Who knew going all in on identity politics, making everything political, and making politics itself a zero sum game might end badly? If I read this article ten years ago, I might have some sympathy. Today I have none. You people loudly declared everyone not already aligned with you were enemies to be destroyed, said you were going to push forward no matter the consequences, and shouted down anyone who tried to warn you. Even now you still seem incapable of truly understanding the Law of Unintended Consequences or the corruption of power. “Authoritarian tendencies?” “Undermining democracy?” That is what you have been doing! Much of the old Classical Liberal Left has already abandoned you. They are called “far-right” now by the modern left even though they were not the ones who decided they love corporate power, political establishments, authoritarianism, hating on the rural and global poor, and international interventionism. For a second there it almost sounded like there would be some real self-reflection.
Perfectly put Matt. Particularly I laughed at this comment in the article about the “liberal Left” – which has become the most tribal political group I know:
“…progressives have abandoned the philosophical ideas that are central to any liberal or Left-wing standpoint: a commitment to universalism over tribalism…”
Even to someone as decisively inclined to the political right as I am, the progressive cause was a necessary and sometimes even admirable part of our politics. But now?
Now, progressivism has become more associated with the behaviour of Atilla the Hun. The only way to stop this new fascism, (an accurate description of what it is) is forcefully – just as force historically has always had to be deployed against fascism in all its many forms – both Left and Right.
But that is what they are. May I commend to you the excellent article by Lionel Shriver in this issue in which she describes how this horror is rooted in 1960s progressive groupthink.
Progressives everywhere have drunk the woke Kool-Aid and the result is what we see. Progressivism as we knew it is no more. It is now a thoroughly nasty, authoritarian and illiberal ideology better compared with communism.
Anybody who regards themselves as politically progressive now stands for this poisonous rubbish. And unfortunately that includes most of our 600 MPs
An excellent observation, a thought I’ve had, and struggled to label.
Yours, like my attempts, is not ‘catchy’ enough….. but could form the spine of a term as derogatory as say, ‘gammon’, or, ‘far right’.
Welcome to the ‘peepees’ – let the jester’s, and hopefully the OED, spread the word
Thanks Hugh. It’s actually an element of my definition of woke: the authoritarian pseudo-progressive usurpation of liberalism, which as it happens was recently cited by an English-French dictionary as an example of the usage of “liberalism”:- https://www.lalanguefrancaise.com/dictionnaire/english-french/liberalism-en
Thanks Hugh. It’s actually an element of my definition of woke: the authoritarian pseudo-progressive usurpation of liberalism, which as it happens was recently cited by an English-French dictionary as an example of the usage of “liberalism”:- https://www.lalanguefrancaise.com/dictionnaire/english-french/liberalism-en
Good suggestion
They always get to label themselves and they always chose words with positive connotations. There is however nothing progressive about them.
An excellent observation, a thought I’ve had, and struggled to label.
Yours, like my attempts, is not ‘catchy’ enough….. but could form the spine of a term as derogatory as say, ‘gammon’, or, ‘far right’.
Welcome to the ‘peepees’ – let the jester’s, and hopefully the OED, spread the word
Good suggestion
They always get to label themselves and they always chose words with positive connotations. There is however nothing progressive about them.
What makes progress possible? If Marx was clear about the answer to any question, it was this one: “The midwife of history is violence.” The hero of Chernyshevsky’s story said: “Yes, I will always do what I want. I will never sacrifice anything, not even a whim, for the sake of some thing I do not desire. What I want, with all my heart, is to make people happy.” This hero embodies what in Russia they call “bezdarnost” or giftlessness. “Giftlessness, as Dostoevsky feared, and Novakov knew, became the dominant style in Russia; it eventually seized power, and in the process of ‘making people happy’ destroyed them by the millions, leaving its vast motherland broken and desolate.”
But that is what they are. May I commend to you the excellent article by Lionel Shriver in this issue in which she describes how this horror is rooted in 1960s progressive groupthink.
Progressives everywhere have drunk the woke Kool-Aid and the result is what we see. Progressivism as we knew it is no more. It is now a thoroughly nasty, authoritarian and illiberal ideology better compared with communism.
Anybody who regards themselves as politically progressive now stands for this poisonous rubbish. And unfortunately that includes most of our 600 MPs
What makes progress possible? If Marx was clear about the answer to any question, it was this one: “The midwife of history is violence.” The hero of Chernyshevsky’s story said: “Yes, I will always do what I want. I will never sacrifice anything, not even a whim, for the sake of some thing I do not desire. What I want, with all my heart, is to make people happy.” This hero embodies what in Russia they call “bezdarnost” or giftlessness. “Giftlessness, as Dostoevsky feared, and Novakov knew, became the dominant style in Russia; it eventually seized power, and in the process of ‘making people happy’ destroyed them by the millions, leaving its vast motherland broken and desolate.”
The way I see it, there are three kinds of Left..
The Marxist Left: “We will spread the glorious revolution and get rid of the Bourgeoisie and Kulaks!”
The elite “Woke” Left: “I love the power to arbitrate who wins the victimhood Olympics. It pays well too!”
The Classical Liberal Left: “You know I really think we should do something about the massive deregulation of financial institutions and ban stock buybacks.”
The problem is anyone who claims to be on the left today but does not belong in the first two is walking on eggshells in order not to be declared “far-right”.
Good idea.
I think the “power” aspect, though, is part of the Marxist revolution notion. The elite “Woke” left, imho, is not pragmatic enough to understand power, but is instead highly idealistic. That is why they are suckers for manipulation by the other two. It’s also why they enable the revolution, but do not survive it.
I think you must mean the social liberal left. Classical liberalism advocated free trade and capitalism during the 19th century. Liberalism only took its social turn under Campbell-Bannerman and Asquith during the early 20th century.
Good idea.
I think the “power” aspect, though, is part of the Marxist revolution notion. The elite “Woke” left, imho, is not pragmatic enough to understand power, but is instead highly idealistic. That is why they are suckers for manipulation by the other two. It’s also why they enable the revolution, but do not survive it.
I think you must mean the social liberal left. Classical liberalism advocated free trade and capitalism during the 19th century. Liberalism only took its social turn under Campbell-Bannerman and Asquith during the early 20th century.
The way I see it, there are three kinds of Left..
The Marxist Left: “We will spread the glorious revolution and get rid of the Bourgeoisie and Kulaks!”
The elite “Woke” Left: “I love the power to arbitrate who wins the victimhood Olympics. It pays well too!”
The Classical Liberal Left: “You know I really think we should do something about the massive deregulation of financial institutions and ban stock buybacks.”
The problem is anyone who claims to be on the left today but does not belong in the first two is walking on eggshells in order not to be declared “far-right”.
Spot on Matt. The wheels are starting to come off everywhere and this to me smells of the left screaming at the populace, “come to us because we care, we are all the same and should be treated equally!” Yet they have the worst track record. Social Justice is the worst kind of discrimination in the history of the world. They use the word racism like a whip. They crack it at us and think get down white scum.
So many people are sick of this but most of us are still to scared to stick our heads above the parapet. The left is truly viscous, and much worse than the crazies on the far right.
It’s a classic sermon in regressivist Doublespeak. Using the Nazi Bogeyman is pretty much an SOP. The left is very much globally Tribal. It is by no means universalist. Rishi Sunak is barely right leaning. If anything, he is a centrist. Kamala Harris is a Far Leftist. The Global Right doesn’t exist simply because the local rights have conflicting principles and cannot doublethink unlike the global left. And yes the usual hinduphobia. Modi is neither Hindu Nationalist not violent. The Global Left is very much Marxist Jihadist as witnessed most recently in Iranian Anti-Sharia Protests. While the author has the privilege to deny and erase facts about her comrades, her detractors simply don’t. Imagine denying Non Existent White Supremacy Threat. As for India, It’s a Quasi-Islamic State where Hindus are treated as Sub human by law and worse are encourage to glorify their Self Hate. India is a country where masses think Sharia is Secular.
Who is ‘you people’? Prof Neiman?
I can only speak for myself. I am (still) on the liberal Left, meaning that I believe in markets but that the State should promote greater economic equality and regulate in the interests of all without trashing the sovereignty of the individual and universal human rights. I have never deviated from this core conviction and there are many, many people in my camp.
Then I noticed that many of my activist fellow-travellers gradually became infected with a mind virus that says it’s not economics, stupid, it’s the countless different forms of identity that are supremely important. But not all identities and some are more important than others and we should pay ever more attention to our differences. It’s not only madness but its deep lack of electoral appeal presents a huge impediment to the possibility for how we would want to improve the world. You may not agree with redistribution, regulation, etc. but you can’t justifiably accuse all on the Left of tolerating this crap. Many of us have always hated it.
I’m pretty sure I explicitly left people like you out of my tirade. Please reread my comments. By the way, I am an Eisenhower Republican and have actually read Adam Smith so I am also in the camp that Western market mass deregulation has been an economic disaster.
I’m pretty sure I explicitly left people like you out of my tirade. Please reread my comments. By the way, I am an Eisenhower Republican and have actually read Adam Smith so I am also in the camp that Western market mass deregulation has been an economic disaster.
This new push from the radicals to de-align themselves from woke culture is telling in itself. They are trying to vilify the word themselves so they cannot be cast under its political implications which is another example how they really do not stand for anything but self preservation.
If I’d read this comment ten years ago, I might have read past “you people”. But I’ve learned that’s what people say just before they’re about to go on some vein-popping, self-righteous rant. Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.
Perfectly put Matt. Particularly I laughed at this comment in the article about the “liberal Left” – which has become the most tribal political group I know:
“…progressives have abandoned the philosophical ideas that are central to any liberal or Left-wing standpoint: a commitment to universalism over tribalism…”
Even to someone as decisively inclined to the political right as I am, the progressive cause was a necessary and sometimes even admirable part of our politics. But now?
Now, progressivism has become more associated with the behaviour of Atilla the Hun. The only way to stop this new fascism, (an accurate description of what it is) is forcefully – just as force historically has always had to be deployed against fascism in all its many forms – both Left and Right.
Spot on Matt. The wheels are starting to come off everywhere and this to me smells of the left screaming at the populace, “come to us because we care, we are all the same and should be treated equally!” Yet they have the worst track record. Social Justice is the worst kind of discrimination in the history of the world. They use the word racism like a whip. They crack it at us and think get down white scum.
So many people are sick of this but most of us are still to scared to stick our heads above the parapet. The left is truly viscous, and much worse than the crazies on the far right.
It’s a classic sermon in regressivist Doublespeak. Using the Nazi Bogeyman is pretty much an SOP. The left is very much globally Tribal. It is by no means universalist. Rishi Sunak is barely right leaning. If anything, he is a centrist. Kamala Harris is a Far Leftist. The Global Right doesn’t exist simply because the local rights have conflicting principles and cannot doublethink unlike the global left. And yes the usual hinduphobia. Modi is neither Hindu Nationalist not violent. The Global Left is very much Marxist Jihadist as witnessed most recently in Iranian Anti-Sharia Protests. While the author has the privilege to deny and erase facts about her comrades, her detractors simply don’t. Imagine denying Non Existent White Supremacy Threat. As for India, It’s a Quasi-Islamic State where Hindus are treated as Sub human by law and worse are encourage to glorify their Self Hate. India is a country where masses think Sharia is Secular.
Who is ‘you people’? Prof Neiman?
I can only speak for myself. I am (still) on the liberal Left, meaning that I believe in markets but that the State should promote greater economic equality and regulate in the interests of all without trashing the sovereignty of the individual and universal human rights. I have never deviated from this core conviction and there are many, many people in my camp.
Then I noticed that many of my activist fellow-travellers gradually became infected with a mind virus that says it’s not economics, stupid, it’s the countless different forms of identity that are supremely important. But not all identities and some are more important than others and we should pay ever more attention to our differences. It’s not only madness but its deep lack of electoral appeal presents a huge impediment to the possibility for how we would want to improve the world. You may not agree with redistribution, regulation, etc. but you can’t justifiably accuse all on the Left of tolerating this crap. Many of us have always hated it.
This new push from the radicals to de-align themselves from woke culture is telling in itself. They are trying to vilify the word themselves so they cannot be cast under its political implications which is another example how they really do not stand for anything but self preservation.
If I’d read this comment ten years ago, I might have read past “you people”. But I’ve learned that’s what people say just before they’re about to go on some vein-popping, self-righteous rant. Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.
Last edited 1 year ago by Nona Yubiz
Matt Hindman
1 year ago
Who knew going all in on identity politics, making everything political, and making politics itself a zero sum game might end badly? If I read this article ten years ago, I might have some sympathy. Today I have none. You people loudly declared everyone not already aligned with you were enemies to be destroyed, said you were going to push forward no matter the consequences, and shouted down anyone who tried to warn you. Even now you still seem incapable of truly understanding the Law of Unintended Consequences or the corruption of power. “Authoritarian tendencies?” “Undermining democracy?” That is what you have been doing! Much of the old Classical Liberal Left has already abandoned you. They are called “far-right” now by the modern left even though they were not the ones who decided they love corporate power, political establishments, authoritarianism, hating on the rural and global poor, and international interventionism. For a second there it almost sounded like there would be some real self-reflection.
Last edited 1 year ago by Matt Hindman
David Baker
1 year ago
I suppose I tend not to read many “progressive”oriented articles these days (though really I prefer historically grounded and interesting thinkers like Mary Harrington, rather than a specific political orientation). So I don’t always see the progressive viewpoint of other opinions, but even several years ago I frequently read more progressive sources.
If this article is a good example of a left-wing philosopher’s assumptions on people of other world views, what a sorry state left-wing discourse truly is in. She essentially argues the only reason someone might oppose the Left is because they are a provincial who hates others. Being a public intellectual should mean having to grapple with the opinions of those who disagree, should mean at least trying to think outside your own box on occasion. This is just straw man after straw man.
Then, rather than trying to grapple with the possibility that woke excesses are an outgrowth of the very liberalism she defends, she says the Woke are bad because are just becoming like the Right. So again, her worldview breaks down to this: people who agree with me are good, others are evil and wicked.
I would suggest reading Of Course You Know What “Woke” Means by Freddie deBoer. I’m not the biggest fan of his outright socialist views but he does have principles and he did an amazing breakdown of what “woke” really is. https://substack.com/inbox/post/108643299
I would suggest reading Of Course You Know What “Woke” Means by Freddie deBoer. I’m not the biggest fan of his outright socialist views but he does have principles and he did an amazing breakdown of what “woke” really is. https://substack.com/inbox/post/108643299
In other words, the author embodies Schmitt perfectly. “The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy”
“People who agree with me are good, others are evil and wicked” seems to sum up “woke”. The word is used by the right as a put down for anything that threatens them and they disagree with in order to invalidate it.
Uh, that’s inverted. The Right didn’t invent the word, the tactic, the meaning. The Left imposes its agenda on everyone via academia, entertainment, technology, media, corporations, and demands we be held to its strictures. If we shrug it all off or, worse, ignore it, we are excoriated, punished, and made to care, whether we want to or not. There is no good faith attempt to discuss, debate, disagree. It’s Maoist Red Guard-ism.
Quite right: it was coined by “progressive” activists, who then blew very hard trying to convince us it doesn’t exist and that the culture wars they kicked off are a bogeyman of “right wing” imagination (inverted commas around right wing, as it’s a relative concept at best and has expanded to occupy all middle ground).
I wonder if some people can even figure out how to lie straight in bed…
Quite right: it was coined by “progressive” activists, who then blew very hard trying to convince us it doesn’t exist and that the culture wars they kicked off are a bogeyman of “right wing” imagination (inverted commas around right wing, as it’s a relative concept at best and has expanded to occupy all middle ground).
I wonder if some people can even figure out how to lie straight in bed…
So you really think that “the right” (which has never really meant anything other than those opposed to the Left) can’t tell the difference between the threats poses by classical Marxism-Leninism, the various “Communist” movements that have really turned fascist (cf. the CCP), and the Woke, whom I take to be the idiot children of the Frankfurt School, Foucault, Derrida and a host of anti- and post-colonialist Leninists? Only the last with their fixation on identity politics which the author decries, keeping racial greivances alive, rather than fixing them, and bizarre notion that subjectively felt gender should replace biological sex in all matters of social discourse and law are sneered at as “Woke”.
Uh, that’s inverted. The Right didn’t invent the word, the tactic, the meaning. The Left imposes its agenda on everyone via academia, entertainment, technology, media, corporations, and demands we be held to its strictures. If we shrug it all off or, worse, ignore it, we are excoriated, punished, and made to care, whether we want to or not. There is no good faith attempt to discuss, debate, disagree. It’s Maoist Red Guard-ism.
So you really think that “the right” (which has never really meant anything other than those opposed to the Left) can’t tell the difference between the threats poses by classical Marxism-Leninism, the various “Communist” movements that have really turned fascist (cf. the CCP), and the Woke, whom I take to be the idiot children of the Frankfurt School, Foucault, Derrida and a host of anti- and post-colonialist Leninists? Only the last with their fixation on identity politics which the author decries, keeping racial greivances alive, rather than fixing them, and bizarre notion that subjectively felt gender should replace biological sex in all matters of social discourse and law are sneered at as “Woke”.
She gets so much wrong about the categorisation of right or left, as do many, especially on the left. The only thing she gets right about that is that one”s politics is multi-dimensional and doesn’t fit neatly into old labels. Those labels nowadays don’t apply in the way they once did. By 20th Century standards, Rishi Sunak’s Government would have been considered left wing socialists. Western societies have moved considerably left.
No one nowadays wants anyone, anywhere to be poor, so demonising people who vote for ‘right of centre’ parties misses so many points. One of which is that creating more state dependency has failed to eradicate the tiny percentage of families in Britain staying very poor. Yet to pay for state dependency, the middle classes have less disposable income than ever before and many have themselves become classified as what now is called poor in UK – even though everyone has free education and healthcare, more and better consumer goods and creature comforts than ever before.
The problem is that the reasons there are still poor have been incredibly different to fix, especially the weather and its role in water supply in some parts of the world and varying natural intelligence levels. Since millions of clever people have tried to eradicate poverty over centuries and so far failed doesn’t mean we aren’t making progress – we are. Global poverty is declining as we educate people and empower women. Half the population are female, so empowering them in developing countries will also eventually reduce impoverishing warmongering.
So, I’ll vote for those who enable people to pick the ball up and run with it, rather than those who claim that they can completely level every playing field.
In other words, the author embodies Schmitt perfectly. “The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy”
“People who agree with me are good, others are evil and wicked” seems to sum up “woke”. The word is used by the right as a put down for anything that threatens them and they disagree with in order to invalidate it.
She gets so much wrong about the categorisation of right or left, as do many, especially on the left. The only thing she gets right about that is that one”s politics is multi-dimensional and doesn’t fit neatly into old labels. Those labels nowadays don’t apply in the way they once did. By 20th Century standards, Rishi Sunak’s Government would have been considered left wing socialists. Western societies have moved considerably left.
No one nowadays wants anyone, anywhere to be poor, so demonising people who vote for ‘right of centre’ parties misses so many points. One of which is that creating more state dependency has failed to eradicate the tiny percentage of families in Britain staying very poor. Yet to pay for state dependency, the middle classes have less disposable income than ever before and many have themselves become classified as what now is called poor in UK – even though everyone has free education and healthcare, more and better consumer goods and creature comforts than ever before.
The problem is that the reasons there are still poor have been incredibly different to fix, especially the weather and its role in water supply in some parts of the world and varying natural intelligence levels. Since millions of clever people have tried to eradicate poverty over centuries and so far failed doesn’t mean we aren’t making progress – we are. Global poverty is declining as we educate people and empower women. Half the population are female, so empowering them in developing countries will also eventually reduce impoverishing warmongering.
So, I’ll vote for those who enable people to pick the ball up and run with it, rather than those who claim that they can completely level every playing field.
David Baker
1 year ago
I suppose I tend not to read many “progressive”oriented articles these days (though really I prefer historically grounded and interesting thinkers like Mary Harrington, rather than a specific political orientation). So I don’t always see the progressive viewpoint of other opinions, but even several years ago I frequently read more progressive sources.
If this article is a good example of a left-wing philosopher’s assumptions on people of other world views, what a sorry state left-wing discourse truly is in. She essentially argues the only reason someone might oppose the Left is because they are a provincial who hates others. Being a public intellectual should mean having to grapple with the opinions of those who disagree, should mean at least trying to think outside your own box on occasion. This is just straw man after straw man.
Then, rather than trying to grapple with the possibility that woke excesses are an outgrowth of the very liberalism she defends, she says the Woke are bad because are just becoming like the Right. So again, her worldview breaks down to this: people who agree with me are good, others are evil and wicked.
Last edited 1 year ago by David Baker
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
”In a few short decades, woke was transformed from a term of praise to a term of abuse.”
I always took ‘Left’ to mean either a parasite or a totalitarian. I took ‘Woke’ to mean love of that which is degenerate, and hate of that which is Decent.
‘’emotions traditional to the Left: empathy for the marginalized, indignation at the plight of the oppressed, determination that historical wrongs can be righted.”
I have NEVER thought of compassion or empathy being of the Left. Having seen a great deal of the world, Left always means oppression and at the same time destruction of wealth production; so all end up in poverty, it is always and everywhere cruel and causes suffering..
This article is like a Flat-Earther, an argument built floating in the air; taking it for granted the flat-earth laws of physics are real, and we all believe in them, wile patently they are totally false.
But I get the problem, the writer is a Lefty Philosopher…..an oxymoron, so it is merely a faith based article, and faith based on completely fallacious arguments.
Woke is Left. It comes directly from the Frankfurt School and to us via Neo-Marxism and Postmodernism. Both very destructive and cruel belief systems.
Basically ‘Woke is the love of that which is degenerate and contrary to Western Ethics, and is Against that which is decent and part of Western Ethics. It is just a self harming pathology, like Left is. Left is the Mother of Woke.
Woke is Foucault’s love of preying on Algerian boys while preaching about colonialism and injustices. The fact that such a degenerate is the most highly cited writer on the modern left is all one needs to know.
A propos, this excerpt from my heroic couplet satire, The Wokeiad:-
**********
Aeolus loosens now his knotted bag,
And the Anemoi from their prison drags.
Mild Zephyr cedes to Boreas the stage,
And Auster vies with Eurus in his rage. 130
Zeus flings his bolts and furiously raves,
And Lord Poseidon’s trident moils the waves.
Wokeness remorselessly through wind and rain
Grinds o’er first Lusitania then Spain,
Where Helios in triumph late restored
Is by his sky-clad acolytes adored,
Then left at Benidorm and up the coast,
Where basting nudists on the playas roast.
Over the Pyrrenees to soaked Camargue,
The hinterland of France’s nouvelle vague. 140
Next Paris, pantheon of po-mo spells,
A shrine to Foucault and to Foucault else:
The Tunis Gary Glitter, Humbert of
Bedouin boy, the freshman’s Nabokov,
White polo-neck, bald head, perverted grin:
Glans peanis peeping from its peeled foreskin,
Wokeness’s Baptist John or Salomé
Traducer of epistemologé.
A propos, this excerpt from my heroic couplet satire, The Wokeiad:-
**********
Aeolus loosens now his knotted bag,
And the Anemoi from their prison drags.
Mild Zephyr cedes to Boreas the stage,
And Auster vies with Eurus in his rage. 130
Zeus flings his bolts and furiously raves,
And Lord Poseidon’s trident moils the waves.
Wokeness remorselessly through wind and rain
Grinds o’er first Lusitania then Spain,
Where Helios in triumph late restored
Is by his sky-clad acolytes adored,
Then left at Benidorm and up the coast,
Where basting nudists on the playas roast.
Over the Pyrrenees to soaked Camargue,
The hinterland of France’s nouvelle vague. 140
Next Paris, pantheon of po-mo spells,
A shrine to Foucault and to Foucault else:
The Tunis Gary Glitter, Humbert of
Bedouin boy, the freshman’s Nabokov,
White polo-neck, bald head, perverted grin:
Glans peaniss peeping from its peeled foreskin,
Wokeness’s Baptist John or Salomé
Traducer of epistemologé.
Your dislike of my mockery of woke suggests that you are pro-woke, and therefore in favour of the sexualisation, drugging, and mutilation of children. On this basis, I say “ok groomer” to you.
Jesus. Points for just saying it this time instead of editing it back.
Mock away but you will not change woke hearts and minds with insults and mockery Mr Craven.
And I still think your poem is crap.
Jesus. Points for just saying it this time instead of editing it back.
Mock away but you will not change woke hearts and minds with insults and mockery Mr Craven.
And I still think your poem is crap.
Your dislike of my mockery of woke suggests that you are pro-woke, and therefore in favour of the sexualisation, drugging, and mutilation of children. On this basis, I say “ok groomer” to you.
With a bit if editing you could condense it to shorter more reader-friendly version. Might I suggest:
Roses are Red
Violets are Blue
I hates the Wokies
And so should you
With a bit if editing you could condense it to shorter more reader-friendly version. Might I suggest:
Roses are Red
Violets are Blue
I hates the Wokies
And so should you
I’m on the left, I guess, and have never read Foucault, and never intend to. I also don’t share his, and your, fascination with Algerian boys. Pretty weak argument if your aim is to demonise anyone on the left.
Left always meant to me bring down the leaders who rule and oppress ten times worse with the new left leaders. These militant movements always end badly. Democracy was a series of steps over a period by wise people who thought as they went. A movement to give and not oppress.
Another reply that has me baffled. What militant movements are we talking about? Putting everything into a neat and tidy little basket? In real life, Tony, most things are shades of grey, unless you live in a Daily Mail/GB News Echo Chamber where the mistakes and contradictions in their own positions are always blamed on someone else.
If you’re looking to make some point about viewing life in only black and white terms, I’m not sure the right/centre right is the best place to draw inspiration from. We aren’t the ones saying “If you disagree with us, you’re evil” at every opportunity.
If you’re looking to make some point about viewing life in only black and white terms, I’m not sure the right/centre right is the best place to draw inspiration from. We aren’t the ones saying “If you disagree with us, you’re evil” at every opportunity.
Another reply that has me baffled. What militant movements are we talking about? Putting everything into a neat and tidy little basket? In real life, Tony, most things are shades of grey, unless you live in a Daily Mail/GB News Echo Chamber where the mistakes and contradictions in their own positions are always blamed on someone else.
I’ll explain: R Wright is describing hypocrisy. He is not fascinated with Algerian boys. Michel Foucault was a homosexual pedophile who decried the “evils of colonialism” whilst sexually abusing foreign male children for his own pleasure. It’s called an example.
No he’s not. He used an ‘example’ to make an ideological point. Foucault’s sexuality does not negate what he had to say on colonialism or mean that it somehow equates to anyone who has questions about colonialism being either hypocrites themselves or automatically wrong.
Yes indeed. You have to make this basic point again and again on here. Attacking a person does *not* attack their argument, unless their arument is about them as a person. The discussion, insofar as there was one, was about whether left or right wing people are ‘better?’ So let’s take candidate one, Edmund Burke, often considered the father of conservatism, but oh no look, lots of people saw him as progressive in his own time (e.g. he supported the American Revolution)! Can he even be described as right wing..
Adam Smith (apparent father of capitalism) another classic example, he – like Marx – was very worried about the alienating effects that repetitive labour, such as in his famous pin factory that we see on £20 notes, would have on on workers.
Which entirely misses the point that the argument was whether this negated everything he said, and the pretty absurd assertion that everyone on ‘the left’ read him and therefore it invalidated anything they stood for as well.
He was perverse in every way and his philosophy was essentially Marxist in that he sought to deconstruct western society by deconstructing all it held dear and declaring it false. The fact that he was a degenerate, disgusting paedophile who buggered small boys on gravestones does give some sense of his values.
Sigh…to repeat again, I have never read him, couldn’t care less about him but objected to the idea that any criticism of colonialism is invalidated by his comments on it.
Sigh…to repeat again, I have never read him, couldn’t care less about him but objected to the idea that any criticism of colonialism is invalidated by his comments on it.
John his whole philosophy was about creating a society in which people with his predilections could operate freely and to their hearts content. So I’d say it has rather a lot to do with his writing.
He was perverse in every way and his philosophy was essentially Marxist in that he sought to deconstruct western society by deconstructing all it held dear and declaring it false. The fact that he was a degenerate, disgusting paedophile who buggered small boys on gravestones does give some sense of his values.
John his whole philosophy was about creating a society in which people with his predilections could operate freely and to their hearts content. So I’d say it has rather a lot to do with his writing.
Which entirely misses the point that the argument was whether this negated everything he said, and the pretty absurd assertion that everyone on ‘the left’ read him and therefore it invalidated anything they stood for as well.
Yes indeed. You have to make this basic point again and again on here. Attacking a person does *not* attack their argument, unless their arument is about them as a person. The discussion, insofar as there was one, was about whether left or right wing people are ‘better?’ So let’s take candidate one, Edmund Burke, often considered the father of conservatism, but oh no look, lots of people saw him as progressive in his own time (e.g. he supported the American Revolution)! Can he even be described as right wing..
Adam Smith (apparent father of capitalism) another classic example, he – like Marx – was very worried about the alienating effects that repetitive labour, such as in his famous pin factory that we see on £20 notes, would have on on workers.
No he’s not. He used an ‘example’ to make an ideological point. Foucault’s sexuality does not negate what he had to say on colonialism or mean that it somehow equates to anyone who has questions about colonialism being either hypocrites themselves or automatically wrong.
Left always meant to me bring down the leaders who rule and oppress ten times worse with the new left leaders. These militant movements always end badly. Democracy was a series of steps over a period by wise people who thought as they went. A movement to give and not oppress.
I’ll explain: R Wright is describing hypocrisy. He is not fascinated with Algerian boys. Michel Foucault was a homosexual pedophile who decried the “evils of colonialism” whilst sexually abusing foreign male children for his own pleasure. It’s called an example.
A propos, this excerpt from my heroic couplet satire, The Wokeiad:-
**********
Aeolus loosens now his knotted bag,
And the Anemoi from their prison drags.
Mild Zephyr cedes to Boreas the stage,
And Auster vies with Eurus in his rage. 130
Zeus flings his bolts and furiously raves,
And Lord Poseidon’s trident moils the waves.
Wokeness remorselessly through wind and rain
Grinds o’er first Lusitania then Spain,
Where Helios in triumph late restored
Is by his sky-clad acolytes adored,
Then left at Benidorm and up the coast,
Where basting nudists on the playas roast.
Over the Pyrrenees to soaked Camargue,
The hinterland of France’s nouvelle vague. 140
Next Paris, pantheon of po-mo spells,
A shrine to Foucault and to Foucault else:
The Tunis Gary Glitter, Humbert of
Bedouin boy, the freshman’s Nabokov,
White polo-neck, bald head, perverted grin:
Glans peanis peeping from its peeled foreskin,
Wokeness’s Baptist John or Salomé
Traducer of epistemologé.
A propos, this excerpt from my heroic couplet satire, The Wokeiad:-
**********
Aeolus loosens now his knotted bag,
And the Anemoi from their prison drags.
Mild Zephyr cedes to Boreas the stage,
And Auster vies with Eurus in his rage. 130
Zeus flings his bolts and furiously raves,
And Lord Poseidon’s trident moils the waves.
Wokeness remorselessly through wind and rain
Grinds o’er first Lusitania then Spain,
Where Helios in triumph late restored
Is by his sky-clad acolytes adored,
Then left at Benidorm and up the coast,
Where basting nudists on the playas roast.
Over the Pyrrenees to soaked Camargue,
The hinterland of France’s nouvelle vague. 140
Next Paris, pantheon of po-mo spells,
A shrine to Foucault and to Foucault else:
The Tunis Gary Glitter, Humbert of
Bedouin boy, the freshman’s Nabokov,
White polo-neck, bald head, perverted grin:
Glans peaniss peeping from its peeled foreskin,
Wokeness’s Baptist John or Salomé
Traducer of epistemologé.
I’m on the left, I guess, and have never read Foucault, and never intend to. I also don’t share his, and your, fascination with Algerian boys. Pretty weak argument if your aim is to demonise anyone on the left.
“The Left, more left, Lefty….”
Where are the Rights, or is it a dirty word? Are there any Rights? Are Rights automatically fas**st? Do you have to be Left or Right to have an opinion? Advice – don’t get hung up on left, left, left…. Have new ideas, ideas, ideas…
Where do the Greens come in your Left vs Right world? Surely, the Greens are the ultimate Lefties?
“emotions traditional to the Left: empathy for the marginalised, indignation at the plight of the oppressed, determination that historical wrongs can be righted”
Perhaps Neiman could have said “rhetoric” or “themes” rather than “emotions”. But they certainly are what made me, and many people, join the Left. The Right never mentions them.
Perhaps because those on the Right are actively finding and implementing solutions, whilst those on the Left are busy virtue signaling from their computers and bullying those with whom they disagree.
Au contraire.You’ve just described what republicans do….. criticise what democrats do without offering an alternative plan. They’re against everything but for nothing.
I think I’ve said this to you before, Clare: You obviously don’t know any Republicans. I was very active but left the party and became an Independent in the second GWB term because I was disgusted by the war in Iraq. Whilst the GOP is as stuffed with fossilized corruptocrats as the Democrat party, individual free-market conservatives are the people who solve problems. It’s what they do in all walks of life. Democrats keep the problems going for fun and profit.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone in the Freedom Caucus is willing or able to solve any problems. It’s difficult to look at any of the committees that have been set up under the likes of Jim Jordan and see anything other than partisan game playing of no use whatsoever to any average US citizen. Who really cares about Hunter Biden’s laptop? I think sweeping statements about Right = Good, Left = Bad (or vice versa) don’t help anyone or make either the UK or the US better countries that work for everyone, however they vote or don’t vote, which we should surely all want?
You would do well to look at state and town action, not DC. For those of us who have worked at the town level, we’re well aware that we have a great deal of power.
I don’t doubt it. I’m sure the street lighting committee in some small town in, say, Idaho do a great job. My point was that the Freedom Caucus, as an example, see Congress as a reality show and their 15 minutes of fame (see McCarthy’s election as proof) rather than a serious governing chamber for all of the country.
I don’t doubt it. I’m sure the street lighting committee in some small town in, say, Idaho do a great job. My point was that the Freedom Caucus, as an example, see Congress as a reality show and their 15 minutes of fame (see McCarthy’s election as proof) rather than a serious governing chamber for all of the country.
I care about it. I care about whether politicians and their criminal family members are screwing over 1/2 the country. I care that corporate media isn’t going after it with the same voraciousness that they did Trump and his children. We are now living with a two tier justice system and so hale yes I care about it.
You would do well to look at state and town action, not DC. For those of us who have worked at the town level, we’re well aware that we have a great deal of power.
I care about it. I care about whether politicians and their criminal family members are screwing over 1/2 the country. I care that corporate media isn’t going after it with the same voraciousness that they did Trump and his children. We are now living with a two tier justice system and so hale yes I care about it.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone in the Freedom Caucus is willing or able to solve any problems. It’s difficult to look at any of the committees that have been set up under the likes of Jim Jordan and see anything other than partisan game playing of no use whatsoever to any average US citizen. Who really cares about Hunter Biden’s laptop? I think sweeping statements about Right = Good, Left = Bad (or vice versa) don’t help anyone or make either the UK or the US better countries that work for everyone, however they vote or don’t vote, which we should surely all want?
I think I’ve said this to you before, Clare: You obviously don’t know any Republicans. I was very active but left the party and became an Independent in the second GWB term because I was disgusted by the war in Iraq. Whilst the GOP is as stuffed with fossilized corruptocrats as the Democrat party, individual free-market conservatives are the people who solve problems. It’s what they do in all walks of life. Democrats keep the problems going for fun and profit.
Au contraire.You’ve just described what republicans do….. criticise what democrats do without offering an alternative plan. They’re against everything but for nothing.
Indeed. But there are other excuses for tyranies that torture and oppress their people. The Left refers to the tendency which produces such tyrannies on the plea that they are helping “the downtrodden”, which is why the Woke are definitely a phenomenon of the Left — though their positions are hardly classical Marxism, their intellectual pedigree derives from the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School and anti- and post-colonialist thinkers who embraced Lenin’s provably wrong imperialism theory — and they to purport to be championing the downtrodden, no longer the working class (who are sneered at at “deplorables” on my side of the Pond, or “white van men” on the other), but women, and a grab-bag of ethnic and racial minorities, and folks with peculiar sexual proclivities.
Indeed. But there are other excuses for tyranies that torture and oppress their people. The Left refers to the tendency which produces such tyrannies on the plea that they are helping “the downtrodden”, which is why the Woke are definitely a phenomenon of the Left — though their positions are hardly classical Marxism, their intellectual pedigree derives from the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School and anti- and post-colonialist thinkers who embraced Lenin’s provably wrong imperialism theory — and they to purport to be championing the downtrodden, no longer the working class (who are sneered at at “deplorables” on my side of the Pond, or “white van men” on the other), but women, and a grab-bag of ethnic and racial minorities, and folks with peculiar sexual proclivities.
Really interesting responses. I haven’t been on the left for decades. My position is conservatives do good things rather than talk about them.
I was trying to point out a messaging problem. Yet all these people i probably agree with philosophically are furious. Makes me think even more that conservatives are super bad at winning people over.
Perhaps because those on the Right are actively finding and implementing solutions, whilst those on the Left are busy virtue signaling from their computers and bullying those with whom they disagree.
Really interesting responses. I haven’t been on the left for decades. My position is conservatives do good things rather than talk about them.
I was trying to point out a messaging problem. Yet all these people i probably agree with philosophically are furious. Makes me think even more that conservatives are super bad at winning people over.
I guess I’m on the Left. I believe that refugees and migrants are fellow human beings and should be treated accordingly. I believe giving pay rises to essential workers is more important than maintaining tax breaks for the top percentile. I believe public services vital to our safety and security should be owned by the British people not foreign investors only interested in treating them as a cash cow. I believe in a huge increase in affordable homes. I don’t believe a rich country like ours should tolerate food banks.
I don’t, though, have any interest in identity politics. Anyone who promises one simple solution to a complex problem loses my attention fast.
It seems to me you are a mirror image of the people on the left you are criticising, just as intolerant and one eyed. If we want a better country then folks of both left and right need to stop and think, and stop falling into rabbit holes.
If you call yourself something other than the left people may listen. The left means to me far worse than it means to you. It lets down every time. So does globalism as it happens. If you travel in Africa and Asia you will find well over a billion people want to come and live in Britain. I wouldn’t trust you to govern which would take wisdom not isms.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. That somehow treating refugees and migrants with traditional Christian values means we’ll have a billion Africans marching down Slough High Street before we know it? Do you really think the Clown Car masquerading as our government have ‘wisdom’!?! My point was that isms are bad, WHATEVER your politics and seeing everything through an ideological prism, as you obviously do, is hugely destructive to building a country that works well for everyone.
What is Christian about siphoning off the best and the brightest, as well as the merely able-bodied, from other lands near and far? What is Christian about what happens to those places?
Take El Salvador: anyone who can, flees. Who is left to protect the people from the criminal gangs? A similar dynamic afflicts American inner cities, whose ordinary residents flee to suburbs if they are able–Trump pointed this out–leaving behind a pathetic underclass who turns to drugs, prostitution and welfare. (An adjacent class is promised protection from this intentional blight and other advantages, in exchange for votes.)
And what is Christian about the term “economic migrants”? By the logic of this poorly-understood phrase, “economic prospects”–namely, working below market rates with no worker protections, or perhaps becoming a prostitute–are more important than family and country. Maybe they are brave for making a risky journey; but real courage would have these men stay at home and work hard to better their people. That’s Christian courage, something worth praying for.
What Christian can claim that a person’s right to consume comes before their responsibilities to those around them? That a life without the latest consumer goods is a life to flee? That a nation is somehow inferior, undesirable, because it isn’t as rich?
Only the most meaningless, sentimental form of Christianity. The kind that leads to such pious banalities as “I believe immigrants are human beings,” and would rather have a Dr. Feel-good making moral prescriptions, than an honest priest making practical advice.
What is Christian about siphoning off the best and the brightest, as well as the merely able-bodied, from other lands near and far? What is Christian about what happens to those places?
Take El Salvador: anyone who can, flees. Who is left to protect the people from the criminal gangs? A similar dynamic afflicts American inner cities, whose ordinary residents flee to suburbs if they are able–Trump pointed this out–leaving behind a pathetic underclass who turns to drugs, prostitution and welfare. (An adjacent class is promised protection from this intentional blight and other advantages, in exchange for votes.)
And what is Christian about the term “economic migrants”? By the logic of this poorly-understood phrase, “economic prospects”–namely, working below market rates with no worker protections, or perhaps becoming a prostitute–are more important than family and country. Maybe they are brave for making a risky journey; but real courage would have these men stay at home and work hard to better their people. That’s Christian courage, something worth praying for.
What Christian can claim that a person’s right to consume comes before their responsibilities to those around them? That a life without the latest consumer goods is a life to flee? That a nation is somehow inferior, undesirable, because it isn’t as rich?
Only the most meaningless, sentimental form of Christianity. The kind that leads to such pious banalities as “I believe immigrants are human beings,” and would rather have a Dr. Feel-good making moral prescriptions, than an honest priest making practical advice.
Identity politics if ever I saw it “call yourself something other than Left”. John described his viewpoints because labels are so very ambiguous in politics.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. That somehow treating refugees and migrants with traditional Christian values means we’ll have a billion Africans marching down Slough High Street before we know it? Do you really think the Clown Car masquerading as our government have ‘wisdom’!?! My point was that isms are bad, WHATEVER your politics and seeing everything through an ideological prism, as you obviously do, is hugely destructive to building a country that works well for everyone.
Identity politics if ever I saw it “call yourself something other than Left”. John described his viewpoints because labels are so very ambiguous in politics.
Are you by any remote chance from Scotland?Because that is the sort sentimental wokist piffle one always hears from there.
However your unabashed vanity signalling is noted.
Thanks to cretins like you ‘Twitter’ Murray the BAME population of these Islands is around 10 million souls, representing 19% of the population!*
You state “I guess I’m on the Left”; NO you are deranged, and need help immediately. Good luck!
Does it make you feel better calling someone trying to discuss something. ‘cretin’? How are you different from all of those angry identitarians which this excellent article takes issue with?
Incidentally have you been following this little digression from the start?
If you have been you will have noticed that I very mildly chastised JM for his somewhat incoherent opening sentence.
He didn’t like that and ‘wet his pants’ as we say over here, and the rest is history.
Anyway the audience seem to have liked it and I garnered 64 ‘thumbs up’ whilst JM trailed rather on 43 ‘thumbs down’.
Perhaps you should try your hand? It’s only words after all.
Incidentally have you been following this little digression from the start?
If you have been you will have noticed that I very mildly chastised JM for his somewhat incoherent opening sentence.
He didn’t like that and ‘wet his pants’ as we say over here, and the rest is history.
Anyway the audience seem to have liked it and I garnered 64 ‘thumbs up’ whilst JM trailed rather on 43 ‘thumbs down’.
Perhaps you should try your hand? It’s only words after all.
Does it make you feel better calling someone trying to discuss something. ‘cretin’? How are you different from all of those angry identitarians which this excellent article takes issue with?
