We’re publishing an original essay this morning by Dr. James Alexander, a Politics Professor at Bilkent University in Turkey, elaborating on the theme of a recent article by Dr. Will Jones on how three moral crusades are increasingly being used to control our lives by people in authority: the crusade against Covid, the crusade against climate change and the crusade against ‘social injustice’, as defined by the woke. (Will calls this the “unholy trinity”.) Dr. Alexander says that, together, these three causes have led to a kind of nice totalitarianism – that is, a massive escalation in social and state control carried out in the name of protecting people. This makes it hard to push back against because, after all, who doesn’t want to protect the elderly from a deadly disease, or save the planet, or make historically marginalised groups feel included and secure? Here’s an extract from Professor Alexander’s piece:
In form it is TOTALITARIAN. That is to say, it is a secular religion: it is flowing into the fissures in the rock of our civilisation as Christianity has receded. One could even say that it is the sand and water which is finally fracking out the last residues of Christianity. Our civilisation is increasingly coming to resemble historic Chinese civilisation. In the press, China is the geopolitical enemy. But now chinoiserie is the enemy within. This is no exaggeration. I think the last century and a half has seen a great change in the structure of society. We have seen the rise of an elite which is not clerical – Oxford and Cambridge were highly clerical until the late nineteenth century – but secular. Moreover, we have seen a system of secular education emerge that is far more extensive than anyone could have imagined in the nineteenth century. In the 1880s a few thousand men went to Oxford and Cambridge every year. Now, since 2020 or so, half of those who leave school – boys and girls – go to university. Half of the population has a higher education. But since most of this half of the population is actually unsuited to academic education (which is no fault of theirs), we do not have a nation of Aristotles and Einsteins. The old liberal distinction between education and indoctrination has been obliterated. So we have instead a nation of Stakhanovs and Pecksniffs. Bartleby the scrivener now says, “I would prefer to”, because he knows why – he’s had a higher education, you see. The sense of entitlement this creates in this half of the population is only matched by the instinct of compliance it creates. What we have seen emerge in the last 60 years is a vast Mandarin class. Half the population is now willing to join an entitled and likely very inefficient guild of administratively-minded, state-ideologised and corporately-smoothed functionaries and professionals.
But there is a twist, and the twist is that even though this is the case – and though it is very Chinese in form – the content is not what we are familiar with from our studies of totalitarianism at GCSE and A Level. The classic totalitarian regimes were, of course, fascist or communist: they had a singular, monolithic ideology, one which emphasised uniformity. This is the opposite of our totalitarianism. Our totalitarianism is liberal: it is not singular, not monolithic, because it does not emphasise uniformity, but diversity: indeed, it celebrates diversity.
It celebrates diversity in every respect but one. Every sort of diversity – of preference, of association, of lifestyle, of utterance, of fashion, of taste, of belief, of sexuality – is permitted except diversity of opinion about the sacred causes of COVID, CLIMATE and WOKERY. The first two have special status, despite being uniformitarian, because they are matters of ‘science’ and are sanctified by statistical visions of the coming secular apocalypse. One cannot disagree about those. If one disagrees with the first then one is a ‘covidiot’ or part of the ‘pandemic of the unvaccinated’ or ‘ignorant’. If one disagrees with the second then one is a ‘climate denier’, a ‘conspiracy theorist’ or ‘complacent’. Either way, one is a cause of death. If one disagrees with WOKERY then one is – and this is the most toxic and the most feared – ‘deplorable’, ‘racist’, ‘patriarchal’, ‘transphobic’ and so on. When I say that we cannot have diversity of opinion about diversity, what I mean is that there is a monotonous singularity operating within the system which requires everyone to approve of diversity. It is not possible to express a diverse point of view about this. As is often said, all forms of diversity are acceptable except diversity of political opinion. This is because there is an overwhelming need to make it impossible for traditional uniformitarian ideologies to proselytise: there has to be what we could call a ‘single lock’ which prevents anyone defending anything like a traditional religious position on anything – unless, of course, it is a minority position and thus tolerated under the extension of indulgence to the marginal and oppressed (no matter what contradictions result from this – contradictions such as wokeists defending religious fanaticism).
The twist means that what we have here is NICE TOTALITARIANISM. We have totalitarianism in our state ideology of political correctness which was first glimpsed in the innocent 1990s but has become intensified since around 2010: as mass higher education has coincided with post-industrial work practices and the rise of social mediation by technological means. But this totalitarianism is nice exactly because it has taken the form in the West of the ‘unholy trinity’ or ‘devil’s fork’ of the three great progressive themes of COVID, CLIMATE and WOKERY.
Nice totalitarianism is actually, of course, nasty. It is interventionist, insolent, insinuating, invasive. One of its superheroes is the now famous Captain Hindsight; but he has been joined by his colleagues in the Build Back Better Universe: Modelling-Man, Nurse Prevention and General Censorship. Politicians talk about Zero Covid and Zero Carbon and are likely soon to be talking about Zero Bias (if that is a sufficiently strong term for the combination of zero prejudice, zero privilege and zero hate). Such rhetoric is, as Will Jones has already observed, a rhetoric of absolute justification for an endless, infinite and miscellaneous set of projects. Such rhetoric is sustainable (which means indestructible), alas, because the causes to which it is devoted are unachievable: yet it is imperative that we adopt these causes because they are opposed to hate and death. They enable our rulers to perpetuate a wholly novel form of totalitarian rule, which is armoured by the fact it is for so many reasons nice and is thus hard to argue with in our current abject moral state. We are being outfoxed by the latest Machiavellians.
Worth reading in full, although it might be helpful to read Will’s article first.
If anyone else would like to write something about the unholy trinity, send it to lockdownsceptics@gmail.com.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Good article. Climate became a pseudo-religion some time ago; that and Covidianism have been enthusiastically adopted by the religious, while wokery is slowly insinuating itself into most (but not all) religious institutions as well. People just can’t or won’t see it.
This is the ultimate goal; a secular religion characterised by Right Think, intolerance, and where there is no repentance or forgiveness. Once cast outside the Right Thinking Group, there is no way back.
Of course, the rules of Right Think only apply to what you say and not to what you do, so the Elite can carry on their frivolous, polluting lives regardless, while we peasants have to rewind our lives physically and mentally about 500 years. The similarities to the period of the Reformation are striking – a state religion, uniformity of worship, and punishment if those who Think Wrong.
“Once cast outside the Right Thinking Group, there is no way back”.
Very few are capable of surviving that, Sir Roger Scruton was one, Christopher Hitchens would have been another but the wokes never tried it on with him even though he gave them every opportunity for the debate which they deny others.
Most who recognise that they might be accused of ‘wrongspeak’ make the error of apologising, thus confirming themselves as ‘wrongpersons’ doomed to the basement of the SC index never to be heard if again.
