
How long can any society based on such perverse incentives survive? Probably only as long as the generations not steeped in this religion are still alive and capable of keeping the lights on.
"A particularly blatant example of this retreat from a general, practical egalitarian ethic to a much more hierarchical conception is the re-elevation of racial identity that Critical Social Justice engages in via Critical Race Theory. It’s made clear that a black identity is most emphatically superior to a white one. Such insistence on grading people by identity category overturns a post-civil-rights embrace of more egalitarian social attitudes. LGBTIQ+ has become ever-more-of-the-alphabet people so everyone can play intersectional bingo, so anyone can push themselves up the intersectional hierarchy."
--- Then why do hierarchical loving lobsters like Jordan Peterson NOT appreciate identity politics that place Black people and LGBTQIA+ at the top of the hierarchies they so cherish?
A stimulating read. I lost it a bit in the middle but generally thought-provoking and hopefully discussion-provoking!
"There is a powerful argument that societies need religion for resilient social cohesion."
As an atheist I very much agree with this. There is need for the sacred, that which cannot be traded or negotiated in order for society to persist through time.
Another good essay; thanks. But I baulk at the idea of granting the modern tyrants and social bullies their own lying title for themselves: "progressive". After all, this is a group that has taken Lenin's bureaucratic despotism, Stalin's cultural controls, Hitler's ideas that race is the driver of history and that there exists in the world a race of world poisoners, and Mao's thought and speech controls, and amalgamated them in into a single poisoners ideology! Progressive they emphatically are not.
"And yet, and yet: yes, it does represent a clear evolution of Left thought. But still, something seems wrong calling this self-serving elitism—which so obviously despises the working class, and is so deeply inegalitarian in its performative commitment to equality—Left."
Only if you elect to believe that the Bolsheviks (and every other Marxist cadre ever to seek or seize power) were actually about revolution for the benefit of the masses, and not simply so they could consolidate power into their own hands. I honestly don't know how you could grant them that. The great "advance" of DEI is that it is conducting a mostly bloodless revolution. Sure, some lives get ruined but they are hardly amassing a body-count like their predecessors.
I'm very much looking forward to how you think accountability can be raised up. It seems to me that our prosperity has allowed us to paper over the vast decline in accountability (across our entire economy and government) and the only hope for bringing it back is via a precipitous loss of general wealth (i.e. when the people who make bad decisions will actually have to suffer for doing so). I pray there is a better, and better targeted, approach.
"While folk often talk about freedom of speech and thought in the language of rights, it’s much more useful to see it in terms of authority: specifically one’s authority as a citizen.
A citizen has the authority to express themselves, to make their own decisions and judgements."
This is an interesting change in language. In the US the core ideas are that we have natural rights (from God or Nature) merely because we are human with a unique set of evolved capabilities, and that We The People are sovereign over our own government/governance.
But our "authority" for this sovereignty is really expressed in our Constitution as our version of foundational law [even if the Declaration of Independence also expresses some of our "Rights"] . So our "rights" are sort of given, while our authority is based on the limitations and foibles of human creators [rather than a divine one]. Constitutions are changed (and do need to be changed) occasionally. The nature or basis of this authority also evolves, but at a cultural pace.
I suppose in principle, a despot may be able to constrain your expression of your "rights", but you still retain them, while this despot can deny your authority as a citizen by abrogating your constitution.
IIRC, Helen said in Australia the law is more dependent upon written legislation and has no truck with fairy ideas about rights outside of written law. ???
Another good piece, with which I have no substantive gripes. But one item deserves a quick comment:
"Rudyard Lynch, Mr Whatifalthist, likes to point out that Communism—i.e. the Dialectical Faith in power—was a geopolitical boon to the US."
That's true only if you come at it from a zero-sum mindset where for us to win, someone else must lose. Had Russia and China not destroyed millions of lives (and untold wealth) to communism but instead joined the West in democratic capitalism, had we been able to direct our resources toward trade with partners instead of defense from adversaries, _all_ of us -- not just Russians and Chinese -- would likely be better off than we are today.
China and Russia choosing to cripple themselves is a "boon" to the U.S. in the same way that the neighbors burning down their houses is great news because it will reduce your property taxes.
So, the woke “religion” confers status, not on accomplishment, but to membership in a “marginalized” group - either natural (that is, through the accident of birth) or manufactured - and to the ability to verbalize approved grand intentions.
Relative success - either material or prestige - gleaned through accomplishment is proof of sin and is therefore discouraged. Relative failure is proof of marginalization and is rewarded, creating incentives for self-marginalization.
How long can any society based on such perverse incentives survive? Probably only as long as the generations not steeped in this religion are still alive and capable of keeping the lights on.
"A particularly blatant example of this retreat from a general, practical egalitarian ethic to a much more hierarchical conception is the re-elevation of racial identity that Critical Social Justice engages in via Critical Race Theory. It’s made clear that a black identity is most emphatically superior to a white one. Such insistence on grading people by identity category overturns a post-civil-rights embrace of more egalitarian social attitudes. LGBTIQ+ has become ever-more-of-the-alphabet people so everyone can play intersectional bingo, so anyone can push themselves up the intersectional hierarchy."
--- Then why do hierarchical loving lobsters like Jordan Peterson NOT appreciate identity politics that place Black people and LGBTQIA+ at the top of the hierarchies they so cherish?
Totally impressed by both the scope and depth.
Taken individually, or several at a time, I could take on board what you are saying. But to reiterate the whole thing? No way.