Right on!!! It seems that whether one is left or right depends on what kind of person you are. Politics can’t be separated from psychology, it’s a reflection of who we are. One doubts that a psychopath would be liberal (in the classical sense of the word) and liberals tend to be empathic and compassionate.
Really?
What about Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Moa, Pol Pot and Tony Blair, to name but a few of your liberals, “ in the classicalE sense of the word”, as you would say.
I wouldn’t mind you being a nasty little man, Chuckling Charlie, if you had anything of import, or that made any sense, to say. You seem to have got your views from Nigel Farage after he had spent most of the night in the pub. And in what universe are Pol Pot and Mao ‘liberals’? Read a book without pictures some time, or if that’s too much of a problem get your carers to read it to you.
Yes, I’ve not been a subscriber long but Mr Stanhope or the Mr Stanhopes is one reason why I left Twitter. If anyone challenges his faux intellectualism his first response seems to channel his inner Trump. Sad but most people seem to want to engage in a genuine debate.
That’s better Murray! “Manners maketh man” as the good Bishop* said.
However the problem with people like you is that their conceit far, far, outreaches their intellect. All this faux nonsense about:-
“I believe public services vital to our safety and security should be owned by the British people not foreign investors”.
or even worse this:-
“treating refugees and migrants with traditional Christian values”!
The only thing you really care about is John Murray;
The rest is just a sanctimonious charade that gratifies your immense vanity.
Is that not so?
Oh dear you seem to have relapsed, which will be a great disappointment to Desmond Wolf Esq, although no doubt your two* ‘Lefty’ acolytes will be pleased.
Also why can you NOT defend those two ludicrous statements I repeated above?
Perhaps because they are indefensible?
Oh dear you seem to have relapsed, which will be a great disappointment to Desmond Wolf Esq, although no doubt your two* ‘Lefty’ acolytes will be pleased.
Also why can you NOT defend those two ludicrous statements I repeated above?
Perhaps because they are indefensible?
That’s better Murray! “Manners maketh man” as the good Bishop* said.
However the problem with people like you is that their conceit far, far, outreaches their intellect. All this faux nonsense about:-
“I believe public services vital to our safety and security should be owned by the British people not foreign investors”.
or even worse this:-
“treating refugees and migrants with traditional Christian values”!
The only thing you really care about is John Murray;
The rest is just a sanctimonious charade that gratifies your immense vanity.
Is that not so?
I would agree with this – so far at best an interesting sort of roulette wheel of middle England opinions, thrown around like they’re clods of mud in the hope (possibly) that they’ll stick to something, but so far seems to have neither the stamina nor respect required for properly engaging with an argument.
I would but have essays to mark. And am still waiting for your reply to my comment on Eagleton’s piece on the strikers! I thought we were finding some common ground but I fear my patience with you may have worn you down.
You are correct, “guilty as charged”
I am so sorry and cannot think why I failed to reply!
Perhaps because it was a rather animated discussion as I recall.
Please don’t think me rude but it’s now time for my bed, but I shall endeavour to post a fulsome reply tomorrow.
You are correct, “guilty as charged”
I am so sorry and cannot think why I failed to reply!
Perhaps because it was a rather animated discussion as I recall.
Please don’t think me rude but it’s now time for my bed, but I shall endeavour to post a fulsome reply tomorrow.
I would but have essays to mark. And am still waiting for your reply to my comment on Eagleton’s piece on the strikers! I thought we were finding some common ground but I fear my patience with you may have worn you down.
Yes, I’ve not been a subscriber long but Mr Stanhope or the Mr Stanhopes is one reason why I left Twitter. If anyone challenges his faux intellectualism his first response seems to channel his inner Trump. Sad but most people seem to want to engage in a genuine debate.
I would agree with this – so far at best an interesting sort of roulette wheel of middle England opinions, thrown around like they’re clods of mud in the hope (possibly) that they’ll stick to something, but so far seems to have neither the stamina nor respect required for properly engaging with an argument.
I think that was exactly the point I was making. Glad you have the self awareness to recognise your contribution is a triumph of conceit over intellect. I am though surprised as I wasn’t expecting any self awareness from you. Small steps, Charles, small steps…
I think that was exactly the point I was making. Glad you have the self awareness to recognise your contribution is a triumph of conceit over intellect. I am though surprised as I wasn’t expecting any self awareness from you. Small steps, Charles, small steps…
Could you, please, stop writing stupid things? I trust you actually realize that when people clarify the word “liberal” with the adjective “classical” they are referring to what the word meant before it was stolen by the Left on my side of the Pond: supportive of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and free markets, a usage still preserved in the name of the centre-right party in Australian, the Liberal Party.
Thanks to the corruption of the word by the American Left, those of us who are actually classical liberals in America are now called “Conservatives”, because conserving the American Founding, the quitessentially liberal (in the original meanin) event in world history is most of what we are about politically.
Aha, another American enters the fray! And one as I recall who couldn’t even distinguish between William Pitt the Elder, and William the Younger!
However in my case ‘Classical’ means the world of Ancient Greece and Rome, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with contemporary American politics.
I would have thought that was abundantly clear, so please stop spouting such pretentious drivel, it only makes you look stupid. ( Alas for the second time on UnHerd.).
Aha, another American enters the fray! And one as I recall who couldn’t even distinguish between William Pitt the Elder, and William the Younger!
However in my case ‘Classical’ means the world of Ancient Greece and Rome, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with contemporary American politics.
I would have thought that was abundantly clear, so please stop spouting such pretentious drivel, it only makes you look stupid. ( Alas for the second time on UnHerd.).
I wouldn’t mind you being a nasty little man, Chuckling Charlie, if you had anything of import, or that made any sense, to say. You seem to have got your views from Nigel Farage after he had spent most of the night in the pub. And in what universe are Pol Pot and Mao ‘liberals’? Read a book without pictures some time, or if that’s too much of a problem get your carers to read it to you.
Could you, please, stop writing stupid things? I trust you actually realize that when people clarify the word “liberal” with the adjective “classical” they are referring to what the word meant before it was stolen by the Left on my side of the Pond: supportive of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and free markets, a usage still preserved in the name of the centre-right party in Australian, the Liberal Party.
Thanks to the corruption of the word by the American Left, those of us who are actually classical liberals in America are now called “Conservatives”, because conserving the American Founding, the quitessentially liberal (in the original meanin) event in world history is most of what we are about politically.
Really?
What about Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Moa, Pol Pot and Tony Blair, to name but a few of your liberals, “ in the classicalE sense of the word”, as you would say.
They are coming to the USA to make money, most care nothing for the prevailing culture or history or even bother learning the language. I don’t mind helping their countries out but they should try to make it better for themselves instead of draining my country dry.
The problem for me is that so many people who proudly identify as Left and clearly feel virtuous for doing so are often rather uninformed and naive ‘useful idiots’.
I find it interesting that those who like to consider themselves kind and good and therefore obviously on the so-called ‘good’ side of politics, will bristle with outrage at say British Colonialism and its impact on indigenous peoples but love to vent their unalloyed disgust against any fellow countryman and woman who dares air their concern, or voices any negative as to the impact of the unprecedented mass immigration of the past 25 years let alone the clear abuse of immigration and asylum rules currently taking place on our borders. The left feel they can boldly berate and criticise locals who object and love nothing better to censure and silence their voices with nasty labels such as bigot and racist. In fact, they proudly flag their disdain with the confidence one might have suspected some colonialist abroad would have held for the native peoples ways and traditions they encountered 150 years ago. There is only a vile whiff of ignorance and snobbery in such attitudes: nothing remotely virtuous.
If you call yourself something other than the left people may listen. The left means to me far worse than it means to you. It lets down every time. So does globalism as it happens. If you travel in Africa and Asia you will find well over a billion people want to come and live in Britain. I wouldn’t trust you to govern which would take wisdom not isms.
Are you by any remote chance from Scotland?Because that is the sort sentimental wokist piffle one always hears from there.
However your unabashed vanity signalling is noted.
Thanks to cretins like you ‘Twitter’ Murray the BAME population of these Islands is around 10 million souls, representing 19% of the population!*
You state “I guess I’m on the Left”; NO you are deranged, and need help immediately. Good luck!
Right on!!! It seems that whether one is left or right depends on what kind of person you are. Politics can’t be separated from psychology, it’s a reflection of who we are. One doubts that a psychopath would be liberal (in the classical sense of the word) and liberals tend to be empathic and compassionate.
They are coming to the USA to make money, most care nothing for the prevailing culture or history or even bother learning the language. I don’t mind helping their countries out but they should try to make it better for themselves instead of draining my country dry.
The problem for me is that so many people who proudly identify as Left and clearly feel virtuous for doing so are often rather uninformed and naive ‘useful idiots’.
I find it interesting that those who like to consider themselves kind and good and therefore obviously on the so-called ‘good’ side of politics, will bristle with outrage at say British Colonialism and its impact on indigenous peoples but love to vent their unalloyed disgust against any fellow countryman and woman who dares air their concern, or voices any negative as to the impact of the unprecedented mass immigration of the past 25 years let alone the clear abuse of immigration and asylum rules currently taking place on our borders. The left feel they can boldly berate and criticise locals who object and love nothing better to censure and silence their voices with nasty labels such as bigot and racist. In fact, they proudly flag their disdain with the confidence one might have suspected some colonialist abroad would have held for the native peoples ways and traditions they encountered 150 years ago. There is only a vile whiff of ignorance and snobbery in such attitudes: nothing remotely virtuous.
Likewise. Left has always meant opression of the masses to me as well as played out in Communism where the people were just puppets available to opress and murder if need be. It is the biggest poison played out before us in the last century. A century of blood, torture and murder. The poison of this century may well come to us through the globalists. Think “You will own nothing but be happy” espoused by The World Economic Forum. I believe that is the biggest danger we have just now and could end in horror and oppression for millions. These things always start with good ideas like Nazism and Communism..
Woke is Foucault’s love of preying on Algerian boys while preaching about colonialism and injustices. The fact that such a degenerate is the most highly cited writer on the modern left is all one needs to know.
“The Left, more left, Lefty….”
Where are the Rights, or is it a dirty word? Are there any Rights? Are Rights automatically fas**st? Do you have to be Left or Right to have an opinion? Advice – don’t get hung up on left, left, left…. Have new ideas, ideas, ideas…
Where do the Greens come in your Left vs Right world? Surely, the Greens are the ultimate Lefties?
“emotions traditional to the Left: empathy for the marginalised, indignation at the plight of the oppressed, determination that historical wrongs can be righted”
Perhaps Neiman could have said “rhetoric” or “themes” rather than “emotions”. But they certainly are what made me, and many people, join the Left. The Right never mentions them.
I guess I’m on the Left. I believe that refugees and migrants are fellow human beings and should be treated accordingly. I believe giving pay rises to essential workers is more important than maintaining tax breaks for the top percentile. I believe public services vital to our safety and security should be owned by the British people not foreign investors only interested in treating them as a cash cow. I believe in a huge increase in affordable homes. I don’t believe a rich country like ours should tolerate food banks.
I don’t, though, have any interest in identity politics. Anyone who promises one simple solution to a complex problem loses my attention fast.
It seems to me you are a mirror image of the people on the left you are criticising, just as intolerant and one eyed. If we want a better country then folks of both left and right need to stop and think, and stop falling into rabbit holes.
Likewise. Left has always meant opression of the masses to me as well as played out in Communism where the people were just puppets available to opress and murder if need be. It is the biggest poison played out before us in the last century. A century of blood, torture and murder. The poison of this century may well come to us through the globalists. Think “You will own nothing but be happy” espoused by The World Economic Forum. I believe that is the biggest danger we have just now and could end in horror and oppression for millions. These things always start with good ideas like Nazism and Communism..
Yikes!! But yes, you said in a nutshell how the right is using the word woke as put down of all that threatens them and all they disagee with.
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
”In a few short decades, woke was transformed from a term of praise to a term of abuse.”
I always took ‘Left’ to mean either a parasite or a totalitarian. I took ‘Woke’ to mean love of that which is degenerate, and hate of that which is Decent.
‘’emotions traditional to the Left: empathy for the marginalized, indignation at the plight of the oppressed, determination that historical wrongs can be righted.”
I have NEVER thought of compassion or empathy being of the Left. Having seen a great deal of the world, Left always means oppression and at the same time destruction of wealth production; so all end up in poverty, it is always and everywhere cruel and causes suffering..
This article is like a Flat-Earther, an argument built floating in the air; taking it for granted the flat-earth laws of physics are real, and we all believe in them, wile patently they are totally false.
But I get the problem, the writer is a Lefty Philosopher…..an oxymoron, so it is merely a faith based article, and faith based on completely fallacious arguments.
Woke is Left. It comes directly from the Frankfurt School and to us via Neo-Marxism and Postmodernism. Both very destructive and cruel belief systems.
Basically ‘Woke is the love of that which is degenerate and contrary to Western Ethics, and is Against that which is decent and part of Western Ethics. It is just a self harming pathology, like Left is. Left is the Mother of Woke.
Saul D
1 year ago
Universalism implies centralisation. Unite the left and unite the world. It ignores the importance of the nation-state. Not as the embodiment of a tribe, but as a polity with shared geographic, and often cultural interests derived directly from that geography.
The history of the world is one of centralisation into ‘universal’ empires followed by discontent and collapse and the emergence of independence nations based on local needs, and issues of local resources.
It is also not just luck of the draw as to which nation you are born into, it also relates to the struggles and industry of your parents, and their parents, and their parents. Struggles that got the vote, created trade unions, achieved freedom of speech, battled for equality against (universalist) autocrats and censors. These weren’t given by generous universalists, but won bit-by-bit in the fights for self-determination.
So you’re wrong to think that people in general have moved rightwards. It’s just the progressive left has abandoned support for basic human freedoms that a middle-of-the-road leftie took for granted 20-30 years ago. Freedom of speech. Fairness under the law. Due process. Equality and everyone treated equally. Protection of civil liberties. The Progressive Left have become the autocrats demonising and dismissing anything against their ‘regime’ as ‘far right’. The real question here is when, and why, did Progressives turn into tyrants?
The longer all this persists the more I think the left has pretty much nothing meaningful to offer. All it is is intellectualising and theories (although the left in its entirety is notably devoid of any economic ideas). It is stuck in theory because the practical examples of it’s supposed betterment of the world are a f*****g catastrophe.
The “discontent” in your second paragraph invariably follows the rise of elites in successful centralized empires and the corruption they invariably bring as they attempt to tribalize their way into permanence.
I am old enough to remember when the “left” was constantly protesting outside of the World Trade Organization over their abuses. Now the modern left is all in on globalization.
I am old enough to remember when the “left” was constantly protesting outside of the World Trade Organization over their abuses. Now the modern left is all in on globalization.
Yes, hard to see how there can be eg democracy in anything except (something like) a nation state. Modern westerners (esp progressives) have even forgotten that the purpose of a democracy is to allow for an element of control by the majority (rather than a vehicle to promote minority rights) and that there must be a recognisable, somewhat unified demos for democracy to even exist.
The longer all this persists the more I think the left has pretty much nothing meaningful to offer. All it is is intellectualising and theories (although the left in its entirety is notably devoid of any economic ideas). It is stuck in theory because the practical examples of it’s supposed betterment of the world are a f*****g catastrophe.
The “discontent” in your second paragraph invariably follows the rise of elites in successful centralized empires and the corruption they invariably bring as they attempt to tribalize their way into permanence.
Yes, hard to see how there can be eg democracy in anything except (something like) a nation state. Modern westerners (esp progressives) have even forgotten that the purpose of a democracy is to allow for an element of control by the majority (rather than a vehicle to promote minority rights) and that there must be a recognisable, somewhat unified demos for democracy to even exist.
Saul D
1 year ago
Universalism implies centralisation. Unite the left and unite the world. It ignores the importance of the nation-state. Not as the embodiment of a tribe, but as a polity with shared geographic, and often cultural interests derived directly from that geography.
The history of the world is one of centralisation into ‘universal’ empires followed by discontent and collapse and the emergence of independence nations based on local needs, and issues of local resources.
It is also not just luck of the draw as to which nation you are born into, it also relates to the struggles and industry of your parents, and their parents, and their parents. Struggles that got the vote, created trade unions, achieved freedom of speech, battled for equality against (universalist) autocrats and censors. These weren’t given by generous universalists, but won bit-by-bit in the fights for self-determination.
So you’re wrong to think that people in general have moved rightwards. It’s just the progressive left has abandoned support for basic human freedoms that a middle-of-the-road leftie took for granted 20-30 years ago. Freedom of speech. Fairness under the law. Due process. Equality and everyone treated equally. Protection of civil liberties. The Progressive Left have become the autocrats demonising and dismissing anything against their ‘regime’ as ‘far right’. The real question here is when, and why, did Progressives turn into tyrants?
Tony Taylor
1 year ago
“Progressive activists have forgotten their intellectual roots” and they despise the working class.
The useful people. Those who genuinely contribute to society.
For over fifty years, I have believed the problem with society isn’t that too few people go to university rather it is the stigmatisation of the actual working class, the useful people. I found it odd Tony Blair believed sending more people to university would change things, the outcome is a proliferation of universities staffed by unintelligent and, for the most part, uneducated bigots intent on destroying society who proudly announce their bias, fondly believing it enhances their status, whilst silencing all intelligent, questioning debate.
I’m an academic from a working class background and I cannot imagine ever looking down on my roots or the people I grew up with. I wasn’t brought up that way and it is something I try to impress on my own children.
I have no idea what kind of academic you are or the quality of your work, but I do wonder what careers you ‘encourage’ your children to pursue and why you chose academia. Stigmatisation is a subtle art. I was actually relieved when my son chose to leave academia and he was assured a glittering career. His undergraduate degree exposed him to wokism, his PhD and post doc were hard science and useful. He is becoming gradually less woke.
I more or less fell into academia, if that makes sense. I am a scientist researching in the fields of biochemistry and bioinformatics. My family is still young, so encouragement towards certain vocations is not a major issue right now, but my wife (who is a nurse) and I do not denigrate manual workers. We live in a non-western nation that highly prizes cognition and knowledge work, so we understand the intense pressure on our kids to perform well at school, while recognising that knowledge work is only possible because of all the manual work that happens to support it. We try to impress on our kids the importance of everyone’s contribution to society.
I more or less fell into academia, if that makes sense. I am a scientist researching in the fields of biochemistry and bioinformatics. My family is still young, so encouragement towards certain vocations is not a major issue right now, but my wife (who is a nurse) and I do not denigrate manual workers. We live in a non-western nation that highly prizes cognition and knowledge work, so we understand the intense pressure on our kids to perform well at school, while recognising that knowledge work is only possible because of all the manual work that happens to support it. We try to impress on our kids the importance of everyone’s contribution to society.
I have no idea what kind of academic you are or the quality of your work, but I do wonder what careers you ‘encourage’ your children to pursue and why you chose academia. Stigmatisation is a subtle art. I was actually relieved when my son chose to leave academia and he was assured a glittering career. His undergraduate degree exposed him to wokism, his PhD and post doc were hard science and useful. He is becoming gradually less woke.
Annoyingly it is John Major you can thank for the proliferation of Universities and thus the destruction of quality for quantity.
However it is refreshing that everyone blames the wretched Blair creature for this titanic blunder.
Thank you for the correction Charles. Accuracy is important tome (usually). John Major never attended university himself so probably felt deprived and wished to help others he identified with – a kind of extended self-pity.
Thank you for the correction Charles. Accuracy is important tome (usually). John Major never attended university himself so probably felt deprived and wished to help others he identified with – a kind of extended self-pity.
I’m an academic from a working class background and I cannot imagine ever looking down on my roots or the people I grew up with. I wasn’t brought up that way and it is something I try to impress on my own children.
Annoyingly it is John Major you can thank for the proliferation of Universities and thus the destruction of quality for quantity.
However it is refreshing that everyone blames the wretched Blair creature for this titanic blunder.
Along with every f*cker else, the banks are doing great right now, the energy sanctions are fabulous and supply chains are really improving in the 21st century. You need to expand your criticism.
First Republic? I have been keeping up. Its not looking great at the moment economy wise.
Too many people were busy having culture wars, fiddling and talking nonsense instead of paying attention to the economy, which fundamentally keeps everything going.
Grumpy I am today, nobody listened to the people that were warning about this.
Thanks my memory is fading! But you are spot on, too much hubris and not enough grafting.
For example all this nonsense about the Climate Emergency! The usual hysterics with little better to do. In this case mainly from the Left, whilst on the Right we have the armchair bound Warmongers! Still it has been like this since at least 1917, if not before, so we shall have to endure it.
Indeed endure, just seems the way of the world, the news is never boring these days I suppose. I get to rant more often. Both sides seem very capable of making bad policies right now.
Oxford stopped requirng Greek for entry in 1920 and PPE was created in 1922 and it has been down hill since then. One can correlate the decline of Britain with the creation of PPE.
Indeed endure, just seems the way of the world, the news is never boring these days I suppose. I get to rant more often. Both sides seem very capable of making bad policies right now.
Oxford stopped requirng Greek for entry in 1920 and PPE was created in 1922 and it has been down hill since then. One can correlate the decline of Britain with the creation of PPE.
Thanks my memory is fading! But you are spot on, too much hubris and not enough grafting.
For example all this nonsense about the Climate Emergency! The usual hysterics with little better to do. In this case mainly from the Left, whilst on the Right we have the armchair bound Warmongers! Still it has been like this since at least 1917, if not before, so we shall have to endure it.
First Republic? I have been keeping up. Its not looking great at the moment economy wise.
Too many people were busy having culture wars, fiddling and talking nonsense instead of paying attention to the economy, which fundamentally keeps everything going.
Grumpy I am today, nobody listened to the people that were warning about this.
Your comments are. Uninspiring.
Energy markets and supply chains have nothing to do with bankers.
You have been busy writing crap poetry instead of paying attention to the economy though so I wouldn’t expect you to understand.
Im not sure people were ready for me to articulate any of my grievances.
I have no idea who dunning-kruger is, so apart from not understanding your joke, my grievance is not your mockery of woke but the way you go about it. I thought since you were championing trades I’d let you know my grievances.
Quoting from Wikipedia:-
“The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.”
In other words, I was making the point that the expansion of tertiary education has produced an “elite” of midwits, good for nothing except parroting woke nonsense, who look down on the skilled workers who, given the grasp of applied logic required of plumbers, electricians, mechanics and the like, are generally their intellectual superiors.
Now that is informative and no insults either, well done.
I think that applies more to the American government. I do feel more and more inclined to apply it to our own. Not sure if its intellectual superiority, perhaps a different mindset.
Now that is informative and no insults either, well done.
I think that applies more to the American government. I do feel more and more inclined to apply it to our own. Not sure if its intellectual superiority, perhaps a different mindset.
Quoting from Wikipedia:-
“The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.”
In other words, I was making the point that the expansion of tertiary education has produced an “elite” of midwits, good for nothing except parroting woke nonsense, who look down on the skilled workers who, given the grasp of applied logic required of plumbers, electricians, mechanics and the like, are generally their intellectual superiors.
Im not sure people were ready for me to articulate any of my grievances.
I have no idea who dunning-kruger is, so apart from not understanding your joke, my grievance is not your mockery of woke but the way you go about it. I thought since you were championing trades I’d let you know my grievances.
Your comments are. Uninspiring.
Energy markets and supply chains have nothing to do with bankers.
You have been busy writing crap poetry instead of paying attention to the economy though so I wouldn’t expect you to understand.
The useful people. Those who genuinely contribute to society.
For over fifty years, I have believed the problem with society isn’t that too few people go to university rather it is the stigmatisation of the actual working class, the useful people. I found it odd Tony Blair believed sending more people to university would change things, the outcome is a proliferation of universities staffed by unintelligent and, for the most part, uneducated bigots intent on destroying society who proudly announce their bias, fondly believing it enhances their status, whilst silencing all intelligent, questioning debate.
Along with every f*cker else, the banks are doing great right now, the energy sanctions are fabulous and supply chains are really improving in the 21st century. You need to expand your criticism.
Confess that I have little in common with the author politically/ideologically. But this statement is spot-on:
“Wokeness demands that nations and peoples face up to their criminal histories. But in the process, it often concludes that all history is criminal.“
“Facing-up” and “bowing down” are mutually exclusive and morally distinct ideas. One is legitimate and based upon truth and humility; the other is demonic and based upon lust and anger.
Confess that I have little in common with the author politically/ideologically. But this statement is spot-on:
“Wokeness demands that nations and peoples face up to their criminal histories. But in the process, it often concludes that all history is criminal.“
“Facing-up” and “bowing down” are mutually exclusive and morally distinct ideas. One is legitimate and based upon truth and humility; the other is demonic and based upon lust and anger.
Tony Taylor
1 year ago
“Progressive activists have forgotten their intellectual roots” and they despise the working class.
Julian Pellatt
1 year ago
The New York Times is not “particularly leftist”
Oh, really? That one line alone is sufficient to warrant consigning this article with its ‘Left = good/progressive; Right = bad/oppressive” cant to the rubbish bin.
I am all for considering differing viewpoints, but this sort of garbage fails to illuminate or engage.
Ironically, successive Tory governments in the UK have presided over the most catastrophic spread of woke policies and practices in every nook and cranny of daily existence here. The BBC (run by a Tory director-general and Tory chairman) churns out an endless menu of propaganda from dawn to dusk. The Woking Class is totally in control of every agenda and draws on people of left as well as right wing persuasion. Controlling us through identity politics is possibly the most effective mechanism for coercing ordinary people to obey and conform that has every been deployed in the history of politics. The notion of democracy has been destroyed by this pernicious process and now exists in name only.
Welcome to the brave new world!
Agree 100%. The BBC is the biggest enemy of our society. The BBC fanned the flames of the troubles in Ireland by taking sides. The BBC backed the Iraq venture by propaganda. The new DG of the BBC wrote new guidelines around its impartiality but that still didn’t stop the man with the inane grin.
The government has to remove the obligatory licence fee.
Actually the full quote does give that view more context.
the New York Times is neither unique nor particularly leftist, but it does set standards for progressive discourse in more than one country.
I must admit I did raise an eyebrow at that given their reputation, but then again, I had to ask myself when was the last time I read the New York Times and the answer was never.
I do read NYT articles from time to time and it is definitely left-wing! As for progressive discourse – what does ‘progressive’ actually mean in this quote. Its use in this context comes across as condescending and arrogant in the ‘we occupy the moral high ground’ sense.
I do read NYT articles from time to time and it is definitely left-wing! As for progressive discourse – what does ‘progressive’ actually mean in this quote. Its use in this context comes across as condescending and arrogant in the ‘we occupy the moral high ground’ sense.
Agree 100%. The BBC is the biggest enemy of our society. The BBC fanned the flames of the troubles in Ireland by taking sides. The BBC backed the Iraq venture by propaganda. The new DG of the BBC wrote new guidelines around its impartiality but that still didn’t stop the man with the inane grin.
The government has to remove the obligatory licence fee.
Actually the full quote does give that view more context.
the New York Times is neither unique nor particularly leftist, but it does set standards for progressive discourse in more than one country.
I must admit I did raise an eyebrow at that given their reputation, but then again, I had to ask myself when was the last time I read the New York Times and the answer was never.
There are NO Tories left, and there have in fact been precious few since the dreadful ‘Grocer’, Edward Heath.
Julian Pellatt
1 year ago
The New York Times is not “particularly leftist”
Oh, really? That one line alone is sufficient to warrant consigning this article with its ‘Left = good/progressive; Right = bad/oppressive” cant to the rubbish bin.
I am all for considering differing viewpoints, but this sort of garbage fails to illuminate or engage.
Ironically, successive Tory governments in the UK have presided over the most catastrophic spread of woke policies and practices in every nook and cranny of daily existence here. The BBC (run by a Tory director-general and Tory chairman) churns out an endless menu of propaganda from dawn to dusk. The Woking Class is totally in control of every agenda and draws on people of left as well as right wing persuasion. Controlling us through identity politics is possibly the most effective mechanism for coercing ordinary people to obey and conform that has every been deployed in the history of politics. The notion of democracy has been destroyed by this pernicious process and now exists in name only.
Welcome to the brave new world!
Steven Carr
1 year ago
Universalism – the belief that people in Albania have every right to settle in Basingstoke if they want to, and that people in Basingstoke have no say in the matter.
Why are they NOT been sent to sunny Scotland, or even Northern Ireland?
Answer: Because they would kill then.
Steven Carr
1 year ago
Universalism – the belief that people in Albania have every right to settle in Basingstoke if they want to, and that people in Basingstoke have no say in the matter.
Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
1 year ago
“ Until the middle of the 20th century, no one who was asked about a person’s identity would have mentioned race, sex, class, nationality, region or religion.”
I kind of stopped reading here because that is so untrue that the writer can’t thereafter be taken seriously.
Yes that quote stumped me too – what would a person who was asking about someone’s identity have meant then? Any description surely would have tended towards those categories eg “a Mediterranean looking fellow” or maybe I’m missing the point. Still I welcome the article and thought it analysed the problems with wokism really well. You can’t expect the writer to also, as a left winger, suddenly drop all her left wing beliefs – the more people”on the Left” who criticise wokism the better. If the writer pleased all UnHerd readers with a total denunciation of Woke and all things left wing, she’d be labelled as right wing and thus not be read by anyone on the Left. We need to get a discussion going.
Indeed! Just ONE example “Lace Curtain Irish” was a common and insulting description of poor, Catholic Irish immigrants with middle class aspirations in the 1920s. I could list dozens of other example of how religion, class and ethnicity informed identities and insults in the salad bowl or melting pot of that time.
I thought so too, but I suggest that you follow the link and read the article, which is excellent. I still disagree, but in context it makes sense and I’m sure that the writer knows more about the subject than I do!
Yes that quote stumped me too – what would a person who was asking about someone’s identity have meant then? Any description surely would have tended towards those categories eg “a Mediterranean looking fellow” or maybe I’m missing the point. Still I welcome the article and thought it analysed the problems with wokism really well. You can’t expect the writer to also, as a left winger, suddenly drop all her left wing beliefs – the more people”on the Left” who criticise wokism the better. If the writer pleased all UnHerd readers with a total denunciation of Woke and all things left wing, she’d be labelled as right wing and thus not be read by anyone on the Left. We need to get a discussion going.
Indeed! Just ONE example “Lace Curtain Irish” was a common and insulting description of poor, Catholic Irish immigrants with middle class aspirations in the 1920s. I could list dozens of other example of how religion, class and ethnicity informed identities and insults in the salad bowl or melting pot of that time.
I thought so too, but I suggest that you follow the link and read the article, which is excellent. I still disagree, but in context it makes sense and I’m sure that the writer knows more about the subject than I do!
Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
1 year ago
“ Until the middle of the 20th century, no one who was asked about a person’s identity would have mentioned race, sex, class, nationality, region or religion.”
I kind of stopped reading here because that is so untrue that the writer can’t thereafter be taken seriously.
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Tribalism is not a consequence of right wing ideology, but of the open borders ideology promoted by the left. Democracy can only function within the nation state. Nation states are defined by their borders. In a borderless world such as that envisaged by the globalist left the formation of groups along ethnic and cultural lines is inevitable.
These are practical realities which no amount of waffle about Foucault or Fanon can obfuscate.
Yes. The very thing she derides as ‘accidental’ – ones ethnicity, country of origin, etc, are far more substantial than any category of ‘shared ideas’ she believes in. And they will be acted upon one way or another.
Yes. The very thing she derides as ‘accidental’ – ones ethnicity, country of origin, etc, are far more substantial than any category of ‘shared ideas’ she believes in. And they will be acted upon one way or another.
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Tribalism is not a consequence of right wing ideology, but of the open borders ideology promoted by the left. Democracy can only function within the nation state. Nation states are defined by their borders. In a borderless world such as that envisaged by the globalist left the formation of groups along ethnic and cultural lines is inevitable.
These are practical realities which no amount of waffle about Foucault or Fanon can obfuscate.
Mike Michaels
1 year ago
“The right may be more dangerous”. There’s about 150m dead bodies spinning in their graves. If they were lucky enough to actually get one.
Mike Michaels
1 year ago
“The right may be more dangerous”. There’s about 150m dead bodies spinning in their graves. If they were lucky enough to actually get one.
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
Maybe woke used to be about Left and Right – maybe? But this Left v Right is actually a woke plot or plan to put the non-woke immediately on the defensive. As the woke Mayor of London said recently when he was heckled, “Those are just the extreme Right people outside.”
Today politicians of the Left and Right can be equally woke – there is no difference. If you vote Tory, you get woke. The recent budgets have lots of woke giveaways so that the politicos look human when they look in the mirror.They are fighting to be the most woke in all parties, with the Greens possibly being the worst.
The Right has moved to the centre and even further towards the Left. The Right no longer exists apart from the very casual use of the word ‘fas**st’, whenever a woke idea is resisted. Worst of all is the loss of freedom of speech to actually resist woke ideas. We are policed by people who train in wokeness but don’t bother very much about crime.
We have to fight this but need ideas, not just mudslinging of Left v Right, which is falling into the woke trap.
Matthew Goodwin (Professor of Politics, Ken University) makes this point. He explains that our politicians, media, civil service and managerial classes are all drawn from the same pool of people who have all been to university and have there been steeped in the same leftist philosophies. That, he says, is why regardless of whether we get Conservative or Labour, we get essentially the same thing, with small shades of difference. Anyone in that milieu who raises concerns is treated as a pariah – look at how Suella Braverman is being treated.
The solution to this vicious cycle is unclear.
Matthew Goodwin (Professor of Politics, Ken University) makes this point. He explains that our politicians, media, civil service and managerial classes are all drawn from the same pool of people who have all been to university and have there been steeped in the same leftist philosophies. That, he says, is why regardless of whether we get Conservative or Labour, we get essentially the same thing, with small shades of difference. Anyone in that milieu who raises concerns is treated as a pariah – look at how Suella Braverman is being treated.
The solution to this vicious cycle is unclear.
Chris Wheatley
1 year ago
Maybe woke used to be about Left and Right – maybe? But this Left v Right is actually a woke plot or plan to put the non-woke immediately on the defensive. As the woke Mayor of London said recently when he was heckled, “Those are just the extreme Right people outside.”
Today politicians of the Left and Right can be equally woke – there is no difference. If you vote Tory, you get woke. The recent budgets have lots of woke giveaways so that the politicos look human when they look in the mirror.They are fighting to be the most woke in all parties, with the Greens possibly being the worst.
The Right has moved to the centre and even further towards the Left. The Right no longer exists apart from the very casual use of the word ‘fas**st’, whenever a woke idea is resisted. Worst of all is the loss of freedom of speech to actually resist woke ideas. We are policed by people who train in wokeness but don’t bother very much about crime.
We have to fight this but need ideas, not just mudslinging of Left v Right, which is falling into the woke trap.
Last edited 1 year ago by Chris Wheatley
Richard Barnes
1 year ago
People care more for their own children, families and tribe than other people’s children, families and tribe. This is a fact of life.
As Margaret Thatcher observed, the facts of life are Conservative.
Richard Barnes
1 year ago
People care more for their own children, families and tribe than other people’s children, families and tribe. This is a fact of life.
As Margaret Thatcher observed, the facts of life are Conservative.
polidori redux
1 year ago
“The true Left is not woke”
I never thought that it was. Not for a moment. You think that you are True Left, do you? I disagree. Leave this stuff at the campus gate, love. You have nothing to teach me – I live in the real world.
If universities didn’t exist we wouldn’t invent them.
polidori redux
1 year ago
“The true Left is not woke”
I never thought that it was. Not for a moment. You think that you are True Left, do you? I disagree. Leave this stuff at the campus gate, love. You have nothing to teach me – I live in the real world.
Last edited 1 year ago by polidori redux
David Harris
1 year ago
“The Right may be more dangerous…” ???
So Mao didn’t kill 50 million Chinese? Stalin didn’t kill 30 million Russians? Pol Pot didn’t murder half his country’s population? Oh and Mugabe, Castro, Maduro, etc furnished a ‘people’s paradise’? Gimme a break.
You forgot the ‘Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei’.
Classic socialist performers, as it turned out.
David Harris
1 year ago
“The Right may be more dangerous…” ???
So Mao didn’t kill 50 million Chinese? Stalin didn’t kill 30 million Russians? Pol Pot didn’t murder half his country’s population? Oh and Mugabe, Castro, Maduro, etc furnished a ‘people’s paradise’? Gimme a break.
ben arnulfssen
1 year ago
Flobbalob, flobbalob, WEEEEEEED! Did someone actually get paid for that article, or was it produced by some sort of AI or mechanical kaleidoscope? I’ve not read anything so completely unintelligible in… Well, quite a long time.
So, the Judean Peoples Liberation Front is not the same as the People’s Liberation Front of Judea? Who knew?
The Left, now, bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Labour Party of my politically active days. The aspiring, white working man and lower middle classes who founded it as an extrapolation of their Methodist and Baptist convictions, the Quaker merchants who practised philanthropy in the form of workers housing and Abolitionism, and their heirs and successors are now traduced and insulted, misrepresented and spat upon. The populations living in their long shadow, wishing only to live in peace, modest prosperity and the impartial rule of law, amongst others who share theiŕ faith, customs and laws are discriminated against at every turn.
If you wish to know why the population are rejecting “the Left” this article sums it up.
Flobbalob, flobbalob, WEEEEEEED! Did someone actually get paid for that article, or was it produced by some sort of AI or mechanical kaleidoscope? I’ve not read anything so completely unintelligible in… Well, quite a long time.
So, the Judean Peoples Liberation Front is not the same as the People’s Liberation Front of Judea? Who knew?
The Left, now, bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Labour Party of my politically active days. The aspiring, white working man and lower middle classes who founded it as an extrapolation of their Methodist and Baptist convictions, the Quaker merchants who practised philanthropy in the form of workers housing and Abolitionism, and their heirs and successors are now traduced and insulted, misrepresented and spat upon. The populations living in their long shadow, wishing only to live in peace, modest prosperity and the impartial rule of law, amongst others who share theiŕ faith, customs and laws are discriminated against at every turn.
If you wish to know why the population are rejecting “the Left” this article sums it up.
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I’m baffled by the author’s seeming conflation of the left and liberalism. The left today has zero connection to liberalism – freedom of speech, individual rights, progress, reaching and uplifting marginalized people.
The left today has much more in common with Marxism and communism. In fact, it is rooted in communism and fascism – group identity, conformity, deference to the state, the merger of big business and the state, the total domination of the state.
The author’s perception of the right is seemingly rooted in what the Republican and Conservative parties represented 30 years ago. But the right IMO is no longer the avatar of big business and the wealthy elite. It is starting to adopt populist and libertarian ideals like free speech, support for the working class and middle class, separation of state and society.
The right has a long way to go, and there are plenty of dinosaurs trying to hold it back, but the right today looks more like the left of 30 years ago.
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I’m baffled by the author’s seeming conflation of the left and liberalism. The left today has zero connection to liberalism – freedom of speech, individual rights, progress, reaching and uplifting marginalized people.
The left today has much more in common with Marxism and communism. In fact, it is rooted in communism and fascism – group identity, conformity, deference to the state, the merger of big business and the state, the total domination of the state.
The author’s perception of the right is seemingly rooted in what the Republican and Conservative parties represented 30 years ago. But the right IMO is no longer the avatar of big business and the wealthy elite. It is starting to adopt populist and libertarian ideals like free speech, support for the working class and middle class, separation of state and society.
The right has a long way to go, and there are plenty of dinosaurs trying to hold it back, but the right today looks more like the left of 30 years ago.
Steven Carr
1 year ago
Tribalism – the belief that people should be forced to tick their ethnicity on form, after form after form , even for totally irrelevant things like job applications.
Force people to declare the tribe they belong to at every point in life, and you will get tribalism.
Tribalism – the belief that people should be forced to tick their ethnicity on form, after form after form , even for totally irrelevant things like job applications.
Force people to declare the tribe they belong to at every point in life, and you will get tribalism.
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Despite inconsistencies in this analysis, already pointed out in earlier comments, i still think it’s interesting to observe an example of something i touched on yesterday in response to Kathleen Stock’s much more intellectually coherent essay about the flaws in the French philosophical mindset (which some took as thinking i was suggesting she disliked French people, ha!).
It’s that we’re now seeing a philosophical rejuvenation which grapples with the theories which accompany the Woke agenda. This is important because whilst the real-world effects of wokism are becoming ever more apparent, it’s not enough to feel instinctively that something just doesn’t add up; for a shift to occur, the intellectual basis of an erroneous narrative has to be challenged and made clear. This essay, and the book it accompanies, may not be as strong as the work of Kathleen Stock and Mary Harrington (to name but two of Unherd’s principle thinkers) but coming from a US background, this author is nevertheless significant to the vital cause of bringing Wokeness under control. It may well have greater sway with a US audience, where many of the tropes being challenged are most earnestly pursued. Breaking that vicious cycle requires an impetus of its own. This is a further push in pushback, and i feel it’d be unwise to simply respond with “I told you so.”
This idea of a philosophical rejuvenation sounds nice, but on the ground within philosophy departments, it’s simply not happening. Try finding a right wing philosophy academic operating openly within a philosophy department, you’ll be looking for a long time, because as Stock discovered, going against the ideological monoculture in academia is dangerous to your career prospects and at times your safety.
At best, the majority of narratives that do acknowledge some flaws in their stances (including this one) are apologetics, they say “maybe we could have done this a little more delicately or with a tad more nuance” rather than saying “we were wrong”.
There’s also not actually much difference between academics on this side of the pond and the other on such issues, mainly because there’s an awful lot of US academics working in universities in the UK, and just as many UK academics working over in the US. Academia is pretty homogenous across the Western world (and probably beyond the West too) and academics in different countries have far more in common with each other than they do with the general populace of wherever they work.
There can be no intelectual rejuvenation when the wise are cast into exile by the Academy and forced to write on fairly marginal websites to get any space or oxygen at all. The stranglehold by the Foucaultian deconstructionist school over modern academia is total, and it would take nothing less than state intervention to rectify the imbalance between left and right there. Obviously that will never happen, so we are stuck with things.
It’s impossible for me to be so defeatist. Apart from anything else, nothing ever stays the same in perpetuity, so i’m basing my greater optimism on historical truth.
Plus, if you simply accept it as a fait accompli, you’re creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which case Kathleen Stock and others involved in pushback might as well simply not bother. Is that what you think to be the case?
N.B. This reply also applies to the post by AL Crowe.
It does become a self fulfilling prophecy because most who have the position to push back with any strength are mostly too concerned with preserving their careers, and those like me who do push back from the lower rungs of philosophy academia get sidelined and pushed out long before we attain the kind of position where our push back has any kind of weight behind it.
That doesn’t mean that I and others will cease pushing back of course, but as seen previously in academic circles with ideas like eugenics and Nazism, those supporting the ideas tend to need a massive and inescapable example of the awful consequences of their ideas before they will take a step back from them. Even then, it only takes about a generation for those terrible lessons to become sufficiently diluted for the academic community to start rehabilitating the ideas they find useful for their particular goals.