“Never apologise, never explain”.
Hitch v Bliar… a masterclass of clarity….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJCZKZomtXQ
As opposed to say what happens when one autistic psychopath gets into a position of global influence and dominating control
https://twitter.com/OffGuardian0/status/1456572894172024840?s=20
It’s time folks to kick the NEW NORMAL out and swiftly return to
USE IT OR LOOSE IT
The Munk Debate on Religion
Debating whether or not religion is a force for good in the world
A ‘masterclass of clarity’ from whom? ‘Hitch’? Can you point me to just one part of this ‘masterclass’?
“Any form of faith is a surrender of reason…”
When I watched that debate some years back… Hitch had such eloquence of language and the gift of sabre sharp wit, if only he were alive today, but then again…perhaps not. I would imagine he’s shuddering in his grave right now.
Who would be a moderate radical?
Someone who’s temperate… mildly tolerant of totalitarianism?
‘“Any form of faith is a surrender of reason…”’
Yes, he said that quite a lot. He never offered a good argument in support of the assertion. It’s an unsubstantiated assertion, and, rather ironically, Hitchens chose to surrender reason in order to make the assertion. The assertion itself is a faith statement, and thus utterly self-refuting.
Hitchens had a severe blind spot when it came to world view and philosophical argumentation. While he was extremely clever and witty, he was utterly inept philosophically. His arguments for atheism never got beyond the emotional, and were consistently question-begging.
Would you like to offer what you think is a good argument in support of the assertion? Can you prove the assertion without demonstrating faith?
Moreover, atheists must hold to many beliefs that require faith. The atheist presupposes the origin of the universe and all of life arose by purely naturalistic means. This is not a scientific position but rather a philosophical position, and some might say it is a position requiring an astonishing level of faith.
Atheism itself is a belief which ultimately requires faith. Atheism is not some default position that is true unless proven otherwise; atheism shoulders a tremendous burden of responsibility, yet it is taken as a given by many of its ignorant adherents.
So once again we see atheists refuting themselves. It’s embarrassing.
‘Hitch had such eloquence of language and the gift of sabre sharp wit…’
I agree. But that’s all he had when it came to these issues. He had no arguments that got beyond the emotional.
‘Who would be a moderate radical?
Someone who’s temperate… mildly tolerant of totalitarianism?’
I hate to break it to you, mate, but it’s just a ‘name’ I chose. There’s no deep meaning to it.
Would you like to offer what you think is a good argument in support of the assertion? Can you prove the assertion without demonstrating faith?
I have a lot on this week – so simply can’t be arsed.
However I can well understand how religion may be better than atheism as a coping mechanism bearing in mind the “agenda” that’s been rolling along this past 20 months or so…
Mate? That’s hilarious…
‘I have a lot on this week – so simply can’t be arsed.’
And there we have it. Another cowardly atheist scarpers from their burden of responsibility. ‘Hitch’ would be proud.
‘However I can well understand how religion may be better than atheism as a coping mechanism bearing in mind the “agenda” that’s been rolling along this past 20 months or so…’
Oh, but not without taking another mind-numbing potshot. Good grief. You certainly learned well at the feet of your
idolgood pal ‘Hitch’ (or is it ‘The Hitch’?), didn’t you?Since you couldn’t help yourself, on atheism, what’s ‘wrong’ or ‘objectionable’ with regard to the ‘agenda’ that’s been in play over the last nearly two years? Is there something objectively wrong with ugly bags of mostly water imposing their will on other ugly bags of mostly water? Do human beings possess intrinsic value and dignity? If so, whence do they derive this value and dignity? In what is this value grounded? On atheism, what is it that bestows concepts such as ‘value’ and ‘dignity’ upon human beings? Do you believe you have the ‘right’ to be free from totalitarian control? Why ought the rights of human beings be respected? Why ought others respect human life and not do it harm?
‘Mate? That’s hilarious…’
Careful now, such overreactions betray a desperation.
“When I watched that debate some years back… Hitch had such eloquence of language and the gift of sabre sharp wit, if only he were alive today, but then again…perhaps not. I would imagine he’s shuddering in his grave right now.”
I think it’s pretty safe to say that the older Hitchens (unless he had matured considerably during the intervening years) would have been solidly on the side of the covid panickers in 2020, just as he sided with the neocons on Iraq.
A man who had all the gifts, to whom everything came easily (perhaps too easily?) but managed to pretty consistently side with the wrong side. The radical left, when it was overturning all our defences against the madnesses now dominant. Anti-religion, just as we most needed traditional religious conservatism to defend our culture and societies against the things that have replaced it. And US neoconservative military aggression just as it launched its crusade to destroy the societies of the wider ME for political, ideological and profit motives.
The one point I can remember the older Hitchens with respect for, off the top of my head, was his late (and futile) stand against torture by his new neocon allies. Perhaps that indicates he would have ultimately grown out of his leftist dogmatisms, to resist the growth of intolerance of dissent by his fellows.
While he continued to address his audience’s as ‘comrades’ he drifted further and further away from orthodox leftism in.the last decade or so of his life.
.
I particularly enjoyed his deconstruction of the overly adored Mothet Theresa as being responsible for the ongoing mistreatment of women in India while pretending to be their saviour
One of the things I liked about Hitch was that he was not afraid to change his opinion over time, perhaps taking other with him.
That and his ability to debate even with the uncivilized. Happily I have plenty of his material on disc should YouTube ever try to cancel him.
And he was funny.
The first obvious sign of the totalitarian nature of the exponents of all three is that they dislike debate and shut it down wherever possible.
They also insist that not only are their opponents wrong, they are evil because of their dangerous opinions. “Deniers” which reflected the obvious evil of Holocaust deniers in the public mindset though that must be running a bit thin by now.
Their opponents spread fake news so need to be prevented from having access to communications.
Supposed experts in their respective fields must be outed and denounced as frauds in the pay of some far right conspiracy; their careers need to be cancelled at the very least.
The word ‘punishment’ floats around in the media.
Same old totalitarian tactics each time but honed over the years with the climate change ‘debate’ which is why none of the above is case specific.
It might be ‘nice totalitarianism’ for now but if they succeed in using these three issues to gain complete control the gloves will be off and their erstwhile opponents on the trains to the re-education centres.
Communism
Me, don’t get me wrong, I don’t wish anyone harm, but saving them isn’t my business.
Yep it’s war, two opposing forces competing for domination, the other side aren’t playing nice they’re out to eliminate their enemy. US!
It will be much worse than communism as there will be no pretence of equality.
The quality of our lives in all respects will be finely graded depending upon where the algorithms place us on the Social Credit index from which there will be no right of appeal.
The bottom rung of ‘the approved’ will do the donkey work of spreading propaganda and denunciation of unbelievers in return for a place slightly higher on the SC index.
