These two topics are in the next section just below this top section:
Kristian Niemietz- Emotional satisfaction, not rational thinking, and despite contrary evidence, dominates our choice in beliefs. The question of why people continue to hold to the fallacies of socialism and climate alarmism?
And…
A quibble with Joe Rogan’s doomster narrative on ocean fisheries, Wendell Krossa
I have a quibble with Joe Rogan’s doomster position over ocean fisheries- a persistent one that he brings up repeatedly about ocean fisheries dying over this century, becoming exhausted and ruined. Balance this quibble with my strong affirmation for his excellent podcast and endless series of fascinating discussions with diverse guests.
Joe’s alarmism illustrates the larger psycho-pathology of apocalyptic alarmism in our societies that dominates narratives religious, ideological, and even scientific.
‘Sitesplainin’ qualifiers: Wendell Krossa
Despite my, by all appearances, negative comments regarding religious traditions and the dark themes still dominating those traditions, I affirm very much the majority of people who are able to selectively comb through their tradition to find humane, positive, and comforting insights, to select out life-affirming ideals that are common to all humanity (i.e. found in human rights codes/declarations, constitutions, Bills of rights). My affirmation of such “pick and choose” approaches? Go for it. I am all for that.
I am trying to point out what weakens, distorts, and buries the better ideals and insights in religious traditions, and that we need to clean off the deforming “muck” (Leo Tolstoy’s term, similar to Thomas Jefferson’s) that dominates in the surrounding contexts of religious holy books and other supporting material- i.e. the teaching on themes like judgment, tribal exclusion/discrimination (true believers included, unbelievers excluded), deity dominating humans (humans created to serve the gods), the threats of punitive apocalypse and hell, etc., all the nasty stuff in religious traditions that messes up the good stuff.
Isn’t this a basic obligation for all of us- to discern and sort out the good from the bad, everywhere in life? Nothing out of bounds- i.e. protected “under the canopy of the sacred”?
This from the best: “The search for God cannot wait. And love one another”, the final words of George Harrison.
Another good one from Michael Shellenberger
We can only fight for and defend freedom when we understand what and where the real threat to freedom is coming from. This by Shellenberger is the best of independent journalism and speaking truth to power, exposing abuse of power.
This refers to what Tulsi Gabbard has been enduring from the Biden government (see next article link below this).
“They Create Anarchy To Impose Tyranny: Elites including Tim Walz are attacking free speech and personal freedom while encouraging more illegal migration and allowing more crime”, Michael Shellenberger, Aug. 7, 2024
https://www.public.news/p/they-create-anarchy-to-impose-tyranny
Quotes:
Shellenberger states that liberal politicians have been demanding more authoritarian restrictions on free speech and personal freedom, notably Tim Walz, Gavin Newson, new British PM Keir Starmer, and Justin Trudeau. The measures imposed by these leaders “were highly selective in nature”.
And here is the point:
“Liberal politicians like Walz, Newsom, Trudeau, and Starmer are simultaneously creating greater authoritarianism and greater anarchy. This is in stark contrast to liberals in the past who fought authoritarianism and demanded greater free speech, personal freedom, and privacy. What exactly happened? How did liberals become advocates of anarcho-tyranny?…
“In 1993, the governor of North Carolina made a big show out of enforcing a new seat belt law while he was, at the same time, releasing convicted criminals from prison who had committed a far more serious crime… This combination of government overreach and leniency created “anarcho-tyranny,” according conservative intellectual Sam Francis, which he described in 1994 as “a kind of Hegelian synthesis of what appear to be dialectical opposites: the combination of oppressive government power against the innocent and the law-abiding and, simultaneously, a grotesque paralysis of the ability or the will to use that power to carry out basic public duties such as protection or public safety.”
“’Anarcho-tyranny’…describes well the policies and measures of Democrats and other liberal leaders across the Western world….”
Shellenberger then quotes this by Sam Francis:
“It is characteristic of anarcho-tyranny that it not only fails to punish criminals and enforce legitimate order but also criminalizes the innocent. At the same time, the governor of North Carolina grotesquely fails to uphold his famous oath to protect the citizens of his state by keeping convicted felons in prison, he has no problem finding the time to organize a massive waste of his time and the taxpayers’ money to hound and humiliate a perfectly innocent citizen for the infraction of a trivial traffic law.”
He adds that Francis missed the point that anarcho-tyranny is driven by victimhood ideology. Hence Starmer will crack down on anti-immigrant rioters but not migrant rioters because they are “oppressed”, while the former are “oppressors”.
“’Anarcho-tyranny’ can be thought of as the strategy for liberal politicians to impose Woke ideology on social institutions, from the universities and news media to the criminal justice and health care systems….
“Liberals, Democrats, and progressives are rapidly replacing the old standard of equal justice under the law with the new Woke hierarchy of the oppressed, There should be different rules for different people based on the racial and sexual moral hierarchy of Wokeism….
“Wokeism… denies rather than affirms individual human agency and responsibility.”
See full article at link above.
From the comment section following Shellenberger’s article…
“Clever Pseudonym:
“Another manifestation of Anarcho-Tyranny is how the regime media treats its favored party vs how the regime media treats any challengers to its favored party.
“The out-party or enemy party gets: full-spectrum vilification of each and every member, microscopic analysis of their every recorded word (whether printed or spoken) all the way back to freshman year, distortions of their positions and PR campaigns made of whole-cloth slanders (“Don’t Say Gay” comes to mind), celebrities denouncing them on every channel, plus hysterical fearmongering about what would happen if they won an election—fascism! theocracy! death of democracy! (And while this is mostly the case with Trump and Republicans loyal to him, it’s also inflicted upon apostate liberals like RFK Jr or Tulsi Gabbard).
“While the favored party of the regime media gets: their mistakes or scandals covered up, their failures/disasters ignored, puff pieces and Annie Liebowitz photo shoots, massive PR campaigns to turn them from zero into hero, the enlistment of a MSM Praetorian Guard dedicated to total debasing deference and brazen lying on their chosen candidate’s behalf.”
The state persecution of Tulsi Gabbard: A Democratic presidential candidate, shamed and smeared by Hilary Clinton and the ladies on The View as a “Russian asset” because, after serving in the military, she took an anti-war stance. Is her current treatment by the Biden administration due to the fact she ended Kamala Harris’s 2020 run for president by exposing her California DA record in locking up 1500 black men for marijuana incidents and then laughing about her own marijuana use?
The pettiness, and totalitarian nature of what Democrats are doing to those who disagree with them is beyond alarming because they don’t appear to get how dangerously totalitarian their behavior is, that it poses the real “threat to democracy” that they constantly project onto opponents. We saw it with the censorship in the Twitter Files, Democratic politicians getting the FBI to put pressure on social media companies to censor opponent’s speech. Is this what the deformity of the “Hero’s Quest” results in? The belief that you are in a righteous battle against evil enemies whom you have demonized and dehumanized as so irredeemably evil that they must be harassed and bullied, censored, cancelled, even eliminated?
Quotes from below…
“How brazen the political retaliation and abuse of power continues to be under the Biden-Harris administration…. These actions are those of a tyrannical dictator. There’s no other way to describe what they’re doing.”
“American Stasi: Tulsi Gabbard Confirms “Quiet Skies” Nightmare: Placed on a terror watch list, the former Hawaii congresswoman and her husband were tailed by Air Marshals and bomb dogs. “Unconstitutional on every level,” she says. “And I’m not the only one.””, Matt Taibbi, Aug. 7, 2024
https://www.racket.news/p/american-stasi-tulsi-gabbard-confirms
And now a quickie summary for those on the run– Playing further with Kristian Niemietz’s argument that “emotional satisfaction, not rational thinking and despite contrary evidence, dominates our choice in beliefs”. Wendell Krossa
“Emotionally satisfying beliefs” because they are related to deeply embedded archetypes in the shared human subconscious. Those archetypes- the same old themes that have always dominated human narratives- are endlessly and repeatedly manifested in our belief systems, whether religious or “secular/ideological”, and even “scientific”. Our beliefs re-affirm to us how we feel, and our feelings, in a feedback loop, are re-affirmed by the beliefs.