It does become a self fulfilling prophecy because most who have the position to push back with any strength are mostly too concerned with preserving their careers, and those like me who do push back from the lower rungs of philosophy academia get sidelined and pushed out long before we attain the kind of position where our push back has any kind of weight behind it.
That doesn’t mean that I and others will cease pushing back of course, but as seen previously in academic circles with ideas like eugenics and Nazism, those supporting the ideas tend to need a massive and inescapable example of the awful consequences of their ideas before they will take a step back from them. Even then, it only takes about a generation for those terrible lessons to become sufficiently diluted for the academic community to start rehabilitating the ideas they find useful for their particular goals.
It’s impossible for me to be so defeatist. Apart from anything else, nothing ever stays the same in perpetuity, so i’m basing my greater optimism on historical truth.
Plus, if you simply accept it as a fait accompli, you’re creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which case Kathleen Stock and others involved in pushback might as well simply not bother. Is that what you think to be the case?
N.B. This reply also applies to the post by AL Crowe.
This idea of a philosophical rejuvenation sounds nice, but on the ground within philosophy departments, it’s simply not happening. Try finding a right wing philosophy academic operating openly within a philosophy department, you’ll be looking for a long time, because as Stock discovered, going against the ideological monoculture in academia is dangerous to your career prospects and at times your safety.
At best, the majority of narratives that do acknowledge some flaws in their stances (including this one) are apologetics, they say “maybe we could have done this a little more delicately or with a tad more nuance” rather than saying “we were wrong”.
There’s also not actually much difference between academics on this side of the pond and the other on such issues, mainly because there’s an awful lot of US academics working in universities in the UK, and just as many UK academics working over in the US. Academia is pretty homogenous across the Western world (and probably beyond the West too) and academics in different countries have far more in common with each other than they do with the general populace of wherever they work.
There can be no intelectual rejuvenation when the wise are cast into exile by the Academy and forced to write on fairly marginal websites to get any space or oxygen at all. The stranglehold by the Foucaultian deconstructionist school over modern academia is total, and it would take nothing less than state intervention to rectify the imbalance between left and right there. Obviously that will never happen, so we are stuck with things.
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Despite inconsistencies in this analysis, already pointed out in earlier comments, i still think it’s interesting to observe an example of something i touched on yesterday in response to Kathleen Stock’s much more intellectually coherent essay about the flaws in the French philosophical mindset (which some took as thinking i was suggesting she disliked French people, ha!).
It’s that we’re now seeing a philosophical rejuvenation which grapples with the theories which accompany the Woke agenda. This is important because whilst the real-world effects of wokism are becoming ever more apparent, it’s not enough to feel instinctively that something just doesn’t add up; for a shift to occur, the intellectual basis of an erroneous narrative has to be challenged and made clear. This essay, and the book it accompanies, may not be as strong as the work of Kathleen Stock and Mary Harrington (to name but two of Unherd’s principle thinkers) but coming from a US background, this author is nevertheless significant to the vital cause of bringing Wokeness under control. It may well have greater sway with a US audience, where many of the tropes being challenged are most earnestly pursued. Breaking that vicious cycle requires an impetus of its own. This is a further push in pushback, and i feel it’d be unwise to simply respond with “I told you so.”
Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
Hendrik Mentz
1 year ago
Universalism is now under fire on the Left because it is conflated with fake universalism […] This happens daily in the name of corporate globalism.
How come corporate globalism is deemed fake? Surely the totalising consequences of universalism have been evident right from the start seen from the point of view of Louis XVI, a starving kulak, a Uighur undergoing re-education, or a Canadian trucker discovering their bank account frozen.
The moment the individual, struggling, suffering, human being is lost to a totalising idea no matter how benevolent or noble – and now potentially generated by AI – my fear is that the point of existence in our beautiful yet fragile planet circling the sun will be lost, most likely for all time.
Hendrik Mentz
1 year ago
Universalism is now under fire on the Left because it is conflated with fake universalism […] This happens daily in the name of corporate globalism.
How come corporate globalism is deemed fake? Surely the totalising consequences of universalism have been evident right from the start seen from the point of view of Louis XVI, a starving kulak, a Uighur undergoing re-education, or a Canadian trucker discovering their bank account frozen.
The moment the individual, struggling, suffering, human being is lost to a totalising idea no matter how benevolent or noble – and now potentially generated by AI – my fear is that the point of existence in our beautiful yet fragile planet circling the sun will be lost, most likely for all time.
Daniel Lee
1 year ago
I don’t think the distinction we should pay attention to is between tribalism and universalism, but between authoritarianism and genuine liberalism. There are and always have been authoritarians out there in society, and what sham philosophies they parrot are always just the tools they’re trying to use at any given time to get and keep power. Presently, they’re pretending to be Progressives, but the censorship, government control – including violence – and infliction of their mandates by way of public shaming just shows them to be the same old wolves in lambs’ clothing. The trend in history leads in fits and starts and occasional reverses against them, and gosh do they hate that. They’re just mean and always have been.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Add narcissism, and an over supply of under-quality higher-education to the mix (how intersectional is that!), and we’re getting near to the full picture.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Add narcissism, and an over supply of under-quality higher-education to the mix (how intersectional is that!), and we’re getting near to the full picture.
Daniel Lee
1 year ago
I don’t think the distinction we should pay attention to is between tribalism and universalism, but between authoritarianism and genuine liberalism. There are and always have been authoritarians out there in society, and what sham philosophies they parrot are always just the tools they’re trying to use at any given time to get and keep power. Presently, they’re pretending to be Progressives, but the censorship, government control – including violence – and infliction of their mandates by way of public shaming just shows them to be the same old wolves in lambs’ clothing. The trend in history leads in fits and starts and occasional reverses against them, and gosh do they hate that. They’re just mean and always have been.
R Wright
1 year ago
This is the political grave your ideological kin chose, and they can lie in that bed. I welcome the constant overreach by the modern identitarian left as it inevitably pushes millions away and towards perennial truth.
This post appears to contradict your reply to my post. Whilst you may have been referring to academia, “pushes millions away and towards perennial truth” would effectively take the initiative away from academia, or become the new academe.
This post appears to contradict your reply to my post. Whilst you may have been referring to academia, “pushes millions away and towards perennial truth” would effectively take the initiative away from academia, or become the new academe.
Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
R Wright
1 year ago
This is the political grave your ideological kin chose, and they can lie in that bed. I welcome the constant overreach by the modern identitarian left as it inevitably pushes millions away and towards perennial truth.
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
I don’t get this pre-occupation with fascism and the supposed far right. If people pay attention, it’s staring us right in the face – the left control virtually all the institutions, including big business. There is no fascistic threat from the far right – because it has no power.
The real problem is 94% of voters in Washington, D.C. are Democrats. God, I wish this was an exaggeration. Let that sink in. In the city that runs the machinery of govt, virtually all of them support one party.
It wouldn’t be such a problem if it was limited to only bureaucrats. But we find similar numbers in academia, NGOs etc. No different in big tech – more than 90% of employee donations go to the Democrats.
People need to wake up. This kind of conformity and unitary thinking is dangerous.
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
I don’t get this pre-occupation with fascism and the supposed far right. If people pay attention, it’s staring us right in the face – the left control virtually all the institutions, including big business. There is no fascistic threat from the far right – because it has no power.
The real problem is 94% of voters in Washington, D.C. are Democrats. God, I wish this was an exaggeration. Let that sink in. In the city that runs the machinery of govt, virtually all of them support one party.
It wouldn’t be such a problem if it was limited to only bureaucrats. But we find similar numbers in academia, NGOs etc. No different in big tech – more than 90% of employee donations go to the Democrats.
People need to wake up. This kind of conformity and unitary thinking is dangerous.
David Adams
1 year ago
Reassuring to see reasoned Leftist opposition to the new totalitarian religion, even if it does over-simplify and strawman the Right.
David Adams
1 year ago
Reassuring to see reasoned Leftist opposition to the new totalitarian religion, even if it does over-simplify and strawman the Right.
Neil Ross
1 year ago
Meanwhile back in the real world!! Many words, but a simple conclusion – the Left tribe is superior to the Right tribe – with a Nazi comparison thrown in for good measure! Gary Lineker will be applauding.
Neil Ross
1 year ago
Meanwhile back in the real world!! Many words, but a simple conclusion – the Left tribe is superior to the Right tribe – with a Nazi comparison thrown in for good measure! Gary Lineker will be applauding.
Vicha Unkow
1 year ago
Garbage with a lots of unrealistic gibberish, Lived through the stupidity and destructive leftist Socialist/Communist high eras. The Leftists have done nothing for humanity but trying to destroy a Societies has done more good.
Last edited 1 year ago by Vicha Unkow
Vicha Unkow
1 year ago
Garbage with a lots of unrealistic gibberish, Lived through the stupidity and destructive leftist Socialist/Communist high eras. The Leftists have done nothing for humanity but trying to destroy a Societies has done more good.
Last edited 1 year ago by Vicha Unkow
Sue Sims
1 year ago
“This Rightwards lurch is international and organised. The solidarity between them suggests that nationalist beliefs are only marginally based on the idea that Hungarians/Norwegians/Jews/Germans/Anglo-Saxons/Hindus are the best of all possible tribes. What unites them is the principle of tribalism itself: you will only truly connect with those who belong to your tribe, and you need have no deep commitments to anyone else.”
This is undeniable: it’s part of human nature. As far as one can see, it’s also part of animal, and even plant nature: ants war with other colonies of ants, and apparently plants prefer their own kin, though no one knows how they do it (https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/61/15/4123/435398). But of course, the Left do this just as much as the Right (insofar as the distinction is valid). It’s absolutely true, to pick out one of Ms Neiman’s examples, that the Left sympathised with, and often fought on the Republican side during the Spanish Civil War – but many non-Spanish Catholics (and others) joined Franco’s forces because they loathed the murder of thousands of priests and nuns instigated by the Republican government. Why would the Left be praised for their ‘universal’ sympathies, and the Right be demonised for theirs?
Assuming the distinction that Ms Neiman draws between Left and Right is valid (which isn’t necessarily the case), the Left and the Right are equally wrong, but in different ways. If the Right lack sympathy with the generic ‘underdog’ (which can indeed be true), the Left have so much sympathy that they lose sight of human nature (as we can see in this article). That’s why Communism will always ultimately fail. You can’t build a perfect society with imperfect people. It’s noticeable that Ms Neiman continually references the Enlightenment as the model we should all return to, but ignores the immediate consequence of that ‘Enlightenment’ where it began, in France: the official murder of thousands of people, including (ironically but logically) many of the revolutionaries themselves. She may be a good philosopher, but she’s not much of a historian.
Sue Sims
1 year ago
“This Rightwards lurch is international and organised. The solidarity between them suggests that nationalist beliefs are only marginally based on the idea that Hungarians/Norwegians/Jews/Germans/Anglo-Saxons/Hindus are the best of all possible tribes. What unites them is the principle of tribalism itself: you will only truly connect with those who belong to your tribe, and you need have no deep commitments to anyone else.”
This is undeniable: it’s part of human nature. As far as one can see, it’s also part of animal, and even plant nature: ants war with other colonies of ants, and apparently plants prefer their own kin, though no one knows how they do it (https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/61/15/4123/435398). But of course, the Left do this just as much as the Right (insofar as the distinction is valid). It’s absolutely true, to pick out one of Ms Neiman’s examples, that the Left sympathised with, and often fought on the Republican side during the Spanish Civil War – but many non-Spanish Catholics (and others) joined Franco’s forces because they loathed the murder of thousands of priests and nuns instigated by the Republican government. Why would the Left be praised for their ‘universal’ sympathies, and the Right be demonised for theirs?
Assuming the distinction that Ms Neiman draws between Left and Right is valid (which isn’t necessarily the case), the Left and the Right are equally wrong, but in different ways. If the Right lack sympathy with the generic ‘underdog’ (which can indeed be true), the Left have so much sympathy that they lose sight of human nature (as we can see in this article). That’s why Communism will always ultimately fail. You can’t build a perfect society with imperfect people. It’s noticeable that Ms Neiman continually references the Enlightenment as the model we should all return to, but ignores the immediate consequence of that ‘Enlightenment’ where it began, in France: the official murder of thousands of people, including (ironically but logically) many of the revolutionaries themselves. She may be a good philosopher, but she’s not much of a historian.
Benjamin Greco
1 year ago
I would have more hope if this had been printed in the Guardian. It is the Left that has to hear this not the conservative readers of Unherd.
I would have more hope if this had been printed in the Guardian. It is the Left that has to hear this not the conservative readers of Unherd.
ben arnulfssen
1 year ago
Another point which this article necessarily disregards is the actual origin of tribalism. Individuals necessarily grow up as part of a community of others with whom they socialise and interact frequently; with whom they deal with the necessary pressures and demands of daily life – food, shelter, warmth, childcare and mutual support. It is an organic outgrowth requiring no ideological justification.
Over time these communities develop common world views, language, faiths and recreations.
Enter another tribe. If resources permit and their cultures are not too dissimilar they may merge. If not, they may fight.
Enter a Leftist, who cries “you are a knave and a bigot for opposing these incomers; they have an unlimited claim upon your resources, with no reciprocal obligations; anything you say can only serve as proof of this, there is no conceivable defence”…. you may guess the rest.. ..
Last edited 1 year ago by ben arnulfssen
ben arnulfssen
1 year ago
Another point which this article necessarily disregards is the actual origin of tribalism. Individuals necessarily grow up as part of a community of others with whom they socialise and interact frequently; with whom they deal with the necessary pressures and demands of daily life – food, shelter, warmth, childcare and mutual support. It is an organic outgrowth requiring no ideological justification.
Over time these communities develop common world views, language, faiths and recreations.
Enter another tribe. If resources permit and their cultures are not too dissimilar they may merge. If not, they may fight.
Enter a Leftist, who cries “you are a knave and a bigot for opposing these incomers; they have an unlimited claim upon your resources, with no reciprocal obligations; anything you say can only serve as proof of this, there is no conceivable defence”…. you may guess the rest.. ..
No Scotsman worth his salt puts sugar on his porridge. This must be out of date by now. I lived for 4 years in Scotland and porridge with salt was truly awful.
No Scotsman worth his salt puts sugar on his porridge. This must be out of date by now. I lived for 4 years in Scotland and porridge with salt was truly awful.
Ideology is, and always has, been defeated by homo sapiens prime desire… self interest, where practice defeats theory.
The truth is, and always has been that different people, AND peoples have vastly differing skills, and abilities.
One only had to look, as I have said countless times on this medium, as the success of Jewish and Indian Hindu peoples , and their ability to outperform in everything that they turn their hand to. African countries underperform in every single area, and prop up every single table of economic, financial, industrial and democratic performance, along with countries such as Pakistan and most Islamic nations, and were it not for the good fortune of oil and gas, the Arab nations were the same: yet Israel has no oil and gas, and is entirely ” self made”? Why have no African or Caribbean countries mirrored Israels success?
The various racial/regional ‘tribes’ existent today probably have similar levels of skills and abilities – as pertain to their environment (hunter-gatherer or agricultural, industrial, enlightenment societies). They are after all still existent after millenia, which is the big test. The IQ test, imperfect though it is, is the best we have for getting an objective measure of intelligence and predicting success – in a modern setting . How much more powerful then to evaluate the achievements of a group not by how well they do on an hour long written test, but by how well they have done over 10,000 years? Expand out that way, and yo can certainly add North Africa, and the middle-East to the high success categories.
The various racial/regional ‘tribes’ existent today probably have similar levels of skills and abilities – as pertain to their environment (hunter-gatherer or agricultural, industrial, enlightenment societies). They are after all still existent after millenia, which is the big test. The IQ test, imperfect though it is, is the best we have for getting an objective measure of intelligence and predicting success – in a modern setting . How much more powerful then to evaluate the achievements of a group not by how well they do on an hour long written test, but by how well they have done over 10,000 years? Expand out that way, and yo can certainly add North Africa, and the middle-East to the high success categories.
Why is Sumer, the oldest civilisation not still dominant followed by Egypt? Why do civilisation rise and fall ?
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Ideology is, and always has, been defeated by homo sapiens prime desire… self interest, where practice defeats theory.
The truth is, and always has been that different people, AND peoples have vastly differing skills, and abilities.
One only had to look, as I have said countless times on this medium, as the success of Jewish and Indian Hindu peoples , and their ability to outperform in everything that they turn their hand to. African countries underperform in every single area, and prop up every single table of economic, financial, industrial and democratic performance, along with countries such as Pakistan and most Islamic nations, and were it not for the good fortune of oil and gas, the Arab nations were the same: yet Israel has no oil and gas, and is entirely ” self made”? Why have no African or Caribbean countries mirrored Israels success?
Because different peoples are…. very different.
sal b dyer
1 year ago
There’s something anachronistic about this author’s version of socialism. She seems to be hankering after the “We’ll keep the red flag flying here” days. When academics and the urban educated basked in the self riteous glow of lingering adolescent rebellion via solidarity with the working classes. Those days are long gone. The working poor today seem to have more complex political views. They resent welfare dependency and illegal immigrants not because of envy of their lauded underdog status, but because pity and victimhood diminishes everyone.
I don’t know when being a victim became a no, no. I hear people who’ve been raped and beaten saying, “but I’m not a victim”. like it’s shameful to be victimized. I’m also confused when I see peope on tv who cry immediately say “sorry”, and they’re not always Brits!
The problem is not with being victimised, it is with victimhood being turned into a permanent identity. Look at what the verb victimise does in a sentence; it places the victim into a position of passivity, where they are defined by the actions of others, not their own agency. That is of course what being victimised does, but it’s not a healthy place to live indefinitely.
Those who are victimised recover by learning not to define themselves by the actions of someone who has victimised them, but by reasserting themselves as an active agent in control of their own experiences. When this process doesn’t happen, victims lose sight of their own contributions to their experiences, and continually look for an external agent to blame for anything going wrong in their lives, and continue to act as if they are passive observers to their experiences, people who things happen to, not people who make things happen.
I have been victimised during my life, but I am not a victim, I am just a person who has experienced a range of things, good and bad, and prefer to base my identity on how I choose to act, not on others who are utterly irrelevant. That is the ultimate revenge on perpetrators, to make them utterly irrelevant to your identity, which is why so many reject the label. Hope that helps you to see that it has nothing to do with shame, everything to do with self-care.
The problem is not with being victimised, it is with victimhood being turned into a permanent identity. Look at what the verb victimise does in a sentence; it places the victim into a position of passivity, where they are defined by the actions of others, not their own agency. That is of course what being victimised does, but it’s not a healthy place to live indefinitely.
Those who are victimised recover by learning not to define themselves by the actions of someone who has victimised them, but by reasserting themselves as an active agent in control of their own experiences. When this process doesn’t happen, victims lose sight of their own contributions to their experiences, and continually look for an external agent to blame for anything going wrong in their lives, and continue to act as if they are passive observers to their experiences, people who things happen to, not people who make things happen.
I have been victimised during my life, but I am not a victim, I am just a person who has experienced a range of things, good and bad, and prefer to base my identity on how I choose to act, not on others who are utterly irrelevant. That is the ultimate revenge on perpetrators, to make them utterly irrelevant to your identity, which is why so many reject the label. Hope that helps you to see that it has nothing to do with shame, everything to do with self-care.
They started singing (sotto voce) “The Working Class can kiss my ass – I’ve got the Foreman’s job at last”. ‘Ass’ to avoid upsetting the mods or anyone else with a delicate disposition.
I don’t know when being a victim became a no, no. I hear people who’ve been raped and beaten saying, “but I’m not a victim”. like it’s shameful to be victimized. I’m also confused when I see peope on tv who cry immediately say “sorry”, and they’re not always Brits!
They started singing (sotto voce) “The Working Class can kiss my ass – I’ve got the Foreman’s job at last”. ‘Ass’ to avoid upsetting the mods or anyone else with a delicate disposition.
sal b dyer
1 year ago
There’s something anachronistic about this author’s version of socialism. She seems to be hankering after the “We’ll keep the red flag flying here” days. When academics and the urban educated basked in the self riteous glow of lingering adolescent rebellion via solidarity with the working classes. Those days are long gone. The working poor today seem to have more complex political views. They resent welfare dependency and illegal immigrants not because of envy of their lauded underdog status, but because pity and victimhood diminishes everyone.
Kirk Susong
1 year ago
What a painfully ironic essay. Susan Neiman thinks if we all try harder, aiming for just the right narrow slice of ideals, then we’ll be able to work things out.
But her Old Left ideals were tried, found wanting and mutated into Woke Left. So the Left goes wrong, the Right goes wrong, no matter what ideals serve as humanity’s lodestar, it will all inevitably go wrong.
It’s almost like humanity is Totally Depraved, as if only some intervention from outside humanity altogether could possible redeem the whole situation.
I’ve always said that. We see a little of it during war and climate catastrophies, but then it wears off. How quickly we forget.
Kirk Susong
1 year ago
What a painfully ironic essay. Susan Neiman thinks if we all try harder, aiming for just the right narrow slice of ideals, then we’ll be able to work things out.
But her Old Left ideals were tried, found wanting and mutated into Woke Left. So the Left goes wrong, the Right goes wrong, no matter what ideals serve as humanity’s lodestar, it will all inevitably go wrong.
It’s almost like humanity is Totally Depraved, as if only some intervention from outside humanity altogether could possible redeem the whole situation.
Last edited 1 year ago by Kirk Susong
Samuel Ross
1 year ago
The ‘New York Times is not particularly leftist?’ This writer is unhinged from reality. The New York Slimes is a rabidly leftist rag of a paper, not fit for my birdcage.
Samuel Ross
1 year ago
The ‘New York Times is not particularly leftist?’ This writer is unhinged from reality. The New York Slimes is a rabidly leftist rag of a paper, not fit for my birdcage.
N Satori
1 year ago
Well here’s a choice quote from the article (paragraph 7):
Wokeness demands that nations and peoples face up to their criminal histories.
Oh really? It seems to me (though, unlike wee Susie Neiman, I am neither a writer nor a philosopher) what wokeness demands is that only the white, developed nations of the West and, in particular, the white male peoples therein face up to their alleged criminal histories. All other nations and peoples get to plead mitigating circumstances for their own criminal histories – although we are discouraged from paying too much attention to such uncomfortable facts.
N Satori
1 year ago
Well here’s a choice quote from the article (paragraph 7):
Wokeness demands that nations and peoples face up to their criminal histories.
Oh really? It seems to me (though, unlike wee Susie Neiman, I am neither a writer nor a philosopher) what wokeness demands is that only the white, developed nations of the West and, in particular, the white male peoples therein face up to their alleged criminal histories. All other nations and peoples get to plead mitigating circumstances for their own criminal histories – although we are discouraged from paying too much attention to such uncomfortable facts.
Oliver Wright
1 year ago
Victimhood should never be celebrated – what is there to celebrate? – and once you start celebrating it, you rapidly slide into celebrating losing.That way madness lies.
Oliver Wright
1 year ago
Victimhood should never be celebrated – what is there to celebrate? – and once you start celebrating it, you rapidly slide into celebrating losing.That way madness lies.
Ben Shipley
1 year ago
I wonder how many woke leftists could make it through this article, just as so few communists ever managed to read an entire article from Lenin. Foucault and Schmitt? The woke philosophy succeeds today not because of a sound philosophical basis, but because it is easily simplified, hollowed out, and turned into pablum.
Just watched a documentary on the life of Bobby Kennedy. All the main leftist points so popular today without a trace of woke. No obsession with the oh so organized worldwide right wing conspiracy. None of the constant ego-massaging narcissism of the activists themselves. Just a recognition that problems exist in the world that need to be solved. It is this kind of “universalist” thinking, from the founders through Lincoln and the Roosevelts that made America such a powerful presence in the world. So unlike the hideous universalism of Stalin and Mao. But I doubt many wokesters today have the vaguest clue what any of these people said or did.
Ben Shipley
1 year ago
I wonder how many woke leftists could make it through this article, just as so few communists ever managed to read an entire article from Lenin. Foucault and Schmitt? The woke philosophy succeeds today not because of a sound philosophical basis, but because it is easily simplified, hollowed out, and turned into pablum.
Just watched a documentary on the life of Bobby Kennedy. All the main leftist points so popular today without a trace of woke. No obsession with the oh so organized worldwide right wing conspiracy. None of the constant ego-massaging narcissism of the activists themselves. Just a recognition that problems exist in the world that need to be solved. It is this kind of “universalist” thinking, from the founders through Lincoln and the Roosevelts that made America such a powerful presence in the world. So unlike the hideous universalism of Stalin and Mao. But I doubt many wokesters today have the vaguest clue what any of these people said or did.
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
I stopped at, “Now the New York Times is neither unique or particularly leftist”.
Well, it isn’t. Yes, it’s leftist, but not particularly so in the sense of being noticeably more so than other major American daily newspapers, which are essentially all left-leaning, from which fact it follows that it is not unique. You might have another go at the article.
Well, it isn’t. Yes, it’s leftist, but not particularly so in the sense of being noticeably more so than other major American daily newspapers, which are essentially all left-leaning, from which fact it follows that it is not unique. You might have another go at the article.
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
I stopped at, “Now the New York Times is neither unique or particularly leftist”.
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Oh, blather on, do, about the Left’s loving care for humanity (whilst actively hating people). The Left can only destroy, and its ultimate target is the most important and natural unit in the world’s existence – the family.
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Oh, blather on, do, about the Left’s loving care for humanity (whilst actively hating people). The Left can only destroy, and its ultimate target is the most important and natural unit in the world’s existence – the family.
J.P Malaszek
1 year ago
Oh dear, has it never occurred to this philosopher that Wokeism might be the ‘problem child’ of the left in the first place? Plenty explanations out there of how thus has happened. As for universalism I Prefer to go back to St. Paul’s inauguration of the idea.
Last edited 1 year ago by J.P Malaszek
J.P Malaszek
1 year ago
Oh dear, has it never occurred to this philosopher that Wokeism might be the ‘problem child’ of the left in the first place? Plenty explanations out there of how thus has happened. As for universalism I Prefer to go back to St. Paul’s inauguration of the idea.
Last edited 1 year ago by J.P Malaszek
Mark Kennedy
1 year ago
“The woke discourse today is confusing because it appeals to emotions traditional to the Left: empathy for the marginalised, indignation at the plight of the oppressed, determination that historical wrongs can be righted.”
(?) This is bizarrely careless language use from a supposed beneficiary of philosophical training. In what study of emotions will we find ‘determination that historical wrongs can be righted’ listed as an emotion, or anywhere in the chapter headings or index? Is ‘determination not to have asparagus for dinner’ an emotion too, and is one more likely to experience it if one votes left?
As for empathy, ideologically-motivated attempts to politicize this common state of consciousness clearly have no place in philosophy, though the kind of selective empathy that limits itself to the ‘marginalized’ or others deemed deserving has, alas, become all too characteristic a constituent of ‘progressive’ conceptions of virtue. If there’s a tradition being forged here its roots lie not in politically definable surfeit or deficit of emotions but in linguistic, conceptual and ethical incoherence.
P.S. This entire article is suffused with confusions, enough to make trying to fully engage with it impractical. “Without universalism there is no argument against racism, merely a bunch of tribes jockeying for power.” Really? Racism is a subset of prejudice, and prejudice is unethical precisely because it doesn’t allow individuals to speak for themselves, whatever tribe(s) they’re in. The thing that makes racism ethically problematic is tribe-neutral. “If you think it’s impossible to distinguish truth from narrative, you won’t bother to try.” But all truths are themselves propositional (i.e., narrative) truths, even 2+2=4. We distinguish synthetic (empirically verified) truths from analytic (true by definition) truths, but all tests for truth come down to evaluating the status of propositions (their coherence, correspondence, utility if you’re a pragmatist, etc.). What qualify as ‘explanations’ for us invariable take the form of narratives, comprised of propositions. Strawson pointed out seventy years ago that if you removed all ‘facts’ from the world, you wouldn’t have removed any of the things: when we say, ‘It is a fact that Albany is the capital of New York state,’ this amounts to saying, ‘The proposition “Albany is the capital of New York state” is true.’ How can a supposed professor of philosophy not know this?
Articles like this do nothing to lay to rest the suspicion that even this generation’s philosophy majors have been ideologically captured; and this is an article that purports to take issue with ‘woke’ sensibilities. The hoops it jumps through to avoid having to jettison assumptions flattering to the left while making its critique are many, and in the end the performance isn’t successful, if the intention was to be persuasive. Far from being convinced that leftist traditions are antithetical to the excesses of today’s progressives, I’m left with the impression that such excesses are the logical outgrowth of this very legacy–and I’ve always voted left. We need a more determined and perceptive critique of the contemporary left’s intellectual foundations than this one. What we’re offered here as open-minded, nonpartisan criticism looks more like the ideological equivalent of religious apologia–witch-burners aren’t really Christians, jihadists aren’t really Muslims, and the woke aren’t true leftists. But, manifestly, they are… their credentials are as bona fide as Marx’s, Mao’s or Stalin’s.
P.S. This entire article is suffused with confusions, enough to make trying to fully engage with it impractical. “Without universalism there is no argument against racism, merely a bunch of tribes jockeying for power.” Really? Racism is a subset of prejudice, and prejudice is unethical precisely because it doesn’t allow individuals to speak for themselves, whatever tribe(s) they’re in. The thing that makes racism ethically problematic is tribe-neutral. “If you think it’s impossible to distinguish truth from narrative, you won’t bother to try.” But all truths are themselves propositional (i.e., narrative) truths, even 2+2=4. We distinguish synthetic (empirically verified) truths from analytic (true by definition) truths, but all tests for truth come down to evaluating the status of propositions (their coherence, correspondence, utility if you’re a pragmatist, etc.). What qualify as ‘explanations’ for us invariable take the form of narratives, comprised of propositions. Strawson pointed out seventy years ago that if you removed all ‘facts’ from the world, you wouldn’t have removed any of the things: when we say, ‘It is a fact that Albany is the capital of New York state,’ this amounts to saying, ‘The proposition “Albany is the capital of New York state” is true.’ How can a supposed professor of philosophy not know this?
Articles like this do nothing to lay to rest the suspicion that even this generation’s philosophy majors have been ideologically captured; and this is an article that purports to take issue with ‘woke’ sensibilities. The hoops it jumps through to avoid having to jettison assumptions flattering to the left while making its critique are many, and in the end the performance isn’t successful, if the intention was to be persuasive. Far from being convinced that leftist traditions are antithetical to the excesses of today’s progressives, I’m left with the impression that such excesses are the logical outgrowth of this very legacy–and I’ve always voted left. We need a more determined and perceptive critique of the contemporary left’s intellectual foundations than this one. What we’re offered here as open-minded, nonpartisan criticism looks more like the ideological equivalent of religious apologia–witch-burners aren’t really Christians, jihadists aren’t really Muslims, and the woke aren’t true leftists. But, manifestly, they are… their credentials are as bona fide as Marx’s, Mao’s or Stalin’s.
Last edited 1 year ago by Mark Kennedy
Mark Kennedy
1 year ago
“The woke discourse today is confusing because it appeals to emotions traditional to the Left: empathy for the marginalised, indignation at the plight of the oppressed, determination that historical wrongs can be righted.”
(?) This is bizarrely careless language use from a supposed beneficiary of philosophical training. In what study of emotions will we find ‘determination that historical wrongs can be righted’ listed as an emotion, or anywhere in the chapter headings or index? Is ‘determination not to have asparagus for dinner’ an emotion too, and is one more likely to experience it if one votes left?
As for empathy, ideologically-motivated attempts to politicize this common state of consciousness clearly have no place in philosophy, though the kind of selective empathy that limits itself to the ‘marginalized’ or others deemed deserving has, alas, become all too characteristic a constituent of ‘progressive’ conceptions of virtue. If there’s a tradition being forged here its roots lie not in politically definable surfeit or deficit of emotions but in linguistic, conceptual and ethical incoherence.
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago
“The idea that one law should apply to Protestants and Catholics, Jews and Muslims, lords and peasants, simply in virtue of their common humanity is a relatively recent achievement which now shapes our assumptions so thoroughly we fail to recognise it as an achievement at all.”
Is it really an achievement to say that Muslims Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists should all be governed by a common law? Why? To take a simple example: why shouldn’t Hindu society treat cows differently than the others? Most religions believe everyone should be governed by the same law: their own! And this author is not different.
The only reason the author views this as an achievement is because the law being applied is his own tribe’s: atheistic liberalism. I doubt he would be nearly so enamored with universalism if, say, it was Muslim Shariah or Modi’s militant Hinduism. Liberalism always claims to be neutral, but neutrality is an illusion. It simply demotes divine law and elevates human autonomy in its place, but it’s just as unyielding and intolerant as any of the others.
Would I rather live under liberalism than Shariah? Absolutely. But wouldn’t feel that way if I were a devout Muslim. Progressives are universally blind to their own theocratic and colonialist tendencies.
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago
“The idea that one law should apply to Protestants and Catholics, Jews and Muslims, lords and peasants, simply in virtue of their common humanity is a relatively recent achievement which now shapes our assumptions so thoroughly we fail to recognise it as an achievement at all.”
Is it really an achievement to say that Muslims Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists should all be governed by a common law? Why? To take a simple example: why shouldn’t Hindu society treat cows differently than the others? Most religions believe everyone should be governed by the same law: their own! And this author is not different.
The only reason the author views this as an achievement is because the law being applied is his own tribe’s: atheistic liberalism. I doubt he would be nearly so enamored with universalism if, say, it was Muslim Shariah or Modi’s militant Hinduism. Liberalism always claims to be neutral, but neutrality is an illusion. It simply demotes divine law and elevates human autonomy in its place, but it’s just as unyielding and intolerant as any of the others.
Would I rather live under liberalism than Shariah? Absolutely. But wouldn’t feel that way if I were a devout Muslim. Progressives are universally blind to their own theocratic and colonialist tendencies.
Edit Szegedi
1 year ago
“Had the Left-wing parties been willing to form a united front, as thinkers from Einstein to Trotsky urged, the world could have been spared its worst war.” That’s called leftist foklore. Nowhere was the childishness of such wishful thinking more visible than in Weimar Germany. The Socialdemocrats, the parents and pillars of the first German republic had no reason whatsoever to unite with the Communist who wanted to destroy it by all means (even collaborating with the Nazis).
There was and never will be such a thing like “the” Left. The Russian Civil War, the Weimar Republic, the Spanish Civil War and the fate of the non-Communist Left in Eastern Europe after 1945 tell the same story: never ever trust those who are preaching about the unity of the Left.
Edit Szegedi
1 year ago
“Had the Left-wing parties been willing to form a united front, as thinkers from Einstein to Trotsky urged, the world could have been spared its worst war.” That’s called leftist foklore. Nowhere was the childishness of such wishful thinking more visible than in Weimar Germany. The Socialdemocrats, the parents and pillars of the first German republic had no reason whatsoever to unite with the Communist who wanted to destroy it by all means (even collaborating with the Nazis).
There was and never will be such a thing like “the” Left. The Russian Civil War, the Weimar Republic, the Spanish Civil War and the fate of the non-Communist Left in Eastern Europe after 1945 tell the same story: never ever trust those who are preaching about the unity of the Left.
Sisyphus Jones
1 year ago
When my liberal friends complain that Unherd is alt-right, I’ll forward this piece to them. I’m very proud to subscribe to a publication that will print this kind of thing. It isn’t an especially informative piece but it does give the reader a revealing glimpse into the mind of a Leftist academic/philosopher/journalist. Leftist mono-cultures permit those permanently ensconced there to create a reality of their own in which they are the heroes. They believe in the sanctity of ideas – collectivist ideas as old as the outhouse – that never work but are highly marketable. These are ideas that receive a chorus of nods-in-agreement whenever they are expressed in the world of Leftists. And Leftists have a full compliment of pejoratives to hurl at anyone who intrudes on that reality with ideas or information that reveal the problems of the world to be more complex and intractable than their hero-narrative. Anyway, this is a good read. The feeling after you’re finished is like the feeling one might have after listening to a conspiracy theorist. Actually, almost exactly like that.
I am rather concerned that you think that these friends are in any way liberal when they declare that Unherd is alt-right.
Sisyphus Jones
1 year ago
When my liberal friends complain that Unherd is alt-right, I’ll forward this piece to them. I’m very proud to subscribe to a publication that will print this kind of thing. It isn’t an especially informative piece but it does give the reader a revealing glimpse into the mind of a Leftist academic/philosopher/journalist. Leftist mono-cultures permit those permanently ensconced there to create a reality of their own in which they are the heroes. They believe in the sanctity of ideas – collectivist ideas as old as the outhouse – that never work but are highly marketable. These are ideas that receive a chorus of nods-in-agreement whenever they are expressed in the world of Leftists. And Leftists have a full compliment of pejoratives to hurl at anyone who intrudes on that reality with ideas or information that reveal the problems of the world to be more complex and intractable than their hero-narrative. Anyway, this is a good read. The feeling after you’re finished is like the feeling one might have after listening to a conspiracy theorist. Actually, almost exactly like that.
James Kirk
1 year ago
For me “woke” is the modern equivalent of the brown shirt and an armband issued not so long ago to useful idiots. We have books being burnt now, Dahl, Rowling; an enemy, successful white heteros. Momentum have been breaking windows with Tory posters for some time. Let’s hope the new mobilisation to defeat it is not as expensive or heartbreaking this time round.
James Kirk
1 year ago
For me “woke” is the modern equivalent of the brown shirt and an armband issued not so long ago to useful idiots. We have books being burnt now, Dahl, Rowling; an enemy, successful white heteros. Momentum have been breaking windows with Tory posters for some time. Let’s hope the new mobilisation to defeat it is not as expensive or heartbreaking this time round.
Ian Wray
1 year ago
The author espouses ‘’universalism’ as opposed to ‘tribalism’ but actually displays tribalism in her highly simplistic portrayal of what she calls a ‘Rightwards lurch’. This is the projection of her own unacknowledged tribalism onto people who disagree with her ‘universal leftism’, who are lumped together by her into a group that is not her own.
She also writes: “Had the Left-wing parties been willing to form a united front… the world could have been spared its worst war. The differences dividing the parties were real; blood had even been spilled. But though the Stalinist Communist Party couldn’t see it, those differences paled next to the difference between universal Leftist movements and the tribal visions of fascism.”
What ‘difference’ between ‘universal Leftist movements’ and ‘fascism’? Communist parties have committed genocidal atrocities that killed even more people than the Nazis. The Nazis full name was ‘The National Socialist German Workers Party’. The ideas of the Nazi lawyer Carl Schmitt are respected today in Communist China. These days I refer to communists, Nazis and fascists as ‘the far left-right’, especially as they have all been so fond of military parades with exaggerated marching steps, and shared a commitment to slaughtering those in the wrong ‘tribes’.
The Nazis are evil because they murdered six million people from another ethnic tribe.
Communists are OK because they killed tens of millions from their own ethnic tribes, who unfortunately happened to hold the wrong ideas.
The Nazis are evil because they murdered six million people from another ethnic tribe.
Communists are OK because they killed tens of millions from their own ethnic tribes, who unfortunately happened to hold the wrong ideas.
Ian Wray
1 year ago
The author espouses ‘’universalism’ as opposed to ‘tribalism’ but actually displays tribalism in her highly simplistic portrayal of what she calls a ‘Rightwards lurch’. This is the projection of her own unacknowledged tribalism onto people who disagree with her ‘universal leftism’, who are lumped together by her into a group that is not her own.
She also writes: “Had the Left-wing parties been willing to form a united front… the world could have been spared its worst war. The differences dividing the parties were real; blood had even been spilled. But though the Stalinist Communist Party couldn’t see it, those differences paled next to the difference between universal Leftist movements and the tribal visions of fascism.”
What ‘difference’ between ‘universal Leftist movements’ and ‘fascism’? Communist parties have committed genocidal atrocities that killed even more people than the Nazis. The Nazis full name was ‘The National Socialist German Workers Party’. The ideas of the Nazi lawyer Carl Schmitt are respected today in Communist China. These days I refer to communists, Nazis and fascists as ‘the far left-right’, especially as they have all been so fond of military parades with exaggerated marching steps, and shared a commitment to slaughtering those in the wrong ‘tribes’.
Christopher Chantrill
1 year ago
This was helpful:
the left as “a commitment to universalism over tribalism.” So what is more tribal than the workers vs. the bourgeoisie?
the left as “a firm distinction between justice and power.” Forgive me if I experience that the left only experiences justice if expressed by leftist power.
the left as “a belief in the possibility of progress.” Forgive me if I experience the left’s idea of progress as “my way or the highway.”
I would recommend the writer take a turn through Fukuyama’s The Origin of Political Order where he proposes that the state is an effort to combat tribal loyalties. But, he argues, equality is only possible in a state-less society. So, you can have equality or universalism, but not both.
Christopher Chantrill
1 year ago
This was helpful:
the left as “a commitment to universalism over tribalism.” So what is more tribal than the workers vs. the bourgeoisie?
the left as “a firm distinction between justice and power.” Forgive me if I experience that the left only experiences justice if expressed by leftist power.
the left as “a belief in the possibility of progress.” Forgive me if I experience the left’s idea of progress as “my way or the highway.”
I would recommend the writer take a turn through Fukuyama’s The Origin of Political Order where he proposes that the state is an effort to combat tribal loyalties. But, he argues, equality is only possible in a state-less society. So, you can have equality or universalism, but not both.
Vici C
1 year ago
If Ms Neiman is so keen on the concept that we are all one why is her article so divisive? I am wary of the term “left”. It comes across as way too intellectual. I like what was our Labour Party – created to champion the working class man who could so easily become oppressed and disempowered. However if her head could come out of the book infested clouds, she would soon see this class of people is predominantly tribalist, as she so disparagingly calls it. Family, clan, nation. Let us ask her a question: Ms Neiman, once your children were small and vulnerable. Maybe they had friends over to play. A fire broke out in the house and circumstances prescribed you could save either your children or their friends. What then?
Vici C
1 year ago
If Ms Neiman is so keen on the concept that we are all one why is her article so divisive? I am wary of the term “left”. It comes across as way too intellectual. I like what was our Labour Party – created to champion the working class man who could so easily become oppressed and disempowered. However if her head could come out of the book infested clouds, she would soon see this class of people is predominantly tribalist, as she so disparagingly calls it. Family, clan, nation. Let us ask her a question: Ms Neiman, once your children were small and vulnerable. Maybe they had friends over to play. A fire broke out in the house and circumstances prescribed you could save either your children or their friends. What then?
Malcolm Knott
1 year ago
Being woke is like having a whole cluster of badges on your coat. One might say: Close no mines! Another might say, No to coal! One might say, Ban pornography! Another might say, Sex work is real work! One might say, Protect fee speech!. Another might say, No platform for terfs! One might say, Abolish prisons! Another might say, Longer sentences for rapists!
Get the full set and you are a fully paid-up lefty. Miss out on any one badge and you are suspect. There is no coherent philosophy but ‘We all hate the Tories’ and ‘Everyone loves a good demo.’
Last edited 1 year ago by Malcolm Knott
Malcolm Knott
1 year ago
Being woke is like having a whole cluster of badges on your coat. One might say: Close no mines! Another might say, No to coal! One might say, Ban pornography! Another might say, Sex work is real work! One might say, Protect fee speech!. Another might say, No platform for terfs! One might say, Abolish prisons! Another might say, Longer sentences for rapists!
