Nice and succinct post. I learned a long time ago that it was a waste of time to try to convince leftists of anything. Their way of view, of seeing the world, is just fundamentally different -- Anonymous Conservative likens these outlook differences to r/k selection theory. Lee Kuan Yew stated no matter how much better Singapore became through his methods, about 30% of the population remained diehard communists / communist supporters.
The relationship between regular people and their Leftist ruling class is like an abusive marriage with a drug-addicted narcissist. What is needed is not more discussion and compromise, but healthy boundaries and real consequences for the violation of those boundaries, with the understanding that divorce (including national divorce), while certainly painful, is sometimes the least bad option, when the alternatives amount to fates worse than death.
Succinct and well said! Once conflicts escalate too far, it becomes impossible to have a reasonable discussion. The Left/establishment is not interested in Truth, but in Power, which is why they've been cheating and gaming the system through propaganda, censorship, brainwashing, intimidation, violence, coercion, and so on. The Free Market of Ideas doesn't work here because ideas that serve the interest of power have an overwhelming advantage over those that don't. So, we end up with a racket of ideas, in which bad ideas drive out the good. We must counteract this, because as you point out, if the Left had their way entirely, they would bring about anarcho-tyranny and the collapse of society.
That's not to say the Left is always evil, however. They're like fire, which has its place in the Natural Order of things, but must be controlled, lest it consume everything in its path. Limited, sporadic wildfires (caused by lightning strikes) are actually healthy for the ecosystem, burning deadwood, fertilizing with ashes, and letting new life grow. But when wildfires get out of control, they become massively destructive, killing off even the fire-resistant trees. Likewise, a society sometimes needs change & innovation in order to keep evolving and not get petrified, which could lead to eventual extinction. But too much change & innovation leads to rapid dissolution and a quick, violent death -- it's not hard to see which one is more dangerous!
Finally, as for that shill article (discussed on Morgoth's A Plague of Hagues), I find that stuff hard to read, because my eyes glaze over and my mind tunes it out -- it seems that I've developed an automatic bullshit filter in response to following the Culture Wars.
Descending then to the real; the push is on, but from where? From a loosely-constabulated group of academics? From a disgruntled populace, unaware of the need for civility and structure? I hesitate to say it; the WEF tied to the UN?
I hesitate because no one has ever responded to that charge. Those who would assume power are seemingly untouchable, steamrollers of dissent, unwilling to hide and the ultimate purveyors of mayhem.
I'm pretty sure elite modernists aren't leftists. They like hierarchy just fine. Biden and his top officials have repeatedly said that the greatest threat to humanity is "white supremacy," not capitalism or rich people. They loved Elon Musk until he stopped Twitter censoring racists, haters, sexists, bigots, etc. The Clintons and Obamas are raking in the dough.
I think you are projecting your own orderly, pragmatic mind onto your opponents by referring to them as leftists. I know it's shorthand but words should have meaning. Modernists are experts at using words that mean nothing at all. Nobody knows what white supremacy means, for instance. Or racist, homophobe, or sexist. They are used mainly as slurs towards whites, white men, Christians, etc.
Reminds me of this excellent "review" of a 'Deirdre' McCloskey book. I have McCloskey's three part series on the Bourgeoisie Virtues but couldn't get far. Partially for the reason Haywood gives and partially for the obviously-affected attempt at a feminine tone.
Before you decide I am an opponent, I have subscribed. But I have a question;
“The left exists as an anti-civilizational force whose goal is no less than the total obliteration of your life, family, nation, history, religion, ethnos, people, and the permanent erasure of all that ever came from any of it.”
My question: Why?
If the real goal is to assume power, then as what? How would any group of people subsist?
I apologize for my apparent stupidity. I’m only in my seventies and have much to learn.
I don't think it's a stupid question at all. If you're asking, "Why does the left want to destroy that which is and was?" I think the answer is complicated.
The left as a social force is like entropy. It's a push against hierarchy, formality, standards, etc. They worship the ego, they desire all people to be "free" to choose their own identities, never limited by biology or circumstance.
There are many problems with entropic levelling at the social level. For one, the systems we've built are extraordinarily complex, it's not clear we can keep them running with levelled standards. Two, by "liberating" people to create their own chosen identities they have functionally enslaved them to atomization. 15% of American adults are on psychoactive antidepressant drugs. More than 1 in 5 adult white women. Is this the result of progress?
I think those at the top either have a hubristic idea that they can control reality like gods, or they simply want to manage the decline from a safe position.
I'm not a nihilist so I don't think the quest for power for its own sake is actually a virtuous or a respectable or an acceptable human goal. I think tyranny is the rule for private gain.
If we take people like Hurari of the WEF at face value - he thinks most of humanity is redundant and that technology has come far enough it would be possible to provide for them and manage the reduction of the human populace through some combination of propaganda and pharma tech itself.
That line of thinking alone is monstrous and should be rejected a priori.
The rest we can trace through lines of thought around humanity being fungible and the inevitability of a new man (if we just get X technique right!) - one person just like another, cogs in the machine, etc. This is making a number of assumption which I think don't stand to reason, but that's never stopped people before and it won't stop them now.
I have a series of pieces sketching some of this out at an (IMO) decidedly less lofty height. I toot my horn here primarily because our host and I have had pleasant interactions and I think he won't mind:
Nice and succinct post. I learned a long time ago that it was a waste of time to try to convince leftists of anything. Their way of view, of seeing the world, is just fundamentally different -- Anonymous Conservative likens these outlook differences to r/k selection theory. Lee Kuan Yew stated no matter how much better Singapore became through his methods, about 30% of the population remained diehard communists / communist supporters.