The core beliefs that still comfort many:
We are bad because our ancestors, originally pure and innocent, fell into “sin” and thereby ruined paradise (Illustrations? Enki in Dilmun, Adam and Eve in Eden). Now all humanity lives under the threat of life declining toward an apocalyptic ending. And we are now obligated to make atonement (sacrifice/payment), suffer for our redemption, and we must also engage a righteous battle against evil enemies and purge that evil from life (this plays with the “hero’s quest” to conquer and defeat a monster/enemy). Then we are promised salvation and a tribally utopian future for true believers.
This entire primitive complex satisfies emotions that have long been validated by these mythical themes. And though profoundly irrational and against all evidence of reality in our world, it’s all still emotionally satisfying, resonating with a deeply felt “truthiness”.
Further summary points from Arthur Herman’s history of the two great approaches to organizing human societies- collectivism versus the orientation to free individuals, Wendell Krossa
Collectivism (subjecting individuals to “enlightened elites” who run the collectives) was the approach to organizing human societies that descended from Plato. Herman contrasts Plato’s collectivist approach with the approach of Aristotle that was oriented to organizing societies around the protection of free individuals and their rights. See the detailed history of these two approaches, and their offspring across history, in Herman’s “The Cave and the Light: Plato versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization”.
Collectivist approaches to organizing human societies take power away from free self-determining individuals and then centralize and locate control over populations in governing elites and their state bureaucracies. And that is the main fallacy and danger of collectivist approaches- centralizing power and control over populations in self-deluded elites who believe that they alone know what is best for all others and are seemingly blind to the danger of confiscating power and control from average citizens to locate it in governing elites as self-perceived “compassionate and enlightened rulers”.
The elites (again, viewing and deluding themselves as more enlightened than the “ignorant and deplorable” commoners) are the most dangerous people in societies because there are no such persons as “benevolent rulers” able to function humanely and safely without the constraints of the Classic Liberal systems of law and institutions that keep our worst impulses in check.
More commonly, members of state elites along with their subservient bureaucrats, are virtue-signalers of benevolence and compassion. And we know, from a whole lotta research on the psychopathology of authoritarianism and narcissistic compassion, that they narcissistically display an often-deformed version of compassion, a deformed benevolence that is exceedingly dangerous to ordinary citizens. Note the “compassion for the oppressed” that resulted in the Marxist-inspired slaughters of 100 million people last century under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, among other similarly inspired tyrants. Those mass-death outcomes were from collectivist approaches, where elites controlled societies and their resources professedly “for the people”. (This relates to Niemietz’s point on beliefs that are dogmatically held because they are “emotionally satisfying”, though irrational and against evidence to the contrary, including evidence of destructive outcomes on others.)
We all need protection from our own worst impulses, protection from our real enemy- the one that exists inside all of us. Notably, the inherited impulses to tribalism, to domination of others, and to punitive destruction of differing others/enemies. And these dark impulses are never more dangerous than when we frame them as “compassion for some oppressed group”, never more dangerous than when we, in fits of self-delusion, imagine ourselves as righteous heroes and saviors of oppressed commoners. And the big question for our “liberal/Democratic” friends- What short-circuits this healthy awareness of the danger lurking within all of us- the urge to coerce and dominate others, for their good?
(Insert qualifier: There are people in state positions of power who appear to get the basics of Classic Liberalism/liberal democracy and are authentic activists for such principles and they conscientiously redistribute power to the people, protecting and promoting the rights and freedoms of all citizens, protecting citizens from the totalitarian urge to centralize power and control in state elites and bureaucracies. In other words, people with integrity, powerholders who are willing to intentionally work themselves out of a job, or at least willing to give away power and control to others. Such people, though rare, do exist within systems that generally corrupt most.)
Arthur Herman illustrates the dangers of centralizing power and control over populations in his history that begins with Plato’s collectivist contribution to Western history. Plato held the view that a class of “intelligent and noble Rulers” should run societies for the good of all. But no such class of people has ever existed. That was a utopian dream, the dream of an early utopian Greek that has had devastating consequences across subsequent history.
And when Plato was presented with an opportunity to assist a new ruler who had deposed a previous despot, the new liberator became just as tyrannical as the deposed tyrant, thereby discrediting Plato’s collectivist approach to organizing societies as “run by men of knowledge and virtue (philosopher rulers)”. Plato’s collectivist vision was exposed as “a blueprint for totalitarianism”.
Plato envisioned a “Class of Rulers who were also the city’s philosophers, the moral and administrative keepers of the state, the people who make sure every thing else in society works…..The class of Rulers are above all a class of legislators and lawmakers” that create “good laws” to ensure the operation of an ideal society that would produce an ideal people, the result of following an ideal pattern that would enable people to attain utopia.
Plato argued that utopian perfection should result from the Ruler’s knowledge, from their view of the ideal, and the systems of laws that they would create to lead people into communal utopia. Plato placed too much confidence in his utopian dream of “enlightened, intelligent, and benevolent rulers”, seemingly unaware that the real battle of good against evil runs through the center of every human heart (he had not yet read Solzhenitsyn), the real danger that lurks inside all of us, the impulses to (1) tribalism, to (2) domination of others (this impulse is most dangerously self-delusional when we think our use of state coercion is done out of “compassion” for the oppressed and justified in liberating the oppressed), and the impulse to (3) punitive destruction of differing others.
After Plato and his ruler buddy had their opportunity to create their vision of an ideal society, following the ousting of a previous tyrant, the population they ruled concluded, “We have only exchanged a drunken tyrant for a sober one”. Too often formerly oppressed people, when liberated, then become the new oppressors. That has been the common and inevitable result when people don’t understand the Classic Liberal principles that were developed to protect all of us from ourselves, from our own totalitarian impulses and the delusional framing of exercising such impulses as “compassion for oppressed”.
Plato learned through experience the difficulty of finding wise, benevolent rulers that were incorruptible by power. Societies need overarching institutions that protect all citizens from the danger of centralizing power, especially that protect from the ever-persistent impulse to centralize control in governing elites and their bureaucracies. That is accomplished by constitutions, bills of rights, mechanisms and processes that disperse power among free and competing individuals, and actively maintain the institutions, laws, and policies that actually fulfill the critical decentralization process.
Frederik Hayek spoke to this point in “The Road to Serfdom”. Note his good advice regarding systems of laws/regulations- i.e. that we do not need detailed instructions on how to get to some goal but just a general pointing in the right direction, much like a general agreement on the basic ideals that we want our lives and societies to aim toward. Then let free individuals decide and choose how they will get to the general goal(s). Self-determination.
To the contrary, Plato argued for the domination of the collective, and its enlightened Rulers, over individuals and their rights and freedoms. Consequently, his contribution to Western thinking and civilization has been disastrous as it descended down, for example, into the views of German philosopher Georg Hegel.
Hegel took up Plato’s arguments for elites telling citizens how to live the good life, and that “the State” and state laws embody the greater “Good” that should lead us to the good life.
“What we need” said Hegel, to show us how to live the good life, “is the State… a community shaped by laws, customs, and traditions into ‘one single being’ or General Will”. Under the state “teams of bureaucrats become a virtual cadre of Philosopher Rulers who bring order and justice to a needy world….
“Hegel is the true godfather of the nanny state, or welfare state- with Plato standing beside him… the State acting to protect us from ourselves, because the State is our Better and Higher Self… The Government is… the Spirit of the People itself… in time humanity will discover that obeying the laws of the State is the only true freedom” (Herman, p.436-7).