Get the full set and you are a fully paid-up lefty. Miss out on any one badge and you are suspect. There is no coherent philosophy but ‘We all hate the Tories’ and ‘Everyone loves a good demo.’
Last edited 1 year ago by Malcolm Knott
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
It apears to be a battle of the isms. Wokism, Communism, Nationalism, Globalism, Universalism, Tribalism, Identitarianism etc. I pick nationalism and universalism which may seem a contradiction but I believe in the nation state against globalism and every nation should have the opportunity to rule themselves as a democracy without everyone complying to Billionaire Globalists as upheld by the World Economic Forum. On a lighter note one of the isms Antidisestablishmentarianism is the longest word in the dictionary apparently.
Last edited 1 year ago by Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
It apears to be a battle of the isms. Wokism, Communism, Nationalism, Globalism, Universalism, Tribalism, Identitarianism etc. I pick nationalism and universalism which may seem a contradiction but I believe in the nation state against globalism and every nation should have the opportunity to rule themselves as a democracy without everyone complying to Billionaire Globalists as upheld by the World Economic Forum. On a lighter note one of the isms Antidisestablishmentarianism is the longest word in the dictionary apparently.
Last edited 1 year ago by Tony Conrad
BW Naylor
1 year ago
Must be exhausting to base your entire identity on your most significant trauma.
BW Naylor
1 year ago
Must be exhausting to base your entire identity on your most significant trauma.
Mark V
1 year ago
Equalitarianism is by nature woke, utopian, impossibly detached from reality.
The so called real left think they can use the state (although they often want to vaguely define it in some other way, thanks Marx) to squash economic and social differences.
You can’t achieve this without resorting to totalitarian measures, without denying the individual, without reducing everybody to some sort of classification of person to be equalised against some other classification, which is what we see formenting among the wokies of the left, just as it does in race based identitarianism on the so called right.
Mark V
1 year ago
Equalitarianism is by nature woke, utopian, impossibly detached from reality.
The so called real left think they can use the state (although they often want to vaguely define it in some other way, thanks Marx) to squash economic and social differences.
You can’t achieve this without resorting to totalitarian measures, without denying the individual, without reducing everybody to some sort of classification of person to be equalised against some other classification, which is what we see formenting among the wokies of the left, just as it does in race based identitarianism on the so called right.
Martin Layfield
1 year ago
Although the contemporary left are different to the older lefts, I don’t buy the idea that the former aren’t universalist. They may want a slightly different universalism to Bolshevism or Jacobinism, but every woke leftist I’ve come across seems to think their ideology should be applicable globally. The fact that wokeism seems to fester well within multinational corporations is just an example that it has globalist tendencies. To compare wokism to right-wing particularists is a gross insult to the latter.
Martin Layfield
1 year ago
Although the contemporary left are different to the older lefts, I don’t buy the idea that the former aren’t universalist. They may want a slightly different universalism to Bolshevism or Jacobinism, but every woke leftist I’ve come across seems to think their ideology should be applicable globally. The fact that wokeism seems to fester well within multinational corporations is just an example that it has globalist tendencies. To compare wokism to right-wing particularists is a gross insult to the latter.
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
American authors ignore the Methodist roots of the British Labour Party which extends from Keir Hardie via Ernie Bevin to James Callaghan. The founders of the Labour Party were tough men, often miners who eschewed the violence of class warfare.Ernie Bevin literally fought, as in street fights, to keep the Communists ought of the Labour Party. Keir Hardie said Samuel Smiles ” self Help ” was a manual for Socialism. George Lansbury was a Pacifist and would not have supported the rape and murder of nuns and the castration and murder of priests by Communists in the Spanish Civil War. Consequently, the origins and those who ran the Labour Party were different to the Socialists and Communists of the USA and Europe.
The Law has to almost all, in England since Aethelbert in about 650AD had drafted the first laws which combined the Bible and the Anglo Saxon Traditions. Magna Carta of 1215AD limits the monarchs absolute power. By 1295 The House of Commons could vote on taxation.Charles I was convicted because he supported the Divine Right of Kings against the Will of Parliament. Lord Mansfield in The Somerset Case of 1772 declared a person could not be held as slave in England and Wales.
It was the abolition of slavery through the Parliamentary Process while Britain was engaged in a life of death struggle with Napoleon( 1793-1815 ) which inspired Evangelical Christians such as Lord Shaftesbury, the Quakers,Methododist and Salvation Army to improv the lives of those living in the slums.The founders and leaders of the Labour Party believed in improving the quality of lives of people through Parliamentary Process and were supported by Kings Edward VII( in agreeing to create lords to enable Lloyd George to pass his various laws) and George VI. The founders of the Labour Party knew they had a reasonable case, based upon Christian charity, to improve the quality of the lives of the poor without resorting to violence. As Orwell said Britain was the only country where liberty could be achieved without violence.The modern Labour Party and Socialism is very different to the practical tough patriotic common sense Methodist inspired Party of Hardie, Attlee, Bevin, James Callaghan or Dennis Healey who would have no time for depravity( controlling drinking and gambling), dirt and disorder. They were a party who believed honest hard working people should receive a decent reward for their labours- A labourer is worth his salt.
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
American authors ignore the Methodist roots of the British Labour Party which extends from Keir Hardie via Ernie Bevin to James Callaghan. The founders of the Labour Party were tough men, often miners who eschewed the violence of class warfare.Ernie Bevin literally fought, as in street fights, to keep the Communists ought of the Labour Party. Keir Hardie said Samuel Smiles ” self Help ” was a manual for Socialism. George Lansbury was a Pacifist and would not have supported the rape and murder of nuns and the castration and murder of priests by Communists in the Spanish Civil War. Consequently, the origins and those who ran the Labour Party were different to the Socialists and Communists of the USA and Europe.
The Law has to almost all, in England since Aethelbert in about 650AD had drafted the first laws which combined the Bible and the Anglo Saxon Traditions. Magna Carta of 1215AD limits the monarchs absolute power. By 1295 The House of Commons could vote on taxation.Charles I was convicted because he supported the Divine Right of Kings against the Will of Parliament. Lord Mansfield in The Somerset Case of 1772 declared a person could not be held as slave in England and Wales.
It was the abolition of slavery through the Parliamentary Process while Britain was engaged in a life of death struggle with Napoleon( 1793-1815 ) which inspired Evangelical Christians such as Lord Shaftesbury, the Quakers,Methododist and Salvation Army to improv the lives of those living in the slums.The founders and leaders of the Labour Party believed in improving the quality of lives of people through Parliamentary Process and were supported by Kings Edward VII( in agreeing to create lords to enable Lloyd George to pass his various laws) and George VI. The founders of the Labour Party knew they had a reasonable case, based upon Christian charity, to improve the quality of the lives of the poor without resorting to violence. As Orwell said Britain was the only country where liberty could be achieved without violence.The modern Labour Party and Socialism is very different to the practical tough patriotic common sense Methodist inspired Party of Hardie, Attlee, Bevin, James Callaghan or Dennis Healey who would have no time for depravity( controlling drinking and gambling), dirt and disorder. They were a party who believed honest hard working people should receive a decent reward for their labours- A labourer is worth his salt.
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
If an alien visited the earth, what creation of the Left could one show which demonstrated it’s supposed superiority? The Roman Catholic Church could point to St Peter’s in Rome, perhaps the greatest work of art of all time: Britain, could point to Parliamentary Democracy, Shakespeare, Newton, The Industrial Revolution, Darwin, splitting the atom, discovery of DNA and Florence, The Italian Renaissance. The Left could point out they have killed more people than Genghis Khan, Timur the lame and Hitler combined.
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
If an alien visited the earth, what creation of the Left could one show which demonstrated it’s supposed superiority? The Roman Catholic Church could point to St Peter’s in Rome, perhaps the greatest work of art of all time: Britain, could point to Parliamentary Democracy, Shakespeare, Newton, The Industrial Revolution, Darwin, splitting the atom, discovery of DNA and Florence, The Italian Renaissance. The Left could point out they have killed more people than Genghis Khan, Timur the lame and Hitler combined.
David Sims
1 year ago
“For not only liberals, but many Leftists and socialists like me are increasingly uneasy with the form it has taken.”
Really. Want a medal for finally opening your eyes after you allowed all the damage to be done?
See, here’s the issue:
Whatever liberals, socialists, Leftsts and Democrats think of the poisonous woke and CRT, they’re responsible for it because after they canceled us conservatives from academia, the media, Hollywood, government bureaucracy, etc., they became the gakekeepers.
It was their responsibility to maintain common sense, which they completely failed to do. It was their job to keep woke from infecting and taking over the institutions, it was their responsibility, after they grabbed all the power, to be the adults in the room, but all of them, liberals, socialists, Democrats and other Leftists, failed completely, absolutely, totally and catastrophically.
And now we smart people are paying for their irresponsibility, stupidity and cowardice.
So no, I don’t care when some Democrat or some liberal says “You know, I’m really uncomfortable with woke too.”
So what? Anybody with half a brain knows it’s evil, but it was YOUR job, once you took marginalized conservatives and other intelligent people and took control of American institutions for yourself, to protect them from things like woke, only you were too dense to recognize the threat, and too gutless and cowardly to stand up to it.
Yes, it is your fault.
David Sims
1 year ago
“For not only liberals, but many Leftists and socialists like me are increasingly uneasy with the form it has taken.”
Really. Want a medal for finally opening your eyes after you allowed all the damage to be done?
See, here’s the issue:
Whatever liberals, socialists, Leftsts and Democrats think of the poisonous woke and CRT, they’re responsible for it because after they canceled us conservatives from academia, the media, Hollywood, government bureaucracy, etc., they became the gakekeepers.
It was their responsibility to maintain common sense, which they completely failed to do. It was their job to keep woke from infecting and taking over the institutions, it was their responsibility, after they grabbed all the power, to be the adults in the room, but all of them, liberals, socialists, Democrats and other Leftists, failed completely, absolutely, totally and catastrophically.
And now we smart people are paying for their irresponsibility, stupidity and cowardice.
So no, I don’t care when some Democrat or some liberal says “You know, I’m really uncomfortable with woke too.”
So what? Anybody with half a brain knows it’s evil, but it was YOUR job, once you took marginalized conservatives and other intelligent people and took control of American institutions for yourself, to protect them from things like woke, only you were too dense to recognize the threat, and too gutless and cowardly to stand up to it.
Yes, it is your fault.
Paul T
1 year ago
There is a big difference between right of centre and far right but everything even one atom to the right of centre is now extreme right wing. British people love to upset the apple cart – the left just has to hope it’s not their apple cart that gets unexpectedly upset. Yet again.
Paul T
1 year ago
There is a big difference between right of centre and far right but everything even one atom to the right of centre is now extreme right wing. British people love to upset the apple cart – the left just has to hope it’s not their apple cart that gets unexpectedly upset. Yet again.
Will Crozier
1 year ago
Not sure about this statement:
“The idea that one law should apply to Protestants and Catholics, Jews and Muslims, lords and peasants, simply in virtue of their common humanity is a relatively recent achievement which now shapes our assumptions so thoroughly we fail to recognise it as an achievement at all.”
In Galatians Ch 3 vs 28 Paul writes “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”
So it’s no wonder the idea of equality shapes our assumptions, it’s a fundamentally Christian idea, and Western history is quite Christian to say the least. Perhaps by “recent” the author means since St Pauls writing but I doubt that.
This is not to say that humanity has embraced equality throughout history but the idea is obviously old and Christian.
Also, Genesis Ch 1 vs 27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
That at least implies equality of value between all people. Word has it that passage is pretty old as well.
So not a particularly new idea then, just poorly applied throughout history.
Last edited 1 year ago by Will Crozier
Will Crozier
1 year ago
Not sure about this statement:
“The idea that one law should apply to Protestants and Catholics, Jews and Muslims, lords and peasants, simply in virtue of their common humanity is a relatively recent achievement which now shapes our assumptions so thoroughly we fail to recognise it as an achievement at all.”
In Galatians Ch 3 vs 28 Paul writes “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”
So it’s no wonder the idea of equality shapes our assumptions, it’s a fundamentally Christian idea, and Western history is quite Christian to say the least. Perhaps by “recent” the author means since St Pauls writing but I doubt that.
This is not to say that humanity has embraced equality throughout history but the idea is obviously old and Christian.
Also, Genesis Ch 1 vs 27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
That at least implies equality of value between all people. Word has it that passage is pretty old as well.
So not a particularly new idea then, just poorly applied throughout history.
This article shows an inadequate grasp of the history of the Labour Party. The Labour Party was founded by Christians, such as Hardie, Lansbury, Bevin and Callaghan, in order to improve the lives of honest hard working poor through practical measures; not violence. Lansbury would have been against the rape and murder of nuns and castration and murder of priest by Communists in Spain.
The Socialists and Communists of the USA and Europe may have been atheists however the major influence on the Labour Party was Non Conformism such as Methodism, The Quakers and Methodism and the Baptists. Methodism put great stress on self help, hence the Cooperative Society and Hardie said Sam Smiles book “Self Help ” was manual for socialism Methodism puts great weight on personal conduct and was against drinking, gambling, depravity, dirt( cleanliness is next to Godliness) and disorder. The Methodists and Non- Conformists believed the devil provided work for idle hands so rugby, lending libraries, The Chapel and Sunday School were encouraged. The pre WW2 labour Party would have a very different attitude to morality compared to The Democratic Party of today in the State of California. There was hardly any killings or robberies in the rugby playing, Chapel and Sunday School attending parts of Britain during The Depression compared to modern day California. As Orwell pointed out it is the Left Wing Intelligentsia who are attracted to power and and the pornography of revolutionary violence. The genuinely tough men, tempered in the coal mines, steel works, heavy industry and rugby pitches do not find violence seductive. Front steps were kept clean, the front parlour was immaculate and the phrase ” I am poor but honest ” was said with self respect.
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
This article shows an inadequate grasp of the history of the Labour Party. The Labour Party was founded by Christians, such as Hardie, Lansbury, Bevin and Callaghan, in order to improve the lives of honest hard working poor through practical measures; not violence. Lansbury would have been against the rape and murder of nuns and castration and murder of priest by Communists in Spain.
The Socialists and Communists of the USA and Europe may have been atheists however the major influence on the Labour Party was Non Conformism such as Methodism, The Quakers and Methodism and the Baptists. Methodism put great stress on self help, hence the Cooperative Society and Hardie said Sam Smiles book “Self Help ” was manual for socialism Methodism puts great weight on personal conduct and was against drinking, gambling, depravity, dirt( cleanliness is next to Godliness) and disorder. The Methodists and Non- Conformists believed the devil provided work for idle hands so rugby, lending libraries, The Chapel and Sunday School were encouraged. The pre WW2 labour Party would have a very different attitude to morality compared to The Democratic Party of today in the State of California. There was hardly any killings or robberies in the rugby playing, Chapel and Sunday School attending parts of Britain during The Depression compared to modern day California. As Orwell pointed out it is the Left Wing Intelligentsia who are attracted to power and and the pornography of revolutionary violence. The genuinely tough men, tempered in the coal mines, steel works, heavy industry and rugby pitches do not find violence seductive. Front steps were kept clean, the front parlour was immaculate and the phrase ” I am poor but honest ” was said with self respect.
Sayantani Gupta Jafa
1 year ago
Quite startling to see your dismissive and propagandist attitudes towards a democratically elected and popular Indian government under PM Modi as “violent nationalism”. This is what is wrong with the Left and its echo chamber- tar anything and anyone you donot agree with using pejoratives and abuse while only what the Left claims is the “Truth” is the sole way.
Leftism is totalitarian and abject in its elitism.
Last edited 1 year ago by Sayantani Gupta Jafa
Sayantani Gupta Jafa
1 year ago
Quite startling to see your dismissive and propagandist attitudes towards a democratically elected and popular Indian government under PM Modi as “violent nationalism”. This is what is wrong with the Left and its echo chamber- tar anything and anyone you donot agree with using pejoratives and abuse while only what the Left claims is the “Truth” is the sole way.
Leftism is totalitarian and abject in its elitism.
Last edited 1 year ago by Sayantani Gupta Jafa
Graeme Kemp
1 year ago
Excellent article – the book looks really interesting.
Dougie Undersub
1 year ago
I didn’t need a philosophy professor to tell me that identify politics is the antithesis of universalism.
Dougie Undersub
1 year ago
I didn’t need a philosophy professor to tell me that identify politics is the antithesis of universalism.
George Venning
1 year ago
Find me, anywhere, a person in a position of influence, who seriously describes themselves as “Woke”. It’s virtually impossible – just as it was previously impossible to find anyone who described themselves as “politcally correct”.
This simple fact points to something important. “wokeness” is not an ideology, it is a pejorative term for the excesses of progressivism. This is why the term “political correctness” was so often followed up by “gone mad”.
To critique wokeness in isolation would be like analysing a gambler solely by reference to his losing bets.
M. Jamieson
1 year ago
Universalism vs tribalism is too simple. Another way to think about this is that the universalism of the left is very akin to a kind of abstraction, which sees people as all of similar value but also almost as undifferentiated, with no concrete, specific connections. The tribalism approach, on the other hand, could be described as recognizing the material connections between actual, concrete, specific individuals – things like where they live, language, customs, and so on. Both of these can potentially go quite wrong.
Sj Kay
1 year ago
Thanks Unherd for publishing this. I didn’t agree with much of it but it was an interesting read!
Sj Kay
1 year ago
Thanks Unherd for publishing this. I didn’t agree with much of it but it was an interesting read!
Matt Spinolo
1 year ago
The revolution, like Saturn, devours its own children.
Adrian Matthews
1 year ago
Excellent and insightful article and I shall buy the book. Great to see some cogent argument from someone on the left reasserting the value of universalism and enlightenment values. Thank you Susan Neiman. Shame that the ‘retired right’ seem to dominate the comments slot – cant you please stick to the Mail online?
Adrian Matthews
1 year ago
Excellent and insightful article and I shall buy the book. Great to see some cogent argument from someone on the left reasserting the value of universalism and enlightenment values. Thank you Susan Neiman. Shame that the ‘retired right’ seem to dominate the comments slot – cant you please stick to the Mail online?
Regan Best
1 year ago
The New York Times “is not particularly Leftist”? The author can’t see past her own set of blinders.
George Scipio
1 year ago
Neiman is appealing for incremental change towards fairness and justice in material terms on the basis of Enlightenment values of reason and tolerance, as these values can unite people of good will if they set aside the divisive identitarian trap laid for them by the right, who work towards the final triumph of plutocratic autocracy enforced by total surveillance, as in China and Russia. Neiman’s position cannot be reduced to just another identitarian claim or be labelled as “leftist” in order to dismiss it. She has a strong case and we should attend.
George Scipio
1 year ago
Neiman is appealing for incremental change towards fairness and justice in material terms on the basis of Enlightenment values of reason and tolerance, as these values can unite people of good will if they set aside the divisive identitarian trap laid for them by the right, who work towards the final triumph of plutocratic autocracy enforced by total surveillance, as in China and Russia. Neiman’s position cannot be reduced to just another identitarian claim or be labelled as “leftist” in order to dismiss it. She has a strong case and we should attend.
Emery Roe
1 year ago
Whoa! What a dyspeptic lot of commenters! To this reader, her piece is keenly observed and mercifully well-written.
I agree. Socialism in Europe began as a result of the Industrialisation of Europe. It was realised early on the International solidarity and support was one way of resisting the wretched side effects of capitalism on working people. Read the early history of trade unionism and the British labour movement. But all power corrupts and so the early ideals which still have merit have been buried long ago. This article is talking about the early ideals of the left and it was refreshing to see them resurrected.
The author appears to have no understanding of the Non Conformist pacifist roots of the Labour Party with the atheistic roots of Continental socialists who supported revolutionary violence. Compare G Lansbury in the 1930s and those raping and murdering nuns and castrating and murdering priets in Spain.It was the actions of communists in USSR who caused the famine which led to the death of up to 13M Ukrainians and the actions in Spain which resulted in many people supporting Hitler, Mussolini and Petain.
The moderate actions and words of the British Labour Party produced no nation wide mass movement of Fascists as a reaction. Mosley’s Black Shirts were considered by most of the middle class as a rabble, the leader was considered a four letter word and it was largely concentrated in the East End of London.
The author appears to have no understanding of the Non Conformist pacifist roots of the Labour Party with the atheistic roots of Continental socialists who supported revolutionary violence. Compare G Lansbury in the 1930s and those raping and murdering nuns and castrating and murdering priets in Spain.It was the actions of communists in USSR who caused the famine which led to the death of up to 13M Ukrainians and the actions in Spain which resulted in many people supporting Hitler, Mussolini and Petain.
The moderate actions and words of the British Labour Party produced no nation wide mass movement of Fascists as a reaction. Mosley’s Black Shirts were considered by most of the middle class as a rabble, the leader was considered a four letter word and it was largely concentrated in the East End of London.
I agree. Socialism in Europe began as a result of the Industrialisation of Europe. It was realised early on the International solidarity and support was one way of resisting the wretched side effects of capitalism on working people. Read the early history of trade unionism and the British labour movement. But all power corrupts and so the early ideals which still have merit have been buried long ago. This article is talking about the early ideals of the left and it was refreshing to see them resurrected.
I thought so too, I didn’t agree with all of it but it was well worth a read.
Emery Roe
1 year ago
Whoa! What a dyspeptic lot of commenters! To this reader, her piece is keenly observed and mercifully well-written.
Robbie K
1 year ago
What an excellent article, very refreshing to hear these viewpoints. Thank you Unherd.
It’s a bitter piece of irony that today’s Right-wing tribalists today find it easier to make common cause than those on the Left whose commitments traditionally stemmed from universalism
Absolutely. One only has to read the comments and likes to see it in full effect right here. That’s not to say the whole Unherd audience is completely tribal, after all you for example appear to have an open mind on some other subjects.
I have a very, very open mind. I am a scientist and engineer of the old school, the time before scientists became controlled by vested interests. So, I am not fazed by physics, the physics of the environment for example. For me, having an open mind means being able to listen to comments and rethink my view – I would be accused of trolling here.
Unfortunately, most UnHerders are not scientists (and may even think of scientists as the lowest of the low). So, this is not the place to argue most of the finer points of scientific discussions.
Then I am even more surprised that you are a climate change sceptic. We should always make scientific enquiry of course and question everything, but that shouldn’t lead to denial, cynicism and conspiracy. The level of post modern distrust and suspicion amongst the right wing tribe seems to be beyond reach of reason, and as observed by the author, embedded in a narrow set of common causes.
Climate change sceptic is just a cheap label. What exactly am I sceptical of?
Is the climate changing? Yes.
Is this change unusual? No. Take away the silly hockey stick graph and the change is perfectly normal. We have had much warmer periods (and colder) in the last millennium.
Are changes made by man? Maybe, maybe not. How exactly can that be proved? Impossible to prove?
Are we experiencing freak weather conditions? No but we are if every commentator keeps repeating the mantra.
Were you taught in primary school and secondary school that we were destroying the planet? Yes.
Did you just believe it because the teachers said so? Yes.
Is climate change ideology a political concept? Yes.
How, which set of politics? Socialism. The message is that the capitalists have become too strong. We need to even things out a bit.
Who do we blame? All old people. You like to use weasel words like ‘boomers’ because you are scared to say, ‘We need to muzzle old people,’
Next step? Disenfranchise everyone over 70 years old.
You assume much about me yet know nothing. Climate change was not in my curriculum. No, no, no, in the words of Maggie. You claim to be open minded yet spout all the typical climate change denial dogma. It’s very disappointing to be honest. We’re all to blame, but more so those who’s biases are so ingrained they cannot give proper consideration to something so obvious.
Who do you believe, as a scientist? How about The Royal Society? https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/
I ask again, what dogma? You can’t answer can you? You have two words, sceptic and denier. Now you have found a third. But you can’t follow the science. So what is the point?
I just gave you a link to ‘the science’. But I guess if you consider yourself more informed than The Royal Society then this debate really is a lost cause.
I just gave you a link to ‘the science’. But I guess if you consider yourself more informed than The Royal Society then this debate really is a lost cause.
I think most serious climate skeptics agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is warming the earth. That doesn’t mean it’s an existential threat, or the world is doomed if we surpass some magical threshold of 1.5 degrees.
I read the links you supplied. I can some them up in three words – trust the models. Meh. After 35 years of failed predictions, maybe we should all be questioning the models.
Thank you for acting as a mediator. In my post above I admit that the climate is changing. But I don’t go around saying ‘Save the planet.’ In my conversations. In the context of our history in the last millennium this warming is just not significant.
I agree models are often problematic. However what many people fail to grasp or are just simply unaware of is that CO2 persists in the atmosphere for 200 years. So everything produced in the industrial revolution onwards is still there and what we’re producing now is just accumulating, hence the focus on future thresholds which are a measure of what to expect, and none of that will be good.
People do grasp it but (to repeat) the projected warming is minimal compared to many years in the last 1000 years. They may believe every word you say about temperatures but don’t agree with mantras –
Save The Planet, Freeze the Boomers, Stop Efficient Transport, Everybody Must Become a Vegan, Stop Air Travel, etc.
Don’t you see it? These are mind control things to give money and power to university professors. They can be labelled as ‘woke’.
Totally understand the annoyance of groups such as Just Stop Oil, the irony is they are setting back their own cause by being utter bell ends, but certainly not woke. From their point of view however I also understand the frustrations they face with the total apathy of folks saying things such as ‘the climate has always changed’ and ‘it’s warmer now than in the past’, because it’s really head/brick wall time, with supposed intellectuals that believe they know better than The Royal Society, for example.
OK, I promise that this is my last attempt and you won’t hear from me again.
At the moment in the UK we are about 70 million, say. There are children, students, retired, people who work and those on benefits.
Whatever people think about climate, there is no justification for glueing yourself to the M25 and stopping ordinary people from going to work. Work generates income and pays for food, education and life. If climate worriers like yourself want people on your side, you need to denounce these people in very loud voices. But you don’t because you think that the end justifies the means. That last sentence has been used by dictators through the centuries.
People worship Greta because she went by boat across the Atlantic. Very good. It is not always said that her ‘team’ flew over by private jet. She actually doesn’t know anything but she is being used for political reasons.
On Twitter, lots of ‘big’ people blame the boomers. As do you. But none of you would dare to blame old people in loud voices. Then your movement would see a huge backlash which would destroy you. I dare you to say on UnHerd, over and over, that old people are the enemies of climate change.
Almost everyone who thinks believes that the earth has increased in temperature since about 1975. Almost no-one who thinks believes that this is the end of the planet. Europe is putting through many measures to change things. I suggest you go to China and appeal to their government. But don’t fly, of course.
I personally am a big advocate of detaching ourselves from oil and gas because we won’t then be dependent on Russia and Saudi Arabia.
You really should have read my comment properly before posting all that guff. If you’ve got the open mind that you claim to have then stop deflecting, consult any of the respected scientific publications such as New Scientist, Nature, National Geographic and see if they are the ‘thinkers’ you describe.
You really should have read my comment properly before posting all that guff. If you’ve got the open mind that you claim to have then stop deflecting, consult any of the respected scientific publications such as New Scientist, Nature, National Geographic and see if they are the ‘thinkers’ you describe.
OK, I promise that this is my last attempt and you won’t hear from me again.
At the moment in the UK we are about 70 million, say. There are children, students, retired, people who work and those on benefits.
Whatever people think about climate, there is no justification for glueing yourself to the M25 and stopping ordinary people from going to work. Work generates income and pays for food, education and life. If climate worriers like yourself want people on your side, you need to denounce these people in very loud voices. But you don’t because you think that the end justifies the means. That last sentence has been used by dictators through the centuries.
People worship Greta because she went by boat across the Atlantic. Very good. It is not always said that her ‘team’ flew over by private jet. She actually doesn’t know anything but she is being used for political reasons.
On Twitter, lots of ‘big’ people blame the boomers. As do you. But none of you would dare to blame old people in loud voices. Then your movement would see a huge backlash which would destroy you. I dare you to say on UnHerd, over and over, that old people are the enemies of climate change.
Almost everyone who thinks believes that the earth has increased in temperature since about 1975. Almost no-one who thinks believes that this is the end of the planet. Europe is putting through many measures to change things. I suggest you go to China and appeal to their government. But don’t fly, of course.
I personally am a big advocate of detaching ourselves from oil and gas because we won’t then be dependent on Russia and Saudi Arabia.
Totally understand the annoyance of groups such as Just Stop Oil, the irony is they are setting back their own cause by being utter bell ends, but certainly not woke. From their point of view however I also understand the frustrations they face with the total apathy of folks saying things such as ‘the climate has always changed’ and ‘it’s warmer now than in the past’, because it’s really head/brick wall time, with supposed intellectuals that believe they know better than The Royal Society, for example.
Sure, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 200 years. But right now we are at about 425 ppm. It’s been as high as 4,000 ppm in geological history. And I think the death level is something like 200 ppm, where plants no longer grow. In terms of the history of the earth, current CO2 levels are not even close to unprecedented.
I think a lot of alarmists have this comic book characterization of skeptics, or lukewarmers, which is what I consider myself. Most of us don’t deny climate change, and would support reasonable measures to reduce emissions.
But net zero and the solutions proposed by the climate change industrial complex are infinitely worse than the problem they purport to solve. Climate change will have an impact on society, but claims of an existential threat are hyperbolic and disconnected from reality.
Net zero, on the other hand, will absolutely 100% destroy the wealth and prosperity we enjoy today. We are condemning future generations to a life of poverty and misery to solve a problem that is better addressed by adaptation measures like sea walls.
The Dutch are seemingly hell bent to buy out 3,000 of the most productive farming operations in the world. What will be the result? The ag production won’t disappear. It will simply be shifted to other regions of the world, where production is less efficient and where the environmental impact is much worse.
In the end, we end up with more expensive food and a worse environment. But the Dutch have reduced their nitrogen level. What a shallow victory indeed.
Some very valid points. As I commented on in the Dutch farmer article economic protectionism will always come first, so genuine mitigation against climate change will be pushed back. As you suggest, net zero targets are very punishing, in reality it would mean all domestic central heating to be switched off, which obviously won’t happen. But even if the UK did do that, China and the US would carry on merrily so it wouldn’t make a jot of difference.
This is why people are angry, passionate and frustrated, and to bring it back on topic, it’s not because they are woke or lefties, it’s because they genuinely care for the future.
I agree. The vast majority of people who are terrified of climate change have sincerely held, caring beliefs – full stop.
On the other hand, the vast majority of people who we consider woke, have adopted hysterical ideas about a variety of issues, including climate change, without giving it any thought. It’s their default position.
Wokeism, in some respects, is a set of luxury beliefs. People adopt a set of ideas simply because it’s the fashionable thing to do in their social circle – not because they have seriously analyzed the issues.
Only people with privileged lives think defund the police is a sensible idea – because they aren’t living the reality of crime invested neighborhoods. Any adult who thinks it’s a good idea to give puberty blockers to children is not adopting this idea based on reason and logic.
Same thing with climate change. No one who is struggling to put food on the table, and a roof over their head, gives a second thought to climate change. It’s the people removed from worries of power bills, or even having electricity, who have adopted hysterical ideas about the issue. People who can barely afford a car, or the fuel to run that car, have very little interest in climate change.
Yes all good points, although your final paragraph seems to only apply to this country – poor people at the sharp end of climate change, of which there are many, will no doubt see it differently.
Yes all good points, although your final paragraph seems to only apply to this country – poor people at the sharp end of climate change, of which there are many, will no doubt see it differently.
I agree. The vast majority of people who are terrified of climate change have sincerely held, caring beliefs – full stop.
On the other hand, the vast majority of people who we consider woke, have adopted hysterical ideas about a variety of issues, including climate change, without giving it any thought. It’s their default position.
Wokeism, in some respects, is a set of luxury beliefs. People adopt a set of ideas simply because it’s the fashionable thing to do in their social circle – not because they have seriously analyzed the issues.
Only people with privileged lives think defund the police is a sensible idea – because they aren’t living the reality of crime invested neighborhoods. Any adult who thinks it’s a good idea to give puberty blockers to children is not adopting this idea based on reason and logic.
Same thing with climate change. No one who is struggling to put food on the table, and a roof over their head, gives a second thought to climate change. It’s the people removed from worries of power bills, or even having electricity, who have adopted hysterical ideas about the issue. People who can barely afford a car, or the fuel to run that car, have very little interest in climate change.
Some very valid points. As I commented on in the Dutch farmer article economic protectionism will always come first, so genuine mitigation against climate change will be pushed back. As you suggest, net zero targets are very punishing, in reality it would mean all domestic central heating to be switched off, which obviously won’t happen. But even if the UK did do that, China and the US would carry on merrily so it wouldn’t make a jot of difference.
This is why people are angry, passionate and frustrated, and to bring it back on topic, it’s not because they are woke or lefties, it’s because they genuinely care for the future.
People do grasp it but (to repeat) the projected warming is minimal compared to many years in the last 1000 years. They may believe every word you say about temperatures but don’t agree with mantras –
Save The Planet, Freeze the Boomers, Stop Efficient Transport, Everybody Must Become a Vegan, Stop Air Travel, etc.
Don’t you see it? These are mind control things to give money and power to university professors. They can be labelled as ‘woke’.
Sure, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 200 years. But right now we are at about 425 ppm. It’s been as high as 4,000 ppm in geological history. And I think the death level is something like 200 ppm, where plants no longer grow. In terms of the history of the earth, current CO2 levels are not even close to unprecedented.
I think a lot of alarmists have this comic book characterization of skeptics, or lukewarmers, which is what I consider myself. Most of us don’t deny climate change, and would support reasonable measures to reduce emissions.
But net zero and the solutions proposed by the climate change industrial complex are infinitely worse than the problem they purport to solve. Climate change will have an impact on society, but claims of an existential threat are hyperbolic and disconnected from reality.
Net zero, on the other hand, will absolutely 100% destroy the wealth and prosperity we enjoy today. We are condemning future generations to a life of poverty and misery to solve a problem that is better addressed by adaptation measures like sea walls.
The Dutch are seemingly hell bent to buy out 3,000 of the most productive farming operations in the world. What will be the result? The ag production won’t disappear. It will simply be shifted to other regions of the world, where production is less efficient and where the environmental impact is much worse.
In the end, we end up with more expensive food and a worse environment. But the Dutch have reduced their nitrogen level. What a shallow victory indeed.
Thank you for acting as a mediator. In my post above I admit that the climate is changing. But I don’t go around saying ‘Save the planet.’ In my conversations. In the context of our history in the last millennium this warming is just not significant.
I agree models are often problematic. However what many people fail to grasp or are just simply unaware of is that CO2 persists in the atmosphere for 200 years. So everything produced in the industrial revolution onwards is still there and what we’re producing now is just accumulating, hence the focus on future thresholds which are a measure of what to expect, and none of that will be good.
I ask again, what dogma? You can’t answer can you? You have two words, sceptic and denier. Now you have found a third. But you can’t follow the science. So what is the point?
I think most serious climate skeptics agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is warming the earth. That doesn’t mean it’s an existential threat, or the world is doomed if we surpass some magical threshold of 1.5 degrees.
I read the links you supplied. I can some them up in three words – trust the models. Meh. After 35 years of failed predictions, maybe we should all be questioning the models.
You assume much about me yet know nothing. Climate change was not in my curriculum. No, no, no, in the words of Maggie. You claim to be open minded yet spout all the typical climate change denial dogma. It’s very disappointing to be honest. We’re all to blame, but more so those who’s biases are so ingrained they cannot give proper consideration to something so obvious.
Who do you believe, as a scientist? How about The Royal Society? https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/
Climate change sceptic is just a cheap label. What exactly am I sceptical of?
Is the climate changing? Yes.
Is this change unusual? No. Take away the silly hockey stick graph and the change is perfectly normal. We have had much warmer periods (and colder) in the last millennium.
Are changes made by man? Maybe, maybe not. How exactly can that be proved? Impossible to prove?
Are we experiencing freak weather conditions? No but we are if every commentator keeps repeating the mantra.
Were you taught in primary school and secondary school that we were destroying the planet? Yes.
Did you just believe it because the teachers said so? Yes.
Is climate change ideology a political concept? Yes.
How, which set of politics? Socialism. The message is that the capitalists have become too strong. We need to even things out a bit.
Who do we blame? All old people. You like to use weasel words like ‘boomers’ because you are scared to say, ‘We need to muzzle old people,’
Next step? Disenfranchise everyone over 70 years old.
I suspect most people like to think they have an open mind. Why would you want all Unherd readers to be scientists, is that wish not being a bit closed minded? Artists bring equally original thought and opinions just, perhaps, more heart centered but, equally valid. Would you want all of us to be into our heads?
I don’t want people to be scientists. But I object when people who don’t understand what they are talking about calling me names like ‘sceptic’, ‘denier’ and ‘boomer’ when they don’t understand anything at all.
Suppose you were a philosopher and you said, “Wittgenstein said this and Aristotle said that.” I wouldn’t even comment because I have never met the two gentlemen. So, why does somebody who has no knowledge of the subject call me names? Answer, he is parroting somebody else just to give a clever remark.
I don’t want people to be scientists. But I object when people who don’t understand what they are talking about calling me names like ‘sceptic’, ‘denier’ and ‘boomer’ when they don’t understand anything at all.
Suppose you were a philosopher and you said, “Wittgenstein said this and Aristotle said that.” I wouldn’t even comment because I have never met the two gentlemen. So, why does somebody who has no knowledge of the subject call me names? Answer, he is parroting somebody else just to give a clever remark.
Then I am even more surprised that you are a climate change sceptic. We should always make scientific enquiry of course and question everything, but that shouldn’t lead to denial, cynicism and conspiracy. The level of post modern distrust and suspicion amongst the right wing tribe seems to be beyond reach of reason, and as observed by the author, embedded in a narrow set of common causes.
I suspect most people like to think they have an open mind. Why would you want all Unherd readers to be scientists, is that wish not being a bit closed minded? Artists bring equally original thought and opinions just, perhaps, more heart centered but, equally valid. Would you want all of us to be into our heads?
I read every comment because I always do. Some I found boring and commented myself. Those were, ‘The Right said this and the Left does that.’ These have no meaning except in the mind of the individual comment or.
Some comments I didn’t understand, so I had to pass by. Some comments tried to be funny. I like those in small doses but only in small doses.
All are fine, except when someone who doesn’t know anything about my own forte calls me silly names. He should learn that older does not always mean senile and greedy and extreme.
I read every comment because I always do. Some I found boring and commented myself. Those were, ‘The Right said this and the Left does that.’ These have no meaning except in the mind of the individual comment or.
Some comments I didn’t understand, so I had to pass by. Some comments tried to be funny. I like those in small doses but only in small doses.
All are fine, except when someone who doesn’t know anything about my own forte calls me silly names. He should learn that older does not always mean senile and greedy and extreme.
I have a very, very open mind. I am a scientist and engineer of the old school, the time before scientists became controlled by vested interests. So, I am not fazed by physics, the physics of the environment for example. For me, having an open mind means being able to listen to comments and rethink my view – I would be accused of trolling here.
Unfortunately, most UnHerders are not scientists (and may even think of scientists as the lowest of the low). So, this is not the place to argue most of the finer points of scientific discussions.
Absolutely. One only has to read the comments and likes to see it in full effect right here. That’s not to say the whole Unherd audience is completely tribal, after all you for example appear to have an open mind on some other subjects.
Robbie, that’s like responding “wonderful observation” to someone who says, “your hair looks really good today.” They’re telling you something you wanted to hear (that they knew you wanted to hear) are you’re complimenting them for their insight. This is how I imagine the faculty lounge at a university operates.
If you say so Sisyphus, I’m not that familiar with faculty lounges. All I can tell you is I read the article with some concern at the headline since I would immediately link the left with wokism, but was pleasantly surprised with the author’s articulate prose and opinions. I’m not rushing out to buy the book, but it was interesting and thought provoking.
He didn’t. You are now taking sides and have stopped reading and moved into name calling like your protégé. He was just trying to be pleasant and see both sides of the argument. Here you say, ‘Thank you for making such a well-informed comment but I don’t happen to agree with you.’
He didn’t. You are now taking sides and have stopped reading and moved into name calling like your protégé. He was just trying to be pleasant and see both sides of the argument. Here you say, ‘Thank you for making such a well-informed comment but I don’t happen to agree with you.’
If you say so Sisyphus, I’m not that familiar with faculty lounges. All I can tell you is I read the article with some concern at the headline since I would immediately link the left with wokism, but was pleasantly surprised with the author’s articulate prose and opinions. I’m not rushing out to buy the book, but it was interesting and thought provoking.
Robbie, that’s like responding “wonderful observation” to someone who says, “your hair looks really good today.” They’re telling you something you wanted to hear (that they knew you wanted to hear) are you’re complimenting them for their insight. This is how I imagine the faculty lounge at a university operates.
Last edited 1 year ago by Sisyphus Jones
Robbie K
1 year ago
What an excellent article, very refreshing to hear these viewpoints. Thank you Unherd.
It’s a bitter piece of irony that today’s Right-wing tribalists today find it easier to make common cause than those on the Left whose commitments traditionally stemmed from universalism
Who knew going all in on identity politics, making everything political, and making politics itself a zero sum game might end badly? If I read this article ten years ago, I might have some sympathy. Today I have none. You people loudly declared everyone not already aligned with you were enemies to be destroyed, said you were going to push forward no matter the consequences, and shouted down anyone who tried to warn you. Even now you still seem incapable of truly understanding the Law of Unintended Consequences or the corruption of power. “Authoritarian tendencies?” “Undermining democracy?” That is what you have been doing! Much of the old Classical Liberal Left has already abandoned you. They are called “far-right” now by the modern left even though they were not the ones who decided they love corporate power, political establishments, authoritarianism, hating on the rural and global poor, and international interventionism. For a second there it almost sounded like there would be some real self-reflection.
Perfectly put Matt. Particularly I laughed at this comment in the article about the “liberal Left” – which has become the most tribal political group I know:
“…progressives have abandoned the philosophical ideas that are central to any liberal or Left-wing standpoint: a commitment to universalism over tribalism…”
Even to someone as decisively inclined to the political right as I am, the progressive cause was a necessary and sometimes even admirable part of our politics. But now?
Now, progressivism has become more associated with the behaviour of Atilla the Hun. The only way to stop this new fascism, (an accurate description of what it is) is forcefully – just as force historically has always had to be deployed against fascism in all its many forms – both Left and Right.
Don’t call it progressive
But that is what they are. May I commend to you the excellent article by Lionel Shriver in this issue in which she describes how this horror is rooted in 1960s progressive groupthink.
Progressives everywhere have drunk the woke Kool-Aid and the result is what we see. Progressivism as we knew it is no more. It is now a thoroughly nasty, authoritarian and illiberal ideology better compared with communism.
Anybody who regards themselves as politically progressive now stands for this poisonous rubbish. And unfortunately that includes most of our 600 MPs
You’re both right. Allow me to suggest calling these people “pseudo-progressive”.