The relationship between regular people and their Leftist ruling class is like an abusive marriage with a drug-addicted narcissist. What is needed is not more discussion and compromise, but healthy boundaries and real consequences for the violation of those boundaries, with the understanding that divorce (including national divorce), while certainly painful, is sometimes the least bad option, when the alternatives amount to fates worse than death.
Succinct and well said! Once conflicts escalate too far, it becomes impossible to have a reasonable discussion. The Left/establishment is not interested in Truth, but in Power, which is why they've been cheating and gaming the system through propaganda, censorship, brainwashing, intimidation, violence, coercion, and so on. The Free Market of Ideas doesn't work here because ideas that serve the interest of power have an overwhelming advantage over those that don't. So, we end up with a racket of ideas, in which bad ideas drive out the good. We must counteract this, because as you point out, if the Left had their way entirely, they would bring about anarcho-tyranny and the collapse of society.
That's not to say the Left is always evil, however. They're like fire, which has its place in the Natural Order of things, but must be controlled, lest it consume everything in its path. Limited, sporadic wildfires (caused by lightning strikes) are actually healthy for the ecosystem, burning deadwood, fertilizing with ashes, and letting new life grow. But when wildfires get out of control, they become massively destructive, killing off even the fire-resistant trees. Likewise, a society sometimes needs change & innovation in order to keep evolving and not get petrified, which could lead to eventual extinction. But too much change & innovation leads to rapid dissolution and a quick, violent death -- it's not hard to see which one is more dangerous!
Finally, as for that shill article (discussed on Morgoth's A Plague of Hagues), I find that stuff hard to read, because my eyes glaze over and my mind tunes it out -- it seems that I've developed an automatic bullshit filter in response to following the Culture Wars.
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Descending then to the real; the push is on, but from where? From a loosely-constabulated group of academics? From a disgruntled populace, unaware of the need for civility and structure? I hesitate to say it; the WEF tied to the UN?
I hesitate because no one has ever responded to that charge. Those who would assume power are seemingly untouchable, steamrollers of dissent, unwilling to hide and the ultimate purveyors of mayhem.
To their ultimate benefit.
William Hague is a cock
I'm pretty sure elite modernists aren't leftists. They like hierarchy just fine. Biden and his top officials have repeatedly said that the greatest threat to humanity is "white supremacy," not capitalism or rich people. They loved Elon Musk until he stopped Twitter censoring racists, haters, sexists, bigots, etc. The Clintons and Obamas are raking in the dough.
I think you are projecting your own orderly, pragmatic mind onto your opponents by referring to them as leftists. I know it's shorthand but words should have meaning. Modernists are experts at using words that mean nothing at all. Nobody knows what white supremacy means, for instance. Or racist, homophobe, or sexist. They are used mainly as slurs towards whites, white men, Christians, etc.
Reminds me of this excellent "review" of a 'Deirdre' McCloskey book. I have McCloskey's three part series on the Bourgeoisie Virtues but couldn't get far. Partially for the reason Haywood gives and partially for the obviously-affected attempt at a feminine tone.
Right on
Before you decide I am an opponent, I have subscribed. But I have a question;
“The left exists as an anti-civilizational force whose goal is no less than the total obliteration of your life, family, nation, history, religion, ethnos, people, and the permanent erasure of all that ever came from any of it.”
My question: Why?
If the real goal is to assume power, then as what? How would any group of people subsist?
I apologize for my apparent stupidity. I’m only in my seventies and have much to learn.
I don't think it's a stupid question at all. If you're asking, "Why does the left want to destroy that which is and was?" I think the answer is complicated.
The left as a social force is like entropy. It's a push against hierarchy, formality, standards, etc. They worship the ego, they desire all people to be "free" to choose their own identities, never limited by biology or circumstance.
There are many problems with entropic levelling at the social level. For one, the systems we've built are extraordinarily complex, it's not clear we can keep them running with levelled standards. Two, by "liberating" people to create their own chosen identities they have functionally enslaved them to atomization. 15% of American adults are on psychoactive antidepressant drugs. More than 1 in 5 adult white women. Is this the result of progress?
I think those at the top either have a hubristic idea that they can control reality like gods, or they simply want to manage the decline from a safe position.
I'm not a nihilist so I don't think the quest for power for its own sake is actually a virtuous or a respectable or an acceptable human goal. I think tyranny is the rule for private gain.
If we take people like Hurari of the WEF at face value - he thinks most of humanity is redundant and that technology has come far enough it would be possible to provide for them and manage the reduction of the human populace through some combination of propaganda and pharma tech itself.
That line of thinking alone is monstrous and should be rejected a priori.
The rest we can trace through lines of thought around humanity being fungible and the inevitability of a new man (if we just get X technique right!) - one person just like another, cogs in the machine, etc. This is making a number of assumption which I think don't stand to reason, but that's never stopped people before and it won't stop them now.
I have a series of pieces sketching some of this out at an (IMO) decidedly less lofty height. I toot my horn here primarily because our host and I have had pleasant interactions and I think he won't mind:
https://silentsod.substack.com/p/flat-earth-society
https://silentsod.substack.com/p/leading-indicators
https://silentsod.substack.com/p/mere-christianity-consumerism
https://silentsod.substack.com/p/spiritual-enslavement
I don’t think simple rejection is going to carry the day.