Karl Marx took up Hegel’s ideas of the domination of societies by state elites and state bureaucrats (“enlightened vanguards” of Marxist elites as philosopher Rulers). In Marxist ideology, elites and their state bureaucracies would supposedly function to embody and represent “the people”. Consequently, the elites and their bureaucracies would nationalize all sectors of the economy (the “means of production”) and operate that coercively confiscated property “for the people”. The State would supposedly function as the representative of the people. Yeah, right. How has that worked out in societies when you take away individual citizen’s control over their own resources?
Plato insisted that the perfect society “must have no private property” (p. 65). The rejection of private property was essential to his vision of creating a utopian society. Plato has influenced modern movements to implement collectivisms in order to create utopian societies that operated according to communalist principles (i.e. no private property and instead redistribution for “equity” outcomes) believing that approach would thereby create a utopian people- i.e. the truly “communalist human” of Marxist utopian visions.
Plato’s collectivism affirms the conclusion of Kristian Niemietz re socialism…
“Socialism in the sense which self-identified democratic socialists define it… a democratized economic planned collectively by ‘the people’, has never been achieved anywhere and could not be achieved. Economic planning can only ever be done in a technocratic, elitist fashion, and it requires an extreme concentration of power in the hands of the state. It cannot ‘empower’ ordinary workers. It can only ever empower bureaucratic elites.”
Further poking a hole in the collectivist vision of societies ruled by enlightened Rulers, I would repeat Bob Brinsmead’s insight that “where there is no authentic freedom there is no authentic love”. That exposes the false and deformed compassion of leftist collectivists who advocate for centralizing power in state elites and bureaucrats and with the delusional claim that such enslavement is “for the people… according to the will of the people, expressing the will of the people”. (from “Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies”)
Further quotes from Herman:
Contrary to Plato’s collectivist vision of forced equity of economic outcomes, “Aristotle recognized that some will do better at their jobs and professions than others. Diversity of interests means inequality of results, even a division between rich and poor. That division, and the resulting class conflict that infected all the Greek city-states, is the sign of a free society. It is one reason Aristotle stands so opposed to Plato’s communism. Enforcing economic equality is not just a violation of common sense…
“For Aristotle, class conflict is inevitable… But this conflict is not a source of despair, as it was for Plato. Nor is it a sign that political disaster is looming. Instead, Aristotle’s science of politics is about learning how to build harmony out of these competing existing parts through balance and moderation, rather than trying to impose order and harmony through rational legislation…
“Aristotle confronts the weightiest issue… Plato had raised… ‘Who should rule?’… Aristotle concludes that power belongs best with the people…
“Those who argue that only experts know best, are wrong… Aristotle’s support for the rule of the people, backed by ‘rightly constitutional laws’ that must be ultimately sovereign, becomes a crucial legacy for the future of the West. Democracy on the Athenian model may not be ideal, Aristotle says, but it may be the best we can hope for” (p. 72-74 of “The Cave and The Light”).
Added notes: Wendell Krossa
I have long felt that it would be a great benefit to new generations, now deluded by the promises of collectivist utopia (i.e. surveys showing a majority of young people now favor socialism), if someone with sufficient funds could afford to do public advertising and promotion of the basic principles, laws, and institutions of Classic Liberalism or liberal democracy, as per, for example, William Bernstein’s “The Birth of Plenty”, Daniel Hannan’s “Inventing Freedom”, and similar research.
And include the abundant evidence of the amazing success of the “free and equal individuals” approach to organizing human societies in (1) lifting billions out of poverty, (2) ensuring individual freedom for all citizens, equally, (3) protecting the same basic rights for all, including minorities, and (4) bringing peace and generally improved well-being to all members of society. The people embracing such a project could outline the basic features and institutions of Classic Liberalism- a truly representative government, protected private property and private contracts, systems of law that protect and promote the equality of all, the full inclusion of all diverse peoples, protected rights and freedom for all, etc.
Such an advertising project could make the point that authentic liberalism has achieved “the greater or common good”, along with environmental protection and improvement, better than alternative collectivist approaches.
And to make the point more potently, contrast the success of Classic Liberalism with collectivist principles and practises that deny private property rights and freedoms and consequently have been destructive of individual freedom and rights, and thereby immiserated billions as evident in the 24 Socialist/collectivist experiments of the last century or so. Point out collectivism’s main features in the centralizing of power in state elites and state bureaucracies and how that subjects citizens to elite control, how it denies individual property rights thereby denying individual freedom of choice and self-determination.
Someone could put out brief ads to summarize these basic features of these two contrasting systems for organizing societies and perhaps point to longer documentaries on this same topic. Any takers for such a non-partisan project?
Another note:
Kristian Niemietz’s three stages of socialist experiments remind me of the three stages that all human relationships go through (noted in a “Psychology Today” series published in the late 80s, early 90s)- i.e. (1) romance, (2) disillusionment, and then (3) struggle for ongoing commitment (the three-stage model summarized the features of longer six-stage models).
But in the collectivist “disillusionment” stage things get ugly with denial of looming failure, doubling down on the ideology and crusade, and even a shift to the dangerous phase of “exterminate all opposition or be exterminated”, meaning refuse to accept that your ideology and crusade is losing, and go full nuclear nihilism and destruction (see Richard Landes good history of this in “Heaven On Earth: The Varieties of the Millennial Experience”).
Another:
Behind the defense and promotion of liberalism, as contrasted with collectivisms (i.e. Robert Owen’s communalism, Marxist communism, varied Socialist projects), I am reminded of that saying of Bob Brinsmead that sums up the core issue at play- “Where there is no authentic freedom- i.e. no respect, protection, and promotion of individual freedom and rights equally for all- where this individual freedom and self-determination is not paramount then there is no authentic love”. Love and freedom are inseparable twins, inalienable partners.
The fundamental unity of love and freedom exposes the false compassion of collectivists (“psychopathology of left-wing authoritarianism”) who argue that people must deny their individual freedom and rights and subject themselves to some greater abstract good, what they term “common good”, as defined by the dominating elites. There is no love or compassion in that approach to organizing societies that denies respect for and protection of individual freedom.
Javier Vinos is good on basic climate facts and the natural factors that that are the main influence on climate change. He posts his research at “co2coalition.org” and “Wattsupwiththat.com” showing that the warming influence of CO2 is minor and is not “the main cause of climate change”. And that climate change is not becoming “catastrophic”. Hence there is no need to tax carbon or decarbonize our societies with ruinous Net Zero decarbonization policies.
Here is one of his latest reports, this one on the recent warming of 2023 and 2024…
“Hunga Tonga volcano: Impact on record warming”, Javier Vinos, July 9, 2024
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/07/09/hunga-tonga-volcano-impact-on-record-warming/
Quotes (detailed graphs of data in his report are available at link above):
“The climate event of 2023 was truly exceptional, but the prevailing catastrophism about climate change hinders its proper scientific analysis. I present arguments that support the view that we are facing an extraordinary and extremely rare natural event in climate history…
“Since the planet has been warming for 200 years, and our global records are even more recent, every few years a new warmest year in history is recorded. Despite all the publicity given each time it happens, it would really be news if it didn’t happen, which occurred between 1998 and 2014, a period popularly known as ‘the pause’….
“What is so special about the 2023 record and the expected 2024 record? For starters, 2023 broke the record by the largest margin in records, 0.17°C. This may not sound like much, but if all records were by this margin, we would go from +1.5°C to +2°C in just 10 years, and reach +3°C 20 years later….
“In June 2023, the North Atlantic experienced a heat wave unprecedented in 40 years, with temperatures 5°C warmer than usual. Carlo Buontempo, the director of Copernicus, said the world was “entering uncharted territory. We have never seen anything like this in our life”….
“However, it assumes that we have reached and will remain in this situation, whereas the data suggest that this is a one-off anomaly with diminishing effects. For now, it tells us that nothing dramatic is happening as we approach the politically established warming threshold….
Vinos then examines the possible factors for the abrupt warming in order to counter the “wild speculation” about such warming. He goes over varied factors but concludes they could not be responsible. He starts, stating, “CO₂ increase didn’t do it”. Then he points to the correlation of recent warming to the Tonga volcano eruption.