An excellent observation, a thought I’ve had, and struggled to label.
Yours, like my attempts, is not ‘catchy’ enough….. but could form the spine of a term as derogatory as say, ‘gammon’, or, ‘far right’.
Welcome to the ‘peepees’ – let the jester’s, and hopefully the OED, spread the word
Thanks Hugh. It’s actually an element of my definition of woke: the authoritarian pseudo-progressive usurpation of liberalism, which as it happens was recently cited by an English-French dictionary as an example of the usage of “liberalism”:-
https://www.lalanguefrancaise.com/dictionnaire/english-french/liberalism-en
Thanks Hugh. It’s actually an element of my definition of woke: the authoritarian pseudo-progressive usurpation of liberalism, which as it happens was recently cited by an English-French dictionary as an example of the usage of “liberalism”:-
https://www.lalanguefrancaise.com/dictionnaire/english-french/liberalism-en
Good suggestion
They always get to label themselves and they always chose words with positive connotations. There is however nothing progressive about them.
“Fauxgressive?”
An excellent observation, a thought I’ve had, and struggled to label.
Yours, like my attempts, is not ‘catchy’ enough….. but could form the spine of a term as derogatory as say, ‘gammon’, or, ‘far right’.
Welcome to the ‘peepees’ – let the jester’s, and hopefully the OED, spread the word
Good suggestion
They always get to label themselves and they always chose words with positive connotations. There is however nothing progressive about them.
“Fauxgressive?”
You’re both right. Allow me to suggest calling these people “pseudo-progressive”.
What makes progress possible? If Marx was clear about the answer to any question, it was this one: “The midwife of history is violence.” The hero of Chernyshevsky’s story said: “Yes, I will always do what I want. I will never sacrifice anything, not even a whim, for the sake of some thing I do not desire. What I want, with all my heart, is to make people happy.” This hero embodies what in Russia they call “bezdarnost” or giftlessness. “Giftlessness, as Dostoevsky feared, and Novakov knew, became the dominant style in Russia; it eventually seized power, and in the process of ‘making people happy’ destroyed them by the millions, leaving its vast motherland broken and desolate.”
But that is what they are. May I commend to you the excellent article by Lionel Shriver in this issue in which she describes how this horror is rooted in 1960s progressive groupthink.
Progressives everywhere have drunk the woke Kool-Aid and the result is what we see. Progressivism as we knew it is no more. It is now a thoroughly nasty, authoritarian and illiberal ideology better compared with communism.
Anybody who regards themselves as politically progressive now stands for this poisonous rubbish. And unfortunately that includes most of our 600 MPs
What makes progress possible? If Marx was clear about the answer to any question, it was this one: “The midwife of history is violence.” The hero of Chernyshevsky’s story said: “Yes, I will always do what I want. I will never sacrifice anything, not even a whim, for the sake of some thing I do not desire. What I want, with all my heart, is to make people happy.” This hero embodies what in Russia they call “bezdarnost” or giftlessness. “Giftlessness, as Dostoevsky feared, and Novakov knew, became the dominant style in Russia; it eventually seized power, and in the process of ‘making people happy’ destroyed them by the millions, leaving its vast motherland broken and desolate.”
“The only way to stop this new fascism, (an accurate description of what it is) is forcefully.”
Absolutely correct.
Don’t call it progressive
“The only way to stop this new fascism, (an accurate description of what it is) is forcefully.”
Absolutely correct.
A very good answer to the isms which can put a label on you and cancel you.
The way I see it, there are three kinds of Left..
The Marxist Left: “We will spread the glorious revolution and get rid of the Bourgeoisie and Kulaks!”
The elite “Woke” Left: “I love the power to arbitrate who wins the victimhood Olympics. It pays well too!”
The Classical Liberal Left: “You know I really think we should do something about the massive deregulation of financial institutions and ban stock buybacks.”
The problem is anyone who claims to be on the left today but does not belong in the first two is walking on eggshells in order not to be declared “far-right”.
Good idea.
I think the “power” aspect, though, is part of the Marxist revolution notion. The elite “Woke” left, imho, is not pragmatic enough to understand power, but is instead highly idealistic. That is why they are suckers for manipulation by the other two. It’s also why they enable the revolution, but do not survive it.
Why don’t people include The Climate Police in their discussions? Almost like they are in awe of anyone who talks about the climate.
I think you must mean the social liberal left. Classical liberalism advocated free trade and capitalism during the 19th century. Liberalism only took its social turn under Campbell-Bannerman and Asquith during the early 20th century.
Good idea.
I think the “power” aspect, though, is part of the Marxist revolution notion. The elite “Woke” left, imho, is not pragmatic enough to understand power, but is instead highly idealistic. That is why they are suckers for manipulation by the other two. It’s also why they enable the revolution, but do not survive it.
Why don’t people include The Climate Police in their discussions? Almost like they are in awe of anyone who talks about the climate.
I think you must mean the social liberal left. Classical liberalism advocated free trade and capitalism during the 19th century. Liberalism only took its social turn under Campbell-Bannerman and Asquith during the early 20th century.
…and which now must be neutralised.
The way I see it, there are three kinds of Left..
The Marxist Left: “We will spread the glorious revolution and get rid of the Bourgeoisie and Kulaks!”
The elite “Woke” Left: “I love the power to arbitrate who wins the victimhood Olympics. It pays well too!”
The Classical Liberal Left: “You know I really think we should do something about the massive deregulation of financial institutions and ban stock buybacks.”
The problem is anyone who claims to be on the left today but does not belong in the first two is walking on eggshells in order not to be declared “far-right”.
…and which now must be neutralised.
“You people”?
Yes, You people.
Yes, You people.
Spot on Matt. The wheels are starting to come off everywhere and this to me smells of the left screaming at the populace, “come to us because we care, we are all the same and should be treated equally!” Yet they have the worst track record. Social Justice is the worst kind of discrimination in the history of the world. They use the word racism like a whip. They crack it at us and think get down white scum.
So many people are sick of this but most of us are still to scared to stick our heads above the parapet. The left is truly viscous, and much worse than the crazies on the far right.
“They use the word racism like a whip. They crack it at us and think get down white scum.”
Excellently put.
“They use the word racism like a whip. They crack it at us and think get down white scum.”
Excellently put.
It’s a classic sermon in regressivist Doublespeak. Using the Nazi Bogeyman is pretty much an SOP. The left is very much globally Tribal. It is by no means universalist. Rishi Sunak is barely right leaning. If anything, he is a centrist. Kamala Harris is a Far Leftist. The Global Right doesn’t exist simply because the local rights have conflicting principles and cannot doublethink unlike the global left. And yes the usual hinduphobia. Modi is neither Hindu Nationalist not violent. The Global Left is very much Marxist Jihadist as witnessed most recently in Iranian Anti-Sharia Protests. While the author has the privilege to deny and erase facts about her comrades, her detractors simply don’t. Imagine denying Non Existent White Supremacy Threat. As for India, It’s a Quasi-Islamic State where Hindus are treated as Sub human by law and worse are encourage to glorify their Self Hate. India is a country where masses think Sharia is Secular.
Who is ‘you people’? Prof Neiman?
I can only speak for myself. I am (still) on the liberal Left, meaning that I believe in markets but that the State should promote greater economic equality and regulate in the interests of all without trashing the sovereignty of the individual and universal human rights. I have never deviated from this core conviction and there are many, many people in my camp.
Then I noticed that many of my activist fellow-travellers gradually became infected with a mind virus that says it’s not economics, stupid, it’s the countless different forms of identity that are supremely important. But not all identities and some are more important than others and we should pay ever more attention to our differences. It’s not only madness but its deep lack of electoral appeal presents a huge impediment to the possibility for how we would want to improve the world. You may not agree with redistribution, regulation, etc. but you can’t justifiably accuse all on the Left of tolerating this crap. Many of us have always hated it.
I’m pretty sure I explicitly left people like you out of my tirade. Please reread my comments. By the way, I am an Eisenhower Republican and have actually read Adam Smith so I am also in the camp that Western market mass deregulation has been an economic disaster.
I’m pretty sure I explicitly left people like you out of my tirade. Please reread my comments. By the way, I am an Eisenhower Republican and have actually read Adam Smith so I am also in the camp that Western market mass deregulation has been an economic disaster.
This new push from the radicals to de-align themselves from woke culture is telling in itself. They are trying to vilify the word themselves so they cannot be cast under its political implications which is another example how they really do not stand for anything but self preservation.
If I’d read this comment ten years ago, I might have read past “you people”. But I’ve learned that’s what people say just before they’re about to go on some vein-popping, self-righteous rant. Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.
Perfectly put Matt. Particularly I laughed at this comment in the article about the “liberal Left” – which has become the most tribal political group I know:
“…progressives have abandoned the philosophical ideas that are central to any liberal or Left-wing standpoint: a commitment to universalism over tribalism…”
Even to someone as decisively inclined to the political right as I am, the progressive cause was a necessary and sometimes even admirable part of our politics. But now?
Now, progressivism has become more associated with the behaviour of Atilla the Hun. The only way to stop this new fascism, (an accurate description of what it is) is forcefully – just as force historically has always had to be deployed against fascism in all its many forms – both Left and Right.
A very good answer to the isms which can put a label on you and cancel you.
“You people”?
Spot on Matt. The wheels are starting to come off everywhere and this to me smells of the left screaming at the populace, “come to us because we care, we are all the same and should be treated equally!” Yet they have the worst track record. Social Justice is the worst kind of discrimination in the history of the world. They use the word racism like a whip. They crack it at us and think get down white scum.
So many people are sick of this but most of us are still to scared to stick our heads above the parapet. The left is truly viscous, and much worse than the crazies on the far right.
It’s a classic sermon in regressivist Doublespeak. Using the Nazi Bogeyman is pretty much an SOP. The left is very much globally Tribal. It is by no means universalist. Rishi Sunak is barely right leaning. If anything, he is a centrist. Kamala Harris is a Far Leftist. The Global Right doesn’t exist simply because the local rights have conflicting principles and cannot doublethink unlike the global left. And yes the usual hinduphobia. Modi is neither Hindu Nationalist not violent. The Global Left is very much Marxist Jihadist as witnessed most recently in Iranian Anti-Sharia Protests. While the author has the privilege to deny and erase facts about her comrades, her detractors simply don’t. Imagine denying Non Existent White Supremacy Threat. As for India, It’s a Quasi-Islamic State where Hindus are treated as Sub human by law and worse are encourage to glorify their Self Hate. India is a country where masses think Sharia is Secular.
Who is ‘you people’? Prof Neiman?
I can only speak for myself. I am (still) on the liberal Left, meaning that I believe in markets but that the State should promote greater economic equality and regulate in the interests of all without trashing the sovereignty of the individual and universal human rights. I have never deviated from this core conviction and there are many, many people in my camp.
Then I noticed that many of my activist fellow-travellers gradually became infected with a mind virus that says it’s not economics, stupid, it’s the countless different forms of identity that are supremely important. But not all identities and some are more important than others and we should pay ever more attention to our differences. It’s not only madness but its deep lack of electoral appeal presents a huge impediment to the possibility for how we would want to improve the world. You may not agree with redistribution, regulation, etc. but you can’t justifiably accuse all on the Left of tolerating this crap. Many of us have always hated it.
This new push from the radicals to de-align themselves from woke culture is telling in itself. They are trying to vilify the word themselves so they cannot be cast under its political implications which is another example how they really do not stand for anything but self preservation.
If I’d read this comment ten years ago, I might have read past “you people”. But I’ve learned that’s what people say just before they’re about to go on some vein-popping, self-righteous rant. Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.
Who knew going all in on identity politics, making everything political, and making politics itself a zero sum game might end badly? If I read this article ten years ago, I might have some sympathy. Today I have none. You people loudly declared everyone not already aligned with you were enemies to be destroyed, said you were going to push forward no matter the consequences, and shouted down anyone who tried to warn you. Even now you still seem incapable of truly understanding the Law of Unintended Consequences or the corruption of power. “Authoritarian tendencies?” “Undermining democracy?” That is what you have been doing! Much of the old Classical Liberal Left has already abandoned you. They are called “far-right” now by the modern left even though they were not the ones who decided they love corporate power, political establishments, authoritarianism, hating on the rural and global poor, and international interventionism. For a second there it almost sounded like there would be some real self-reflection.
I suppose I tend not to read many “progressive”oriented articles these days (though really I prefer historically grounded and interesting thinkers like Mary Harrington, rather than a specific political orientation). So I don’t always see the progressive viewpoint of other opinions, but even several years ago I frequently read more progressive sources.
If this article is a good example of a left-wing philosopher’s assumptions on people of other world views, what a sorry state left-wing discourse truly is in. She essentially argues the only reason someone might oppose the Left is because they are a provincial who hates others. Being a public intellectual should mean having to grapple with the opinions of those who disagree, should mean at least trying to think outside your own box on occasion. This is just straw man after straw man.
Then, rather than trying to grapple with the possibility that woke excesses are an outgrowth of the very liberalism she defends, she says the Woke are bad because are just becoming like the Right. So again, her worldview breaks down to this: people who agree with me are good, others are evil and wicked.
have you seen the analysis of woke ideology at understandwoke.com? really interesting and clearly outlined
I’ve just had a look at it, and left some comments. Thanks for that.
I would suggest reading Of Course You Know What “Woke” Means by Freddie deBoer. I’m not the biggest fan of his outright socialist views but he does have principles and he did an amazing breakdown of what “woke” really is.
https://substack.com/inbox/post/108643299
I’ve just had a look at it, and left some comments. Thanks for that.
I would suggest reading Of Course You Know What “Woke” Means by Freddie deBoer. I’m not the biggest fan of his outright socialist views but he does have principles and he did an amazing breakdown of what “woke” really is.
https://substack.com/inbox/post/108643299
In other words, the author embodies Schmitt perfectly. “The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy”
Yes. I noticed that the author didn’t mention the friend enemy distinction. Very odd.
Yes. I noticed that the author didn’t mention the friend enemy distinction. Very odd.
Exactly David.
“People who agree with me are good, others are evil and wicked” seems to sum up “woke”. The word is used by the right as a put down for anything that threatens them and they disagree with in order to invalidate it.
Uh, that’s inverted. The Right didn’t invent the word, the tactic, the meaning. The Left imposes its agenda on everyone via academia, entertainment, technology, media, corporations, and demands we be held to its strictures. If we shrug it all off or, worse, ignore it, we are excoriated, punished, and made to care, whether we want to or not. There is no good faith attempt to discuss, debate, disagree. It’s Maoist Red Guard-ism.
Quite right: it was coined by “progressive” activists, who then blew very hard trying to convince us it doesn’t exist and that the culture wars they kicked off are a bogeyman of “right wing” imagination (inverted commas around right wing, as it’s a relative concept at best and has expanded to occupy all middle ground).
I wonder if some people can even figure out how to lie straight in bed…
Quite right: it was coined by “progressive” activists, who then blew very hard trying to convince us it doesn’t exist and that the culture wars they kicked off are a bogeyman of “right wing” imagination (inverted commas around right wing, as it’s a relative concept at best and has expanded to occupy all middle ground).
I wonder if some people can even figure out how to lie straight in bed…
So you really think that “the right” (which has never really meant anything other than those opposed to the Left) can’t tell the difference between the threats poses by classical Marxism-Leninism, the various “Communist” movements that have really turned fascist (cf. the CCP), and the Woke, whom I take to be the idiot children of the Frankfurt School, Foucault, Derrida and a host of anti- and post-colonialist Leninists? Only the last with their fixation on identity politics which the author decries, keeping racial greivances alive, rather than fixing them, and bizarre notion that subjectively felt gender should replace biological sex in all matters of social discourse and law are sneered at as “Woke”.
Uh, that’s inverted. The Right didn’t invent the word, the tactic, the meaning. The Left imposes its agenda on everyone via academia, entertainment, technology, media, corporations, and demands we be held to its strictures. If we shrug it all off or, worse, ignore it, we are excoriated, punished, and made to care, whether we want to or not. There is no good faith attempt to discuss, debate, disagree. It’s Maoist Red Guard-ism.
So you really think that “the right” (which has never really meant anything other than those opposed to the Left) can’t tell the difference between the threats poses by classical Marxism-Leninism, the various “Communist” movements that have really turned fascist (cf. the CCP), and the Woke, whom I take to be the idiot children of the Frankfurt School, Foucault, Derrida and a host of anti- and post-colonialist Leninists? Only the last with their fixation on identity politics which the author decries, keeping racial greivances alive, rather than fixing them, and bizarre notion that subjectively felt gender should replace biological sex in all matters of social discourse and law are sneered at as “Woke”.
She gets so much wrong about the categorisation of right or left, as do many, especially on the left. The only thing she gets right about that is that one”s politics is multi-dimensional and doesn’t fit neatly into old labels. Those labels nowadays don’t apply in the way they once did. By 20th Century standards, Rishi Sunak’s Government would have been considered left wing socialists. Western societies have moved considerably left.
No one nowadays wants anyone, anywhere to be poor, so demonising people who vote for ‘right of centre’ parties misses so many points. One of which is that creating more state dependency has failed to eradicate the tiny percentage of families in Britain staying very poor. Yet to pay for state dependency, the middle classes have less disposable income than ever before and many have themselves become classified as what now is called poor in UK – even though everyone has free education and healthcare, more and better consumer goods and creature comforts than ever before.
The problem is that the reasons there are still poor have been incredibly different to fix, especially the weather and its role in water supply in some parts of the world and varying natural intelligence levels. Since millions of clever people have tried to eradicate poverty over centuries and so far failed doesn’t mean we aren’t making progress – we are. Global poverty is declining as we educate people and empower women. Half the population are female, so empowering them in developing countries will also eventually reduce impoverishing warmongering.
So, I’ll vote for those who enable people to pick the ball up and run with it, rather than those who claim that they can completely level every playing field.
Should read “difficult” to fix (global poverty)
Weather will always be around.
Should read “difficult” to fix (global poverty)
Weather will always be around.
have you seen the analysis of woke ideology at understandwoke.com? really interesting and clearly outlined
In other words, the author embodies Schmitt perfectly. “The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy”
Exactly David.
“People who agree with me are good, others are evil and wicked” seems to sum up “woke”. The word is used by the right as a put down for anything that threatens them and they disagree with in order to invalidate it.
She gets so much wrong about the categorisation of right or left, as do many, especially on the left. The only thing she gets right about that is that one”s politics is multi-dimensional and doesn’t fit neatly into old labels. Those labels nowadays don’t apply in the way they once did. By 20th Century standards, Rishi Sunak’s Government would have been considered left wing socialists. Western societies have moved considerably left.
No one nowadays wants anyone, anywhere to be poor, so demonising people who vote for ‘right of centre’ parties misses so many points. One of which is that creating more state dependency has failed to eradicate the tiny percentage of families in Britain staying very poor. Yet to pay for state dependency, the middle classes have less disposable income than ever before and many have themselves become classified as what now is called poor in UK – even though everyone has free education and healthcare, more and better consumer goods and creature comforts than ever before.
The problem is that the reasons there are still poor have been incredibly different to fix, especially the weather and its role in water supply in some parts of the world and varying natural intelligence levels. Since millions of clever people have tried to eradicate poverty over centuries and so far failed doesn’t mean we aren’t making progress – we are. Global poverty is declining as we educate people and empower women. Half the population are female, so empowering them in developing countries will also eventually reduce impoverishing warmongering.
So, I’ll vote for those who enable people to pick the ball up and run with it, rather than those who claim that they can completely level every playing field.
I suppose I tend not to read many “progressive”oriented articles these days (though really I prefer historically grounded and interesting thinkers like Mary Harrington, rather than a specific political orientation). So I don’t always see the progressive viewpoint of other opinions, but even several years ago I frequently read more progressive sources.
If this article is a good example of a left-wing philosopher’s assumptions on people of other world views, what a sorry state left-wing discourse truly is in. She essentially argues the only reason someone might oppose the Left is because they are a provincial who hates others. Being a public intellectual should mean having to grapple with the opinions of those who disagree, should mean at least trying to think outside your own box on occasion. This is just straw man after straw man.
Then, rather than trying to grapple with the possibility that woke excesses are an outgrowth of the very liberalism she defends, she says the Woke are bad because are just becoming like the Right. So again, her worldview breaks down to this: people who agree with me are good, others are evil and wicked.
”In a few short decades, woke was transformed from a term of praise to a term of abuse.”
I always took ‘Left’ to mean either a parasite or a totalitarian. I took ‘Woke’ to mean love of that which is degenerate, and hate of that which is Decent.
‘’emotions traditional to the Left: empathy for the marginalized, indignation at the plight of the oppressed, determination that historical wrongs can be righted.”
I have NEVER thought of compassion or empathy being of the Left. Having seen a great deal of the world, Left always means oppression and at the same time destruction of wealth production; so all end up in poverty, it is always and everywhere cruel and causes suffering..
This article is like a Flat-Earther, an argument built floating in the air; taking it for granted the flat-earth laws of physics are real, and we all believe in them, wile patently they are totally false.
But I get the problem, the writer is a Lefty Philosopher…..an oxymoron, so it is merely a faith based article, and faith based on completely fallacious arguments.
Woke is Left. It comes directly from the Frankfurt School and to us via Neo-Marxism and Postmodernism. Both very destructive and cruel belief systems.
Basically ‘Woke is the love of that which is degenerate and contrary to Western Ethics, and is Against that which is decent and part of Western Ethics. It is just a self harming pathology, like Left is. Left is the Mother of Woke.
Woke is Foucault’s love of preying on Algerian boys while preaching about colonialism and injustices. The fact that such a degenerate is the most highly cited writer on the modern left is all one needs to know.
A propos, this excerpt from my heroic couplet satire, The Wokeiad:-
**********
Aeolus loosens now his knotted bag,
And the Anemoi from their prison drags.
Mild Zephyr cedes to Boreas the stage,
And Auster vies with Eurus in his rage. 130
Zeus flings his bolts and furiously raves,
And Lord Poseidon’s trident moils the waves.
Wokeness remorselessly through wind and rain
Grinds o’er first Lusitania then Spain,
Where Helios in triumph late restored
Is by his sky-clad acolytes adored,
Then left at Benidorm and up the coast,
Where basting nudists on the playas roast.
Over the Pyrrenees to soaked Camargue,
The hinterland of France’s nouvelle vague. 140
Next Paris, pantheon of po-mo spells,
A shrine to Foucault and to Foucault else:
The Tunis Gary Glitter, Humbert of
Bedouin boy, the freshman’s Nabokov,
White polo-neck, bald head, perverted grin:
Glans peanis peeping from its peeled foreskin,
Wokeness’s Baptist John or Salomé
Traducer of epistemologé.
Excellent.
Oh dear! The Bard of Bristol is off again (“Oim gernta do one o’ me poems”).
Larp.
Larp.
Excellent.
Oh dear! The Bard of Bristol is off again (“Oim gernta do one o’ me poems”).
A propos, this excerpt from my heroic couplet satire, The Wokeiad:-
**********
Aeolus loosens now his knotted bag,
And the Anemoi from their prison drags.
Mild Zephyr cedes to Boreas the stage,
And Auster vies with Eurus in his rage. 130
Zeus flings his bolts and furiously raves,
And Lord Poseidon’s trident moils the waves.
Wokeness remorselessly through wind and rain
Grinds o’er first Lusitania then Spain,
Where Helios in triumph late restored
Is by his sky-clad acolytes adored,
Then left at Benidorm and up the coast,
Where basting nudists on the playas roast.
Over the Pyrrenees to soaked Camargue,
The hinterland of France’s nouvelle vague. 140
Next Paris, pantheon of po-mo spells,
A shrine to Foucault and to Foucault else:
The Tunis Gary Glitter, Humbert of
Bedouin boy, the freshman’s Nabokov,
White polo-neck, bald head, perverted grin:
Glans peaniss peeping from its peeled foreskin,
Wokeness’s Baptist John or Salomé
Traducer of epistemologé.
Put a sock on on your Glans Peaniss please it’s really boring
Up yours.
Oh boys, really!!!!!
You people, really!!!!
You people, really!!!!
Oh boys, really!!!!!
Funny.
Up yours.
Funny.
You said that already.
I think you should get a new hobby.
Ok groomer.
What have I done to deserve that one Mr Craven?
..
Your dislike of my mockery of woke suggests that you are pro-woke, and therefore in favour of the sexualisation, drugging, and mutilation of children. On this basis, I say “ok groomer” to you.
Jesus. Points for just saying it this time instead of editing it back.
Mock away but you will not change woke hearts and minds with insults and mockery Mr Craven.
And I still think your poem is crap.
Ok groomer.
Enlightening. You can do better than that. You quote stuff like you’ve swallowed a library. Up your game.
Enlightening. You can do better than that. You quote stuff like you’ve swallowed a library. Up your game.
Ok groomer.
Jesus. Points for just saying it this time instead of editing it back.
Mock away but you will not change woke hearts and minds with insults and mockery Mr Craven.
And I still think your poem is crap.
..
Your dislike of my mockery of woke suggests that you are pro-woke, and therefore in favour of the sexualisation, drugging, and mutilation of children. On this basis, I say “ok groomer” to you.
What have I done to deserve that one Mr Craven?
Ok groomer.
With a bit if editing you could condense it to shorter more reader-friendly version. Might I suggest:
Roses are Red
Violets are Blue
I hates the Wokies
And so should you
Or just not bother. I fail to see how any of this is helping.
Or just not bother. I fail to see how any of this is helping.
Put a sock on on your Glans Peaniss please it’s really boring
You said that already.
I think you should get a new hobby.
With a bit if editing you could condense it to shorter more reader-friendly version. Might I suggest:
Roses are Red
Violets are Blue
I hates the Wokies
And so should you
I’m on the left, I guess, and have never read Foucault, and never intend to. I also don’t share his, and your, fascination with Algerian boys. Pretty weak argument if your aim is to demonise anyone on the left.
Left always meant to me bring down the leaders who rule and oppress ten times worse with the new left leaders. These militant movements always end badly. Democracy was a series of steps over a period by wise people who thought as they went. A movement to give and not oppress.
Another reply that has me baffled. What militant movements are we talking about? Putting everything into a neat and tidy little basket? In real life, Tony, most things are shades of grey, unless you live in a Daily Mail/GB News Echo Chamber where the mistakes and contradictions in their own positions are always blamed on someone else.
If you’re looking to make some point about viewing life in only black and white terms, I’m not sure the right/centre right is the best place to draw inspiration from. We aren’t the ones saying “If you disagree with us, you’re evil” at every opportunity.
If you’re looking to make some point about viewing life in only black and white terms, I’m not sure the right/centre right is the best place to draw inspiration from. We aren’t the ones saying “If you disagree with us, you’re evil” at every opportunity.
Another reply that has me baffled. What militant movements are we talking about? Putting everything into a neat and tidy little basket? In real life, Tony, most things are shades of grey, unless you live in a Daily Mail/GB News Echo Chamber where the mistakes and contradictions in their own positions are always blamed on someone else.
Exactly. And what’s with the up arrow, it take likes away, very confusing.
Ah it’s because it doesn’t just take into account your vote but those of others that have happened since you last loaded the page.
Ah it’s because it doesn’t just take into account your vote but those of others that have happened since you last loaded the page.
I’ll explain: R Wright is describing hypocrisy. He is not fascinated with Algerian boys. Michel Foucault was a homosexual pedophile who decried the “evils of colonialism” whilst sexually abusing foreign male children for his own pleasure. It’s called an example.
No he’s not. He used an ‘example’ to make an ideological point. Foucault’s sexuality does not negate what he had to say on colonialism or mean that it somehow equates to anyone who has questions about colonialism being either hypocrites themselves or automatically wrong.
Yes indeed. You have to make this basic point again and again on here. Attacking a person does *not* attack their argument, unless their arument is about them as a person. The discussion, insofar as there was one, was about whether left or right wing people are ‘better?’ So let’s take candidate one, Edmund Burke, often considered the father of conservatism, but oh no look, lots of people saw him as progressive in his own time (e.g. he supported the American Revolution)! Can he even be described as right wing..
Adam Smith (apparent father of capitalism) another classic example, he – like Marx – was very worried about the alienating effects that repetitive labour, such as in his famous pin factory that we see on £20 notes, would have on on workers.
He was a voracious pedophile. There is no excuse.
Which entirely misses the point that the argument was whether this negated everything he said, and the pretty absurd assertion that everyone on ‘the left’ read him and therefore it invalidated anything they stood for as well.
He was perverse in every way and his philosophy was essentially Marxist in that he sought to deconstruct western society by deconstructing all it held dear and declaring it false. The fact that he was a degenerate, disgusting paedophile who buggered small boys on gravestones does give some sense of his values.
Sigh…to repeat again, I have never read him, couldn’t care less about him but objected to the idea that any criticism of colonialism is invalidated by his comments on it.
And yet he is manipulating you now without your knowledge from the grave. Sucker.
And yet he is manipulating you now without your knowledge from the grave. Sucker.
Sigh…to repeat again, I have never read him, couldn’t care less about him but objected to the idea that any criticism of colonialism is invalidated by his comments on it.
John his whole philosophy was about creating a society in which people with his predilections could operate freely and to their hearts content. So I’d say it has rather a lot to do with his writing.
He was perverse in every way and his philosophy was essentially Marxist in that he sought to deconstruct western society by deconstructing all it held dear and declaring it false. The fact that he was a degenerate, disgusting paedophile who buggered small boys on gravestones does give some sense of his values.
John his whole philosophy was about creating a society in which people with his predilections could operate freely and to their hearts content. So I’d say it has rather a lot to do with his writing.
Which entirely misses the point that the argument was whether this negated everything he said, and the pretty absurd assertion that everyone on ‘the left’ read him and therefore it invalidated anything they stood for as well.
Yes indeed. You have to make this basic point again and again on here. Attacking a person does *not* attack their argument, unless their arument is about them as a person. The discussion, insofar as there was one, was about whether left or right wing people are ‘better?’ So let’s take candidate one, Edmund Burke, often considered the father of conservatism, but oh no look, lots of people saw him as progressive in his own time (e.g. he supported the American Revolution)! Can he even be described as right wing..
Adam Smith (apparent father of capitalism) another classic example, he – like Marx – was very worried about the alienating effects that repetitive labour, such as in his famous pin factory that we see on £20 notes, would have on on workers.
He was a voracious pedophile. There is no excuse.
No he’s not. He used an ‘example’ to make an ideological point. Foucault’s sexuality does not negate what he had to say on colonialism or mean that it somehow equates to anyone who has questions about colonialism being either hypocrites themselves or automatically wrong.
Left always meant to me bring down the leaders who rule and oppress ten times worse with the new left leaders. These militant movements always end badly. Democracy was a series of steps over a period by wise people who thought as they went. A movement to give and not oppress.
Exactly. And what’s with the up arrow, it take likes away, very confusing.
I’ll explain: R Wright is describing hypocrisy. He is not fascinated with Algerian boys. Michel Foucault was a homosexual pedophile who decried the “evils of colonialism” whilst sexually abusing foreign male children for his own pleasure. It’s called an example.
A propos, this excerpt from my heroic couplet satire, The Wokeiad:-
**********
Aeolus loosens now his knotted bag,
And the Anemoi from their prison drags.
Mild Zephyr cedes to Boreas the stage,
And Auster vies with Eurus in his rage. 130
Zeus flings his bolts and furiously raves,
And Lord Poseidon’s trident moils the waves.
Wokeness remorselessly through wind and rain
Grinds o’er first Lusitania then Spain,
Where Helios in triumph late restored
Is by his sky-clad acolytes adored,
Then left at Benidorm and up the coast,
Where basting nudists on the playas roast.
Over the Pyrrenees to soaked Camargue,
The hinterland of France’s nouvelle vague. 140
Next Paris, pantheon of po-mo spells,
A shrine to Foucault and to Foucault else:
The Tunis Gary Glitter, Humbert of
Bedouin boy, the freshman’s Nabokov,
White polo-neck, bald head, perverted grin:
Glans peanis peeping from its peeled foreskin,
Wokeness’s Baptist John or Salomé
Traducer of epistemologé.
A propos, this excerpt from my heroic couplet satire, The Wokeiad:-
**********
Aeolus loosens now his knotted bag,
And the Anemoi from their prison drags.
Mild Zephyr cedes to Boreas the stage,
And Auster vies with Eurus in his rage. 130
Zeus flings his bolts and furiously raves,
And Lord Poseidon’s trident moils the waves.
Wokeness remorselessly through wind and rain
Grinds o’er first Lusitania then Spain,
Where Helios in triumph late restored
Is by his sky-clad acolytes adored,
Then left at Benidorm and up the coast,
Where basting nudists on the playas roast.
Over the Pyrrenees to soaked Camargue,
The hinterland of France’s nouvelle vague. 140
Next Paris, pantheon of po-mo spells,
A shrine to Foucault and to Foucault else:
The Tunis Gary Glitter, Humbert of
Bedouin boy, the freshman’s Nabokov,
White polo-neck, bald head, perverted grin:
Glans peaniss peeping from its peeled foreskin,
Wokeness’s Baptist John or Salomé
Traducer of epistemologé.
I’m on the left, I guess, and have never read Foucault, and never intend to. I also don’t share his, and your, fascination with Algerian boys. Pretty weak argument if your aim is to demonise anyone on the left.
“The Left, more left, Lefty….”
Where are the Rights, or is it a dirty word? Are there any Rights? Are Rights automatically fas**st? Do you have to be Left or Right to have an opinion? Advice – don’t get hung up on left, left, left…. Have new ideas, ideas, ideas…
Where do the Greens come in your Left vs Right world? Surely, the Greens are the ultimate Lefties?
Is the word fascist banned?!!
If the cap fits, you people should wear it.
If the cap fits, you people should wear it.
Is the word fascist banned?!!
“emotions traditional to the Left: empathy for the marginalised, indignation at the plight of the oppressed, determination that historical wrongs can be righted”
Perhaps Neiman could have said “rhetoric” or “themes” rather than “emotions”. But they certainly are what made me, and many people, join the Left. The Right never mentions them.
Perhaps because those on the Right are actively finding and implementing solutions, whilst those on the Left are busy virtue signaling from their computers and bullying those with whom they disagree.
That is what it seems like.
Au contraire.You’ve just described what republicans do….. criticise what democrats do without offering an alternative plan. They’re against everything but for nothing.
I think I’ve said this to you before, Clare: You obviously don’t know any Republicans. I was very active but left the party and became an Independent in the second GWB term because I was disgusted by the war in Iraq. Whilst the GOP is as stuffed with fossilized corruptocrats as the Democrat party, individual free-market conservatives are the people who solve problems. It’s what they do in all walks of life. Democrats keep the problems going for fun and profit.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone in the Freedom Caucus is willing or able to solve any problems. It’s difficult to look at any of the committees that have been set up under the likes of Jim Jordan and see anything other than partisan game playing of no use whatsoever to any average US citizen. Who really cares about Hunter Biden’s laptop? I think sweeping statements about Right = Good, Left = Bad (or vice versa) don’t help anyone or make either the UK or the US better countries that work for everyone, however they vote or don’t vote, which we should surely all want?
You would do well to look at state and town action, not DC. For those of us who have worked at the town level, we’re well aware that we have a great deal of power.
I don’t doubt it. I’m sure the street lighting committee in some small town in, say, Idaho do a great job. My point was that the Freedom Caucus, as an example, see Congress as a reality show and their 15 minutes of fame (see McCarthy’s election as proof) rather than a serious governing chamber for all of the country.
I don’t doubt it. I’m sure the street lighting committee in some small town in, say, Idaho do a great job. My point was that the Freedom Caucus, as an example, see Congress as a reality show and their 15 minutes of fame (see McCarthy’s election as proof) rather than a serious governing chamber for all of the country.
I care about it. I care about whether politicians and their criminal family members are screwing over 1/2 the country. I care that corporate media isn’t going after it with the same voraciousness that they did Trump and his children. We are now living with a two tier justice system and so hale yes I care about it.
You would do well to look at state and town action, not DC. For those of us who have worked at the town level, we’re well aware that we have a great deal of power.
I care about it. I care about whether politicians and their criminal family members are screwing over 1/2 the country. I care that corporate media isn’t going after it with the same voraciousness that they did Trump and his children. We are now living with a two tier justice system and so hale yes I care about it.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone in the Freedom Caucus is willing or able to solve any problems. It’s difficult to look at any of the committees that have been set up under the likes of Jim Jordan and see anything other than partisan game playing of no use whatsoever to any average US citizen. Who really cares about Hunter Biden’s laptop? I think sweeping statements about Right = Good, Left = Bad (or vice versa) don’t help anyone or make either the UK or the US better countries that work for everyone, however they vote or don’t vote, which we should surely all want?
We’ll said!
I think I’ve said this to you before, Clare: You obviously don’t know any Republicans. I was very active but left the party and became an Independent in the second GWB term because I was disgusted by the war in Iraq. Whilst the GOP is as stuffed with fossilized corruptocrats as the Democrat party, individual free-market conservatives are the people who solve problems. It’s what they do in all walks of life. Democrats keep the problems going for fun and profit.
We’ll said!
I agree with you! But in the midst of all that hard work you have to sell your message
That is what it seems like.
Au contraire.You’ve just described what republicans do….. criticise what democrats do without offering an alternative plan. They’re against everything but for nothing.
I agree with you! But in the midst of all that hard work you have to sell your message
Left to me means people like Karl Marx which led to a century of torture and oppression by the USSR.
Indeed. But there are other excuses for tyranies that torture and oppress their people. The Left refers to the tendency which produces such tyrannies on the plea that they are helping “the downtrodden”, which is why the Woke are definitely a phenomenon of the Left — though their positions are hardly classical Marxism, their intellectual pedigree derives from the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School and anti- and post-colonialist thinkers who embraced Lenin’s provably wrong imperialism theory — and they to purport to be championing the downtrodden, no longer the working class (who are sneered at at “deplorables” on my side of the Pond, or “white van men” on the other), but women, and a grab-bag of ethnic and racial minorities, and folks with peculiar sexual proclivities.
Indeed. But there are other excuses for tyranies that torture and oppress their people. The Left refers to the tendency which produces such tyrannies on the plea that they are helping “the downtrodden”, which is why the Woke are definitely a phenomenon of the Left — though their positions are hardly classical Marxism, their intellectual pedigree derives from the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School and anti- and post-colonialist thinkers who embraced Lenin’s provably wrong imperialism theory — and they to purport to be championing the downtrodden, no longer the working class (who are sneered at at “deplorables” on my side of the Pond, or “white van men” on the other), but women, and a grab-bag of ethnic and racial minorities, and folks with peculiar sexual proclivities.
I’m so confused right now as to what counts as being left or right. All this constructive discussion is really helping.
Really interesting responses. I haven’t been on the left for decades. My position is conservatives do good things rather than talk about them.
I was trying to point out a messaging problem. Yet all these people i probably agree with philosophically are furious. Makes me think even more that conservatives are super bad at winning people over.
Naive
Perhaps because those on the Right are actively finding and implementing solutions, whilst those on the Left are busy virtue signaling from their computers and bullying those with whom they disagree.
Left to me means people like Karl Marx which led to a century of torture and oppression by the USSR.
I’m so confused right now as to what counts as being left or right. All this constructive discussion is really helping.
Really interesting responses. I haven’t been on the left for decades. My position is conservatives do good things rather than talk about them.
I was trying to point out a messaging problem. Yet all these people i probably agree with philosophically are furious. Makes me think even more that conservatives are super bad at winning people over.
Naive
I guess I’m on the Left. I believe that refugees and migrants are fellow human beings and should be treated accordingly. I believe giving pay rises to essential workers is more important than maintaining tax breaks for the top percentile. I believe public services vital to our safety and security should be owned by the British people not foreign investors only interested in treating them as a cash cow. I believe in a huge increase in affordable homes. I don’t believe a rich country like ours should tolerate food banks.
I don’t, though, have any interest in identity politics. Anyone who promises one simple solution to a complex problem loses my attention fast.
It seems to me you are a mirror image of the people on the left you are criticising, just as intolerant and one eyed. If we want a better country then folks of both left and right need to stop and think, and stop falling into rabbit holes.
If you call yourself something other than the left people may listen. The left means to me far worse than it means to you. It lets down every time. So does globalism as it happens. If you travel in Africa and Asia you will find well over a billion people want to come and live in Britain. I wouldn’t trust you to govern which would take wisdom not isms.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. That somehow treating refugees and migrants with traditional Christian values means we’ll have a billion Africans marching down Slough High Street before we know it? Do you really think the Clown Car masquerading as our government have ‘wisdom’!?! My point was that isms are bad, WHATEVER your politics and seeing everything through an ideological prism, as you obviously do, is hugely destructive to building a country that works well for everyone.
Well said, John!! And what’s with the damn up arrow!!!
What is Christian about siphoning off the best and the brightest, as well as the merely able-bodied, from other lands near and far? What is Christian about what happens to those places?
Take El Salvador: anyone who can, flees. Who is left to protect the people from the criminal gangs? A similar dynamic afflicts American inner cities, whose ordinary residents flee to suburbs if they are able–Trump pointed this out–leaving behind a pathetic underclass who turns to drugs, prostitution and welfare. (An adjacent class is promised protection from this intentional blight and other advantages, in exchange for votes.)
And what is Christian about the term “economic migrants”? By the logic of this poorly-understood phrase, “economic prospects”–namely, working below market rates with no worker protections, or perhaps becoming a prostitute–are more important than family and country. Maybe they are brave for making a risky journey; but real courage would have these men stay at home and work hard to better their people. That’s Christian courage, something worth praying for.
What Christian can claim that a person’s right to consume comes before their responsibilities to those around them? That a life without the latest consumer goods is a life to flee? That a nation is somehow inferior, undesirable, because it isn’t as rich?
Only the most meaningless, sentimental form of Christianity. The kind that leads to such pious banalities as “I believe immigrants are human beings,” and would rather have a Dr. Feel-good making moral prescriptions, than an honest priest making practical advice.
Well said, John!! And what’s with the damn up arrow!!!
What is Christian about siphoning off the best and the brightest, as well as the merely able-bodied, from other lands near and far? What is Christian about what happens to those places?
Take El Salvador: anyone who can, flees. Who is left to protect the people from the criminal gangs? A similar dynamic afflicts American inner cities, whose ordinary residents flee to suburbs if they are able–Trump pointed this out–leaving behind a pathetic underclass who turns to drugs, prostitution and welfare. (An adjacent class is promised protection from this intentional blight and other advantages, in exchange for votes.)
And what is Christian about the term “economic migrants”? By the logic of this poorly-understood phrase, “economic prospects”–namely, working below market rates with no worker protections, or perhaps becoming a prostitute–are more important than family and country. Maybe they are brave for making a risky journey; but real courage would have these men stay at home and work hard to better their people. That’s Christian courage, something worth praying for.
What Christian can claim that a person’s right to consume comes before their responsibilities to those around them? That a life without the latest consumer goods is a life to flee? That a nation is somehow inferior, undesirable, because it isn’t as rich?
Only the most meaningless, sentimental form of Christianity. The kind that leads to such pious banalities as “I believe immigrants are human beings,” and would rather have a Dr. Feel-good making moral prescriptions, than an honest priest making practical advice.