Meanwhile all means of production, distribution and exchange will be in the hands of the tiny mega wealthy elite created by the past decades of super profitable new technology.
The Corporate State of China run by the CCP is the working model.
The old Establishment can kiss goodbye to their power while retaining some positions and privileges as did the Senators of early antiquity Rome long after the ousting of the last Emperor to give the plebs something to look at and the merest hint of the old normal with fake democracy while being reduced to a state of technology controlled serfdom.
Should real ‘late antiquity Rome’ which is what we used to call the Dark Ages
The Dark Ages followed the end of late antiquity, surely?
I think one ought to insist on continuing to use a term like the Dark Ages, with centuries of tradition behind it, just as one should insist on using long established usages like AD and BC even if one isn’t Christian, as much because it annoys those who should be annoyed as for any other reason.
No no no, Dark Ages is negative and judgemental so now Late Antiquity takes us to the Early Medieval around the 7thC.
Also increasingly modern research is finding that they weren’t so Dark after all, they just didn’t write about it much at the time.
I’ve certainly got no time for BCE or CE which while becoming ubiquitous is still based on the beginnings of Christianity.
Only negative and judgmental if you choose to see it as such. I just use it as a label. Otherwise it’s the kind of revisionism that says using “he” as the default term for all humanity inherently degrades women to secondary status.
I’m very aware of the arguments about the Dark Ages actually not being primitive, violent etc. But it’s still as good a label for the period between the fall of the western Roman Empire and the early middle ages as any, imo. Better than “migration era” or any other I’ve seen, if only because of its long established position.
I was being ironic, hence the use of the school marmy ‘no no no’.
I would have been quite happy to retain Dark Ages but when even good chaps as Tom Holland (historian not entertainer) embrace Early Antiquity it’s time to go with the flow.
Though I will continue with BC/AD if only, like yourself, to annoy. Wokes don’t do history anyway which is one reason Hitch would have wiped the floor with them.
“I was being ironic, hence the use of the school marmy ‘no no no’.“
Sorry, should have see that!
“I would have been quite happy to retain Dark Ages but when even good chaps as Tom Holland (historian not entertainer) embrace Early Antiquity it’s time to go with the flow.“
Well I’d say it’s one thing to change the academic jargon, it takes a lot longer and a lot more time and effort to change the popular usage. I’m going to keep using Dark Ages through my lifetime, as a matter of principle.
The BC/AD v. BCE/CE is ideologically driven, its exponents claiming the earlier term encourages Eurocentric hegemonic dominance or somesuch.
Interesting, I am aware that the introduction of BC/BCE is ideologically driven, but I recall it from the late C20th as a primarily anti-Christian measure, with the anti-colonialist lefty chumps jumping on the bandwagon later.
Just had a quick look at Wikipedia (I know…) to see what it has to say and it seems fwiw to support my recollection:
“The expression has been traced back to 1615, when it first appeared in a book by Johannes Kepler as the Latin: annus aerae nostrae vulgaris (year of our common era),[4][5] and to 1635 in English as “Vulgar Era”.[a] The term “Common Era” can be found in English as early as 1708,[6] and became more widely used in the mid-19th century by Jewish religious scholars. Since the later 20th century, CE and BCE are popular in academic and scientific publications as religiously neutral terms.[7][8] They are used by others who wish to be sensitive to non-Christians by not explicitly referring to Jesus as “Christ” nor as Dominus (“Lord”) through use of the other abbreviations.“
AD and BC become CE/BCEBy Indira Das-Gupta Last updated at 00:00am on 19.02.02
And then there’s globalist useful idiot and profiteer Kofi Anna in 1999:
“Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan[70] has argued:
“[T]he Christian calendar no longer belongs exclusively to Christians. People of all faiths have taken to using it simply as a matter of convenience. There is so much interaction between people of different faiths and cultures – different civilizations, if you like – that some shared way of reckoning time is a necessity. And so the Christian Era has become the Common Era.[71]””
Note this characteristic position: Christian societies invented something of value, and when other societies found it so good they adopted it, somehow its inventors are longer entitled to use it freely, but must amend their usage to suit the later adopters.
Very familiar, nowadays.
Great article. The unholy trinity is also united through the concept of the invisible enemy, to which the only approved response is unbending hatred. The good citizen must learn to construct and hate the invisible enemy, who is always the terrible person who dares to question the faith. This has been building for years with the rise of climate change insanity, and the slowly emerging shorthand of labelling all who dissent as ‘deniers’, a code word of course for the unspeakable crime of doubting the Holocaust. It came to a head and became hard-coded into the public consciousness with the arrival of Trump. In 2016, there was a surge of unity from the progressives, the media, the academics, the intelligentsia: you had to hate Trump, and you had to let people know. Now, at last, the unholy Trinity had its analogue of the Great Satan, something that all good people could rally around, a shared mindless hatred of Orange Man, the embodiment of everything opposite to wokery. Even to this day, Trump lives rent free in those minds, and they do not hesitate to trot him out endlessly to make the point. And what’s the point? The point is that out there is a terrible enemy, the Denier writ large, a mass of people who are going to destroy us all by not wearing a mask, getting jabbed, marching for climate and the rest of the inane displays of virtue-signalling. The children now are perfectly formed in the image of the unholy trinity. Mindless, soulless, vacant, an army of tattooed vegan non-binary climate warriors clamouring to bring down the house of civilisation to bring about their promised land, when cheese is forbidden, heat-pumps are compulsory and everybody has their vaccine QR code digitally implanted. I’d say it was all hopeless, except that the ending is written, and apparently, they lose. Right now, I can’t see how that happens, but it involves a white horse, and a robe dipped in blood, and a winepress of the fury of the wrath of God. Ah, but you will say these are fairy-tales. We shall see.
The key is that it never ends because the goals are undefinable and unachievable.
This is nicely exemplified by the stomach churning practice of footballers “taking the knee” before each match.
When does that ever end? At which point can the football authorities say, “ok lads, racism is over, we can scrap the pre-game kneel.” Never. Because there will ALWAYS be someone somewhere who will express some opinion that can be considered racist or even is racist. So the battle has to continue endlessly.
But the worst part is that for that reason they can never stop doing it. If at any point they were to stop, they would instantly be accused of not caring, being racist.
They’re completely trapped in pursuing an unrealistic, ridiculous goal.
Same with health safety, same with the climate. There is no defined end point, there is no goal other than the daily pursuit of an unreachable ideal.