“Just over a year before the abrupt warming, in January 2022, an extremely unusual volcanic eruption took place in Tonga…. The Tonga eruption was a submarine explosion at very shallow depths, about 150 m below the sea surface. It ejected 150 million tons of water into the stratosphere….
“The Tonga eruption is a once in 200-year event, probably less than once in a millennium….
“We know that strong volcanic eruptions, capable of reaching the stratosphere, can have a very strong effect on the climate for a few years….
Vinos continues, noting that the planet’s greenhouse effect is “very sensitive to changes in stratospheric water vapor”. And after the Tonga eruption that effect increased by 10% due to that unprecedented volcanic eruption that probably caused the recent abrupt warming.
“It is by far the most likely suspect, and any other candidate should have to demonstrate its ability to act abruptly with such magnitude before being seriously considered.
“So why do scientists like Gavin Schmidt argue, without evidence or knowledge, that the Tonga volcano could not have been responsible? If the effect were cooling, the volcano would be blamed without a second’s hesitation, but significant natural warming undermines the message that warming is the fault of our emissions.”
Full report with illustrative graphs and sources available at the link above.
Other recent reports from Vinos (see also his good series of reports on “Sun-Climate Effect: Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis” where he tags “meridional transport” as the main influence on climate change)
“The Green-House Gas Forcer vs. The Winter Gatekeeper Round 2: Climate Shifts- Are They For Real?”, Gabriel Oxenstierna, May 31, 2024
“How we know that the sun changes climate (II). The present”, Javier Vinos, May 17, 2024
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/17/how-we-know-that-the-sun-changes-climate-ii-the-present/
And this brilliant defense of Liberalism by Jonathan Rauch in “Persuasion”
“Why You Should Feel Good About Liberalism: We need to get better at standing up for the greatest social technology ever devised”, Jonathan Rauch, Aug. 6, 2024
Quotes and comments:
“Never in my lifetime have critiques of Locke, Smith, Mill, the British Enlightenment, and the American founding emanated from so many different quarters, attacked from so many directions….
“But monarchy, feudalism, theocracy, autarchy, fascism, communism, and the other challengers to liberalism had all failed as governing systems and intellectual frameworks. Only Western-style liberalism had proven it can work on a large scale, in many places, and over time….”
He continues, adding the no other viable system has come along that can replicate liberalism’s ability to promote knowledge, prosperity, freedom and peace. “Liberalism has delivered spectacular results” and is the greatest social system ever.
Rauch then asks, “What do we (or at least I) mean by “liberalism”?”
He responds that liberalism is not progressivism or moderate leftism. Its central philosophy is “that all persons are born free and equal. Its operational principles include the rule of law, pluralism, toleration, minority rights, distributed authority, limited government, and democratic decision-making”.
“In the context of human history, everything about liberalism is radical: its rejection of personal and tribal authority, its insistence on treating persons as interchangeable, its demand that dissent be tolerated and minorities protected, its embrace of change and uncertainty. All of its premises run counter to hardwired human instincts….
Rauch acknowledges that liberalism is not perfect and does not solve all problems but does better than any alternative at resolving all the big problems of poverty, inequality, environmental degradation, war, and disease.
“Material well-being?… The middle class… is expanding faster on a global scale than it has ever done before. …
“Peace? Liberal democracies have effectively eliminated warfare as a method of settling their disputes among themselves, a development which would amaze all prior generations. Freedom? Liberalism literally invented the idea that all people are entitled to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Justice? Liberalism brought an end to slavery, historically among the most ubiquitous of human institutions; it brought liberation to women, African-Americans, and sexual minorities…
He says that all the alternatives- i.e. left-wing wokeness, critical social justice, cultural Marxism, or identity synthesis- “Are either proven failures or vaporware…. wokeness does not have much of a governing record, it, too, belies its egalitarian claims, stereotyping and demonizing alleged oppressors and bullying and silencing opponents…. (the challengers to liberalism cannot self-correct)…
“Liberal democracy… (self-corrects because it)… provides for political competition and rotation in power; markets let firms and entrepreneurs fail and be replaced; liberal science connects millions of investigators in a collective search for error….
Further, he says the challengers are authoritarian while liberalism is decentralized, depersonalized, consensual, and self-correcting. He adds that liberalism does not provide for moral and spiritual needs.
“Liberalism was designed not to provide for our moral and spiritual needs. It deliberately leaves the transcendent questions open. From the beginning, liberal theorists emphasized that liberalism can provide space for individuals, families, communities, and faiths to make meaning in their own ways, but it cannot, does not, and should not do that work itself. Liberalism promises the pursuit of happiness, not the actual thing….
“Liberal(ism)…. elevates and requires virtues such as truthfulness, lawfulness, forbearance, civility, reciprocity, generosity, and respect for the intrinsic worth of every individual.”
“Jonathan Rauch is a senior fellow in the Governance Studies program at the Brookings Institution, and a member of the Persuasion Board of Advisors.”
See full article at link above.
And this on the appeal of Marxists to primitive tribal impulses, as in the simple-minded dualism of us “victims” versus our oppressor enemies. Add here the layer of the hero’s quest, the felt tribal obligation to engage a righteous battle against some evil enemy/monster that must be conquered, defeated, and exterminated.
“Opinion: Western societies must stop the spread of Marxism: The source of our current problems? ‘It’s the political economy, stupid,’ especially the idea that people are either oppressors or oppressed”, Ross McKitrick, Mar. 19, 2024
https://financialpost.com/opinion/western-societies-must-stop-spread-of-marxism
“The point of today’s woke revolution is not to improve but to destroy.
“Current economic and philosophical problems both originated in the same place — The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels — the seminal text of political economy, which became the handbook for bad economics and the woke movement alike. Published in 1888, it opens with the simplistic declaration: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed.” In this rigid oppressor/oppressed scheme, which is the heart of woke ideology, everyone is either tyrant or victim — not based on anyone’s choices, mind you, but by the accident of historical circumstances. If you are an oppressor, you can never be anything else.
McKitrick says that Marxism, in addition to viewing all people in terms of the simple-minded dualism of “oppressor/oppressed”, also demands that all the institutions and civil rights developed by those framed as oppressors must be destroyed and “replaced with a new centrally planned society. According to Marx and Engels, “the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” To abolish private ownership is to abolish all individuality, replacing it with uniform group identity under the control of a totalitarian state….”
McKitrick notes that Marxists call for the forcible overthrow of all existing social institutions and practises and the nationalization of the business sector (abolishing private property to be placed under the control of state elites and their bureaucracies), the centralization of all control of society and life in collectivist elites who will run everything, the entire economy, purportedly “for the people”.
“Marx, Engels and their allies never asked whether the cure they proposed might be worse than the disease. Having declared that society is nothing but oppressors exploiting the oppressed and having appointed themselves advocates for the oppressed, they were duty-bound to destroy society and impose what they called “communism,” an empty word that turned out to mean nothing more than they and their fellow zealots taking charge….
“Marxist doctrine spreads because the “oppressed” gain instant status and power without need of personal virtues or accomplishments. The idea holds appeal, but only to our most selfish and cruel instincts. Exempt from criticism, the oppressed come to believe they’re entitled to take everything the so-called oppressors have, by force if necessary, or to burn the whole system down for revenge.”
“Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, is a senior fellow of the Fraser Institute.”
See full article at link above.
And “The Farce of Academic Activism: When Universities Pander to Ideologues”, Charles Rotter, Aug. 4, 2024
Report referred to in Rotter’s article:
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainability/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.679019/full
Quotes:
“Universities have traditionally served as bastions of free inquiry and impartial research. This tradition is long past. The recent shift towards unabashed advocacy and activism, is championed by “From Publications to Public Actions: The Role of Universities in Facilitating Academic Advocacy and Activism in the Climate and Ecological Emergency,” and continues this disturbing trend. This paper, ostensibly published in the name of sustainability, reeks of ideological fervor rather than any kind of genuine pursuit of knowledge….