Identity politics if ever I saw it “call yourself something other than Left”. John described his viewpoints because labels are so very ambiguous in politics.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. That somehow treating refugees and migrants with traditional Christian values means we’ll have a billion Africans marching down Slough High Street before we know it? Do you really think the Clown Car masquerading as our government have ‘wisdom’!?! My point was that isms are bad, WHATEVER your politics and seeing everything through an ideological prism, as you obviously do, is hugely destructive to building a country that works well for everyone.
Identity politics if ever I saw it “call yourself something other than Left”. John described his viewpoints because labels are so very ambiguous in politics.
Are you by any remote chance from Scotland?Because that is the sort sentimental wokist piffle one always hears from there.
However your unabashed vanity signalling is noted.
Perfect example of using the word woke as a catch all put down.
One must keep up with ‘times’ Ms Knight.
One must keep up with ‘times’ Ms Knight.
Perfect example of using the word woke as a catch all put down.
Thanks to cretins like you ‘Twitter’ Murray the BAME population of these Islands is around 10 million souls, representing 19% of the population!*
You state “I guess I’m on the Left”; NO you are deranged, and need help immediately. Good luck!
(* ONS figures.)
Your insults say more about you, Charles, than they do about John.
What’s the problem, are you in love with him?
What’s the problem, are you in love with him?
You have not said if you agree that isms are bad
Classicism is the only creed I subscribe to.
Classicism is the only creed I subscribe to.
Does it make you feel better calling someone trying to discuss something. ‘cretin’? How are you different from all of those angry identitarians which this excellent article takes issue with?
Not another one from Twitter’ please!
Incidentally have you been following this little digression from the start?
If you have been you will have noticed that I very mildly chastised JM for his somewhat incoherent opening sentence.
He didn’t like that and ‘wet his pants’ as we say over here, and the rest is history.
Anyway the audience seem to have liked it and I garnered 64 ‘thumbs up’ whilst JM trailed rather on 43 ‘thumbs down’.
Perhaps you should try your hand? It’s only words after all.
Not another one from Twitter’ please!
Incidentally have you been following this little digression from the start?
If you have been you will have noticed that I very mildly chastised JM for his somewhat incoherent opening sentence.
He didn’t like that and ‘wet his pants’ as we say over here, and the rest is history.
Anyway the audience seem to have liked it and I garnered 64 ‘thumbs up’ whilst JM trailed rather on 43 ‘thumbs down’.
Perhaps you should try your hand? It’s only words after all.
Your insults say more about you, Charles, than they do about John.
You have not said if you agree that isms are bad
Does it make you feel better calling someone trying to discuss something. ‘cretin’? How are you different from all of those angry identitarians which this excellent article takes issue with?
Right on!!! It seems that whether one is left or right depends on what kind of person you are. Politics can’t be separated from psychology, it’s a reflection of who we are. One doubts that a psychopath would be liberal (in the classical sense of the word) and liberals tend to be empathic and compassionate.
Really?
What about Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Moa, Pol Pot and Tony Blair, to name but a few of your liberals, “ in the classicalE sense of the word”, as you would say.
Or do you have some others in mind?
I wouldn’t mind you being a nasty little man, Chuckling Charlie, if you had anything of import, or that made any sense, to say. You seem to have got your views from Nigel Farage after he had spent most of the night in the pub. And in what universe are Pol Pot and Mao ‘liberals’? Read a book without pictures some time, or if that’s too much of a problem get your carers to read it to you.
Resident troll that thinks himself funny. Don’t sweat it.
Are you another escapee from Twitter, it does sound like it?
Yes, I’ve not been a subscriber long but Mr Stanhope or the Mr Stanhopes is one reason why I left Twitter. If anyone challenges his faux intellectualism his first response seems to channel his inner Trump. Sad but most people seem to want to engage in a genuine debate.
That’s better Murray! “Manners maketh man” as the good Bishop* said.
However the problem with people like you is that their conceit far, far, outreaches their intellect. All this faux nonsense about:-
“I believe public services vital to our safety and security should be owned by the British people not foreign investors”.
or even worse this:-
“treating refugees and migrants with traditional Christian values”!
The only thing you really care about is John Murray;
The rest is just a sanctimonious charade that gratifies your immense vanity.
Is that not so?
(* WoW.)
I seem to have rattled your cage, judging by this rather absurd rant. Inner Trump? I suspect even he would be embarrassed by what you wrote.
Oh dear you seem to have relapsed, which will be a great disappointment to Desmond Wolf Esq, although no doubt your two* ‘Lefty’ acolytes will be pleased.
Also why can you NOT defend those two ludicrous statements I repeated above?
Perhaps because they are indefensible?
(* K & Knight.)
You’re really not worth the effort.
You’re really not worth the effort.
Oh dear you seem to have relapsed, which will be a great disappointment to Desmond Wolf Esq, although no doubt your two* ‘Lefty’ acolytes will be pleased.
Also why can you NOT defend those two ludicrous statements I repeated above?
Perhaps because they are indefensible?
(* K & Knight.)
I seem to have rattled your cage, judging by this rather absurd rant. Inner Trump? I suspect even he would be embarrassed by what you wrote.
That’s better Murray! “Manners maketh man” as the good Bishop* said.
However the problem with people like you is that their conceit far, far, outreaches their intellect. All this faux nonsense about:-
“I believe public services vital to our safety and security should be owned by the British people not foreign investors”.
or even worse this:-
“treating refugees and migrants with traditional Christian values”!
The only thing you really care about is John Murray;
The rest is just a sanctimonious charade that gratifies your immense vanity.
Is that not so?
(* WoW.)
I would agree with this – so far at best an interesting sort of roulette wheel of middle England opinions, thrown around like they’re clods of mud in the hope (possibly) that they’ll stick to something, but so far seems to have neither the stamina nor respect required for properly engaging with an argument.
Why do you enter the debate Mr Wolf and try and calm things down?
You don’t seem to have said much today.
I would but have essays to mark. And am still waiting for your reply to my comment on Eagleton’s piece on the strikers! I thought we were finding some common ground but I fear my patience with you may have worn you down.
You are correct, “guilty as charged”
I am so sorry and cannot think why I failed to reply!
Perhaps because it was a rather animated discussion as I recall.
Please don’t think me rude but it’s now time for my bed, but I shall endeavour to post a fulsome reply tomorrow.
You are correct, “guilty as charged”
I am so sorry and cannot think why I failed to reply!
Perhaps because it was a rather animated discussion as I recall.
Please don’t think me rude but it’s now time for my bed, but I shall endeavour to post a fulsome reply tomorrow.
I would but have essays to mark. And am still waiting for your reply to my comment on Eagleton’s piece on the strikers! I thought we were finding some common ground but I fear my patience with you may have worn you down.
Why do you enter the debate Mr Wolf and try and calm things down?
You don’t seem to have said much today.
Are you another escapee from Twitter, it does sound like it?
Yes, I’ve not been a subscriber long but Mr Stanhope or the Mr Stanhopes is one reason why I left Twitter. If anyone challenges his faux intellectualism his first response seems to channel his inner Trump. Sad but most people seem to want to engage in a genuine debate.
I would agree with this – so far at best an interesting sort of roulette wheel of middle England opinions, thrown around like they’re clods of mud in the hope (possibly) that they’ll stick to something, but so far seems to have neither the stamina nor respect required for properly engaging with an argument.
Cut out the rudeness ‘Twitter’ Murray, it only makes you look stupid.
Try addressing my statement about BAME UK, if you can.
What would be the point? You wouldn’t understand my answer.
Conceit over intellect. QED.
I think that was exactly the point I was making. Glad you have the self awareness to recognise your contribution is a triumph of conceit over intellect. I am though surprised as I wasn’t expecting any self awareness from you. Small steps, Charles, small steps…
Can’t you be original and use your own words/ideas?
(Still plagiarism is the best form of flattery.)
Can’t you be original and use your own words/ideas?
(Still plagiarism is the best form of flattery.)
I think that was exactly the point I was making. Glad you have the self awareness to recognise your contribution is a triumph of conceit over intellect. I am though surprised as I wasn’t expecting any self awareness from you. Small steps, Charles, small steps…
Conceit over intellect. QED.
What would be the point? You wouldn’t understand my answer.
That made me chuckle. he’s just a. rude man – ignore him
Don’t interrupt!
You’re ruining the ‘sport’ with your sanctimonious piffle.
Don’t interrupt!
You’re ruining the ‘sport’ with your sanctimonious piffle.
Resident troll that thinks himself funny. Don’t sweat it.
Cut out the rudeness ‘Twitter’ Murray, it only makes you look stupid.
Try addressing my statement about BAME UK, if you can.
That made me chuckle. he’s just a. rude man – ignore him
Could you, please, stop writing stupid things? I trust you actually realize that when people clarify the word “liberal” with the adjective “classical” they are referring to what the word meant before it was stolen by the Left on my side of the Pond: supportive of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and free markets, a usage still preserved in the name of the centre-right party in Australian, the Liberal Party.
Thanks to the corruption of the word by the American Left, those of us who are actually classical liberals in America are now called “Conservatives”, because conserving the American Founding, the quitessentially liberal (in the original meanin) event in world history is most of what we are about politically.
Aha, another American enters the fray! And one as I recall who couldn’t even distinguish between William Pitt the Elder, and William the Younger!
However in my case ‘Classical’ means the world of Ancient Greece and Rome, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with contemporary American politics.
I would have thought that was abundantly clear, so please stop spouting such pretentious drivel, it only makes you look stupid. ( Alas for the second time on UnHerd.).
Aha, another American enters the fray! And one as I recall who couldn’t even distinguish between William Pitt the Elder, and William the Younger!
However in my case ‘Classical’ means the world of Ancient Greece and Rome, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with contemporary American politics.
I would have thought that was abundantly clear, so please stop spouting such pretentious drivel, it only makes you look stupid. ( Alas for the second time on UnHerd.).
I wouldn’t mind you being a nasty little man, Chuckling Charlie, if you had anything of import, or that made any sense, to say. You seem to have got your views from Nigel Farage after he had spent most of the night in the pub. And in what universe are Pol Pot and Mao ‘liberals’? Read a book without pictures some time, or if that’s too much of a problem get your carers to read it to you.
Could you, please, stop writing stupid things? I trust you actually realize that when people clarify the word “liberal” with the adjective “classical” they are referring to what the word meant before it was stolen by the Left on my side of the Pond: supportive of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and free markets, a usage still preserved in the name of the centre-right party in Australian, the Liberal Party.
Thanks to the corruption of the word by the American Left, those of us who are actually classical liberals in America are now called “Conservatives”, because conserving the American Founding, the quitessentially liberal (in the original meanin) event in world history is most of what we are about politically.
Really?
What about Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Moa, Pol Pot and Tony Blair, to name but a few of your liberals, “ in the classicalE sense of the word”, as you would say.
Or do you have some others in mind?
According to the author, this sounds more like universalism than being on the left. Either way it seems a very reasonable and human point of view.
The left to me means terror, torture, famine, and mass murder.
And not necessarily in that particular order, it must be said.
And not necessarily in that particular order, it must be said.
They are coming to the USA to make money, most care nothing for the prevailing culture or history or even bother learning the language. I don’t mind helping their countries out but they should try to make it better for themselves instead of draining my country dry.
The problem for me is that so many people who proudly identify as Left and clearly feel virtuous for doing so are often rather uninformed and naive ‘useful idiots’.
I find it interesting that those who like to consider themselves kind and good and therefore obviously on the so-called ‘good’ side of politics, will bristle with outrage at say British Colonialism and its impact on indigenous peoples but love to vent their unalloyed disgust against any fellow countryman and woman who dares air their concern, or voices any negative as to the impact of the unprecedented mass immigration of the past 25 years let alone the clear abuse of immigration and asylum rules currently taking place on our borders. The left feel they can boldly berate and criticise locals who object and love nothing better to censure and silence their voices with nasty labels such as bigot and racist. In fact, they proudly flag their disdain with the confidence one might have suspected some colonialist abroad would have held for the native peoples ways and traditions they encountered 150 years ago. There is only a vile whiff of ignorance and snobbery in such attitudes: nothing remotely virtuous.
If you call yourself something other than the left people may listen. The left means to me far worse than it means to you. It lets down every time. So does globalism as it happens. If you travel in Africa and Asia you will find well over a billion people want to come and live in Britain. I wouldn’t trust you to govern which would take wisdom not isms.
Are you by any remote chance from Scotland?Because that is the sort sentimental wokist piffle one always hears from there.
However your unabashed vanity signalling is noted.
Thanks to cretins like you ‘Twitter’ Murray the BAME population of these Islands is around 10 million souls, representing 19% of the population!*
You state “I guess I’m on the Left”; NO you are deranged, and need help immediately. Good luck!
(* ONS figures.)
Right on!!! It seems that whether one is left or right depends on what kind of person you are. Politics can’t be separated from psychology, it’s a reflection of who we are. One doubts that a psychopath would be liberal (in the classical sense of the word) and liberals tend to be empathic and compassionate.
According to the author, this sounds more like universalism than being on the left. Either way it seems a very reasonable and human point of view.
The left to me means terror, torture, famine, and mass murder.
They are coming to the USA to make money, most care nothing for the prevailing culture or history or even bother learning the language. I don’t mind helping their countries out but they should try to make it better for themselves instead of draining my country dry.
The problem for me is that so many people who proudly identify as Left and clearly feel virtuous for doing so are often rather uninformed and naive ‘useful idiots’.
I find it interesting that those who like to consider themselves kind and good and therefore obviously on the so-called ‘good’ side of politics, will bristle with outrage at say British Colonialism and its impact on indigenous peoples but love to vent their unalloyed disgust against any fellow countryman and woman who dares air their concern, or voices any negative as to the impact of the unprecedented mass immigration of the past 25 years let alone the clear abuse of immigration and asylum rules currently taking place on our borders. The left feel they can boldly berate and criticise locals who object and love nothing better to censure and silence their voices with nasty labels such as bigot and racist. In fact, they proudly flag their disdain with the confidence one might have suspected some colonialist abroad would have held for the native peoples ways and traditions they encountered 150 years ago. There is only a vile whiff of ignorance and snobbery in such attitudes: nothing remotely virtuous.
Likewise. Left has always meant opression of the masses to me as well as played out in Communism where the people were just puppets available to opress and murder if need be. It is the biggest poison played out before us in the last century. A century of blood, torture and murder. The poison of this century may well come to us through the globalists. Think “You will own nothing but be happy” espoused by The World Economic Forum. I believe that is the biggest danger we have just now and could end in horror and oppression for millions. These things always start with good ideas like Nazism and Communism..
Agreed. Left = fascism + intellectual figleaf.
Are you saying Nazism and communism was a movement of liberals (in the classical sense of the word)?!
No, but they were ‘progressive’ products of the Enlightenment.
No, but they were ‘progressive’ products of the Enlightenment.
Agreed. Left = fascism + intellectual figleaf.
Are you saying Nazism and communism was a movement of liberals (in the classical sense of the word)?!
What was the term……………. Bolshevism
Yikes!! But yes, you said in a nutshell how the right is using the word woke as put down of all that threatens them and all they disagee with.
I must say I prefer Bolshevik myself, or even Bolshy for short.
I must say I prefer Bolshevik myself, or even Bolshy for short.
Woke is Foucault’s love of preying on Algerian boys while preaching about colonialism and injustices. The fact that such a degenerate is the most highly cited writer on the modern left is all one needs to know.
“The Left, more left, Lefty….”
Where are the Rights, or is it a dirty word? Are there any Rights? Are Rights automatically fas**st? Do you have to be Left or Right to have an opinion? Advice – don’t get hung up on left, left, left…. Have new ideas, ideas, ideas…
Where do the Greens come in your Left vs Right world? Surely, the Greens are the ultimate Lefties?
“emotions traditional to the Left: empathy for the marginalised, indignation at the plight of the oppressed, determination that historical wrongs can be righted”
Perhaps Neiman could have said “rhetoric” or “themes” rather than “emotions”. But they certainly are what made me, and many people, join the Left. The Right never mentions them.
I guess I’m on the Left. I believe that refugees and migrants are fellow human beings and should be treated accordingly. I believe giving pay rises to essential workers is more important than maintaining tax breaks for the top percentile. I believe public services vital to our safety and security should be owned by the British people not foreign investors only interested in treating them as a cash cow. I believe in a huge increase in affordable homes. I don’t believe a rich country like ours should tolerate food banks.
I don’t, though, have any interest in identity politics. Anyone who promises one simple solution to a complex problem loses my attention fast.
It seems to me you are a mirror image of the people on the left you are criticising, just as intolerant and one eyed. If we want a better country then folks of both left and right need to stop and think, and stop falling into rabbit holes.
Likewise. Left has always meant opression of the masses to me as well as played out in Communism where the people were just puppets available to opress and murder if need be. It is the biggest poison played out before us in the last century. A century of blood, torture and murder. The poison of this century may well come to us through the globalists. Think “You will own nothing but be happy” espoused by The World Economic Forum. I believe that is the biggest danger we have just now and could end in horror and oppression for millions. These things always start with good ideas like Nazism and Communism..
What was the term……………. Bolshevism
Yikes!! But yes, you said in a nutshell how the right is using the word woke as put down of all that threatens them and all they disagee with.
”In a few short decades, woke was transformed from a term of praise to a term of abuse.”
I always took ‘Left’ to mean either a parasite or a totalitarian. I took ‘Woke’ to mean love of that which is degenerate, and hate of that which is Decent.
‘’emotions traditional to the Left: empathy for the marginalized, indignation at the plight of the oppressed, determination that historical wrongs can be righted.”
I have NEVER thought of compassion or empathy being of the Left. Having seen a great deal of the world, Left always means oppression and at the same time destruction of wealth production; so all end up in poverty, it is always and everywhere cruel and causes suffering..
This article is like a Flat-Earther, an argument built floating in the air; taking it for granted the flat-earth laws of physics are real, and we all believe in them, wile patently they are totally false.
But I get the problem, the writer is a Lefty Philosopher…..an oxymoron, so it is merely a faith based article, and faith based on completely fallacious arguments.
Woke is Left. It comes directly from the Frankfurt School and to us via Neo-Marxism and Postmodernism. Both very destructive and cruel belief systems.
Basically ‘Woke is the love of that which is degenerate and contrary to Western Ethics, and is Against that which is decent and part of Western Ethics. It is just a self harming pathology, like Left is. Left is the Mother of Woke.
Universalism implies centralisation. Unite the left and unite the world. It ignores the importance of the nation-state. Not as the embodiment of a tribe, but as a polity with shared geographic, and often cultural interests derived directly from that geography.
The history of the world is one of centralisation into ‘universal’ empires followed by discontent and collapse and the emergence of independence nations based on local needs, and issues of local resources.
It is also not just luck of the draw as to which nation you are born into, it also relates to the struggles and industry of your parents, and their parents, and their parents. Struggles that got the vote, created trade unions, achieved freedom of speech, battled for equality against (universalist) autocrats and censors. These weren’t given by generous universalists, but won bit-by-bit in the fights for self-determination.
So you’re wrong to think that people in general have moved rightwards. It’s just the progressive left has abandoned support for basic human freedoms that a middle-of-the-road leftie took for granted 20-30 years ago. Freedom of speech. Fairness under the law. Due process. Equality and everyone treated equally. Protection of civil liberties. The Progressive Left have become the autocrats demonising and dismissing anything against their ‘regime’ as ‘far right’. The real question here is when, and why, did Progressives turn into tyrants?
The longer all this persists the more I think the left has pretty much nothing meaningful to offer. All it is is intellectualising and theories (although the left in its entirety is notably devoid of any economic ideas). It is stuck in theory because the practical examples of it’s supposed betterment of the world are a f*****g catastrophe.
The “discontent” in your second paragraph invariably follows the rise of elites in successful centralized empires and the corruption they invariably bring as they attempt to tribalize their way into permanence.
Both are dangerous. The left and the globalists. The left have proved it but the globalists are in danger of proving it.
I am old enough to remember when the “left” was constantly protesting outside of the World Trade Organization over their abuses. Now the modern left is all in on globalization.
I am old enough to remember when the “left” was constantly protesting outside of the World Trade Organization over their abuses. Now the modern left is all in on globalization.
Both are dangerous. The left and the globalists. The left have proved it but the globalists are in danger of proving it.
Yes, hard to see how there can be eg democracy in anything except (something like) a nation state. Modern westerners (esp progressives) have even forgotten that the purpose of a democracy is to allow for an element of control by the majority (rather than a vehicle to promote minority rights) and that there must be a recognisable, somewhat unified demos for democracy to even exist.
The longer all this persists the more I think the left has pretty much nothing meaningful to offer. All it is is intellectualising and theories (although the left in its entirety is notably devoid of any economic ideas). It is stuck in theory because the practical examples of it’s supposed betterment of the world are a f*****g catastrophe.
The “discontent” in your second paragraph invariably follows the rise of elites in successful centralized empires and the corruption they invariably bring as they attempt to tribalize their way into permanence.
Yes, hard to see how there can be eg democracy in anything except (something like) a nation state. Modern westerners (esp progressives) have even forgotten that the purpose of a democracy is to allow for an element of control by the majority (rather than a vehicle to promote minority rights) and that there must be a recognisable, somewhat unified demos for democracy to even exist.
Universalism implies centralisation. Unite the left and unite the world. It ignores the importance of the nation-state. Not as the embodiment of a tribe, but as a polity with shared geographic, and often cultural interests derived directly from that geography.
The history of the world is one of centralisation into ‘universal’ empires followed by discontent and collapse and the emergence of independence nations based on local needs, and issues of local resources.
It is also not just luck of the draw as to which nation you are born into, it also relates to the struggles and industry of your parents, and their parents, and their parents. Struggles that got the vote, created trade unions, achieved freedom of speech, battled for equality against (universalist) autocrats and censors. These weren’t given by generous universalists, but won bit-by-bit in the fights for self-determination.
So you’re wrong to think that people in general have moved rightwards. It’s just the progressive left has abandoned support for basic human freedoms that a middle-of-the-road leftie took for granted 20-30 years ago. Freedom of speech. Fairness under the law. Due process. Equality and everyone treated equally. Protection of civil liberties. The Progressive Left have become the autocrats demonising and dismissing anything against their ‘regime’ as ‘far right’. The real question here is when, and why, did Progressives turn into tyrants?
“Progressive activists have forgotten their intellectual roots” and they despise the working class.
Yes, woke is basically the semi-educated Dunning-Kruger elite punching down on plumbers and electricians and mechanics.
The useful people. Those who genuinely contribute to society.
For over fifty years, I have believed the problem with society isn’t that too few people go to university rather it is the stigmatisation of the actual working class, the useful people. I found it odd Tony Blair believed sending more people to university would change things, the outcome is a proliferation of universities staffed by unintelligent and, for the most part, uneducated bigots intent on destroying society who proudly announce their bias, fondly believing it enhances their status, whilst silencing all intelligent, questioning debate.
I’m an academic from a working class background and I cannot imagine ever looking down on my roots or the people I grew up with. I wasn’t brought up that way and it is something I try to impress on my own children.
I have no idea what kind of academic you are or the quality of your work, but I do wonder what careers you ‘encourage’ your children to pursue and why you chose academia. Stigmatisation is a subtle art. I was actually relieved when my son chose to leave academia and he was assured a glittering career. His undergraduate degree exposed him to wokism, his PhD and post doc were hard science and useful. He is becoming gradually less woke.
But what exactly does that mean?
I more or less fell into academia, if that makes sense. I am a scientist researching in the fields of biochemistry and bioinformatics. My family is still young, so encouragement towards certain vocations is not a major issue right now, but my wife (who is a nurse) and I do not denigrate manual workers. We live in a non-western nation that highly prizes cognition and knowledge work, so we understand the intense pressure on our kids to perform well at school, while recognising that knowledge work is only possible because of all the manual work that happens to support it. We try to impress on our kids the importance of everyone’s contribution to society.
But what exactly does that mean?
I more or less fell into academia, if that makes sense. I am a scientist researching in the fields of biochemistry and bioinformatics. My family is still young, so encouragement towards certain vocations is not a major issue right now, but my wife (who is a nurse) and I do not denigrate manual workers. We live in a non-western nation that highly prizes cognition and knowledge work, so we understand the intense pressure on our kids to perform well at school, while recognising that knowledge work is only possible because of all the manual work that happens to support it. We try to impress on our kids the importance of everyone’s contribution to society.
Exactly. Generalizations are disasterous.
I have no idea what kind of academic you are or the quality of your work, but I do wonder what careers you ‘encourage’ your children to pursue and why you chose academia. Stigmatisation is a subtle art. I was actually relieved when my son chose to leave academia and he was assured a glittering career. His undergraduate degree exposed him to wokism, his PhD and post doc were hard science and useful. He is becoming gradually less woke.
Exactly. Generalizations are disasterous.
Exceedingly well said.
Annoyingly it is John Major you can thank for the proliferation of Universities and thus the destruction of quality for quantity.
However it is refreshing that everyone blames the wretched Blair creature for this titanic blunder.
Thank you for the correction Charles. Accuracy is important tome (usually). John Major never attended university himself so probably felt deprived and wished to help others he identified with – a kind of extended self-pity.
Thank you for the correction Charles. Accuracy is important tome (usually). John Major never attended university himself so probably felt deprived and wished to help others he identified with – a kind of extended self-pity.
I’m an academic from a working class background and I cannot imagine ever looking down on my roots or the people I grew up with. I wasn’t brought up that way and it is something I try to impress on my own children.
Exceedingly well said.
Annoyingly it is John Major you can thank for the proliferation of Universities and thus the destruction of quality for quantity.
However it is refreshing that everyone blames the wretched Blair creature for this titanic blunder.
Along with every f*cker else, the banks are doing great right now, the energy sanctions are fabulous and supply chains are really improving in the 21st century. You need to expand your criticism.
Not if you work for Credit Suisse, Silicon Valley Bank, or the other one Ms Emery.
First Republic? I have been keeping up. Its not looking great at the moment economy wise.
Too many people were busy having culture wars, fiddling and talking nonsense instead of paying attention to the economy, which fundamentally keeps everything going.
Grumpy I am today, nobody listened to the people that were warning about this.
Thanks my memory is fading! But you are spot on, too much hubris and not enough grafting.
For example all this nonsense about the Climate Emergency! The usual hysterics with little better to do. In this case mainly from the Left, whilst on the Right we have the armchair bound Warmongers! Still it has been like this since at least 1917, if not before, so we shall have to endure it.
Indeed endure, just seems the way of the world, the news is never boring these days I suppose. I get to rant more often. Both sides seem very capable of making bad policies right now.
Oxford stopped requirng Greek for entry in 1920 and PPE was created in 1922 and it has been down hill since then. One can correlate the decline of Britain with the creation of PPE.
Indeed endure, just seems the way of the world, the news is never boring these days I suppose. I get to rant more often. Both sides seem very capable of making bad policies right now.
Oxford stopped requirng Greek for entry in 1920 and PPE was created in 1922 and it has been down hill since then. One can correlate the decline of Britain with the creation of PPE.
Thanks my memory is fading! But you are spot on, too much hubris and not enough grafting.
For example all this nonsense about the Climate Emergency! The usual hysterics with little better to do. In this case mainly from the Left, whilst on the Right we have the armchair bound Warmongers! Still it has been like this since at least 1917, if not before, so we shall have to endure it.
First Republic? I have been keeping up. Its not looking great at the moment economy wise.
Too many people were busy having culture wars, fiddling and talking nonsense instead of paying attention to the economy, which fundamentally keeps everything going.
Grumpy I am today, nobody listened to the people that were warning about this.
Why? This is an article about the left and woke, and my comment is about woke. Banker-bashing is just whataboutery.
Your comments are. Uninspiring.
Energy markets and supply chains have nothing to do with bankers.
You have been busy writing crap poetry instead of paying attention to the economy though so I wouldn’t expect you to understand.
What you mean is that you are unable to articulate your grievance against my mockery of woke.
Im not sure people were ready for me to articulate any of my grievances.
I have no idea who dunning-kruger is, so apart from not understanding your joke, my grievance is not your mockery of woke but the way you go about it. I thought since you were championing trades I’d let you know my grievances.
Quoting from Wikipedia:-
“The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.”
In other words, I was making the point that the expansion of tertiary education has produced an “elite” of midwits, good for nothing except parroting woke nonsense, who look down on the skilled workers who, given the grasp of applied logic required of plumbers, electricians, mechanics and the like, are generally their intellectual superiors.
Now that is informative and no insults either, well done.
I think that applies more to the American government. I do feel more and more inclined to apply it to our own. Not sure if its intellectual superiority, perhaps a different mindset.
Now that is informative and no insults either, well done.
I think that applies more to the American government. I do feel more and more inclined to apply it to our own. Not sure if its intellectual superiority, perhaps a different mindset.
Quoting from Wikipedia:-
“The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.”
In other words, I was making the point that the expansion of tertiary education has produced an “elite” of midwits, good for nothing except parroting woke nonsense, who look down on the skilled workers who, given the grasp of applied logic required of plumbers, electricians, mechanics and the like, are generally their intellectual superiors.
Im not sure people were ready for me to articulate any of my grievances.
I have no idea who dunning-kruger is, so apart from not understanding your joke, my grievance is not your mockery of woke but the way you go about it. I thought since you were championing trades I’d let you know my grievances.
What you mean is that you are unable to articulate your grievance against my mockery of woke.
Your comments are. Uninspiring.
Energy markets and supply chains have nothing to do with bankers.
You have been busy writing crap poetry instead of paying attention to the economy though so I wouldn’t expect you to understand.
Not if you work for Credit Suisse, Silicon Valley Bank, or the other one Ms Emery.
Why? This is an article about the left and woke, and my comment is about woke. Banker-bashing is just whataboutery.
The useful people. Those who genuinely contribute to society.
For over fifty years, I have believed the problem with society isn’t that too few people go to university rather it is the stigmatisation of the actual working class, the useful people. I found it odd Tony Blair believed sending more people to university would change things, the outcome is a proliferation of universities staffed by unintelligent and, for the most part, uneducated bigots intent on destroying society who proudly announce their bias, fondly believing it enhances their status, whilst silencing all intelligent, questioning debate.
Along with every f*cker else, the banks are doing great right now, the energy sanctions are fabulous and supply chains are really improving in the 21st century. You need to expand your criticism.
Confess that I have little in common with the author politically/ideologically. But this statement is spot-on:
“Wokeness demands that nations and peoples face up to their criminal histories. But in the process, it often concludes that all history is criminal.“
“Facing-up” and “bowing down” are mutually exclusive and morally distinct ideas. One is legitimate and based upon truth and humility; the other is demonic and based upon lust and anger.
Yes, woke is basically the semi-educated Dunning-Kruger elite punching down on plumbers and electricians and mechanics.
Confess that I have little in common with the author politically/ideologically. But this statement is spot-on:
“Wokeness demands that nations and peoples face up to their criminal histories. But in the process, it often concludes that all history is criminal.“
“Facing-up” and “bowing down” are mutually exclusive and morally distinct ideas. One is legitimate and based upon truth and humility; the other is demonic and based upon lust and anger.
“Progressive activists have forgotten their intellectual roots” and they despise the working class.
The New York Times is not “particularly leftist”
Oh, really? That one line alone is sufficient to warrant consigning this article with its ‘Left = good/progressive; Right = bad/oppressive” cant to the rubbish bin.
I am all for considering differing viewpoints, but this sort of garbage fails to illuminate or engage.
Ironically, successive Tory governments in the UK have presided over the most catastrophic spread of woke policies and practices in every nook and cranny of daily existence here. The BBC (run by a Tory director-general and Tory chairman) churns out an endless menu of propaganda from dawn to dusk. The Woking Class is totally in control of every agenda and draws on people of left as well as right wing persuasion. Controlling us through identity politics is possibly the most effective mechanism for coercing ordinary people to obey and conform that has every been deployed in the history of politics. The notion of democracy has been destroyed by this pernicious process and now exists in name only.
Welcome to the brave new world!
Agree 100%. The BBC is the biggest enemy of our society. The BBC fanned the flames of the troubles in Ireland by taking sides. The BBC backed the Iraq venture by propaganda. The new DG of the BBC wrote new guidelines around its impartiality but that still didn’t stop the man with the inane grin.
The government has to remove the obligatory licence fee.
What a superb summary – Brilliant
Actually the full quote does give that view more context.
I must admit I did raise an eyebrow at that given their reputation, but then again, I had to ask myself when was the last time I read the New York Times and the answer was never.
I do read NYT articles from time to time and it is definitely left-wing! As for progressive discourse – what does ‘progressive’ actually mean in this quote. Its use in this context comes across as condescending and arrogant in the ‘we occupy the moral high ground’ sense.
I do read NYT articles from time to time and it is definitely left-wing! As for progressive discourse – what does ‘progressive’ actually mean in this quote. Its use in this context comes across as condescending and arrogant in the ‘we occupy the moral high ground’ sense.
There are NO Tories left, and there have in fact been precious few since the dreadful ‘Grocer’, Edward Heath.
Agree 100%. The BBC is the biggest enemy of our society. The BBC fanned the flames of the troubles in Ireland by taking sides. The BBC backed the Iraq venture by propaganda. The new DG of the BBC wrote new guidelines around its impartiality but that still didn’t stop the man with the inane grin.
The government has to remove the obligatory licence fee.
What a superb summary – Brilliant
Actually the full quote does give that view more context.
I must admit I did raise an eyebrow at that given their reputation, but then again, I had to ask myself when was the last time I read the New York Times and the answer was never.
There are NO Tories left, and there have in fact been precious few since the dreadful ‘Grocer’, Edward Heath.
The New York Times is not “particularly leftist”
Oh, really? That one line alone is sufficient to warrant consigning this article with its ‘Left = good/progressive; Right = bad/oppressive” cant to the rubbish bin.
I am all for considering differing viewpoints, but this sort of garbage fails to illuminate or engage.
Ironically, successive Tory governments in the UK have presided over the most catastrophic spread of woke policies and practices in every nook and cranny of daily existence here. The BBC (run by a Tory director-general and Tory chairman) churns out an endless menu of propaganda from dawn to dusk. The Woking Class is totally in control of every agenda and draws on people of left as well as right wing persuasion. Controlling us through identity politics is possibly the most effective mechanism for coercing ordinary people to obey and conform that has every been deployed in the history of politics. The notion of democracy has been destroyed by this pernicious process and now exists in name only.
Welcome to the brave new world!
Universalism – the belief that people in Albania have every right to settle in Basingstoke if they want to, and that people in Basingstoke have no say in the matter.
Why are they NOT been sent to sunny Scotland, or even Northern Ireland?
Answer: Because they would kill then.
Why are they NOT been sent to sunny Scotland, or even Northern Ireland?
Answer: Because they would kill then.
Universalism – the belief that people in Albania have every right to settle in Basingstoke if they want to, and that people in Basingstoke have no say in the matter.
“ Until the middle of the 20th century, no one who was asked about a person’s identity would have mentioned race, sex, class, nationality, region or religion.”
I kind of stopped reading here because that is so untrue that the writer can’t thereafter be taken seriously.
Yes, it is indeed so ridiculous a statement as to undermine utterly the credibility of the reasoning faculties of anyone agreeing with it.
Yes that quote stumped me too – what would a person who was asking about someone’s identity have meant then? Any description surely would have tended towards those categories eg “a Mediterranean looking fellow” or maybe I’m missing the point. Still I welcome the article and thought it analysed the problems with wokism really well. You can’t expect the writer to also, as a left winger, suddenly drop all her left wing beliefs – the more people”on the Left” who criticise wokism the better. If the writer pleased all UnHerd readers with a total denunciation of Woke and all things left wing, she’d be labelled as right wing and thus not be read by anyone on the Left. We need to get a discussion going.
Ps Mind, the writer will probably be labelled as a right winger anyway since that is what happens to any leftie who criticises wokism!
“Any leftie” I think not. There are plenty of us who are having a hard time with it all.
“Any leftie” I think not. There are plenty of us who are having a hard time with it all.
Ps Mind, the writer will probably be labelled as a right winger anyway since that is what happens to any leftie who criticises wokism!
Indeed! Just ONE example “Lace Curtain Irish” was a common and insulting description of poor, Catholic Irish immigrants with middle class aspirations in the 1920s. I could list dozens of other example of how religion, class and ethnicity informed identities and insults in the salad bowl or melting pot of that time.
I thought so too, but I suggest that you follow the link and read the article, which is excellent. I still disagree, but in context it makes sense and I’m sure that the writer knows more about the subject than I do!
Yes, it is indeed so ridiculous a statement as to undermine utterly the credibility of the reasoning faculties of anyone agreeing with it.
Yes that quote stumped me too – what would a person who was asking about someone’s identity have meant then? Any description surely would have tended towards those categories eg “a Mediterranean looking fellow” or maybe I’m missing the point. Still I welcome the article and thought it analysed the problems with wokism really well. You can’t expect the writer to also, as a left winger, suddenly drop all her left wing beliefs – the more people”on the Left” who criticise wokism the better. If the writer pleased all UnHerd readers with a total denunciation of Woke and all things left wing, she’d be labelled as right wing and thus not be read by anyone on the Left. We need to get a discussion going.
Indeed! Just ONE example “Lace Curtain Irish” was a common and insulting description of poor, Catholic Irish immigrants with middle class aspirations in the 1920s. I could list dozens of other example of how religion, class and ethnicity informed identities and insults in the salad bowl or melting pot of that time.
I thought so too, but I suggest that you follow the link and read the article, which is excellent. I still disagree, but in context it makes sense and I’m sure that the writer knows more about the subject than I do!
“ Until the middle of the 20th century, no one who was asked about a person’s identity would have mentioned race, sex, class, nationality, region or religion.”
I kind of stopped reading here because that is so untrue that the writer can’t thereafter be taken seriously.
Tribalism is not a consequence of right wing ideology, but of the open borders ideology promoted by the left. Democracy can only function within the nation state. Nation states are defined by their borders. In a borderless world such as that envisaged by the globalist left the formation of groups along ethnic and cultural lines is inevitable.
These are practical realities which no amount of waffle about Foucault or Fanon can obfuscate.
Yes. The very thing she derides as ‘accidental’ – ones ethnicity, country of origin, etc, are far more substantial than any category of ‘shared ideas’ she believes in. And they will be acted upon one way or another.
Yes. The very thing she derides as ‘accidental’ – ones ethnicity, country of origin, etc, are far more substantial than any category of ‘shared ideas’ she believes in. And they will be acted upon one way or another.
Tribalism is not a consequence of right wing ideology, but of the open borders ideology promoted by the left. Democracy can only function within the nation state. Nation states are defined by their borders. In a borderless world such as that envisaged by the globalist left the formation of groups along ethnic and cultural lines is inevitable.
These are practical realities which no amount of waffle about Foucault or Fanon can obfuscate.
“The right may be more dangerous”. There’s about 150m dead bodies spinning in their graves. If they were lucky enough to actually get one.
“The right may be more dangerous”. There’s about 150m dead bodies spinning in their graves. If they were lucky enough to actually get one.
Maybe woke used to be about Left and Right – maybe? But this Left v Right is actually a woke plot or plan to put the non-woke immediately on the defensive. As the woke Mayor of London said recently when he was heckled, “Those are just the extreme Right people outside.”
Today politicians of the Left and Right can be equally woke – there is no difference. If you vote Tory, you get woke. The recent budgets have lots of woke giveaways so that the politicos look human when they look in the mirror.They are fighting to be the most woke in all parties, with the Greens possibly being the worst.
The Right has moved to the centre and even further towards the Left. The Right no longer exists apart from the very casual use of the word ‘fas**st’, whenever a woke idea is resisted. Worst of all is the loss of freedom of speech to actually resist woke ideas. We are policed by people who train in wokeness but don’t bother very much about crime.
We have to fight this but need ideas, not just mudslinging of Left v Right, which is falling into the woke trap.
I am oursuaded more every day that left and right have no real meaning in the current political scene. We are in a very different place now.
Matthew Goodwin (Professor of Politics, Ken University) makes this point. He explains that our politicians, media, civil service and managerial classes are all drawn from the same pool of people who have all been to university and have there been steeped in the same leftist philosophies. That, he says, is why regardless of whether we get Conservative or Labour, we get essentially the same thing, with small shades of difference. Anyone in that milieu who raises concerns is treated as a pariah – look at how Suella Braverman is being treated.
The solution to this vicious cycle is unclear.
I am oursuaded more every day that left and right have no real meaning in the current political scene. We are in a very different place now.
Matthew Goodwin (Professor of Politics, Ken University) makes this point. He explains that our politicians, media, civil service and managerial classes are all drawn from the same pool of people who have all been to university and have there been steeped in the same leftist philosophies. That, he says, is why regardless of whether we get Conservative or Labour, we get essentially the same thing, with small shades of difference. Anyone in that milieu who raises concerns is treated as a pariah – look at how Suella Braverman is being treated.
The solution to this vicious cycle is unclear.
Maybe woke used to be about Left and Right – maybe? But this Left v Right is actually a woke plot or plan to put the non-woke immediately on the defensive. As the woke Mayor of London said recently when he was heckled, “Those are just the extreme Right people outside.”
Today politicians of the Left and Right can be equally woke – there is no difference. If you vote Tory, you get woke. The recent budgets have lots of woke giveaways so that the politicos look human when they look in the mirror.They are fighting to be the most woke in all parties, with the Greens possibly being the worst.
The Right has moved to the centre and even further towards the Left. The Right no longer exists apart from the very casual use of the word ‘fas**st’, whenever a woke idea is resisted. Worst of all is the loss of freedom of speech to actually resist woke ideas. We are policed by people who train in wokeness but don’t bother very much about crime.
We have to fight this but need ideas, not just mudslinging of Left v Right, which is falling into the woke trap.
People care more for their own children, families and tribe than other people’s children, families and tribe. This is a fact of life.
As Margaret Thatcher observed, the facts of life are Conservative.
People care more for their own children, families and tribe than other people’s children, families and tribe. This is a fact of life.
As Margaret Thatcher observed, the facts of life are Conservative.
“The true Left is not woke”
I never thought that it was. Not for a moment. You think that you are True Left, do you? I disagree. Leave this stuff at the campus gate, love. You have nothing to teach me – I live in the real world.
If universities didn’t exist we wouldn’t invent them.
If universities didn’t exist we wouldn’t invent them.
“The true Left is not woke”
I never thought that it was. Not for a moment. You think that you are True Left, do you? I disagree. Leave this stuff at the campus gate, love. You have nothing to teach me – I live in the real world.
“The Right may be more dangerous…” ???
So Mao didn’t kill 50 million Chinese? Stalin didn’t kill 30 million Russians? Pol Pot didn’t murder half his country’s population? Oh and Mugabe, Castro, Maduro, etc furnished a ‘people’s paradise’? Gimme a break.
You forgot the ‘Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei’.
Classic socialist performers, as it turned out.
You forgot the ‘Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei’.
Classic socialist performers, as it turned out.
“The Right may be more dangerous…” ???