Excellent point. Take it the other way: why do they just stop at the knee against racism? What, are they climate deniers? They should surely add another gesture after the knee, perhaps a hand raised to the sky, which indicates that they reject ‘carbon’. But now, is that enough? Surely the footballers should also genuflect to the god of covid, so after the hand is raised to the sky, it then should form a gesture of a hypodermic needle injecting the clot shot into the upper arm. Now we’re talking, a wonderful three-part pastiche, an interpretative dance if you will of virtue signalling: the players, as one, sink to the knee, against racism, then, with a flourish raise the finger to the sky and feign weeping for climate, then contract into the jab position, to signal acquiescence to the mRNA. Now we’re talking. Then they get up and play the game. Oh yeah, I’d like to see that.
Very good, an excellent Haka replacement.
Yes. I’ve heard (real) civil rights activists from the 60s levelling this criticism at the current brand of identity politics. What are the political objectives? What exactly are they trying to achieve politically? And given that racism is no longer – thankfully – enshrined in law, it boils down to the purification of people’s minds. Ending racism the concept, which of course can never be achieved.
“And given that racism is no longer – thankfully – enshrined in law”
But that nonsense was replaced by even more harmful nonsense – the enshrining of antiracism in law and in society. Worse, because it is in reality racism against the majority group rather than minorities.
And this is also a US issue, imported into our society in distorted form. In the UK racism was never to any significant degree enshrined in law until we introduced antiracist intolerance to suppress freedom of association and of speech, primarily in order to protect mass immigration.
Some have stopped (or perhaps never started). Certainly Wilfie Zaha doesn’t kneel; and I noticed a Watford player, Emmanuel Dennis, not kneeling yesterday at the Arsenal match.
Bang on analysis – John N. Gray ‘Seven types of atheism’ – he’s been onto the (non) enlightenment for years – but with secular priests like Richard Dawkins leading the mediocrity fray and out and out dictator Noam Chomsky ranting his science political agenda – it could all implode into a bucket of writhing egos.
The writer negligently or intentionally fails to identify what lies at the heart of the ‘diversity’ agenda. When a commentator heralds more ‘diversity’ in the UK Olympic team, in the media or in any position of influence, what is really being celebrated is less White British people in those positions. Now take that belief system to its ultimate conclusion, and the best possible outcome for these people would be no White British people in any position of authority and eventually, with those same commentators also heralding mass inward migration, no White Britsh people at all. With this woke/diversity agenda being rolled out in every country occupied by people of European descent, what we are witnessing is the slow elimination of a whole race of people. Although the seeds of this sinister agenda were sown many decades ago, the forces behind this agenda had to wait until the end of WWII to begin implementing the program in earnest. The forces behind both climate and covid hoaxes are also behind the ongoing genocide of Europeans.
A Bilderberg 2011(?) document found in a garbage bin indicated just that.
And how better to achieve and accelerate that than by giving an experimental gene therapy to all white people, and their children in particular, in the developed world, while sparing Africa(ns) and accepting the, well justified, hesitancy of ethnic minorities there?!
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/11/paul-craig-roberts/excess-deaths-from-the-vaccine-point-to-a-depopulation-agenda/
Of course Colonialism increased diversity in Africa and the far east.
Yes wipe out the European race because of things that happened long before present Europeans were born. If it is ok to punish people for the crimes of their forefathers then no one on planet earth would be alive today.
The population of any small part of sub-Saharan Africa will have more genetic diversity than the rest of the world put together which is one reason they should be more capable of surviving any world depopulating disease event, natural or otherwise.
I will not bend the knee to the wrongdoers behind all this cult behaviour; either physically or spiritually. You can’t appease lunatics or zealots. Nothing is ever good enough for these types.
Show courage and stand firm. Do not feed the beast. Those behind this tyranny will eventually turn on each other in the end. They are quite mad.
Coming from the heart in Australia.
Urgent Message to Humanity – from brave Aussies
Very moving.
But I wish video posters/producers laid off the background music, this is real life, not hollywood.
I have tried to watch this but the muzak is distracting and there is no format. It is hard work.
I don’t like to criticise work such as this but do try to get the audience on side.
It’s worth persevering, if you’ve wondered why the judiciary in Australia have been silent, this offers a shocking explanation.
How Gates’s ID 2020 Alliance set out to make us all have vaccine ID before CovID with the UN and EU Commission
https://www.ageofautism.com/2019/10/the-id2020-alliance-the-global-totalitarian-project-hiding-behind-the-vaccine-drive.html
Good, but standard tandoori stuff.
Overtime the Deep State has streamlined, optimized, and perfected the system for parasitizing human society. This streamlining includes the strategies of mimicry and masquerade.
Mimicry and masquerade are actual scientific terms for deceptive strategies employed by species for predation, evasion of predation, or for parasitism. It can take the form of resemblance of the parasite to cues of an object of no interest to the host – leaves, sticks, stones etc or the resemblance of the parasite to features of the host. This is in order to evade defences.
Psychopaths feel no empathy, guilt or remorse, neither do the corporations and institutes they control. They see others as merely pawns on a grand chessboard.
Yet, high-functioning psychopaths have become successful in hiding and deceiving the public about their underlying psychopathic traits. They have learnt to simulate “normal human responses”. A term for this is “dark empath”. This is not sharing someone’s feelings – affective empathy – but being able to intellectually to know and understand another’s perspective – cognitive empathy. Cognitive empathy is not empathy at all. It is the intellectual simulation of empathy for emotional mimicry. Any high-functioning sociopath or psychopath can become a “dark empath.”
The Deep State in the midst of all its mass abuse, after global rape and pillage, is attempting to “cuddle” humanity while whispering sweet blandishments into its ear.
The dark entity that has maintained obscene wealth inequality through the ages is telling the world that “affluence is the biggest threat to our world.”
If it were sincere, it would put its money where its mouth is, it would be bailing out people not oligarchs, getting the economy back on its feet, and redistributing wealth from the wealthy via a true wealth-tax, not de-distributing it up the pyramid.
Instead, it is doing the opposite of what it claims it intends to do. Its solution is for the masses to relinquish what little wealth and autonomy they have left and offer it up to those self-same psychopathic oligarchs that regards the majority of them as superfluous to requirements, and the rest as slaves. Everything it seems to offer in mimicry of socialist and environmentalist values comes with insidious caveats.
https://bakerstreetrising.home.blog/2021/07/15/covax-through-the-looking-glass-part-7/
But… Is totalitarianism an emergent property of specific prevailing economic conditions? Is it the cart or the horse I wonder. Interesting that totalitarianism arose in very similar economic circumstances during the collapse of the Weimar Republic. The question I always ask about the current globalist totalitarian coup is why now?
Answers on a lab-grown postcard substitute.
“The question I always ask about the current globalist totalitarian coup is why now?”
Most likely because now they can do the things they could only dream of previously.
These forces have been growing in strength for decades. Wokeism is merely the political correctness of the late 1980s and 1990s, reinforced by the removal of many of those in senior positions who resisted it back then, and the rise of its advocates through the ranks. The cult of Gaia (climate alarmism) has been building for decades, and dates back in its current form to the 1970s. Much of the green nonsense pushing the current developments rests on institutions and attitudes put in place over the past couple of decades (mostly under “Conservative” PMs, in the UK).