“The paper begins with a dire warning: “Planetary heating threatens the collapse of human civilization and ecosystems worldwide”. Such alarmist rhetoric, reminiscent of doomsday cults, sets the tone for what follows…. The use of the term “emergency” is a rhetorical tool designed to stifle debate and justify extreme measures. It is a classic case of crying wolf, where any dissent is labeled as denialism, and only the most radical solutions are deemed acceptable….
“The paper’s agenda is clear: transform universities into breeding grounds for ideological warriors rather than centers of learning….
“(The paper makes the) false assumption that there is a monolithic consensus within the scientific community regarding the climate crisis. In reality, science thrives on skepticism and debate… The paper’s authors seem eager to silence any dissenting voices, branding them as betrayers of humanity. This approach not only undermines the scientific method but also fosters an environment of intellectual intolerance….
“The role of universities should be to foster critical thinking and allow students to explore a diverse range of perspectives, not to indoctrinate them with a particular ideology….
“(Statements in the paper offer) a textbook example of groupthink. By promoting a homogeneous viewpoint and discouraging dissent, the authors are fostering an environment where critical inquiry is sacrificed at the altar of ideological conformity….
“The idea that academics should use their positions to advance specific political agendas is antithetical to the principles of academic freedom and impartial inquiry….
“Universities should be spaces for open dialogue, critical inquiry, and the free exchange of ideas. They should not be transformed into echo chambers for ideologically driven agendas….
“Cultural Marxism is the common thread woven through all related “Intersectional” academic issues, whether it is climate change, white supremacy, or that men can menstruate.”
Again, see full article at link above.
What kind of general meta-narrative gets us to the true state of life and mature humanity? (Response to someone commenting that many people reject the idea of humanity having a unifying meta-narrative, and what might be the nature and content of such a narrative), Wendell Krossa
To shape a meta-narrative (grand narrative or story to live by) I would embrace what Julian Simon showed us about the nature of good science. (1) Include the complete big picture on any element of nature or life- i.e. all the evidence, especially evidence that contradicts our personal beliefs as this helps us to counter any personal confirmation bias.
And (2) include the full evidence on the long-term trends associated with any issue as this counters the tendency to cherry pick short-term baselines and contexts that may distort an issue as in the common climate alarmism claim of “worst on record”, the “record” referring only to past years, decades, or centuries, thereby distorting the larger paleoclimate context that shows our contemporary climate change to be very mild and not threatening any sort of “climate crisis”.
Imagine, it was up to 10 degrees C warmer during the Eocene “mammalian paradise” of some 55-33 million years ago and the oceans did not “boil” (topical temperatures remained stable, only fluctuating by a few degrees thereby maintaining an “equable climate”). And the planet did not “ignite on fire”. To the contrary, all life flourished with more basic plant food- CO2- and more warmth. So what is this present-day hysteria over 1.5 degree C warming as climate naturally recovers from the slide into the devastating cold of the “Little Ice Age” of 1645-1715 and since has been returning to the slightly warmer climate of our modern world? Despite the mild warming over the past few centuries, 10 times more people still die every year from cold, than die from warming (Lancet study).
Oops, I wandered off a bit there.
Then to ensure that we construct a narrative that is truly humane, make sure that it embodies critically important features like the basic principles of Classic Liberalism as the best that we (humanity) have come up with to help us act like mature adults in treating one another as free equals- i.e. with full inclusiveness of all people, respect/protection of individual diversity and self-determination (protecting the right of every individual to create a unique life story), and protecting the freedom and rights of all, equally. Notably, the right to work hard to achieve gains in private property and the protected right to also dispense of private property by personal choice, not coerced by elites confiscating private property through excessive taxation, etc.
An authentically life-affirming narrative must reject the deforming influence of the far-left obsessions that we are currently suffering under- i.e. DEI in “Woke Racism” that is another front for reviving Marxist class divisions and conflict with the same old destructive dualism that divides populations into opposing tribes of “oppressed/oppressor, victim/victimizer”. That simple-minded tribal dualism divides and destroys peace in societies with over-generalization of groups of people, and the consequent denial of individual uniqueness, diversity, and freedom. It divides people and incites tribal hatred by claiming unchallengeable virtuous status for victims and demonizing differing others as irredeemably evil oppressors who must be fought and defeated. Woke Racism makes its oppressed/oppressor distinctions today based on skin color which is a denial of Martin Luther King’s dream for a colorblind society.
Insert: The advocacy for a colorblind society is now smeared as “racist”, which exposes the insane obsessiveness of the Woke Racists (John McWhorter) who label most everything with that ugly pejorative, everything and everyone who disagrees with them. What fuels their obsession with race?
Could it be the narcissistic longing to public virtue-signal and affirm their sense of permanent victimhood? We understand this more thanks to the good research on the “psychopathology of narcissistic compassion”.
Or perhaps it has to do with the perversion of the hero’s quest with the longing to be viewed as heroic warriors in a righteous battle against evil enemies (fellow human beings) that they must conquer and destroy. So, damn the individual uniqueness that Martin Luther King wanted to prioritize in our relationships and evaluation of one another. Instead, maintain the view of entire populations (Marxist tribal dualism) as evil oppressors to war against because of their skin color. And promote a new segregation against those populations, the new Woke Racism. Wonderful advance for humanity, eh.
We need a meta-narrative that orients us to the basic ideals that we can all agree on, much like, for example, the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. The ideals of full inclusion of all people, full equality and rights for all, etc., are better understood when based on a renewed appreciation for the oneness of all humanity, that we are one family. Whether we base this appreciation on our common descent from an African Eve (“Mitochondrial Eve”), on quantum entanglement, or the “spiritual” insight of the NDE movement that all things are part of an ultimate Oneness.
Note that in a recent interview with Piers Morgan, Roger Watters claimed to honor the Universal Declaration but then resorted to affirming his socialist beliefs that undermine individual freedom and rights and do not treat all as free equals but subject all to a collective run by elites where populist commoners are told they “will own nothing and be happy eating bugs” (the now deleted mantra of WEF- my paraphrase).
Here is the link to the very interesting Morgan/Watters interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djgdjer0jOw
Insert re “eating bugs”: Note this regarding the war on agriculture:
“Who is directing the war on agriculture and nutrition: Government agencies, billionaires, and pressure groups put world’s poor, hungry families last”, Paul Driessen, Aug. 11, 2024
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/08/11/who-is-directing-the-war-on-agriculture-and-nutrition/
Moving back on topic…
Citizens under socialist collectivism are forced to reject private property to become the “new communalist humans”, private property being the number one evil in life (one of Marx’s core beliefs). But private property is essential to freedom of personal choice, personal independence and self-determination, and consequently to full control over one’s life and such is fundamental to human well-being.
Further to a meta-narrative:
This site accepts the close relationship between how we think and feel, and consequently how we act, how we respond (the age-old human impulse to “base behavior on similar belief”). This site offers alternative ideas and themes for a narrative that counters the worst impulses in all of us, alternative themes that will bring out the best in us, appealing to commonly accepted ideals such as found in our constitutions, human rights accords, as embodied in Classic Liberalism principles, along with the best insights/ideals of our spiritual traditions- i.e. the inclusive universalism idealized in “love of enemy”, unlimited forgiveness, unconditional generosity, etc.
A list of narrative alternatives:
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=12043#more-12043
A unifying meta-narrative would acknowledge the fundamental role that “spirituality” has played in human meaning and purpose. As noted above, it would include the best insights from spiritual traditions.
I would offer that the contradiction between Paul’s Christ myth and the entirely contrary message of Historical Jesus (posted repeatedly on this site) illustrates the starkly differing central ideals of two profoundly different narratives and ideals. Unfortunately, the Jesus message has been distorted and buried for two millennia by the Christ myth that dominates the New Testament and Western narratives with its entirely contrary themes/ideas.