So Mao didn’t kill 50 million Chinese? Stalin didn’t kill 30 million Russians? Pol Pot didn’t murder half his country’s population? Oh and Mugabe, Castro, Maduro, etc furnished a ‘people’s paradise’? Gimme a break.
Flobbalob, flobbalob, WEEEEEEED! Did someone actually get paid for that article, or was it produced by some sort of AI or mechanical kaleidoscope? I’ve not read anything so completely unintelligible in… Well, quite a long time.
So, the Judean Peoples Liberation Front is not the same as the People’s Liberation Front of Judea? Who knew?
The Left, now, bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Labour Party of my politically active days. The aspiring, white working man and lower middle classes who founded it as an extrapolation of their Methodist and Baptist convictions, the Quaker merchants who practised philanthropy in the form of workers housing and Abolitionism, and their heirs and successors are now traduced and insulted, misrepresented and spat upon. The populations living in their long shadow, wishing only to live in peace, modest prosperity and the impartial rule of law, amongst others who share theiŕ faith, customs and laws are discriminated against at every turn.
If you wish to know why the population are rejecting “the Left” this article sums it up.
Extremely well put.
Extremely well put.
Flobbalob, flobbalob, WEEEEEEED! Did someone actually get paid for that article, or was it produced by some sort of AI or mechanical kaleidoscope? I’ve not read anything so completely unintelligible in… Well, quite a long time.
So, the Judean Peoples Liberation Front is not the same as the People’s Liberation Front of Judea? Who knew?
The Left, now, bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Labour Party of my politically active days. The aspiring, white working man and lower middle classes who founded it as an extrapolation of their Methodist and Baptist convictions, the Quaker merchants who practised philanthropy in the form of workers housing and Abolitionism, and their heirs and successors are now traduced and insulted, misrepresented and spat upon. The populations living in their long shadow, wishing only to live in peace, modest prosperity and the impartial rule of law, amongst others who share theiŕ faith, customs and laws are discriminated against at every turn.
If you wish to know why the population are rejecting “the Left” this article sums it up.
I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I’m baffled by the author’s seeming conflation of the left and liberalism. The left today has zero connection to liberalism – freedom of speech, individual rights, progress, reaching and uplifting marginalized people.
The left today has much more in common with Marxism and communism. In fact, it is rooted in communism and fascism – group identity, conformity, deference to the state, the merger of big business and the state, the total domination of the state.
The author’s perception of the right is seemingly rooted in what the Republican and Conservative parties represented 30 years ago. But the right IMO is no longer the avatar of big business and the wealthy elite. It is starting to adopt populist and libertarian ideals like free speech, support for the working class and middle class, separation of state and society.
The right has a long way to go, and there are plenty of dinosaurs trying to hold it back, but the right today looks more like the left of 30 years ago.
I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I’m baffled by the author’s seeming conflation of the left and liberalism. The left today has zero connection to liberalism – freedom of speech, individual rights, progress, reaching and uplifting marginalized people.
The left today has much more in common with Marxism and communism. In fact, it is rooted in communism and fascism – group identity, conformity, deference to the state, the merger of big business and the state, the total domination of the state.
The author’s perception of the right is seemingly rooted in what the Republican and Conservative parties represented 30 years ago. But the right IMO is no longer the avatar of big business and the wealthy elite. It is starting to adopt populist and libertarian ideals like free speech, support for the working class and middle class, separation of state and society.
The right has a long way to go, and there are plenty of dinosaurs trying to hold it back, but the right today looks more like the left of 30 years ago.
Tribalism – the belief that people should be forced to tick their ethnicity on form, after form after form , even for totally irrelevant things like job applications.
Force people to declare the tribe they belong to at every point in life, and you will get tribalism.
So true.
So true.
Tribalism – the belief that people should be forced to tick their ethnicity on form, after form after form , even for totally irrelevant things like job applications.
Force people to declare the tribe they belong to at every point in life, and you will get tribalism.
Despite inconsistencies in this analysis, already pointed out in earlier comments, i still think it’s interesting to observe an example of something i touched on yesterday in response to Kathleen Stock’s much more intellectually coherent essay about the flaws in the French philosophical mindset (which some took as thinking i was suggesting she disliked French people, ha!).
It’s that we’re now seeing a philosophical rejuvenation which grapples with the theories which accompany the Woke agenda. This is important because whilst the real-world effects of wokism are becoming ever more apparent, it’s not enough to feel instinctively that something just doesn’t add up; for a shift to occur, the intellectual basis of an erroneous narrative has to be challenged and made clear. This essay, and the book it accompanies, may not be as strong as the work of Kathleen Stock and Mary Harrington (to name but two of Unherd’s principle thinkers) but coming from a US background, this author is nevertheless significant to the vital cause of bringing Wokeness under control. It may well have greater sway with a US audience, where many of the tropes being challenged are most earnestly pursued. Breaking that vicious cycle requires an impetus of its own. This is a further push in pushback, and i feel it’d be unwise to simply respond with “I told you so.”
This idea of a philosophical rejuvenation sounds nice, but on the ground within philosophy departments, it’s simply not happening. Try finding a right wing philosophy academic operating openly within a philosophy department, you’ll be looking for a long time, because as Stock discovered, going against the ideological monoculture in academia is dangerous to your career prospects and at times your safety.
At best, the majority of narratives that do acknowledge some flaws in their stances (including this one) are apologetics, they say “maybe we could have done this a little more delicately or with a tad more nuance” rather than saying “we were wrong”.
There’s also not actually much difference between academics on this side of the pond and the other on such issues, mainly because there’s an awful lot of US academics working in universities in the UK, and just as many UK academics working over in the US. Academia is pretty homogenous across the Western world (and probably beyond the West too) and academics in different countries have far more in common with each other than they do with the general populace of wherever they work.
There can be no intelectual rejuvenation when the wise are cast into exile by the Academy and forced to write on fairly marginal websites to get any space or oxygen at all. The stranglehold by the Foucaultian deconstructionist school over modern academia is total, and it would take nothing less than state intervention to rectify the imbalance between left and right there. Obviously that will never happen, so we are stuck with things.
It’s impossible for me to be so defeatist. Apart from anything else, nothing ever stays the same in perpetuity, so i’m basing my greater optimism on historical truth.
Plus, if you simply accept it as a fait accompli, you’re creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which case Kathleen Stock and others involved in pushback might as well simply not bother. Is that what you think to be the case?
N.B. This reply also applies to the post by AL Crowe.
It does become a self fulfilling prophecy because most who have the position to push back with any strength are mostly too concerned with preserving their careers, and those like me who do push back from the lower rungs of philosophy academia get sidelined and pushed out long before we attain the kind of position where our push back has any kind of weight behind it.
That doesn’t mean that I and others will cease pushing back of course, but as seen previously in academic circles with ideas like eugenics and Nazism, those supporting the ideas tend to need a massive and inescapable example of the awful consequences of their ideas before they will take a step back from them. Even then, it only takes about a generation for those terrible lessons to become sufficiently diluted for the academic community to start rehabilitating the ideas they find useful for their particular goals.
It does become a self fulfilling prophecy because most who have the position to push back with any strength are mostly too concerned with preserving their careers, and those like me who do push back from the lower rungs of philosophy academia get sidelined and pushed out long before we attain the kind of position where our push back has any kind of weight behind it.
That doesn’t mean that I and others will cease pushing back of course, but as seen previously in academic circles with ideas like eugenics and Nazism, those supporting the ideas tend to need a massive and inescapable example of the awful consequences of their ideas before they will take a step back from them. Even then, it only takes about a generation for those terrible lessons to become sufficiently diluted for the academic community to start rehabilitating the ideas they find useful for their particular goals.
It’s impossible for me to be so defeatist. Apart from anything else, nothing ever stays the same in perpetuity, so i’m basing my greater optimism on historical truth.
Plus, if you simply accept it as a fait accompli, you’re creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which case Kathleen Stock and others involved in pushback might as well simply not bother. Is that what you think to be the case?
N.B. This reply also applies to the post by AL Crowe.
This idea of a philosophical rejuvenation sounds nice, but on the ground within philosophy departments, it’s simply not happening. Try finding a right wing philosophy academic operating openly within a philosophy department, you’ll be looking for a long time, because as Stock discovered, going against the ideological monoculture in academia is dangerous to your career prospects and at times your safety.
At best, the majority of narratives that do acknowledge some flaws in their stances (including this one) are apologetics, they say “maybe we could have done this a little more delicately or with a tad more nuance” rather than saying “we were wrong”.
There’s also not actually much difference between academics on this side of the pond and the other on such issues, mainly because there’s an awful lot of US academics working in universities in the UK, and just as many UK academics working over in the US. Academia is pretty homogenous across the Western world (and probably beyond the West too) and academics in different countries have far more in common with each other than they do with the general populace of wherever they work.
There can be no intelectual rejuvenation when the wise are cast into exile by the Academy and forced to write on fairly marginal websites to get any space or oxygen at all. The stranglehold by the Foucaultian deconstructionist school over modern academia is total, and it would take nothing less than state intervention to rectify the imbalance between left and right there. Obviously that will never happen, so we are stuck with things.
Despite inconsistencies in this analysis, already pointed out in earlier comments, i still think it’s interesting to observe an example of something i touched on yesterday in response to Kathleen Stock’s much more intellectually coherent essay about the flaws in the French philosophical mindset (which some took as thinking i was suggesting she disliked French people, ha!).
It’s that we’re now seeing a philosophical rejuvenation which grapples with the theories which accompany the Woke agenda. This is important because whilst the real-world effects of wokism are becoming ever more apparent, it’s not enough to feel instinctively that something just doesn’t add up; for a shift to occur, the intellectual basis of an erroneous narrative has to be challenged and made clear. This essay, and the book it accompanies, may not be as strong as the work of Kathleen Stock and Mary Harrington (to name but two of Unherd’s principle thinkers) but coming from a US background, this author is nevertheless significant to the vital cause of bringing Wokeness under control. It may well have greater sway with a US audience, where many of the tropes being challenged are most earnestly pursued. Breaking that vicious cycle requires an impetus of its own. This is a further push in pushback, and i feel it’d be unwise to simply respond with “I told you so.”
How come corporate globalism is deemed fake? Surely the totalising consequences of universalism have been evident right from the start seen from the point of view of Louis XVI, a starving kulak, a Uighur undergoing re-education, or a Canadian trucker discovering their bank account frozen.
The moment the individual, struggling, suffering, human being is lost to a totalising idea no matter how benevolent or noble – and now potentially generated by AI – my fear is that the point of existence in our beautiful yet fragile planet circling the sun will be lost, most likely for all time.
How come corporate globalism is deemed fake? Surely the totalising consequences of universalism have been evident right from the start seen from the point of view of Louis XVI, a starving kulak, a Uighur undergoing re-education, or a Canadian trucker discovering their bank account frozen.
The moment the individual, struggling, suffering, human being is lost to a totalising idea no matter how benevolent or noble – and now potentially generated by AI – my fear is that the point of existence in our beautiful yet fragile planet circling the sun will be lost, most likely for all time.
I don’t think the distinction we should pay attention to is between tribalism and universalism, but between authoritarianism and genuine liberalism. There are and always have been authoritarians out there in society, and what sham philosophies they parrot are always just the tools they’re trying to use at any given time to get and keep power. Presently, they’re pretending to be Progressives, but the censorship, government control – including violence – and infliction of their mandates by way of public shaming just shows them to be the same old wolves in lambs’ clothing. The trend in history leads in fits and starts and occasional reverses against them, and gosh do they hate that. They’re just mean and always have been.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Add narcissism, and an over supply of under-quality higher-education to the mix (how intersectional is that!), and we’re getting near to the full picture.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Add narcissism, and an over supply of under-quality higher-education to the mix (how intersectional is that!), and we’re getting near to the full picture.
I don’t think the distinction we should pay attention to is between tribalism and universalism, but between authoritarianism and genuine liberalism. There are and always have been authoritarians out there in society, and what sham philosophies they parrot are always just the tools they’re trying to use at any given time to get and keep power. Presently, they’re pretending to be Progressives, but the censorship, government control – including violence – and infliction of their mandates by way of public shaming just shows them to be the same old wolves in lambs’ clothing. The trend in history leads in fits and starts and occasional reverses against them, and gosh do they hate that. They’re just mean and always have been.
This is the political grave your ideological kin chose, and they can lie in that bed. I welcome the constant overreach by the modern identitarian left as it inevitably pushes millions away and towards perennial truth.
This post appears to contradict your reply to my post. Whilst you may have been referring to academia, “pushes millions away and towards perennial truth” would effectively take the initiative away from academia, or become the new academe.
This post appears to contradict your reply to my post. Whilst you may have been referring to academia, “pushes millions away and towards perennial truth” would effectively take the initiative away from academia, or become the new academe.
This is the political grave your ideological kin chose, and they can lie in that bed. I welcome the constant overreach by the modern identitarian left as it inevitably pushes millions away and towards perennial truth.
I don’t get this pre-occupation with fascism and the supposed far right. If people pay attention, it’s staring us right in the face – the left control virtually all the institutions, including big business. There is no fascistic threat from the far right – because it has no power.
The real problem is 94% of voters in Washington, D.C. are Democrats. God, I wish this was an exaggeration. Let that sink in. In the city that runs the machinery of govt, virtually all of them support one party.
It wouldn’t be such a problem if it was limited to only bureaucrats. But we find similar numbers in academia, NGOs etc. No different in big tech – more than 90% of employee donations go to the Democrats.
People need to wake up. This kind of conformity and unitary thinking is dangerous.
I don’t get this pre-occupation with fascism and the supposed far right. If people pay attention, it’s staring us right in the face – the left control virtually all the institutions, including big business. There is no fascistic threat from the far right – because it has no power.
The real problem is 94% of voters in Washington, D.C. are Democrats. God, I wish this was an exaggeration. Let that sink in. In the city that runs the machinery of govt, virtually all of them support one party.
It wouldn’t be such a problem if it was limited to only bureaucrats. But we find similar numbers in academia, NGOs etc. No different in big tech – more than 90% of employee donations go to the Democrats.
People need to wake up. This kind of conformity and unitary thinking is dangerous.
Reassuring to see reasoned Leftist opposition to the new totalitarian religion, even if it does over-simplify and strawman the Right.
Reassuring to see reasoned Leftist opposition to the new totalitarian religion, even if it does over-simplify and strawman the Right.
Meanwhile back in the real world!! Many words, but a simple conclusion – the Left tribe is superior to the Right tribe – with a Nazi comparison thrown in for good measure! Gary Lineker will be applauding.
Meanwhile back in the real world!! Many words, but a simple conclusion – the Left tribe is superior to the Right tribe – with a Nazi comparison thrown in for good measure! Gary Lineker will be applauding.
Garbage with a lots of unrealistic gibberish, Lived through the stupidity and destructive leftist Socialist/Communist high eras. The Leftists have done nothing for humanity but trying to destroy a Societies has done more good.
Garbage with a lots of unrealistic gibberish, Lived through the stupidity and destructive leftist Socialist/Communist high eras. The Leftists have done nothing for humanity but trying to destroy a Societies has done more good.
“This Rightwards lurch is international and organised. The solidarity between them suggests that nationalist beliefs are only marginally based on the idea that Hungarians/Norwegians/Jews/Germans/Anglo-Saxons/Hindus are the best of all possible tribes. What unites them is the principle of tribalism itself: you will only truly connect with those who belong to your tribe, and you need have no deep commitments to anyone else.”
This is undeniable: it’s part of human nature. As far as one can see, it’s also part of animal, and even plant nature: ants war with other colonies of ants, and apparently plants prefer their own kin, though no one knows how they do it (https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/61/15/4123/435398). But of course, the Left do this just as much as the Right (insofar as the distinction is valid). It’s absolutely true, to pick out one of Ms Neiman’s examples, that the Left sympathised with, and often fought on the Republican side during the Spanish Civil War – but many non-Spanish Catholics (and others) joined Franco’s forces because they loathed the murder of thousands of priests and nuns instigated by the Republican government. Why would the Left be praised for their ‘universal’ sympathies, and the Right be demonised for theirs?
Assuming the distinction that Ms Neiman draws between Left and Right is valid (which isn’t necessarily the case), the Left and the Right are equally wrong, but in different ways. If the Right lack sympathy with the generic ‘underdog’ (which can indeed be true), the Left have so much sympathy that they lose sight of human nature (as we can see in this article). That’s why Communism will always ultimately fail. You can’t build a perfect society with imperfect people. It’s noticeable that Ms Neiman continually references the Enlightenment as the model we should all return to, but ignores the immediate consequence of that ‘Enlightenment’ where it began, in France: the official murder of thousands of people, including (ironically but logically) many of the revolutionaries themselves. She may be a good philosopher, but she’s not much of a historian.
“This Rightwards lurch is international and organised. The solidarity between them suggests that nationalist beliefs are only marginally based on the idea that Hungarians/Norwegians/Jews/Germans/Anglo-Saxons/Hindus are the best of all possible tribes. What unites them is the principle of tribalism itself: you will only truly connect with those who belong to your tribe, and you need have no deep commitments to anyone else.”
This is undeniable: it’s part of human nature. As far as one can see, it’s also part of animal, and even plant nature: ants war with other colonies of ants, and apparently plants prefer their own kin, though no one knows how they do it (https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/61/15/4123/435398). But of course, the Left do this just as much as the Right (insofar as the distinction is valid). It’s absolutely true, to pick out one of Ms Neiman’s examples, that the Left sympathised with, and often fought on the Republican side during the Spanish Civil War – but many non-Spanish Catholics (and others) joined Franco’s forces because they loathed the murder of thousands of priests and nuns instigated by the Republican government. Why would the Left be praised for their ‘universal’ sympathies, and the Right be demonised for theirs?
Assuming the distinction that Ms Neiman draws between Left and Right is valid (which isn’t necessarily the case), the Left and the Right are equally wrong, but in different ways. If the Right lack sympathy with the generic ‘underdog’ (which can indeed be true), the Left have so much sympathy that they lose sight of human nature (as we can see in this article). That’s why Communism will always ultimately fail. You can’t build a perfect society with imperfect people. It’s noticeable that Ms Neiman continually references the Enlightenment as the model we should all return to, but ignores the immediate consequence of that ‘Enlightenment’ where it began, in France: the official murder of thousands of people, including (ironically but logically) many of the revolutionaries themselves. She may be a good philosopher, but she’s not much of a historian.
I would have more hope if this had been printed in the Guardian. It is the Left that has to hear this not the conservative readers of Unherd.
Conservative?!!!!
No, conservative.
No, conservative.
Conservative?!!!!
I would have more hope if this had been printed in the Guardian. It is the Left that has to hear this not the conservative readers of Unherd.
Another point which this article necessarily disregards is the actual origin of tribalism. Individuals necessarily grow up as part of a community of others with whom they socialise and interact frequently; with whom they deal with the necessary pressures and demands of daily life – food, shelter, warmth, childcare and mutual support. It is an organic outgrowth requiring no ideological justification.
Over time these communities develop common world views, language, faiths and recreations.
Enter another tribe. If resources permit and their cultures are not too dissimilar they may merge. If not, they may fight.
Enter a Leftist, who cries “you are a knave and a bigot for opposing these incomers; they have an unlimited claim upon your resources, with no reciprocal obligations; anything you say can only serve as proof of this, there is no conceivable defence”…. you may guess the rest.. ..
Another point which this article necessarily disregards is the actual origin of tribalism. Individuals necessarily grow up as part of a community of others with whom they socialise and interact frequently; with whom they deal with the necessary pressures and demands of daily life – food, shelter, warmth, childcare and mutual support. It is an organic outgrowth requiring no ideological justification.
Over time these communities develop common world views, language, faiths and recreations.
Enter another tribe. If resources permit and their cultures are not too dissimilar they may merge. If not, they may fight.
Enter a Leftist, who cries “you are a knave and a bigot for opposing these incomers; they have an unlimited claim upon your resources, with no reciprocal obligations; anything you say can only serve as proof of this, there is no conceivable defence”…. you may guess the rest.. ..
…and no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Salt?
No Scotsman worth his salt puts sugar on his porridge. This must be out of date by now. I lived for 4 years in Scotland and porridge with salt was truly awful.
I’m a soft Southerner but I prefer salt on *my* porridge. This isn’t a metaphor.
Surely porridge needs both sugar and salt.
I’m a soft Southerner but I prefer salt on *my* porridge. This isn’t a metaphor.
Surely porridge needs both sugar and salt.
Honey?
Didn’t know you cared.
I don’t, just curious.
I don’t, just curious.
Didn’t know you cared.
No Scotsman worth his salt puts sugar on his porridge. This must be out of date by now. I lived for 4 years in Scotland and porridge with salt was truly awful.
Honey?
Salt?
…and no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Ideology is, and always has, been defeated by homo sapiens prime desire… self interest, where practice defeats theory.
The truth is, and always has been that different people, AND peoples have vastly differing skills, and abilities.
One only had to look, as I have said countless times on this medium, as the success of Jewish and Indian Hindu peoples , and their ability to outperform in everything that they turn their hand to. African countries underperform in every single area, and prop up every single table of economic, financial, industrial and democratic performance, along with countries such as Pakistan and most Islamic nations, and were it not for the good fortune of oil and gas, the Arab nations were the same: yet Israel has no oil and gas, and is entirely ” self made”? Why have no African or Caribbean countries mirrored Israels success?
Because different peoples are…. very different.
The various racial/regional ‘tribes’ existent today probably have similar levels of skills and abilities – as pertain to their environment (hunter-gatherer or agricultural, industrial, enlightenment societies). They are after all still existent after millenia, which is the big test. The IQ test, imperfect though it is, is the best we have for getting an objective measure of intelligence and predicting success – in a modern setting . How much more powerful then to evaluate the achievements of a group not by how well they do on an hour long written test, but by how well they have done over 10,000 years? Expand out that way, and yo can certainly add North Africa, and the middle-East to the high success categories.
And China?
And China?
A very brave comment.
Why is Sumer, the oldest civilisation not still dominant followed by Egypt? Why do civilisation rise and fall ?
The various racial/regional ‘tribes’ existent today probably have similar levels of skills and abilities – as pertain to their environment (hunter-gatherer or agricultural, industrial, enlightenment societies). They are after all still existent after millenia, which is the big test. The IQ test, imperfect though it is, is the best we have for getting an objective measure of intelligence and predicting success – in a modern setting . How much more powerful then to evaluate the achievements of a group not by how well they do on an hour long written test, but by how well they have done over 10,000 years? Expand out that way, and yo can certainly add North Africa, and the middle-East to the high success categories.
A very brave comment.
Why is Sumer, the oldest civilisation not still dominant followed by Egypt? Why do civilisation rise and fall ?
Ideology is, and always has, been defeated by homo sapiens prime desire… self interest, where practice defeats theory.
The truth is, and always has been that different people, AND peoples have vastly differing skills, and abilities.
One only had to look, as I have said countless times on this medium, as the success of Jewish and Indian Hindu peoples , and their ability to outperform in everything that they turn their hand to. African countries underperform in every single area, and prop up every single table of economic, financial, industrial and democratic performance, along with countries such as Pakistan and most Islamic nations, and were it not for the good fortune of oil and gas, the Arab nations were the same: yet Israel has no oil and gas, and is entirely ” self made”? Why have no African or Caribbean countries mirrored Israels success?
Because different peoples are…. very different.
There’s something anachronistic about this author’s version of socialism. She seems to be hankering after the “We’ll keep the red flag flying here” days. When academics and the urban educated basked in the self riteous glow of lingering adolescent rebellion via solidarity with the working classes. Those days are long gone. The working poor today seem to have more complex political views. They resent welfare dependency and illegal immigrants not because of envy of their lauded underdog status, but because pity and victimhood diminishes everyone.
I don’t know when being a victim became a no, no. I hear people who’ve been raped and beaten saying, “but I’m not a victim”. like it’s shameful to be victimized. I’m also confused when I see peope on tv who cry immediately say “sorry”, and they’re not always Brits!
The problem is not with being victimised, it is with victimhood being turned into a permanent identity. Look at what the verb victimise does in a sentence; it places the victim into a position of passivity, where they are defined by the actions of others, not their own agency. That is of course what being victimised does, but it’s not a healthy place to live indefinitely.
Those who are victimised recover by learning not to define themselves by the actions of someone who has victimised them, but by reasserting themselves as an active agent in control of their own experiences. When this process doesn’t happen, victims lose sight of their own contributions to their experiences, and continually look for an external agent to blame for anything going wrong in their lives, and continue to act as if they are passive observers to their experiences, people who things happen to, not people who make things happen.
I have been victimised during my life, but I am not a victim, I am just a person who has experienced a range of things, good and bad, and prefer to base my identity on how I choose to act, not on others who are utterly irrelevant. That is the ultimate revenge on perpetrators, to make them utterly irrelevant to your identity, which is why so many reject the label. Hope that helps you to see that it has nothing to do with shame, everything to do with self-care.
The problem is not with being victimised, it is with victimhood being turned into a permanent identity. Look at what the verb victimise does in a sentence; it places the victim into a position of passivity, where they are defined by the actions of others, not their own agency. That is of course what being victimised does, but it’s not a healthy place to live indefinitely.
Those who are victimised recover by learning not to define themselves by the actions of someone who has victimised them, but by reasserting themselves as an active agent in control of their own experiences. When this process doesn’t happen, victims lose sight of their own contributions to their experiences, and continually look for an external agent to blame for anything going wrong in their lives, and continue to act as if they are passive observers to their experiences, people who things happen to, not people who make things happen.
I have been victimised during my life, but I am not a victim, I am just a person who has experienced a range of things, good and bad, and prefer to base my identity on how I choose to act, not on others who are utterly irrelevant. That is the ultimate revenge on perpetrators, to make them utterly irrelevant to your identity, which is why so many reject the label. Hope that helps you to see that it has nothing to do with shame, everything to do with self-care.
They started singing (sotto voce) “The Working Class can kiss my ass – I’ve got the Foreman’s job at last”. ‘Ass’ to avoid upsetting the mods or anyone else with a delicate disposition.
I don’t know when being a victim became a no, no. I hear people who’ve been raped and beaten saying, “but I’m not a victim”. like it’s shameful to be victimized. I’m also confused when I see peope on tv who cry immediately say “sorry”, and they’re not always Brits!
They started singing (sotto voce) “The Working Class can kiss my ass – I’ve got the Foreman’s job at last”. ‘Ass’ to avoid upsetting the mods or anyone else with a delicate disposition.
There’s something anachronistic about this author’s version of socialism. She seems to be hankering after the “We’ll keep the red flag flying here” days. When academics and the urban educated basked in the self riteous glow of lingering adolescent rebellion via solidarity with the working classes. Those days are long gone. The working poor today seem to have more complex political views. They resent welfare dependency and illegal immigrants not because of envy of their lauded underdog status, but because pity and victimhood diminishes everyone.
What a painfully ironic essay. Susan Neiman thinks if we all try harder, aiming for just the right narrow slice of ideals, then we’ll be able to work things out.
But her Old Left ideals were tried, found wanting and mutated into Woke Left. So the Left goes wrong, the Right goes wrong, no matter what ideals serve as humanity’s lodestar, it will all inevitably go wrong.
It’s almost like humanity is Totally Depraved, as if only some intervention from outside humanity altogether could possible redeem the whole situation.
I’ve always said that. We see a little of it during war and climate catastrophies, but then it wears off. How quickly we forget.
I’ve always said that. We see a little of it during war and climate catastrophies, but then it wears off. How quickly we forget.
What a painfully ironic essay. Susan Neiman thinks if we all try harder, aiming for just the right narrow slice of ideals, then we’ll be able to work things out.
But her Old Left ideals were tried, found wanting and mutated into Woke Left. So the Left goes wrong, the Right goes wrong, no matter what ideals serve as humanity’s lodestar, it will all inevitably go wrong.
It’s almost like humanity is Totally Depraved, as if only some intervention from outside humanity altogether could possible redeem the whole situation.
The ‘New York Times is not particularly leftist?’ This writer is unhinged from reality. The New York Slimes is a rabidly leftist rag of a paper, not fit for my birdcage.
The ‘New York Times is not particularly leftist?’ This writer is unhinged from reality. The New York Slimes is a rabidly leftist rag of a paper, not fit for my birdcage.
Well here’s a choice quote from the article (paragraph 7):
Oh really? It seems to me (though, unlike wee Susie Neiman, I am neither a writer nor a philosopher) what wokeness demands is that only the white, developed nations of the West and, in particular, the white male peoples therein face up to their alleged criminal histories. All other nations and peoples get to plead mitigating circumstances for their own criminal histories – although we are discouraged from paying too much attention to such uncomfortable facts.
Well here’s a choice quote from the article (paragraph 7):
Oh really? It seems to me (though, unlike wee Susie Neiman, I am neither a writer nor a philosopher) what wokeness demands is that only the white, developed nations of the West and, in particular, the white male peoples therein face up to their alleged criminal histories. All other nations and peoples get to plead mitigating circumstances for their own criminal histories – although we are discouraged from paying too much attention to such uncomfortable facts.
Victimhood should never be celebrated – what is there to celebrate? – and once you start celebrating it, you rapidly slide into celebrating losing.That way madness lies.
Victimhood should never be celebrated – what is there to celebrate? – and once you start celebrating it, you rapidly slide into celebrating losing.That way madness lies.
I wonder how many woke leftists could make it through this article, just as so few communists ever managed to read an entire article from Lenin. Foucault and Schmitt? The woke philosophy succeeds today not because of a sound philosophical basis, but because it is easily simplified, hollowed out, and turned into pablum.
Just watched a documentary on the life of Bobby Kennedy. All the main leftist points so popular today without a trace of woke. No obsession with the oh so organized worldwide right wing conspiracy. None of the constant ego-massaging narcissism of the activists themselves. Just a recognition that problems exist in the world that need to be solved. It is this kind of “universalist” thinking, from the founders through Lincoln and the Roosevelts that made America such a powerful presence in the world. So unlike the hideous universalism of Stalin and Mao. But I doubt many wokesters today have the vaguest clue what any of these people said or did.
I wonder how many woke leftists could make it through this article, just as so few communists ever managed to read an entire article from Lenin. Foucault and Schmitt? The woke philosophy succeeds today not because of a sound philosophical basis, but because it is easily simplified, hollowed out, and turned into pablum.
Just watched a documentary on the life of Bobby Kennedy. All the main leftist points so popular today without a trace of woke. No obsession with the oh so organized worldwide right wing conspiracy. None of the constant ego-massaging narcissism of the activists themselves. Just a recognition that problems exist in the world that need to be solved. It is this kind of “universalist” thinking, from the founders through Lincoln and the Roosevelts that made America such a powerful presence in the world. So unlike the hideous universalism of Stalin and Mao. But I doubt many wokesters today have the vaguest clue what any of these people said or did.
I stopped at, “Now the New York Times is neither unique or particularly leftist”.
Apparently, you aren’t much of a masochist. 😉
Well, it isn’t. Yes, it’s leftist, but not particularly so in the sense of being noticeably more so than other major American daily newspapers, which are essentially all left-leaning, from which fact it follows that it is not unique. You might have another go at the article.
Apparently, you aren’t much of a masochist. 😉
Well, it isn’t. Yes, it’s leftist, but not particularly so in the sense of being noticeably more so than other major American daily newspapers, which are essentially all left-leaning, from which fact it follows that it is not unique. You might have another go at the article.
I stopped at, “Now the New York Times is neither unique or particularly leftist”.
Oh, blather on, do, about the Left’s loving care for humanity (whilst actively hating people). The Left can only destroy, and its ultimate target is the most important and natural unit in the world’s existence – the family.
Oh, blather on, do, about the Left’s loving care for humanity (whilst actively hating people). The Left can only destroy, and its ultimate target is the most important and natural unit in the world’s existence – the family.
Oh dear, has it never occurred to this philosopher that Wokeism might be the ‘problem child’ of the left in the first place? Plenty explanations out there of how thus has happened. As for universalism I Prefer to go back to St. Paul’s inauguration of the idea.
Oh dear, has it never occurred to this philosopher that Wokeism might be the ‘problem child’ of the left in the first place? Plenty explanations out there of how thus has happened. As for universalism I Prefer to go back to St. Paul’s inauguration of the idea.
“The woke discourse today is confusing because it appeals to emotions traditional to the Left: empathy for the marginalised, indignation at the plight of the oppressed, determination that historical wrongs can be righted.”
(?) This is bizarrely careless language use from a supposed beneficiary of philosophical training. In what study of emotions will we find ‘determination that historical wrongs can be righted’ listed as an emotion, or anywhere in the chapter headings or index? Is ‘determination not to have asparagus for dinner’ an emotion too, and is one more likely to experience it if one votes left?
As for empathy, ideologically-motivated attempts to politicize this common state of consciousness clearly have no place in philosophy, though the kind of selective empathy that limits itself to the ‘marginalized’ or others deemed deserving has, alas, become all too characteristic a constituent of ‘progressive’ conceptions of virtue. If there’s a tradition being forged here its roots lie not in politically definable surfeit or deficit of emotions but in linguistic, conceptual and ethical incoherence.
P.S. This entire article is suffused with confusions, enough to make trying to fully engage with it impractical. “Without universalism there is no argument against racism, merely a bunch of tribes jockeying for power.” Really? Racism is a subset of prejudice, and prejudice is unethical precisely because it doesn’t allow individuals to speak for themselves, whatever tribe(s) they’re in. The thing that makes racism ethically problematic is tribe-neutral. “If you think it’s impossible to distinguish truth from narrative, you won’t bother to try.” But all truths are themselves propositional (i.e., narrative) truths, even 2+2=4. We distinguish synthetic (empirically verified) truths from analytic (true by definition) truths, but all tests for truth come down to evaluating the status of propositions (their coherence, correspondence, utility if you’re a pragmatist, etc.). What qualify as ‘explanations’ for us invariable take the form of narratives, comprised of propositions. Strawson pointed out seventy years ago that if you removed all ‘facts’ from the world, you wouldn’t have removed any of the things: when we say, ‘It is a fact that Albany is the capital of New York state,’ this amounts to saying, ‘The proposition “Albany is the capital of New York state” is true.’ How can a supposed professor of philosophy not know this?
Articles like this do nothing to lay to rest the suspicion that even this generation’s philosophy majors have been ideologically captured; and this is an article that purports to take issue with ‘woke’ sensibilities. The hoops it jumps through to avoid having to jettison assumptions flattering to the left while making its critique are many, and in the end the performance isn’t successful, if the intention was to be persuasive. Far from being convinced that leftist traditions are antithetical to the excesses of today’s progressives, I’m left with the impression that such excesses are the logical outgrowth of this very legacy–and I’ve always voted left. We need a more determined and perceptive critique of the contemporary left’s intellectual foundations than this one. What we’re offered here as open-minded, nonpartisan criticism looks more like the ideological equivalent of religious apologia–witch-burners aren’t really Christians, jihadists aren’t really Muslims, and the woke aren’t true leftists. But, manifestly, they are… their credentials are as bona fide as Marx’s, Mao’s or Stalin’s.
P.S. This entire article is suffused with confusions, enough to make trying to fully engage with it impractical. “Without universalism there is no argument against racism, merely a bunch of tribes jockeying for power.” Really? Racism is a subset of prejudice, and prejudice is unethical precisely because it doesn’t allow individuals to speak for themselves, whatever tribe(s) they’re in. The thing that makes racism ethically problematic is tribe-neutral. “If you think it’s impossible to distinguish truth from narrative, you won’t bother to try.” But all truths are themselves propositional (i.e., narrative) truths, even 2+2=4. We distinguish synthetic (empirically verified) truths from analytic (true by definition) truths, but all tests for truth come down to evaluating the status of propositions (their coherence, correspondence, utility if you’re a pragmatist, etc.). What qualify as ‘explanations’ for us invariable take the form of narratives, comprised of propositions. Strawson pointed out seventy years ago that if you removed all ‘facts’ from the world, you wouldn’t have removed any of the things: when we say, ‘It is a fact that Albany is the capital of New York state,’ this amounts to saying, ‘The proposition “Albany is the capital of New York state” is true.’ How can a supposed professor of philosophy not know this?
Articles like this do nothing to lay to rest the suspicion that even this generation’s philosophy majors have been ideologically captured; and this is an article that purports to take issue with ‘woke’ sensibilities. The hoops it jumps through to avoid having to jettison assumptions flattering to the left while making its critique are many, and in the end the performance isn’t successful, if the intention was to be persuasive. Far from being convinced that leftist traditions are antithetical to the excesses of today’s progressives, I’m left with the impression that such excesses are the logical outgrowth of this very legacy–and I’ve always voted left. We need a more determined and perceptive critique of the contemporary left’s intellectual foundations than this one. What we’re offered here as open-minded, nonpartisan criticism looks more like the ideological equivalent of religious apologia–witch-burners aren’t really Christians, jihadists aren’t really Muslims, and the woke aren’t true leftists. But, manifestly, they are… their credentials are as bona fide as Marx’s, Mao’s or Stalin’s.
“The woke discourse today is confusing because it appeals to emotions traditional to the Left: empathy for the marginalised, indignation at the plight of the oppressed, determination that historical wrongs can be righted.”
(?) This is bizarrely careless language use from a supposed beneficiary of philosophical training. In what study of emotions will we find ‘determination that historical wrongs can be righted’ listed as an emotion, or anywhere in the chapter headings or index? Is ‘determination not to have asparagus for dinner’ an emotion too, and is one more likely to experience it if one votes left?
As for empathy, ideologically-motivated attempts to politicize this common state of consciousness clearly have no place in philosophy, though the kind of selective empathy that limits itself to the ‘marginalized’ or others deemed deserving has, alas, become all too characteristic a constituent of ‘progressive’ conceptions of virtue. If there’s a tradition being forged here its roots lie not in politically definable surfeit or deficit of emotions but in linguistic, conceptual and ethical incoherence.
“The idea that one law should apply to Protestants and Catholics, Jews and Muslims, lords and peasants, simply in virtue of their common humanity is a relatively recent achievement which now shapes our assumptions so thoroughly we fail to recognise it as an achievement at all.”
Is it really an achievement to say that Muslims Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists should all be governed by a common law? Why? To take a simple example: why shouldn’t Hindu society treat cows differently than the others? Most religions believe everyone should be governed by the same law: their own! And this author is not different.
The only reason the author views this as an achievement is because the law being applied is his own tribe’s: atheistic liberalism. I doubt he would be nearly so enamored with universalism if, say, it was Muslim Shariah or Modi’s militant Hinduism. Liberalism always claims to be neutral, but neutrality is an illusion. It simply demotes divine law and elevates human autonomy in its place, but it’s just as unyielding and intolerant as any of the others.
Would I rather live under liberalism than Shariah? Absolutely. But wouldn’t feel that way if I were a devout Muslim. Progressives are universally blind to their own theocratic and colonialist tendencies.
“The idea that one law should apply to Protestants and Catholics, Jews and Muslims, lords and peasants, simply in virtue of their common humanity is a relatively recent achievement which now shapes our assumptions so thoroughly we fail to recognise it as an achievement at all.”
Is it really an achievement to say that Muslims Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists should all be governed by a common law? Why? To take a simple example: why shouldn’t Hindu society treat cows differently than the others? Most religions believe everyone should be governed by the same law: their own! And this author is not different.
The only reason the author views this as an achievement is because the law being applied is his own tribe’s: atheistic liberalism. I doubt he would be nearly so enamored with universalism if, say, it was Muslim Shariah or Modi’s militant Hinduism. Liberalism always claims to be neutral, but neutrality is an illusion. It simply demotes divine law and elevates human autonomy in its place, but it’s just as unyielding and intolerant as any of the others.
Would I rather live under liberalism than Shariah? Absolutely. But wouldn’t feel that way if I were a devout Muslim. Progressives are universally blind to their own theocratic and colonialist tendencies.
“Had the Left-wing parties been willing to form a united front, as thinkers from Einstein to Trotsky urged, the world could have been spared its worst war.” That’s called leftist foklore. Nowhere was the childishness of such wishful thinking more visible than in Weimar Germany. The Socialdemocrats, the parents and pillars of the first German republic had no reason whatsoever to unite with the Communist who wanted to destroy it by all means (even collaborating with the Nazis).
There was and never will be such a thing like “the” Left. The Russian Civil War, the Weimar Republic, the Spanish Civil War and the fate of the non-Communist Left in Eastern Europe after 1945 tell the same story: never ever trust those who are preaching about the unity of the Left.
“Had the Left-wing parties been willing to form a united front, as thinkers from Einstein to Trotsky urged, the world could have been spared its worst war.” That’s called leftist foklore. Nowhere was the childishness of such wishful thinking more visible than in Weimar Germany. The Socialdemocrats, the parents and pillars of the first German republic had no reason whatsoever to unite with the Communist who wanted to destroy it by all means (even collaborating with the Nazis).
There was and never will be such a thing like “the” Left. The Russian Civil War, the Weimar Republic, the Spanish Civil War and the fate of the non-Communist Left in Eastern Europe after 1945 tell the same story: never ever trust those who are preaching about the unity of the Left.
When my liberal friends complain that Unherd is alt-right, I’ll forward this piece to them. I’m very proud to subscribe to a publication that will print this kind of thing. It isn’t an especially informative piece but it does give the reader a revealing glimpse into the mind of a Leftist academic/philosopher/journalist. Leftist mono-cultures permit those permanently ensconced there to create a reality of their own in which they are the heroes. They believe in the sanctity of ideas – collectivist ideas as old as the outhouse – that never work but are highly marketable. These are ideas that receive a chorus of nods-in-agreement whenever they are expressed in the world of Leftists. And Leftists have a full compliment of pejoratives to hurl at anyone who intrudes on that reality with ideas or information that reveal the problems of the world to be more complex and intractable than their hero-narrative. Anyway, this is a good read. The feeling after you’re finished is like the feeling one might have after listening to a conspiracy theorist. Actually, almost exactly like that.
I am rather concerned that you think that these friends are in any way liberal when they declare that Unherd is alt-right.
American liberals are the most illiberal creatures on the planet.
American liberals are the most illiberal creatures on the planet.
I am rather concerned that you think that these friends are in any way liberal when they declare that Unherd is alt-right.
When my liberal friends complain that Unherd is alt-right, I’ll forward this piece to them. I’m very proud to subscribe to a publication that will print this kind of thing. It isn’t an especially informative piece but it does give the reader a revealing glimpse into the mind of a Leftist academic/philosopher/journalist. Leftist mono-cultures permit those permanently ensconced there to create a reality of their own in which they are the heroes. They believe in the sanctity of ideas – collectivist ideas as old as the outhouse – that never work but are highly marketable. These are ideas that receive a chorus of nods-in-agreement whenever they are expressed in the world of Leftists. And Leftists have a full compliment of pejoratives to hurl at anyone who intrudes on that reality with ideas or information that reveal the problems of the world to be more complex and intractable than their hero-narrative. Anyway, this is a good read. The feeling after you’re finished is like the feeling one might have after listening to a conspiracy theorist. Actually, almost exactly like that.
For me “woke” is the modern equivalent of the brown shirt and an armband issued not so long ago to useful idiots. We have books being burnt now, Dahl, Rowling; an enemy, successful white heteros. Momentum have been breaking windows with Tory posters for some time. Let’s hope the new mobilisation to defeat it is not as expensive or heartbreaking this time round.