Covid obviously was a huge opportunity for the totalitarians that arose in 2020, but it was enabled by political and technological developments. As one of the primary coronapanic perpetrators observed, they themselves were surprised at what they could get away with.
No, I think WHO etc started to make preparations in the mid-90s and 2020 was a year ear-marked. It was half a century after the war: now it is 3/4s of a century after the war – the memory is lost and perhaps that is what they are counting on. You can even defame Churchill and no one bats an eyelid.
Maybe, maybe not. I’m not sure it makes all that much difference. They could not have done what they did without things that weren’t in existence in 1990, though. Technological and social developments, including the increasing credibility of China as a role model, due to its economic success, alongside its partial integration into the global elite society.
I think the loss of public memory is significant and at least to some extent planned for. There was also an astonishing Rockefeller Institute blueprint in 2010
http://www.nommeraadio.ee/meedia/pdf/RRS/Rockefeller%20Foundation.pdf
but also as you say technology creep has been vitally important
https://www.ageofautism.com/2019/10/the-id2020-alliance-the-global-totalitarian-project-hiding-behind-the-vaccine-drive.html
Unless its looming demographic implosion undermines China first.
Hence the desperation over Belt&Road and neo colonialism in vast parts of Africa.
I suspect the supposed consequences of a “demographic implosion” are rather overstated by wishful thinkers in the US sphere. China will have to adapt to a smaller, older population eventually, but there seems no reason to suppose it can’t do so.
Contrast and compare 1971
Yellow age bars= dependent population, blue and pink bars are getting older with not enough to support them in old age.
Entirely predictable results of one child policy which the population are now wedded to.
Not disagreeing with this being a problem for China. But is it a problem that will lead to some kind of collapse? I doubt it.
Bear in mind that the dependency ratio in 1970 in China was 79%.
There’s a lot of flexibility built in to dependency ratios, especially old age. When it’s driven by younger age groups you can bring people into the workforce at younger ages, and when it’s driven by old age you can keep people working longer. In the latter case, technology and improving healthcare make it a lot easier to adapt to than the former case. Improving productivity also helps.
So it’s not necessarily the case that the Chinese will be unable to sustain acceptable living standards in the face of their demographic changes.
Again, not saying it won’t cause them costs and slow growth somewhat. Could even cause some kind of collapse. It’s just I think those in the US sphere who confidently assert that it’s going to save them from Chinese rivalry are being a bit complacent.
“Hence the desperation over Belt&Road and neo colonialism in vast parts of Africa.”
Not sure why these are “desperate”. These seem rational investment policies designed to secure Chinese economic growth long term. The land elements of Belt and Road in particular seem partly based on diversifying vital trade routes away from those vulnerable to maritime US interdiction. Developing and securing the hinterland are a bonus as well.
Churchill’s reputation was defended sufficiently to survive recent attacks, whether this will be so in a further 10 years remains to be seen.
I doubt whether it was better than a draw.
His statue still stands.
Indeed, Covid was more of a thing than SARS so they ran with the opportunity as it presented itself using the built up arsenal of weapons that succinctly describe.
The supine reaction of Western populations probably encouraged them to bring their plans forward faster than anticipated.
This connection made here by Alexander, and previously by Jones, is a key recognition for understanding the scale, scope and nature of the danger we face.
The defence against all these radicalisms is conservatism – by definition, the refusal to accede to radical changes imposed for ideological reasons.
But we have no organised conservative forces or institutions remaining. All have been subverted or destroyed (“reformed”) over the past century or so. Conservatism itself has been demonised and brought into general disrepute, and few members of our social, political and business elites would openly self identify as conservative on the three key issues. It is dangerous to do so. The first necessary step in recovery would be to rebuild vehicles for conservative views, both in politics and in society in general. But before even that first step can be taken it is necessary to halt the descent into further outright criminalisation of dissent, and roll back our laws, institutions and attitudes to those before we were manipulated into accepting novel social taboos to label, demonise and restrict our opinions (“sexism”, “racism”, “homophobia”, “transphobia”, “antivax”, “islamophobia”, “antisemitism”, etc).
One of the best ways to look at these changes is as religious replacements for the Christian conservatism that predominated until the late C19th. Thunberg is the epitome of a modern version of a medieval child saint for the Gaians – as mad as a box of frogs and profoundly obnoxious as only a child treated with undue reverence can be, but unchallengeable by the respectable because she merely takes their religious doctrines to insane extremes. The characterisation of dissent as evil is normal for religious zealots.
One avenue of resistance would be the recreation of an effective, genuine Christianity, but that in turn requires the removal or bypassing of the hierarchies of the existing churches, .thoroughly penetrated and subverted by the cults of woke/covid/Gaia.
We have a major problem in this country: in the US the Right are now turning on Biden in a big way: in the UK we have a Conservative government doing all this to us, fringe parties which won’t come together and there is very little leverage on these crooks. It is a shame Daily Sceptic did not see it all long ago. Toby still flirts with the idea that BJ is a fundamentally decent chap and this is probably an error.
“We have a major problem in this country: in the US the Right are now turning on Biden in a big way: in the UK we have a Conservative government doing all this to us“
Yes, this is true.
One possible way it could be beneficial in the long run, though, is that it helps to reinforce the bankruptcy of our supposedly “Conservative” party. Perhaps that will ultimately stimulate the collapse and replacement or renewal of that party that Peter Hitchens has been hoping for now for more than a decade.
In the short run, for certain, it makes resistance much easier in the US. but the US Republican Party remains riddled with “RINO” types like our “Conservatives”, such as the “Republican” senators and congressmen who have been enabling the Democrat bullshit. If as seems likely there is a political uprising that results in the sweeping away of the Democrats despite their big tech and big media cover, there will be a struggle within the Republican Party between these “moderates” and the genuine conservatives.
That recreation will come, and it will be persecuted, and it will grow.
I haven’t come around to reading the article yet, but the many really good comments BTL here imply a good read later.
I just found this related nugget:
https://archive.ph/20211108040206/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-country-for-white-men-as-state-street-push-diversity-hlgttnw5h
A possible cure to all this malevolent totalitarianism masquerading as benevolence? Maybe it is time to rewind the clock and rediscover and understand the wisdom and knowledge contained within the ancient scriptures. Since these have been largely abandoned humanity has literally lost its mind.
In other words the re-embracing of a non-politicised, rational, Christianity.
There is absolutely nothing novel or “nice” about it. Every totalitarian system invokes “public good” as its justification. And every dictator pretends to be working for “the people”.
Of course, but these are the particular mechanisms by which totalitarianism has been rendered “nice” for our culture and society.