The Historical Jesus versus Pauline Christ contradiction illustrates, most critically, two profoundly different cohering centers for human narratives. Cohering centers referring to the single most dominant feature of human narratives- i.e. the nature of Ultimate Reality or theology/deity. The reality of God has always been revered as humanity’s highest ideal and authority, and hence, has long served as the overarching core ideal of human narratives, the mother of all ideals.
Paul’s Christ illustrates and epitomizes what all traditional narratives have idealized across previous millennia- i.e. deities that were dominating tribal lords that threatened to punitively destroy unbelievers (outsiders to their true religion or tribe). Paul states the central feature of his theology in Romans 12:17-20- “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord”, also in his Thessalonian letters- “Lord Jesus (Christ) will return in blazing fire to destroy all who did not submit to my Christ” (my paraphrase).
Jesus advocated a transforming new alternative view of deity. He presented his new insight that God was “no conditions love”- an astonishingly new understanding of the core theme for narratives that took humanity, as never before, to the highest reach of love, the ultimate of human ideals.
The Jesus message emphasized a non-retaliatory, unconditional God, a deity of non-punitive justice, who advocated “love the enemy” as in restorative justice. The message of Jesus advocated for universal inclusion of all without discrimination. The universal inclusion was stated in the truth that God gives the good gifts of life- “sun and rain”- to all, to both good and bad people.
Some have stated the contrast between Historical Jesus and Paul’s Christ with the blunt assessment that the “diamonds/pearls” of Jesus were buried in the “dung/slime/muck” of Paul’s Christology (Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy). The contrast between Jesus and the Christ epitomizes the central themes of two profoundly different narratives, and two very contrary complexes of related narrative themes. Ultimate Reality or theology has long functioned as the cohering center of narratives around which all the other basic themes cohere and which they affirm (i.e. lost paradise, sinful humanity, life declining, demand for sacrifice/payment/punishment, and purging of evil humans and their society, and then promise of salvation for true believers in Christ and restored paradise- all centered around threatening deity, the personality-deforming influence of “cruel God” theory.).
And we have a long history of the outcomes of these two different cohering centers of narratives (i.e. “Cruel God, Kind God”). The Christ of Paul produced a history of violence across two millennia, from the early Christian battles over the true doctrines and the true church versus heretical teaching and movements, then in the subsequent Crusades to slaughter infidels who did not believe the Christ, and in the torture and murder of heretics who challenged the Christ myth (i.e. Calvin’s burning at the stake of fellow Christian theologian Servetus), and also in the horrors of the Inquisitions, etc.
Psychologist Harold Ellens’ warned that the ideals that shape our narratives and consciousness will validate similar behavior in us. If your God uses violence to solve problems, then so may you, said Ellens. Read the Christ of Revelation and note how the Christ portrayed there uses ultimate divine violence to purge and destroy evil in the world as a prelude to restoring the lost paradise (demanding the destruction of the world to “save the world”). As Ellens notes, such dark attributes in deity have shaped the Master Narrative of the West for two millennia.
Where, to the contrary, others have argued that following the actual message of Historical Jesus would have produced love of enemy, unlimited forgiveness, non-dominating relating toward others (“Do not lord over others like the Gentiles do, but serve others”), inclusion of all equally in freedom and diversity, etc. And as noted at the opening of this section, fortunately, many Christians have learned to ignore or downplay the darker features of their holy book and focus on the kinder and gentler features.
These and other features should inform and shape truly humane meta-narratives to point us toward the better future we all want.
Note:
One block to serious reformation of the core narratives of religions like Christianity- The Christ of Paul has been given status of untouchable supremacy in religious minds (“protected under the canopy of the sacred”), not to be questioned or challenged as the ultimate truth of history.
More good journalistic probing and analysis from Michael Shellenberger… Add here that surveys show some 95%-plus of Americans now affirms mixed marriages, mixed communities, mixed-pretty much everything…
“Globalism And Nihilism Behind Democrat’s Extreme Racialist Agenda: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is a mechanism for massive social engineering based on pseudoscientific ideas”, Michael Shellenberger, Aug. 5, 2024
https://www.public.news/p/globalism-and-nihilism-behind-democrats
Quotes:
“Democrats have increasingly embraced racialist policies and measures in recent years…. Many DEI measures are openly racist in giving preferential treatment to people based on the color of their skin rather than any measure of their relative disadvantage.”
Shellenberger says that the Democrat’s “racialism” ideology claims that living white people are responsible for the actions of their dead ancestors.
“What Democrats are calling for is not equality of opportunity but equality of outcomes, to which they have given the Orwellian name “racial equity.”…
“Democrats will create an openly racially discriminatory system that operates across every major institution of society.”
Shellenberger then states that the anti-racism code of meritocracy- i.e. “people are hired and promoted based on their ability, not their race” previously governed democratic institutions. But if the Democrat’s “racial equity” is implemented, then “it would effectively end our liberal democratic civilization and replace it with a racialist tribal one.”
He says further, “Millions of Democrats are genuinely swept up in the idea that we need to re-segregate society and bring back racial discrimination, this time against white people….
“Democrats feel greater guilt for the wrongs done historically and thus greater relief, and even a feeling of virtuousness and moral superiority, when they advocate a racialist agenda against whites and in favor of minorities…. And the final reason is religious: Wokeism offers a tribal community bound together by an irrational faith and a reason not just for living but also for overthrowing, ruling, and decivilizing the West….
He then concludes noting how false compassion for oppressed people (the psychopathology of “narcissistic compassion”) actually harms the very people that you claim compassion for: “Many black and minority Americans are put off by the heavy focus on the idea that all people of color are inherently victims, a classification that maintains their subordinate stance, only under the guise of being helpful to them.”
Full article at link above.
Some very interesting commentary on how the far right in Britain has taken up the identity politics of the left to similarly frame their cause. They are a tiny few on the fringe and their arguments distort the larger conservative/centrist concern over migration, etc. The one-sided police response to public violence does not help clarify the core issues at play here.
“White identity politics fueling violence on British streets: Hard-right street violence is feeding off Islamist street violence, bringing lawlessness to the U.K”, Tom Slater of Spiked, Aug. 8, 2024
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/white-identity-politics-fuelling-violence-on-british-streets
And more…
Courageous voices for freedom have emerged all over and they need to be celebrated, like Amy– the nurse they tried to silence and cancel for expressing on her private social media that she appreciated J. K. Rowling.
Freedom of speech is the most fundamental freedom. Freedom even for repugnant, offensive speech that can then be challenged in the public space (the free market of ideas). The ban on “hate speech” should be limited to only speech that incites “to immediate violence”.
“Free speech isn’t a threat to the U.K.- censorship is”, Amy Hamm at National Post, July 10, 2024
“This week, Financial Times journalist Edward Luce accused Elon Musk — and his social media platform X — of being a “menace to democracy.” He suggested that Musk’s words, and those of other X users, are responsible for the riots and civil unrest breaking out in the United Kingdom following the tragic murders of three girls in a knife attack in Southport. This free sharing of information is “intolerable,” said Luce.
Hamm then notes the problem with governing officials censoring and silencing the speech of citizens with the claim to just be going after harmful speech: “Someone — in this case, a government censor — is going to have to define each of those highly subjective terms. Who can you trust?
“Would you trust the cultural elite or the government to determine what information — what version of reality — is kosher for your own consumption? Or do you believe that you are capable of hearing what others are saying, of seeing what they are posting online — words or videos — and then governing yourself accordingly? Do you need someone to decipher and package “the truth” on your behalf?”
Hamm concludes: “Misinformation is a problem with a single solution: allowing unfettered access to more — and better — information. It is never solved by handing power to would-be censors. It is a lie of tyrants to blame bad things — in this case, riots — on free speech, rather than on the social rot that U.K. citizens have seen necrotizing their way of life for years.
“Zero trust should be afforded to anyone desirous of withholding the truth from others for their “benefit.” That can only come from a place of moral superiority and tyranny. Therein lies the true threat to democracy: those Machiavellian actors who fervently believe that they should control others’ hearts and minds for the greater good. No. The people will decide.
“Free speech is never a threat to democracy, and it is never the root cause of political violence.” National Post
Added Note: As always, the critical question/issue, as noted by Ira Glasser on Joe Rogan Experience years ago- Glasser being the former ACLU director- “Who gets to define hate speech?”. Who gets to tell you what is true or not? There are no “benevolent, enlightened rulers” who know better than common citizens what is good for all.
Below, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch speaks to the cursed burden of excessive state laws and regulations that choke life and undermine the human freedom for personal choice and self-determination. Add here the “concept creep” that further unleashes the totalitarian impulse to meddle in and control other’s lives. Concept creep unleashes the reach of totalitarianism by permitting more and more things to be classified as “hate speech” such as what is commonly framed today as “misinformation/disinformation”. This is about the criminalization of more and more petty things in life, giving the state more justification to intervene, meddle in, and control the lives of citizens- the impulse to moralizing busybody domination of others.
“Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch worries about Americans ‘caught by surprise’ by unreasonable laws.
“New book by Associate Justice Gorsuch reveals power of government bureaucracy— and his hope for the nation”, Maureen Mackey, Aug. 10, 2024
“Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch is worried about the explosion of laws in America.
“In his new book, “Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law,” co-written with Janie Nitze, he says that when reflecting on all his years as a judge, he realized “that I had seen many — so many — cases where the sheer volume and complexity of our laws had swallowed up ordinary people.”
Mackey quotes Gorsuch acknowledging that “some law is essential to our lives and our freedoms, but ‘too much law’ can put those exact freedoms ‘at risk and even undermine respect for law itself’.”
She continues, noting how ordinary citizens are often swamped by the chaos and confusion from “too much law” that ruins individual freedom and rights. “In one way or another, these people all become ensnared in legal battles due to a large mass of narrow and precise federal regulations that tripped them up, hobbled them, shocked them and changed their lives forever.
“Gorsuch says that “we now have so many federal criminal laws covering so many things that one scholar suggests that ‘there is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime.’”
“Gorsuch calls out serious cases of personal freedom infringement that have resulted from too much law while also highlighting some ridiculous and almost unbelievable examples of laws still on the books.” For instance, it’s a federal crime to sell a mattress without a warning label.
Mackey concludes: “Moving forward, he hopes for “a rule of law designed to ensure fair notice, equal treatment, and room for individual flourishing” — and asserts that he would “never bet against the American people.”
And one more from Matt Taibbi and Walter Kirn, Wendell Krossa (Sharing this “taste treat” is to urge all to subscribe to “America This Week” for some of the best commentary on the issues facing our societies today.)
“America This Week, August 8, 2024: 100th Episode Special: Oligarchy in the UK- Sir Keir Starmer goes full Minority Report: White House Misinformation Kids caught talking shop. Plus, ‘the Egg’ by Sherwood Anderson”, Matt Taibbi, Walter Kirn
https://www.racket.news/p/transcript-america-this-week-august-4af
As usual, I pull up some quotes from the longer main discussion for those wanting a shorter summary of what they discuss… My comments below are from a post to a discussion group.
The post: Here two of the best journalists again do their job, commenting on varied issues such as:
“Matt Taibbi: The story that came out in Racket about Tulsi Gabbard, which we’ve already talked about, we’ll talk about a little bit later if we have time, and some other things that came out online. The England story is exploding. All these things are all part of a piece, I think because they’re all connected to the general theme of using police surveillance and censorship as a club to keep the population in line”.
These two repeatedly offer some of the best comment on what is happening in our societies, the behind-the-scenes details of how new assaults on liberal democracy are created and presented, how authoritarians are endlessly conniving to manipulate all of us.
First, this very telling comment on the new British PM Starmer that exposes the partisan political distortion in the mix. This is exactly what Michael Shellenberger commented on the other day regarding liberals/Democrats who are using an “anarcho-tyranny” approach- i.e. using public chaos to create tyranny. The approach lets violent people go free, as in “de-carceration, recriminalization (lessening consequences to serious crimes), no cash bail, etc. But then these authoritarians go after average citizens for silly little things, like upsetting comments online, or for the “crime” of dissent to the narrative of Woke Progressivism (disagreement expressed online), etc. The new authoritarians often go after political opponents with this new criminalization of upsetting speech as “hate speech” or dangerous anti-democracy “disinformation/misinformation”. Add here the feature of “concept creep” that justifies this political tyranny.
The comment re Starmer: “I’ve also seen him reacting to America’s 2020 riots with great support for the rioters. So it seems that there’s a political consideration here that’s not just law and order. He sees these as riots fomented by his opposition, really… If you watch the whole thing, the journalists all did exactly what the reporter in that clip did, essentially saying, “Why don’t you just ban them? Why don’t you just outlaw these people?”
And now, even just the sharing of information regarding, for example, the riots, even though just sharing that as harmless news to a friend may become a criminal offense. So this isn’t an “insane, absurd, crazy” time that we live in?
More quotes from Taibbi/Kirn: “There’s no reference to whether this stuff’s true or not. So in other words, if I retweet something that is an accurate video, let’s say, of some fight between two people from different groups or of different races, it’s not whether it’s real or not, it’s whether or not it’s likely to cause problems. So truth is out the window, it’s all about pragmatism. “Is this helpful or not?” Now that’s frightening. Number two, you don’t have to have intent. You might be sharing, “Did you see this? This is happening in our neighborhood,” and I send it to my friend who’s across town. “Come here, check this out.”
“Well, that goes around say, that video I just took and a bunch of people come to stop something that they think is bad, well, I go to jail. I mean all the cards are in the hands of the thought police here and zero in the hands… There’s almost no way to defend yourself against this in the short term and no way to really know what the material that is toxic might be. It’s kind of just a warning to shut up, to stop using it I would think.”
Again, note the one-sided nature of the crackdowns, more often most harshly employed against what is framed as the “right wing”, just as a similar crackdown was advocated against the “populism” that was demonized as “right-wing”, despite including people from all sections of the political spectrum- i.e. right, center, independent, and left-moderate. The excessive demonization and criminalization of anything not far leftist (Woke Progressivism), illustrates very much the threat from “leftwing authoritarianism” today.
“Common sense in any sort of honest view of the news over the last few years will suggest that that which is right-wing or can be coded as that tends to be cracked down on in a very severe way and talked about in a very severe way, whether it’s what happened at the Capitol on January 6th or this.
“Walter Kirn: Or the truckers. The truckers protest in Canada, which is a great example I think because it was construed as somehow ultra right-wing…”
And this very insightful warning about the tools that powerholders create to use against opposition, tools that after issues that they were designed for go away, the tools remain and you get the formerly oppressed becoming the new oppressors…. Here is the full context quote on this….
“Matt Taibbi: And that’s the point of all of this, is that long after whatever the issue is goes away, the tool stays and this is going to be the problem. This has been the pattern since 9/11. We went into Iraq on a bogus pretext. There was significant public pushback to that and eventually we left Iraq, but what didn’t we do? We did not roll back any of the tools that we used to prosecute the war on terror. We kept this massive armed garrison in the Middle East. We kept running these enormous drone missions that went up… Even by the way, they went up significantly during the Trump presidency. So all the things that worried us during that period… Yes, we got out of Iraq and we did eventually get out of Afghanistan, but the new tools that we asserted the right to use, including things like extraordinary rendition, arresting people without a warrant, these things are now there to be used.