“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
― G.K. Chesterton
A brilliant article and bang on the button, explaining the tightening noose of policed opinion and its origins with clear, compelling prose. We underestimate, however, the degree to which these appalling developments are deep rooted. Even in the innocent nineties one’s career in state schools, public schools, the upper reaches of law, most chambers, most newspapers, the media and academe would be stymied by opposition to a number of soi-disant “liberal” causes. Industry, of course, remained refreshingly free from the taint – until perhaps ten years ago. Nevertheless, the left’s bossy, priggish dominance of culture was already a fact of life. Take, as an example, the progress of “gay rights”. It was only the very old and the socially marginal who in 97 campaigned against equalising the age of consent. A very elderly peeress just about got away with it, dismissed and forgotten as a tiresome crank; but Brian Souter, a middle aged millionaire at the time, had a lot of trouble. Whether or not one agrees with the change in question, its advent was carried on a wave of implicitly intolerant campaigning which gave a foretaste of current conditions. Why? Because the “elite”, the “intellectual aristocracy”, the pen-pushing upper middle class – far too closely intermixed in our “right little, tight little island” – had decided to sponsor it. Migration was more slowly and more carefully shut down as a subject of free debate by the same people. And the lesson of these years is vital: it is that, contra Marx, the key class in any society is the educated / legal / bureaucratic nexus. It was this class which converted to Christianity in the fourth century; it was the same group which went Protestant in the sixteenth; the same people turned Liberal from the Enlightenment until the First World War and thereafter embraced deepening shades of socialism. Now that socialism has morphed into “woke”, taking “class analysis” to areas of private life and personal choice, they have gone with it. Detached from experience they are frequently fanatical – just think of the ruthlessly and murderously “free trade” approach to the Irish famine. Nevertheless, that Liberal moment of theirs at least had the benefit of diffusing their power and exposing them to various ways of life – hence Mill’s belief in experiment. They learned to disagree with each other and thus set an example of disagreement to the public. Alas, they have rejected that lesson once again in favour of a new uniformity of view and – like all ideological bureaucracies, no longer diverse, no longer in business, no longer in touch with other groups – they are bolstering their numbers as a monastery recruits novices. Around the windpipe of the west they cluster like a parcel of poisonous leeches. It really is them or us, now.
Everyone who likes the sound of this nice totalitarianism should move to China
No.
Totalitarianism in the UK is driven by the insatiable greed of unregulated and liability-free corporate cronyism (the Tory Party’s stock in trade). To say C19 is a ‘progressive theme’ is nonsense. Rather C19 is simply another business ‘opportunity’. which has been used by governments of all stripes along with worldwide elites to implement and justify undemocratic state control agendas; with the UK Conservative Party, its supporters, hangers on and defenders (like this website) being culpable from the get go.
Climate change too has been weaponised in the cause of totalitarianism, but ownership has long since been wrestled from the post-hippy generation to the same broad centrist worldwide coalition of elite, corporate and state interests. Thus, at heart, Climate Change remains simply another business opportunity, especially with the plebs being gullible enough to buy into C19 lockdown, and then masks, and then experimental (and provenly dangerous) genetic therapy.
So while the going is good let’s push the climate agenda as well – and f*** knows what else will be tried (ie increased police powers, curtailment of free movement outside of lockdown, untreated sewage into the rivers, repeal of the ethics codes for MPs, selling of personal data, clamps onto social media and free speech, erosion of data privacy, approval of further untested and potentially dangerous treatments such as Molnupiravir [known to be carcinogenic] etc, etc…).
‘Wokery’, meanwhile, is the least of our concerns. It is now an integral part of mainstream centrist culture thanks to several decades of a certain type of teaching and mindset. It is the predictable offspring of unchecked political correctness, and comfortably inhabits all middle class dominated political parties and cultural institutions (from education to health to entertainment to the workplace) having long since graduated from being another ‘progressive’ theme or affectation.
This article is way too late, as ever with DS, and hopelessly naive. Health and Climate will of course remain bedrock themes of modern domestic politics for the foreseeable future, as long as they are profitable. Wokery, however, is an established, unstoppable ongoing process.
“To say C19 is a ‘progressive theme’ is nonsense…..Climate change too has been weaponised in the cause of totalitarianism, but ownership has long since been wrestled from the post-hippy generation to the same broad centrist worldwide coalition of elite, corporate and state interests. “
This indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what “progressive” means.
The panic response to covid, climate alarmism and wokery are all quintessentially “progressive”, because they seek to impose radical changes to society in pursuit of theories about what is necessary for the greater good, or to build a better world.
Presumably you have some different definition of “progressive” that builds in a positive value judgement, so that you can then convince yourself that “progressive” must be good.
In reality, there is no progress (outside strictly limited and objectively measurable areas, such as technological capabilities, material wealth levels etc), only change, because progress requires a goal, which is not in evidence.
What you describe as ownership being “wrestled” is in fact the process of “progressivism” on these topics winning control in these areas of society (cultural elites, business elites, political elites). This has been done by a process of cultural warfare, and the long march through the institutions.
“centrist”
“Centrist” and “moderate” is of course just what the dominant sects with control of the media and social media output get to term themselves. In fact there is nothing remotely “centrist” or “moderate” about what the Blairite radicals have put this country through in the past three decades.
I well understand what both ’progressive’ and ‘centrist’ mean in a political context, and likewise all usage of those terms throughout my comment are based on that. That you don’t agree with my analysis is understandable given that you seek to define as ‘radical’ policies designed not to impose change for the ‘greater good’ but simply to further buttress the growing brand of global neo-liberalism openly embraced by UK PMs from Major onwards (with roots as far back as Heath’s term in office, and possibly before).
These C19/Climate policies are being driven by hard profit and increased elite power, not by the pursuit of theories concerning some imagined ‘greater good’ – this is just the wrapping paper, the sales pitch. Of course such ‘touchy feely’ rhetoric is useful, and has been openly adopted by the Tories before even the green tree logo to close out the LDs and try to make up the gap on New Labour. This is no more than bandwagon jumping or political appropriation at best.
There has been no ‘cultural warfare’, as you suggest, the gradual increasing hegemony of the middle class over the last 5 decades in particular has ensured the convenient post war transition where left and right divide has (for all intents and purposes, except for ritual party political electioneering, comment columns and websites) long since vanished. The party in power no longer matters, because there is no opposition. The Graun supports the Tory Govt. just as the Telegraph supports the Tory Govt, both know the UK has had a de-facto centrist coalition ever since Starmer took his predestined place (just as Blair did before him). The only meaningful division in the HoC is between the SNP MPs and English MPs, but even then I don’t think they would really want to leave their careers in the House.
In the everyday sense there is no progressivism in politics, indeed, MPs have proved predictably reactionary at every opportunity in ensuring they are never held to account while they do their level best to preserve an outmoded and anachronistic two (or should that be one) party system.
“These C19/Climate policies are being driven by hard profit and increased elite power, not by the pursuit of theories concerning some imagined ‘greater good’ – this is just the wrapping paper, the sales pitch. ”
There are always those who exploit any political movement for gain, but this is far deeper and far wider than merely a few profiteering businesses, and if it were merely that, then it would be easily defeated.
“you seek to define as ‘radical’ policies designed not to impose change for the ‘greater good’ ”
These policies are radical, of course, by objective definition, regardless of whether they are driven by “greater good” zealotry or the profit motive.
Your remarkable ability to not notice the cultural warfare that has been raging for decades in the US sphere and has resulted in the near complete triumph of the politically correct causes notwithstanding, the fact is that culturally near universal assumptions about morality and about reality and history, have been transformed into forbidden social taboos and in some cases into things it is a criminal offence to assert. Meanwhile ideas that were viewed as outright evil or insane are now effectively compulsory.
Cultural changes have often been this radical, but have taken conquest, collapse or the passage of centuries to achieve, not merely a few decades.
“left and right divide has (for all intents and purposes, except for ritual party political electioneering, comment columns and websites) long since vanished. The party in power no longer matters, because there is no opposition. The Graun supports the Tory Govt. just as the Telegraph supports the Tory Govt, both know the UK has had a de-facto centrist coalition ever since Starmer took his predestined place (just as Blair did before him). ”
Again, this confuses the end of party political difference with the end of something more fundamental. The “Conservatives” are now a party objectively of the left – pushing policies intended to radically transform society in pursuit of ideological goals. That businesses and wealthy groups seek to profit off that is as inevitable as it is irrelevant. Though in the case of the “Conservatives” it is fair to say that in some areas they are less inclined to push these changes and more inclined to preside over them and profit from them.
So you are correct in saying “there is no fundamental difference between the parties“, but your false extension of this to left/right suggests you have a conveniently restricted definition of left/right. Most likely from your comments here this is the usual one for “old left” types – the idea that left and right is about class struggle and the ownership of the means of production, etc. But this is just the particular form left/right mainly took in European/US politics during the late C19th and early-mid C20th. Left/right predated it and exists after those issues faded into irrelevance.
Where did I say ‘a few profiteering businesses’? C19 was an excuse to unleash disproportionate state power at the service of massive corporate and elite profiteering via emergency legislation and monetary jiggery-pokery.
Blairite policies were and are anti-radical, they were a logical extension of Thatcherism (as the Iron Lady herself admitted) and the increasing supra-governmental power of the multinational corporate. Blair recognised this was best achieved through harmonising laws, rules and regs within an increasingly powerful EU and world elite, a view still shared by the majority of UK MPs including the current PM, and his legacy in turn was adopted by Cameron and Clegg. Policies that serve to restrict and centralise political and financial power are better described as being neo-feudal, but never radical.
The creep of the term ‘morality’ (and its lazy conflation with ethics) into political discourse is concerning.
Evil again? How can any idea be understood and opposed if lazily branded as ‘evil’ at the drop of a hat? Is it any surprise that this government is totalitarian governance a breeze with this pitiful level of discourse?
I think this is termed ‘gaslighting’, and is the favoured modus operandi of TY & other Tory apologists. The Tories are at best a CENTRE-soft right party, and to pretend or advocate otherwise is to avoid facing up to the mess inflicted upon the UK by a TORY government. By any historical definition the current Tory Party is not left wing, and even as a way of worming out of conservative culpability for the current mess it is as lame as the PM’s half-assed fist pumps.
Interesting, as that that’s the TY line too! You both ignore that the Tory government has 100% facilitated the conditions for this C19 scam by a series of unchallenged (unhinged?)anti-libertarian policy decisions and ministerial decrees. Only 6 months ago this website was still openly fence sitting and defending the government’s damaging experimental vaxx program, despite the horrendous mounting figures of side effects and deaths. Its BTL contributors largely went along with this.
It is these very ’businesses and wealthy groups’ (the massive corporate multi $trillion Big Pharma complex along with associated ‘experts’ and ancillary businesses/elites) that have largely authored and provided the rationale for the C19 scam in the face of an initial deafening silence from the medical professionals.
My understanding of the history of left/right political definitions and causes is sound. I simply point out the false dichotomies embraced by this website (and the MSM in general), by which goalposts can be conveniently shifted to accommodate or exclude various shades of political dogma. This is typified by your bizarre claim (above) that Tories are now objectively a party of the left, and so not really conservative and so its supporters are blameless. TCW also routinely deploys this same shameful sleight of hand.
“Wokery’, meanwhile, is the least of our concerns. “
Only to those who are not losing jobs to it, not facing the destruction of things they value through it, or not seeking to resist the teaching of evil falsehoods to their children, and who don’t care about what happens to those people who are resisting it.
“Wokery, however, is an established, unstoppable ongoing process.”
Such defeatism might be correct (right does not always triumph), but you’d better hope not. Even if you believe you won’t be targeted by the woke zealots by virtue of your own collaboration with their zealotries, or whatever (good luck with that one), that path ends in cultural revolution, struggle sessions and “reeducation” camps.
And if wokery is allowed to progress too far, even its defeat will require civil war and result in utter disaster.
‘evil falsehoods’
Tch, tsch…. don’t you think the use of the e-word is overdoing it a tad?
It’s easy to stand up to Wokery and the Woke, but not everyone wants to – it’s a new sub-culture that is going to rise and fall like those before it. Problem is it has been adopted by millions in the UK, just as 90% of the adult population have been jabbed with EGT. Perhaps it’s the same lot??
No need for civil war, just a continuation of resolute daily resistance to the PC middle class that many of us have been practising for longer than we care to remember. Like C19, ‘Wokery’ is sort of infectious but ultimately easily avoided/shook off with a few common sense measures.
“Tch, tsch…. don’t you think the use of the e-word is overdoing it a tad?“
No, the ideas currently being pushed by the woke around race and sex in particular are actually evil, as far as I’m concerned. You might disagree, but that’s your problem, not mine.
“No need for civil war, just a continuation of resolute daily resistance to the PC middle class that many of us have been practising for longer than we care to remember. Like C19, ‘Wokery’ is sort of infectious but ultimately easily avoided/shook off with a few common sense measures.”
As I pointed out previously, your kind of casual apologetics are easy for someone who is either a fellow traveller of the woke fanatics or is not one of the many who are losing out directly or being forced to kowtow in order to avoid losing their livelihoods, or for those who who simply have no sympathy for the victims.
That’s your choice and your personal shame.
‘Evil’ has slowly became the word of choice for political leaders bereft of the appropriate vocabulary or motivation to identify and resolve rational everyday political issues. That it’s usage has spread BTL, as commenters attempt to personalise/moralise wider ethical matters is to be regretted.