“And that’s scary about all this is that… In the Canadian example, debanking, that popped up again and again after that. Now this pre-crime concept is rolling around, this idea of introducing anti-speech laws where we’re not talking about the traditional concept of incitement, which is immediate, right? The American idea is that it has to be something that happens almost right away. They’re talking about this much more amorphous thing where you might not even have an intent to incite, but if you’re showing an image that they think is inciting, they will arrest you for that. Now they’re actually going out and grabbing people up for posting stuff, which is crazy, but people are going to go for it because it’s going to be attached to this deeply unpopular… Or not deeply unpopular, to the socially unacceptable nationalist/racist sentiment.
“Walter Kirn: Well, just to do a giant historical recap in the middle of a very particular discussion, since 2001 and since the Patriot Act and since 9/11 and the war on terror, on through to Russiagate, which launched the war on misinformation and disinformation, into COVID, which launched the war on vaccine hesitancy and medical misinformation, et cetera, et cetera, into the presidential elections and the Trump resurgence, which is now causing things like Joe Biden to go on TV, which he did the other night, and say there may not be a peaceful transfer of power in November, we have seen two iron trends, unbreakable, the rise of these tools, the rise of these weapons, their use by whoever is in power to stop criticism or dissident views, and the fact that they never go backwards. In other words, you said… Trump didn’t totally eschew this stuff either because once they become tools of power, whatever regime comes in, whether or not it was formerly the victim of these weapons, it tends to use them again.
“And in fact, to the extent that it was a victim of them, it might over-imagine that it will use them gleefully against the people who used them against them. So they never go away. The boulder never rolls back uphill. It never really pauses in its downhill run. And almost any crisis becomes a pretext for more and more. And finally, even protesting the use of this stuff becomes something to censor. In other words, the anti-censorship movement becomes something to censor. The frustration with this degeneration and this degradation of civil rights becomes something to crack down on. So, it’s a trend we can’t arrest and we kind of hope through consciousness of it we can slow it, but it doesn’t seem anyone is succeeding so far.”
They then offer an interesting Congressional exchange where some Biden White House official, Rob Flaherty, was asked what the definition of “disinformation” was, and he could not answer. They offered this comment:
“Matt Taibbi: Because they change the definition all the time. So for instance, Jordan there was talking about the definition of disinformation being, “It’s wrong and we know it’s wrong and we’re giving you wrong information for a reason.” We have stuff coming out in FOIA soon where some of these people are now actually defining disinformation as wrong, false, or misleading. So it can be something that’s true, but distributed with the intent to produce a sort of undesired effect. But there could be other reasons why they’re not defining it a certain way because maybe it’s because they’ve done it. I mean, what’s your take?
“Walter Kirn: My take is that he doesn’t know. He doesn’t know the answer. These are words that are thrown around and that he’s been told to use, but he actually only gets orders like this. “Go stop everybody who says vaccines don’t work,” and he does it. Or, “Go trail around anybody who’s saying that Biden doesn’t have all his marbles and either find out ways to suppress them or counter them.” He just takes orders. He doesn’t say, “But is that disinformation, sir, or not?” These are just words that they use… You’re right, they do change the definition all the time, but they simply have not informed themselves of it in the first place. And they don’t care.
“Matt Taibbi: Right.
“Walter Kirn: The fact is they don’t know and they don’t care. What they won’t confess to is, “I take political orders to… I’m a propagandist, okay? I believe that my administration’s great and it’s right about everything and the fate of the free world depends on us succeeding. So you’re asking me about some rationale for what we do. The truth is it’s political. I’m just a political actor and you’re trying to get me to be a philosopher and I can’t be because I just don’t know. I’ve never actually thought about it.”
“Matt Taibbi: Which is really funny. You’re right, actually. So if we asked people at Stanford or the University of Washington, these misinformation, disinformation experts, what is the definition of one of these words, they’ll tell you. They might change their mind every six months, but this is important to them. “This is my field. Let me tell you exactly what that is.” But you’re right. Flaherty is a political operative and he was during the campaign in 2020 and during the transition, and for him, misinformation is basically just whatever we don’t want.”
Taibbi and Kirn then discussed how the Democrats used the disinformation thing to manipulate and hide perceptions of Biden’s mental decline from the public. It was not about factual truth but about political manipulation of the electorate. Hiding truth from citizens under guise of fighting disinformation from Republicans, you know, combatting “deepfakes” as in the AI program the CIA created that was set up, purportedly, for the public to use in game-playing, and was used the very next day by the White House Press secretary. Then a week later, they all (media) turned in unified coordination to admit that Biden was unfit. They then followed with the anti-democratic coup against him.
What gets to me in all this is the callous cruelty of what they are doing in terms of deceiving, propagandizing populations for selfish tribally political ends, with no concern over the destructive outcomes. This again illustrates the “psychopathology of left-wing compassion”, permitting narcissistic virtue-signaling but harming the very people that you claim compassion for, the “oppressed” that you claim to want to liberate.
A big “Sheesh, eh” to summarize this madness.
Then noting how Soviet-style censorship works in our societies, they comment on how the state got the intelligence agencies to pressure social media companies to silence opponents. The agencies apparently realized they could not outright censor citizens (the First Amendment protection that could not be violated) so they used approaches like demonetizing unfavored voices of dissent, or lessening “virality”- i.e. the ability of some disfavored news to go viral, thereby lessening their exposure. This is often done secretly so the public will not know that they are being manipulated. As when Tucker Carlson said the vaccines don’t work (something proven true) there was this revelation in a letter from the White House propaganda team…
“Matt Taibbi: Right. Exactly. And he’s saying, “We don’t want to see as much Tucker Carlson. We don’t want to see as much Tomi Lahren. We want to see something else. We want you to reduce this. We want to see what reduction looks like.” So that’s where they move into the realm of something that’s totally alien to the American tradition and the First Amendment is spinning in its grave, I think, seeing a letter like that.
“Walter Kirn: They’re censoring the distribution of the news right there.
“Matt Taibbi: Censoring and also manipulating in a way that the public doesn’t even know it’s being censored. It’s one thing to live in the Soviet Union and a plane crashes outside your house and there’s nothing in the newspaper about it. This is different…
“Matt Taibbi: There’s nothing in the newspaper about it. This is different, like you’re seeing less of something but you don’t know why, which is creepy.”
An interesting side tidbit on the propaganda effort to hide Biden’s senility and present him as “sharp as a tack”. Joe Rogan and some guests showed a video of a Biden stand-in, or double, used to show what appeared to be Biden at a distance. But the look-alike was much taller, walked straight with shoulders back, was younger and with an entirely different gait. Hmmm. Apparently, presidents have used such body doubles for safety reasons before.
As they say, this fake information crusade has now moved into the realm of brainwashing the public.
“We’re going to develop fake people that if you get angry easily maybe about something, will make you angry. Or if we know you care about something in some other realm, maybe you love dogs. Well, we’ll somehow get a dog theme into our brainwashing. Who knows how they do it? I’m only speculating on that part, but it’s so much more than the suppression. The censorship industrial complex label I finally think should be retired, because the construction of persona around your internet usage that will appeal to you or get your GOAT or persuade you is not censorship. It’s behavioral manipulation. It’s brainwashing is what it is.”
And they point out how the propagandizers brainwashed themselves with their own propaganda, disinformation, and lies, and how this illustrates the new “banality of evil”:
“He (Biden) had moments of lucidity for sure, but he also had moments of completely being lost and that was what they covered up. And the remarkable thing is that they managed in their own minds to call that misinformation or even disinformation. That’s amazing, the idea that somebody was intentionally spreading the idea that Biden was slipping as some kind of evil plan. But they succeeded, then they created their own mess that they then had to clean up with more of this and now we’re in this place.”
They end the main discussion with Biden’s “extortion” threat in his latest interview, that if things don’t go right at election time this Fall there will be violence.
And finally, they comment on the secret government agents now following Tulsi Gabbard and what is that craziness about? “What it does is scare people. What it does is intimidate people. What it does is spook people…” (End of Taibbi/Kirn discussion quotes. Again, I would urge all to subscribe to these two)
Coming soon… Our struggle with imperfection and the God obsessed with perfection and punishing imperfection, Wendell Krossa