Describing reasoned political argument as ‘casual apologetics’ (sic) because you choose to misunderstand or misrepresent current fashions in political rhetoric and process is likewise disappointing.
But by personalising the argument and inventing a ludicrous set of assumed fictional circumstances to paint me with (‘a fellow traveller of the woke fanatics or is not one of the many who are losing out directly or being forced to kowtow in order to avoid losing their livelihoods’) you dispense with reason altogether. This is both lazy and laughable, and only exposes a similar lack of rational rigour to that displayed by our political leaders and their media accomplices who, unable/unwilling to deal with the real problem in hand, invent an imaginary one on which to project and pedal their own personal and corporate agendas.
Thus in over-stating the supposed strength of Wokery you are effectively shilling for it, but I guess you already knew that?
You seem still to be wilfully denying the harms being done every day by “wokery”. As I said, easy to do when you aren’t in the crosshairs.
As for “in over-stating the supposed strength of Wokery you are effectively shilling for it“, this simply makes no sense. A movement that is already able to coerce action from elected governments, police forces, big tech and finance corporations, to reference just some recent examples, hardly requires or benefits from boosting.
To the contrary it is those who seek to downplay it as a problem and say, in effect, that we should not bother to oppose it, who are benefitting it. Obviously.
Why do you even try to pretend otherwise? What is your anticipated gain from defusing resistance to the woke evil? (And yes, a movement that seeks to destroy people’s lives, and succeeds in doing so, for merely expressing dissenting opinions, is objectively evil, however uncomfortable you might find that fact.)
Supposition, suppositions again – tsch tsch…
It requires that us plebs buy into it, which you are openly advocating. Not everyone rolls over in the face of Wokery, trust me.
Again you employ the e-word without thinking. Wokery is a convenient methodology by which individual ID politics are blurred with policy making; and owes much in its origins & application to pre-enlightenment church dogma. Wokery is fundamentally anti-radical, and only spreads via the cowardliness of everyday opposition. The slow decline of standards in institutions of learning since the 1960s and the uncritical adoption of the pc narrative has doubtless enabled its spread, along with the recent rise of social media.
I don’t find the term evil uncomfortable; merely irrational, outmoded, naive and somewhat disappointing when it is routinely deployed to replace rational analysis. Sermonising with moral absolutes is not political discourse – and to claim objective evil as ‘fact’ requires a high pulpit of blinkered arrogance.
“It requires that us plebs buy into it, which you are openly advocating. “
It seems unlikely you actually believe this nonsense, which is the obvious opposite of the truth. Advocating resistance to an ideology is not advocating “buying into it”, but rather the contrary. Self-evidently.
“Wokery is fundamentally anti-radical,”
Again, this appears to be a direct untruth. Wokery seeks significant changes to society. As such it is, by definition, radical. You seem to be trying to impose a manipulative and self-serving definition of radical of your own, presumably one that incorporates a positive value judgement (though that’s speculation on my part until you explain your usage, obviously).
“I don’t find the term evil uncomfortable; merely irrational, outmoded, naive and somewhat disappointing when it is routinely deployed to replace rational analysis. “
Your problem, not mine.
When political policies cross certain lines I regard them as evil. Waging aggressive war is one. Imposing radical ideology by coercion is another.
Precious picture of BG. The shadow under his nose is almost big enough,
I don’t think we get partial totalitarianism. I’ve never heard bureaucrats say they are going to rescind some of their controls and power.
The author wrote an important essay. He points out the COVID controls are just one leg of this stool.
This comments section at its absolute best here today.
https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/we-cant-wait-for-universities-to?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxNTQ3NDkyOCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDM2ODc3NTQsIl8iOiJtNkVhMyIsImlhdCI6MTYzNjM5NjMyMCwiZXhwIjoxNjM2Mzk5OTIwLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMjYwMzQ3Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.IC93qz4OY2CJFATWpHEb0Ol4L4QdK1n1hTJQr0WKE-w
The fightback has begun in earnest.
A new, unwoke and truly scientific university has been founded in Austin, Texas, and gotten endorsement and participation by many impressive people.
Germany has also recently seen the creation of the similarly intentioned Hannah Arendt online academy, but the people behind it are far less mainstream and the degrees not recognized.
Next step, international ooperation between such places to strengthen and grow them?! Where is the UK equivalent…?!
Our healthcare system is about to experience a tsunami! Potential side effects of jabs include chronic inflammation, because the vaccine continuously stimulates the immune system to produce antibodies. Other concerns include the possible integration of plasmid DNA into the body’s host genome, resulting in mutations, problems with DNA replication, triggering of autoimmune responses, and activation of cancer-causing genes. Alternative COVID cures EXIST. Ivermectin is one of them. While Ivermectin is very effective curing COVID symptoms, it has also been shown to eliminate certain cancers. Do not get the poison jab. Get your Ivermectin today while you still can! https://ivmpharmacy.com
Women have been telling biological truths for quite some time now. That is why people like JK Rowling and Rosie Duffield have been ‘cancelled’. We face, however, a two-pronged attack; from the misogynistic ‘gender’ ideologues on the Left and the feminism-haters on the Right, who believe feminism to be part of ‘wokery’. It is not; ‘gender’ ideology is the antithesis of feminism and a backlash against it. If the Right wants to drive out ‘wokery’, it needs to swallow its own misogyny and support us.
“If the Right wants to drive out ‘wokery’, it needs to swallow its own misogyny and support us.“
As far as I can tell the right does overwhelmingly support women attacked by the trans lobbies.
But not without a degree of schadenfreude as far as feminists in particular are concerned, bearing in mind that feminists in the past (and still today, as witnessed from your own accusations of “misogyny” against those who just disagree with you) have never hesitated to dish out exactly the kind of stuff that the trans lobbies are now giving them, in their turn.
It’s not that feminism is part of modern wokery, per se. It certainly was part of the political correctness that preceded and gave rise to wokery. It’s more that the characteristic tactics of modern wokery, of demonising with made up smear terms and hounding, was very much part of the feminist playbook back when feminism was an activist movement.
For feminists who complain about their treatment at the hands of the trans lobby but still dish out the “misogynist” and “sexist” smears, a period of introspection and humility would be advisable.
Looks like Herr Gates is probably wearing a hand tailored suit in that picture ATL, probably paid for by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as a charitable gesture…
I may be wrong of course.
This is an excellent article in my opinion and I have in other places said why it is difficult to beat these people supporting the secular ‘Holy Trinity’.
The reason that it is difficult to defend our principles against these people is because of cognitive dissonance. Festinger in 1957 proved it when he joined a cult – people will not accept that their beliefs have been proven false and in fact they work harder to make others believe the falsehood and in there lies the issue – they are the new fanatics of this secular religion for totaliterianism.