For me “woke” is the modern equivalent of the brown shirt and an armband issued not so long ago to useful idiots. We have books being burnt now, Dahl, Rowling; an enemy, successful white heteros. Momentum have been breaking windows with Tory posters for some time. Let’s hope the new mobilisation to defeat it is not as expensive or heartbreaking this time round.
The author espouses ‘’universalism’ as opposed to ‘tribalism’ but actually displays tribalism in her highly simplistic portrayal of what she calls a ‘Rightwards lurch’. This is the projection of her own unacknowledged tribalism onto people who disagree with her ‘universal leftism’, who are lumped together by her into a group that is not her own.
She also writes: “Had the Left-wing parties been willing to form a united front… the world could have been spared its worst war. The differences dividing the parties were real; blood had even been spilled. But though the Stalinist Communist Party couldn’t see it, those differences paled next to the difference between universal Leftist movements and the tribal visions of fascism.”
What ‘difference’ between ‘universal Leftist movements’ and ‘fascism’? Communist parties have committed genocidal atrocities that killed even more people than the Nazis. The Nazis full name was ‘The National Socialist German Workers Party’. The ideas of the Nazi lawyer Carl Schmitt are respected today in Communist China. These days I refer to communists, Nazis and fascists as ‘the far left-right’, especially as they have all been so fond of military parades with exaggerated marching steps, and shared a commitment to slaughtering those in the wrong ‘tribes’.
The Nazis are evil because they murdered six million people from another ethnic tribe.
Communists are OK because they killed tens of millions from their own ethnic tribes, who unfortunately happened to hold the wrong ideas.
The Nazis are evil because they murdered six million people from another ethnic tribe.
Communists are OK because they killed tens of millions from their own ethnic tribes, who unfortunately happened to hold the wrong ideas.
The author espouses ‘’universalism’ as opposed to ‘tribalism’ but actually displays tribalism in her highly simplistic portrayal of what she calls a ‘Rightwards lurch’. This is the projection of her own unacknowledged tribalism onto people who disagree with her ‘universal leftism’, who are lumped together by her into a group that is not her own.
She also writes: “Had the Left-wing parties been willing to form a united front… the world could have been spared its worst war. The differences dividing the parties were real; blood had even been spilled. But though the Stalinist Communist Party couldn’t see it, those differences paled next to the difference between universal Leftist movements and the tribal visions of fascism.”
What ‘difference’ between ‘universal Leftist movements’ and ‘fascism’? Communist parties have committed genocidal atrocities that killed even more people than the Nazis. The Nazis full name was ‘The National Socialist German Workers Party’. The ideas of the Nazi lawyer Carl Schmitt are respected today in Communist China. These days I refer to communists, Nazis and fascists as ‘the far left-right’, especially as they have all been so fond of military parades with exaggerated marching steps, and shared a commitment to slaughtering those in the wrong ‘tribes’.
This was helpful:
the left as “a commitment to universalism over tribalism.” So what is more tribal than the workers vs. the bourgeoisie?
the left as “a firm distinction between justice and power.” Forgive me if I experience that the left only experiences justice if expressed by leftist power.
the left as “a belief in the possibility of progress.” Forgive me if I experience the left’s idea of progress as “my way or the highway.”
I would recommend the writer take a turn through Fukuyama’s The Origin of Political Order where he proposes that the state is an effort to combat tribal loyalties. But, he argues, equality is only possible in a state-less society. So, you can have equality or universalism, but not both.
This was helpful:
the left as “a commitment to universalism over tribalism.” So what is more tribal than the workers vs. the bourgeoisie?
the left as “a firm distinction between justice and power.” Forgive me if I experience that the left only experiences justice if expressed by leftist power.
the left as “a belief in the possibility of progress.” Forgive me if I experience the left’s idea of progress as “my way or the highway.”
I would recommend the writer take a turn through Fukuyama’s The Origin of Political Order where he proposes that the state is an effort to combat tribal loyalties. But, he argues, equality is only possible in a state-less society. So, you can have equality or universalism, but not both.
If Ms Neiman is so keen on the concept that we are all one why is her article so divisive? I am wary of the term “left”. It comes across as way too intellectual. I like what was our Labour Party – created to champion the working class man who could so easily become oppressed and disempowered. However if her head could come out of the book infested clouds, she would soon see this class of people is predominantly tribalist, as she so disparagingly calls it. Family, clan, nation. Let us ask her a question: Ms Neiman, once your children were small and vulnerable. Maybe they had friends over to play. A fire broke out in the house and circumstances prescribed you could save either your children or their friends. What then?
If Ms Neiman is so keen on the concept that we are all one why is her article so divisive? I am wary of the term “left”. It comes across as way too intellectual. I like what was our Labour Party – created to champion the working class man who could so easily become oppressed and disempowered. However if her head could come out of the book infested clouds, she would soon see this class of people is predominantly tribalist, as she so disparagingly calls it. Family, clan, nation. Let us ask her a question: Ms Neiman, once your children were small and vulnerable. Maybe they had friends over to play. A fire broke out in the house and circumstances prescribed you could save either your children or their friends. What then?
Being woke is like having a whole cluster of badges on your coat. One might say: Close no mines! Another might say, No to coal! One might say, Ban pornography! Another might say, Sex work is real work! One might say, Protect fee speech!. Another might say, No platform for terfs! One might say, Abolish prisons! Another might say, Longer sentences for rapists!
Get the full set and you are a fully paid-up lefty. Miss out on any one badge and you are suspect. There is no coherent philosophy but ‘We all hate the Tories’ and ‘Everyone loves a good demo.’
Being woke is like having a whole cluster of badges on your coat. One might say: Close no mines! Another might say, No to coal! One might say, Ban pornography! Another might say, Sex work is real work! One might say, Protect fee speech!. Another might say, No platform for terfs! One might say, Abolish prisons! Another might say, Longer sentences for rapists!
Get the full set and you are a fully paid-up lefty. Miss out on any one badge and you are suspect. There is no coherent philosophy but ‘We all hate the Tories’ and ‘Everyone loves a good demo.’
It apears to be a battle of the isms. Wokism, Communism, Nationalism, Globalism, Universalism, Tribalism, Identitarianism etc. I pick nationalism and universalism which may seem a contradiction but I believe in the nation state against globalism and every nation should have the opportunity to rule themselves as a democracy without everyone complying to Billionaire Globalists as upheld by the World Economic Forum. On a lighter note one of the isms Antidisestablishmentarianism is the longest word in the dictionary apparently.
It apears to be a battle of the isms. Wokism, Communism, Nationalism, Globalism, Universalism, Tribalism, Identitarianism etc. I pick nationalism and universalism which may seem a contradiction but I believe in the nation state against globalism and every nation should have the opportunity to rule themselves as a democracy without everyone complying to Billionaire Globalists as upheld by the World Economic Forum. On a lighter note one of the isms Antidisestablishmentarianism is the longest word in the dictionary apparently.
Must be exhausting to base your entire identity on your most significant trauma.
Must be exhausting to base your entire identity on your most significant trauma.
Equalitarianism is by nature woke, utopian, impossibly detached from reality.
The so called real left think they can use the state (although they often want to vaguely define it in some other way, thanks Marx) to squash economic and social differences.
You can’t achieve this without resorting to totalitarian measures, without denying the individual, without reducing everybody to some sort of classification of person to be equalised against some other classification, which is what we see formenting among the wokies of the left, just as it does in race based identitarianism on the so called right.
Equalitarianism is by nature woke, utopian, impossibly detached from reality.
The so called real left think they can use the state (although they often want to vaguely define it in some other way, thanks Marx) to squash economic and social differences.
You can’t achieve this without resorting to totalitarian measures, without denying the individual, without reducing everybody to some sort of classification of person to be equalised against some other classification, which is what we see formenting among the wokies of the left, just as it does in race based identitarianism on the so called right.
Although the contemporary left are different to the older lefts, I don’t buy the idea that the former aren’t universalist. They may want a slightly different universalism to Bolshevism or Jacobinism, but every woke leftist I’ve come across seems to think their ideology should be applicable globally. The fact that wokeism seems to fester well within multinational corporations is just an example that it has globalist tendencies. To compare wokism to right-wing particularists is a gross insult to the latter.
Although the contemporary left are different to the older lefts, I don’t buy the idea that the former aren’t universalist. They may want a slightly different universalism to Bolshevism or Jacobinism, but every woke leftist I’ve come across seems to think their ideology should be applicable globally. The fact that wokeism seems to fester well within multinational corporations is just an example that it has globalist tendencies. To compare wokism to right-wing particularists is a gross insult to the latter.
American authors ignore the Methodist roots of the British Labour Party which extends from Keir Hardie via Ernie Bevin to James Callaghan. The founders of the Labour Party were tough men, often miners who eschewed the violence of class warfare.Ernie Bevin literally fought, as in street fights, to keep the Communists ought of the Labour Party. Keir Hardie said Samuel Smiles ” self Help ” was a manual for Socialism. George Lansbury was a Pacifist and would not have supported the rape and murder of nuns and the castration and murder of priests by Communists in the Spanish Civil War. Consequently, the origins and those who ran the Labour Party were different to the Socialists and Communists of the USA and Europe.
The Law has to almost all, in England since Aethelbert in about 650AD had drafted the first laws which combined the Bible and the Anglo Saxon Traditions. Magna Carta of 1215AD limits the monarchs absolute power. By 1295 The House of Commons could vote on taxation.Charles I was convicted because he supported the Divine Right of Kings against the Will of Parliament. Lord Mansfield in The Somerset Case of 1772 declared a person could not be held as slave in England and Wales.
It was the abolition of slavery through the Parliamentary Process while Britain was engaged in a life of death struggle with Napoleon( 1793-1815 ) which inspired Evangelical Christians such as Lord Shaftesbury, the Quakers,Methododist and Salvation Army to improv the lives of those living in the slums.The founders and leaders of the Labour Party believed in improving the quality of lives of people through Parliamentary Process and were supported by Kings Edward VII( in agreeing to create lords to enable Lloyd George to pass his various laws) and George VI. The founders of the Labour Party knew they had a reasonable case, based upon Christian charity, to improve the quality of the lives of the poor without resorting to violence. As Orwell said Britain was the only country where liberty could be achieved without violence.The modern Labour Party and Socialism is very different to the practical tough patriotic common sense Methodist inspired Party of Hardie, Attlee, Bevin, James Callaghan or Dennis Healey who would have no time for depravity( controlling drinking and gambling), dirt and disorder. They were a party who believed honest hard working people should receive a decent reward for their labours- A labourer is worth his salt.
American authors ignore the Methodist roots of the British Labour Party which extends from Keir Hardie via Ernie Bevin to James Callaghan. The founders of the Labour Party were tough men, often miners who eschewed the violence of class warfare.Ernie Bevin literally fought, as in street fights, to keep the Communists ought of the Labour Party. Keir Hardie said Samuel Smiles ” self Help ” was a manual for Socialism. George Lansbury was a Pacifist and would not have supported the rape and murder of nuns and the castration and murder of priests by Communists in the Spanish Civil War. Consequently, the origins and those who ran the Labour Party were different to the Socialists and Communists of the USA and Europe.
The Law has to almost all, in England since Aethelbert in about 650AD had drafted the first laws which combined the Bible and the Anglo Saxon Traditions. Magna Carta of 1215AD limits the monarchs absolute power. By 1295 The House of Commons could vote on taxation.Charles I was convicted because he supported the Divine Right of Kings against the Will of Parliament. Lord Mansfield in The Somerset Case of 1772 declared a person could not be held as slave in England and Wales.
It was the abolition of slavery through the Parliamentary Process while Britain was engaged in a life of death struggle with Napoleon( 1793-1815 ) which inspired Evangelical Christians such as Lord Shaftesbury, the Quakers,Methododist and Salvation Army to improv the lives of those living in the slums.The founders and leaders of the Labour Party believed in improving the quality of lives of people through Parliamentary Process and were supported by Kings Edward VII( in agreeing to create lords to enable Lloyd George to pass his various laws) and George VI. The founders of the Labour Party knew they had a reasonable case, based upon Christian charity, to improve the quality of the lives of the poor without resorting to violence. As Orwell said Britain was the only country where liberty could be achieved without violence.The modern Labour Party and Socialism is very different to the practical tough patriotic common sense Methodist inspired Party of Hardie, Attlee, Bevin, James Callaghan or Dennis Healey who would have no time for depravity( controlling drinking and gambling), dirt and disorder. They were a party who believed honest hard working people should receive a decent reward for their labours- A labourer is worth his salt.
If an alien visited the earth, what creation of the Left could one show which demonstrated it’s supposed superiority? The Roman Catholic Church could point to St Peter’s in Rome, perhaps the greatest work of art of all time: Britain, could point to Parliamentary Democracy, Shakespeare, Newton, The Industrial Revolution, Darwin, splitting the atom, discovery of DNA and Florence, The Italian Renaissance. The Left could point out they have killed more people than Genghis Khan, Timur the lame and Hitler combined.
If an alien visited the earth, what creation of the Left could one show which demonstrated it’s supposed superiority? The Roman Catholic Church could point to St Peter’s in Rome, perhaps the greatest work of art of all time: Britain, could point to Parliamentary Democracy, Shakespeare, Newton, The Industrial Revolution, Darwin, splitting the atom, discovery of DNA and Florence, The Italian Renaissance. The Left could point out they have killed more people than Genghis Khan, Timur the lame and Hitler combined.
“For not only liberals, but many Leftists and socialists like me are increasingly uneasy with the form it has taken.”
Really. Want a medal for finally opening your eyes after you allowed all the damage to be done?
See, here’s the issue:
Whatever liberals, socialists, Leftsts and Democrats think of the poisonous woke and CRT, they’re responsible for it because after they canceled us conservatives from academia, the media, Hollywood, government bureaucracy, etc., they became the gakekeepers.
It was their responsibility to maintain common sense, which they completely failed to do. It was their job to keep woke from infecting and taking over the institutions, it was their responsibility, after they grabbed all the power, to be the adults in the room, but all of them, liberals, socialists, Democrats and other Leftists, failed completely, absolutely, totally and catastrophically.
And now we smart people are paying for their irresponsibility, stupidity and cowardice.
So no, I don’t care when some Democrat or some liberal says “You know, I’m really uncomfortable with woke too.”
So what? Anybody with half a brain knows it’s evil, but it was YOUR job, once you took marginalized conservatives and other intelligent people and took control of American institutions for yourself, to protect them from things like woke, only you were too dense to recognize the threat, and too gutless and cowardly to stand up to it.
Yes, it is your fault.
“For not only liberals, but many Leftists and socialists like me are increasingly uneasy with the form it has taken.”
Really. Want a medal for finally opening your eyes after you allowed all the damage to be done?
See, here’s the issue:
Whatever liberals, socialists, Leftsts and Democrats think of the poisonous woke and CRT, they’re responsible for it because after they canceled us conservatives from academia, the media, Hollywood, government bureaucracy, etc., they became the gakekeepers.
It was their responsibility to maintain common sense, which they completely failed to do. It was their job to keep woke from infecting and taking over the institutions, it was their responsibility, after they grabbed all the power, to be the adults in the room, but all of them, liberals, socialists, Democrats and other Leftists, failed completely, absolutely, totally and catastrophically.
And now we smart people are paying for their irresponsibility, stupidity and cowardice.
So no, I don’t care when some Democrat or some liberal says “You know, I’m really uncomfortable with woke too.”
So what? Anybody with half a brain knows it’s evil, but it was YOUR job, once you took marginalized conservatives and other intelligent people and took control of American institutions for yourself, to protect them from things like woke, only you were too dense to recognize the threat, and too gutless and cowardly to stand up to it.
Yes, it is your fault.
There is a big difference between right of centre and far right but everything even one atom to the right of centre is now extreme right wing. British people love to upset the apple cart – the left just has to hope it’s not their apple cart that gets unexpectedly upset. Yet again.
There is a big difference between right of centre and far right but everything even one atom to the right of centre is now extreme right wing. British people love to upset the apple cart – the left just has to hope it’s not their apple cart that gets unexpectedly upset. Yet again.
Not sure about this statement:
“The idea that one law should apply to Protestants and Catholics, Jews and Muslims, lords and peasants, simply in virtue of their common humanity is a relatively recent achievement which now shapes our assumptions so thoroughly we fail to recognise it as an achievement at all.”
In Galatians Ch 3 vs 28 Paul writes “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”
So it’s no wonder the idea of equality shapes our assumptions, it’s a fundamentally Christian idea, and Western history is quite Christian to say the least. Perhaps by “recent” the author means since St Pauls writing but I doubt that.
This is not to say that humanity has embraced equality throughout history but the idea is obviously old and Christian.
Also, Genesis Ch 1 vs 27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
That at least implies equality of value between all people. Word has it that passage is pretty old as well.
So not a particularly new idea then, just poorly applied throughout history.
Not sure about this statement:
“The idea that one law should apply to Protestants and Catholics, Jews and Muslims, lords and peasants, simply in virtue of their common humanity is a relatively recent achievement which now shapes our assumptions so thoroughly we fail to recognise it as an achievement at all.”
In Galatians Ch 3 vs 28 Paul writes “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”
So it’s no wonder the idea of equality shapes our assumptions, it’s a fundamentally Christian idea, and Western history is quite Christian to say the least. Perhaps by “recent” the author means since St Pauls writing but I doubt that.
This is not to say that humanity has embraced equality throughout history but the idea is obviously old and Christian.
Also, Genesis Ch 1 vs 27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
That at least implies equality of value between all people. Word has it that passage is pretty old as well.
So not a particularly new idea then, just poorly applied throughout history.
Time for an Unherd debate/discussion btw Susan Neiman and James Lindsay, https://newdiscourses.com.
Time for an Unherd debate/discussion btw Susan Neiman and James Lindsay, https://newdiscourses.com.
This article shows an inadequate grasp of the history of the Labour Party. The Labour Party was founded by Christians, such as Hardie, Lansbury, Bevin and Callaghan, in order to improve the lives of honest hard working poor through practical measures; not violence. Lansbury would have been against the rape and murder of nuns and castration and murder of priest by Communists in Spain.
The Socialists and Communists of the USA and Europe may have been atheists however the major influence on the Labour Party was Non Conformism such as Methodism, The Quakers and Methodism and the Baptists. Methodism put great stress on self help, hence the Cooperative Society and Hardie said Sam Smiles book “Self Help ” was manual for socialism Methodism puts great weight on personal conduct and was against drinking, gambling, depravity, dirt( cleanliness is next to Godliness) and disorder. The Methodists and Non- Conformists believed the devil provided work for idle hands so rugby, lending libraries, The Chapel and Sunday School were encouraged. The pre WW2 labour Party would have a very different attitude to morality compared to The Democratic Party of today in the State of California. There was hardly any killings or robberies in the rugby playing, Chapel and Sunday School attending parts of Britain during The Depression compared to modern day California. As Orwell pointed out it is the Left Wing Intelligentsia who are attracted to power and and the pornography of revolutionary violence. The genuinely tough men, tempered in the coal mines, steel works, heavy industry and rugby pitches do not find violence seductive. Front steps were kept clean, the front parlour was immaculate and the phrase ” I am poor but honest ” was said with self respect.
This article shows an inadequate grasp of the history of the Labour Party. The Labour Party was founded by Christians, such as Hardie, Lansbury, Bevin and Callaghan, in order to improve the lives of honest hard working poor through practical measures; not violence. Lansbury would have been against the rape and murder of nuns and castration and murder of priest by Communists in Spain.
The Socialists and Communists of the USA and Europe may have been atheists however the major influence on the Labour Party was Non Conformism such as Methodism, The Quakers and Methodism and the Baptists. Methodism put great stress on self help, hence the Cooperative Society and Hardie said Sam Smiles book “Self Help ” was manual for socialism Methodism puts great weight on personal conduct and was against drinking, gambling, depravity, dirt( cleanliness is next to Godliness) and disorder. The Methodists and Non- Conformists believed the devil provided work for idle hands so rugby, lending libraries, The Chapel and Sunday School were encouraged. The pre WW2 labour Party would have a very different attitude to morality compared to The Democratic Party of today in the State of California. There was hardly any killings or robberies in the rugby playing, Chapel and Sunday School attending parts of Britain during The Depression compared to modern day California. As Orwell pointed out it is the Left Wing Intelligentsia who are attracted to power and and the pornography of revolutionary violence. The genuinely tough men, tempered in the coal mines, steel works, heavy industry and rugby pitches do not find violence seductive. Front steps were kept clean, the front parlour was immaculate and the phrase ” I am poor but honest ” was said with self respect.
Quite startling to see your dismissive and propagandist attitudes towards a democratically elected and popular Indian government under PM Modi as “violent nationalism”. This is what is wrong with the Left and its echo chamber- tar anything and anyone you donot agree with using pejoratives and abuse while only what the Left claims is the “Truth” is the sole way.
Leftism is totalitarian and abject in its elitism.
Quite startling to see your dismissive and propagandist attitudes towards a democratically elected and popular Indian government under PM Modi as “violent nationalism”. This is what is wrong with the Left and its echo chamber- tar anything and anyone you donot agree with using pejoratives and abuse while only what the Left claims is the “Truth” is the sole way.
Leftism is totalitarian and abject in its elitism.
Excellent article – the book looks really interesting.
I didn’t need a philosophy professor to tell me that identify politics is the antithesis of universalism.
I didn’t need a philosophy professor to tell me that identify politics is the antithesis of universalism.
Find me, anywhere, a person in a position of influence, who seriously describes themselves as “Woke”. It’s virtually impossible – just as it was previously impossible to find anyone who described themselves as “politcally correct”.
This simple fact points to something important. “wokeness” is not an ideology, it is a pejorative term for the excesses of progressivism. This is why the term “political correctness” was so often followed up by “gone mad”.
To critique wokeness in isolation would be like analysing a gambler solely by reference to his losing bets.
Universalism vs tribalism is too simple. Another way to think about this is that the universalism of the left is very akin to a kind of abstraction, which sees people as all of similar value but also almost as undifferentiated, with no concrete, specific connections. The tribalism approach, on the other hand, could be described as recognizing the material connections between actual, concrete, specific individuals – things like where they live, language, customs, and so on. Both of these can potentially go quite wrong.
Thanks Unherd for publishing this. I didn’t agree with much of it but it was an interesting read!
Thanks Unherd for publishing this. I didn’t agree with much of it but it was an interesting read!
The revolution, like Saturn, devours its own children.
Excellent and insightful article and I shall buy the book. Great to see some cogent argument from someone on the left reasserting the value of universalism and enlightenment values. Thank you Susan Neiman. Shame that the ‘retired right’ seem to dominate the comments slot – cant you please stick to the Mail online?
Excellent and insightful article and I shall buy the book. Great to see some cogent argument from someone on the left reasserting the value of universalism and enlightenment values. Thank you Susan Neiman. Shame that the ‘retired right’ seem to dominate the comments slot – cant you please stick to the Mail online?
The New York Times “is not particularly Leftist”? The author can’t see past her own set of blinders.
Neiman is appealing for incremental change towards fairness and justice in material terms on the basis of Enlightenment values of reason and tolerance, as these values can unite people of good will if they set aside the divisive identitarian trap laid for them by the right, who work towards the final triumph of plutocratic autocracy enforced by total surveillance, as in China and Russia. Neiman’s position cannot be reduced to just another identitarian claim or be labelled as “leftist” in order to dismiss it. She has a strong case and we should attend.
Neiman is appealing for incremental change towards fairness and justice in material terms on the basis of Enlightenment values of reason and tolerance, as these values can unite people of good will if they set aside the divisive identitarian trap laid for them by the right, who work towards the final triumph of plutocratic autocracy enforced by total surveillance, as in China and Russia. Neiman’s position cannot be reduced to just another identitarian claim or be labelled as “leftist” in order to dismiss it. She has a strong case and we should attend.
Whoa! What a dyspeptic lot of commenters! To this reader, her piece is keenly observed and mercifully well-written.
They were triggered.
I agree. Socialism in Europe began as a result of the Industrialisation of Europe. It was realised early on the International solidarity and support was one way of resisting the wretched side effects of capitalism on working people. Read the early history of trade unionism and the British labour movement. But all power corrupts and so the early ideals which still have merit have been buried long ago. This article is talking about the early ideals of the left and it was refreshing to see them resurrected.
So true. Power corrupts, it’s addictive and primative.
The author appears to have no understanding of the Non Conformist pacifist roots of the Labour Party with the atheistic roots of Continental socialists who supported revolutionary violence. Compare G Lansbury in the 1930s and those raping and murdering nuns and castrating and murdering priets in Spain.It was the actions of communists in USSR who caused the famine which led to the death of up to 13M Ukrainians and the actions in Spain which resulted in many people supporting Hitler, Mussolini and Petain.
The moderate actions and words of the British Labour Party produced no nation wide mass movement of Fascists as a reaction. Mosley’s Black Shirts were considered by most of the middle class as a rabble, the leader was considered a four letter word and it was largely concentrated in the East End of London.
So true. Power corrupts, it’s addictive and primative.
The author appears to have no understanding of the Non Conformist pacifist roots of the Labour Party with the atheistic roots of Continental socialists who supported revolutionary violence. Compare G Lansbury in the 1930s and those raping and murdering nuns and castrating and murdering priets in Spain.It was the actions of communists in USSR who caused the famine which led to the death of up to 13M Ukrainians and the actions in Spain which resulted in many people supporting Hitler, Mussolini and Petain.
The moderate actions and words of the British Labour Party produced no nation wide mass movement of Fascists as a reaction. Mosley’s Black Shirts were considered by most of the middle class as a rabble, the leader was considered a four letter word and it was largely concentrated in the East End of London.
I thought so too, I didn’t agree with all of it but it was well worth a read.
They were triggered.
I agree. Socialism in Europe began as a result of the Industrialisation of Europe. It was realised early on the International solidarity and support was one way of resisting the wretched side effects of capitalism on working people. Read the early history of trade unionism and the British labour movement. But all power corrupts and so the early ideals which still have merit have been buried long ago. This article is talking about the early ideals of the left and it was refreshing to see them resurrected.
I thought so too, I didn’t agree with all of it but it was well worth a read.
Whoa! What a dyspeptic lot of commenters! To this reader, her piece is keenly observed and mercifully well-written.
What an excellent article, very refreshing to hear these viewpoints. Thank you Unherd.
Wonderful observation.
Does it actually mean anything in real time?
Absolutely. One only has to read the comments and likes to see it in full effect right here. That’s not to say the whole Unherd audience is completely tribal, after all you for example appear to have an open mind on some other subjects.
I have a very, very open mind. I am a scientist and engineer of the old school, the time before scientists became controlled by vested interests. So, I am not fazed by physics, the physics of the environment for example. For me, having an open mind means being able to listen to comments and rethink my view – I would be accused of trolling here.
Unfortunately, most UnHerders are not scientists (and may even think of scientists as the lowest of the low). So, this is not the place to argue most of the finer points of scientific discussions.
Then I am even more surprised that you are a climate change sceptic. We should always make scientific enquiry of course and question everything, but that shouldn’t lead to denial, cynicism and conspiracy. The level of post modern distrust and suspicion amongst the right wing tribe seems to be beyond reach of reason, and as observed by the author, embedded in a narrow set of common causes.
Climate change sceptic is just a cheap label. What exactly am I sceptical of?
Is the climate changing? Yes.
Is this change unusual? No. Take away the silly hockey stick graph and the change is perfectly normal. We have had much warmer periods (and colder) in the last millennium.
Are changes made by man? Maybe, maybe not. How exactly can that be proved? Impossible to prove?
Are we experiencing freak weather conditions? No but we are if every commentator keeps repeating the mantra.
Were you taught in primary school and secondary school that we were destroying the planet? Yes.
Did you just believe it because the teachers said so? Yes.
Is climate change ideology a political concept? Yes.
How, which set of politics? Socialism. The message is that the capitalists have become too strong. We need to even things out a bit.
Who do we blame? All old people. You like to use weasel words like ‘boomers’ because you are scared to say, ‘We need to muzzle old people,’
Next step? Disenfranchise everyone over 70 years old.
You assume much about me yet know nothing. Climate change was not in my curriculum. No, no, no, in the words of Maggie. You claim to be open minded yet spout all the typical climate change denial dogma. It’s very disappointing to be honest. We’re all to blame, but more so those who’s biases are so ingrained they cannot give proper consideration to something so obvious.
Who do you believe, as a scientist? How about The Royal Society?
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/
I ask again, what dogma? You can’t answer can you? You have two words, sceptic and denier. Now you have found a third. But you can’t follow the science. So what is the point?
I just gave you a link to ‘the science’. But I guess if you consider yourself more informed than The Royal Society then this debate really is a lost cause.
I just gave you a link to ‘the science’. But I guess if you consider yourself more informed than The Royal Society then this debate really is a lost cause.
I think most serious climate skeptics agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is warming the earth. That doesn’t mean it’s an existential threat, or the world is doomed if we surpass some magical threshold of 1.5 degrees.
I read the links you supplied. I can some them up in three words – trust the models. Meh. After 35 years of failed predictions, maybe we should all be questioning the models.
Thank you for acting as a mediator. In my post above I admit that the climate is changing. But I don’t go around saying ‘Save the planet.’ In my conversations. In the context of our history in the last millennium this warming is just not significant.
I agree models are often problematic. However what many people fail to grasp or are just simply unaware of is that CO2 persists in the atmosphere for 200 years. So everything produced in the industrial revolution onwards is still there and what we’re producing now is just accumulating, hence the focus on future thresholds which are a measure of what to expect, and none of that will be good.
People do grasp it but (to repeat) the projected warming is minimal compared to many years in the last 1000 years. They may believe every word you say about temperatures but don’t agree with mantras –
Save The Planet, Freeze the Boomers, Stop Efficient Transport, Everybody Must Become a Vegan, Stop Air Travel, etc.
Don’t you see it? These are mind control things to give money and power to university professors. They can be labelled as ‘woke’.
Totally understand the annoyance of groups such as Just Stop Oil, the irony is they are setting back their own cause by being utter bell ends, but certainly not woke. From their point of view however I also understand the frustrations they face with the total apathy of folks saying things such as ‘the climate has always changed’ and ‘it’s warmer now than in the past’, because it’s really head/brick wall time, with supposed intellectuals that believe they know better than The Royal Society, for example.
OK, I promise that this is my last attempt and you won’t hear from me again.
At the moment in the UK we are about 70 million, say. There are children, students, retired, people who work and those on benefits.
Whatever people think about climate, there is no justification for glueing yourself to the M25 and stopping ordinary people from going to work. Work generates income and pays for food, education and life. If climate worriers like yourself want people on your side, you need to denounce these people in very loud voices. But you don’t because you think that the end justifies the means. That last sentence has been used by dictators through the centuries.
People worship Greta because she went by boat across the Atlantic. Very good. It is not always said that her ‘team’ flew over by private jet. She actually doesn’t know anything but she is being used for political reasons.
On Twitter, lots of ‘big’ people blame the boomers. As do you. But none of you would dare to blame old people in loud voices. Then your movement would see a huge backlash which would destroy you. I dare you to say on UnHerd, over and over, that old people are the enemies of climate change.
Almost everyone who thinks believes that the earth has increased in temperature since about 1975. Almost no-one who thinks believes that this is the end of the planet. Europe is putting through many measures to change things. I suggest you go to China and appeal to their government. But don’t fly, of course.
I personally am a big advocate of detaching ourselves from oil and gas because we won’t then be dependent on Russia and Saudi Arabia.
You really should have read my comment properly before posting all that guff. If you’ve got the open mind that you claim to have then stop deflecting, consult any of the respected scientific publications such as New Scientist, Nature, National Geographic and see if they are the ‘thinkers’ you describe.
You really should have read my comment properly before posting all that guff. If you’ve got the open mind that you claim to have then stop deflecting, consult any of the respected scientific publications such as New Scientist, Nature, National Geographic and see if they are the ‘thinkers’ you describe.
OK, I promise that this is my last attempt and you won’t hear from me again.
At the moment in the UK we are about 70 million, say. There are children, students, retired, people who work and those on benefits.
Whatever people think about climate, there is no justification for glueing yourself to the M25 and stopping ordinary people from going to work. Work generates income and pays for food, education and life. If climate worriers like yourself want people on your side, you need to denounce these people in very loud voices. But you don’t because you think that the end justifies the means. That last sentence has been used by dictators through the centuries.
People worship Greta because she went by boat across the Atlantic. Very good. It is not always said that her ‘team’ flew over by private jet. She actually doesn’t know anything but she is being used for political reasons.
On Twitter, lots of ‘big’ people blame the boomers. As do you. But none of you would dare to blame old people in loud voices. Then your movement would see a huge backlash which would destroy you. I dare you to say on UnHerd, over and over, that old people are the enemies of climate change.
Almost everyone who thinks believes that the earth has increased in temperature since about 1975. Almost no-one who thinks believes that this is the end of the planet. Europe is putting through many measures to change things. I suggest you go to China and appeal to their government. But don’t fly, of course.
I personally am a big advocate of detaching ourselves from oil and gas because we won’t then be dependent on Russia and Saudi Arabia.
Totally understand the annoyance of groups such as Just Stop Oil, the irony is they are setting back their own cause by being utter bell ends, but certainly not woke. From their point of view however I also understand the frustrations they face with the total apathy of folks saying things such as ‘the climate has always changed’ and ‘it’s warmer now than in the past’, because it’s really head/brick wall time, with supposed intellectuals that believe they know better than The Royal Society, for example.
Sure, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 200 years. But right now we are at about 425 ppm. It’s been as high as 4,000 ppm in geological history. And I think the death level is something like 200 ppm, where plants no longer grow. In terms of the history of the earth, current CO2 levels are not even close to unprecedented.
I think a lot of alarmists have this comic book characterization of skeptics, or lukewarmers, which is what I consider myself. Most of us don’t deny climate change, and would support reasonable measures to reduce emissions.
But net zero and the solutions proposed by the climate change industrial complex are infinitely worse than the problem they purport to solve. Climate change will have an impact on society, but claims of an existential threat are hyperbolic and disconnected from reality.
Net zero, on the other hand, will absolutely 100% destroy the wealth and prosperity we enjoy today. We are condemning future generations to a life of poverty and misery to solve a problem that is better addressed by adaptation measures like sea walls.
The Dutch are seemingly hell bent to buy out 3,000 of the most productive farming operations in the world. What will be the result? The ag production won’t disappear. It will simply be shifted to other regions of the world, where production is less efficient and where the environmental impact is much worse.
In the end, we end up with more expensive food and a worse environment. But the Dutch have reduced their nitrogen level. What a shallow victory indeed.
Some very valid points. As I commented on in the Dutch farmer article economic protectionism will always come first, so genuine mitigation against climate change will be pushed back. As you suggest, net zero targets are very punishing, in reality it would mean all domestic central heating to be switched off, which obviously won’t happen. But even if the UK did do that, China and the US would carry on merrily so it wouldn’t make a jot of difference.
This is why people are angry, passionate and frustrated, and to bring it back on topic, it’s not because they are woke or lefties, it’s because they genuinely care for the future.
I agree. The vast majority of people who are terrified of climate change have sincerely held, caring beliefs – full stop.
On the other hand, the vast majority of people who we consider woke, have adopted hysterical ideas about a variety of issues, including climate change, without giving it any thought. It’s their default position.
Wokeism, in some respects, is a set of luxury beliefs. People adopt a set of ideas simply because it’s the fashionable thing to do in their social circle – not because they have seriously analyzed the issues.
Only people with privileged lives think defund the police is a sensible idea – because they aren’t living the reality of crime invested neighborhoods. Any adult who thinks it’s a good idea to give puberty blockers to children is not adopting this idea based on reason and logic.
Same thing with climate change. No one who is struggling to put food on the table, and a roof over their head, gives a second thought to climate change. It’s the people removed from worries of power bills, or even having electricity, who have adopted hysterical ideas about the issue. People who can barely afford a car, or the fuel to run that car, have very little interest in climate change.
Yes all good points, although your final paragraph seems to only apply to this country – poor people at the sharp end of climate change, of which there are many, will no doubt see it differently.
Yes all good points, although your final paragraph seems to only apply to this country – poor people at the sharp end of climate change, of which there are many, will no doubt see it differently.
I agree. The vast majority of people who are terrified of climate change have sincerely held, caring beliefs – full stop.
On the other hand, the vast majority of people who we consider woke, have adopted hysterical ideas about a variety of issues, including climate change, without giving it any thought. It’s their default position.
Wokeism, in some respects, is a set of luxury beliefs. People adopt a set of ideas simply because it’s the fashionable thing to do in their social circle – not because they have seriously analyzed the issues.
Only people with privileged lives think defund the police is a sensible idea – because they aren’t living the reality of crime invested neighborhoods. Any adult who thinks it’s a good idea to give puberty blockers to children is not adopting this idea based on reason and logic.
Same thing with climate change. No one who is struggling to put food on the table, and a roof over their head, gives a second thought to climate change. It’s the people removed from worries of power bills, or even having electricity, who have adopted hysterical ideas about the issue. People who can barely afford a car, or the fuel to run that car, have very little interest in climate change.
Some very valid points. As I commented on in the Dutch farmer article economic protectionism will always come first, so genuine mitigation against climate change will be pushed back. As you suggest, net zero targets are very punishing, in reality it would mean all domestic central heating to be switched off, which obviously won’t happen. But even if the UK did do that, China and the US would carry on merrily so it wouldn’t make a jot of difference.
This is why people are angry, passionate and frustrated, and to bring it back on topic, it’s not because they are woke or lefties, it’s because they genuinely care for the future.
People do grasp it but (to repeat) the projected warming is minimal compared to many years in the last 1000 years. They may believe every word you say about temperatures but don’t agree with mantras –
Save The Planet, Freeze the Boomers, Stop Efficient Transport, Everybody Must Become a Vegan, Stop Air Travel, etc.
Don’t you see it? These are mind control things to give money and power to university professors. They can be labelled as ‘woke’.
Sure, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 200 years. But right now we are at about 425 ppm. It’s been as high as 4,000 ppm in geological history. And I think the death level is something like 200 ppm, where plants no longer grow. In terms of the history of the earth, current CO2 levels are not even close to unprecedented.
I think a lot of alarmists have this comic book characterization of skeptics, or lukewarmers, which is what I consider myself. Most of us don’t deny climate change, and would support reasonable measures to reduce emissions.
But net zero and the solutions proposed by the climate change industrial complex are infinitely worse than the problem they purport to solve. Climate change will have an impact on society, but claims of an existential threat are hyperbolic and disconnected from reality.
Net zero, on the other hand, will absolutely 100% destroy the wealth and prosperity we enjoy today. We are condemning future generations to a life of poverty and misery to solve a problem that is better addressed by adaptation measures like sea walls.
The Dutch are seemingly hell bent to buy out 3,000 of the most productive farming operations in the world. What will be the result? The ag production won’t disappear. It will simply be shifted to other regions of the world, where production is less efficient and where the environmental impact is much worse.
In the end, we end up with more expensive food and a worse environment. But the Dutch have reduced their nitrogen level. What a shallow victory indeed.
Thank you for acting as a mediator. In my post above I admit that the climate is changing. But I don’t go around saying ‘Save the planet.’ In my conversations. In the context of our history in the last millennium this warming is just not significant.
I agree models are often problematic. However what many people fail to grasp or are just simply unaware of is that CO2 persists in the atmosphere for 200 years. So everything produced in the industrial revolution onwards is still there and what we’re producing now is just accumulating, hence the focus on future thresholds which are a measure of what to expect, and none of that will be good.
I ask again, what dogma? You can’t answer can you? You have two words, sceptic and denier. Now you have found a third. But you can’t follow the science. So what is the point?
I think most serious climate skeptics agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is warming the earth. That doesn’t mean it’s an existential threat, or the world is doomed if we surpass some magical threshold of 1.5 degrees.
I read the links you supplied. I can some them up in three words – trust the models. Meh. After 35 years of failed predictions, maybe we should all be questioning the models.
You assume much about me yet know nothing. Climate change was not in my curriculum. No, no, no, in the words of Maggie. You claim to be open minded yet spout all the typical climate change denial dogma. It’s very disappointing to be honest. We’re all to blame, but more so those who’s biases are so ingrained they cannot give proper consideration to something so obvious.
Who do you believe, as a scientist? How about The Royal Society?
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/
Climate change sceptic is just a cheap label. What exactly am I sceptical of?
Is the climate changing? Yes.
Is this change unusual? No. Take away the silly hockey stick graph and the change is perfectly normal. We have had much warmer periods (and colder) in the last millennium.
Are changes made by man? Maybe, maybe not. How exactly can that be proved? Impossible to prove?
Are we experiencing freak weather conditions? No but we are if every commentator keeps repeating the mantra.
Were you taught in primary school and secondary school that we were destroying the planet? Yes.
Did you just believe it because the teachers said so? Yes.
Is climate change ideology a political concept? Yes.
How, which set of politics? Socialism. The message is that the capitalists have become too strong. We need to even things out a bit.
Who do we blame? All old people. You like to use weasel words like ‘boomers’ because you are scared to say, ‘We need to muzzle old people,’
Next step? Disenfranchise everyone over 70 years old.
I suspect most people like to think they have an open mind. Why would you want all Unherd readers to be scientists, is that wish not being a bit closed minded? Artists bring equally original thought and opinions just, perhaps, more heart centered but, equally valid. Would you want all of us to be into our heads?
I don’t want people to be scientists. But I object when people who don’t understand what they are talking about calling me names like ‘sceptic’, ‘denier’ and ‘boomer’ when they don’t understand anything at all.
Suppose you were a philosopher and you said, “Wittgenstein said this and Aristotle said that.” I wouldn’t even comment because I have never met the two gentlemen. So, why does somebody who has no knowledge of the subject call me names? Answer, he is parroting somebody else just to give a clever remark.
I don’t want people to be scientists. But I object when people who don’t understand what they are talking about calling me names like ‘sceptic’, ‘denier’ and ‘boomer’ when they don’t understand anything at all.
Suppose you were a philosopher and you said, “Wittgenstein said this and Aristotle said that.” I wouldn’t even comment because I have never met the two gentlemen. So, why does somebody who has no knowledge of the subject call me names? Answer, he is parroting somebody else just to give a clever remark.
Then I am even more surprised that you are a climate change sceptic. We should always make scientific enquiry of course and question everything, but that shouldn’t lead to denial, cynicism and conspiracy. The level of post modern distrust and suspicion amongst the right wing tribe seems to be beyond reach of reason, and as observed by the author, embedded in a narrow set of common causes.
I suspect most people like to think they have an open mind. Why would you want all Unherd readers to be scientists, is that wish not being a bit closed minded? Artists bring equally original thought and opinions just, perhaps, more heart centered but, equally valid. Would you want all of us to be into our heads?
Just you and Chris have open minds? That’s special.Did you actually read all the comments?
I read every comment because I always do. Some I found boring and commented myself. Those were, ‘The Right said this and the Left does that.’ These have no meaning except in the mind of the individual comment or.
Some comments I didn’t understand, so I had to pass by. Some comments tried to be funny. I like those in small doses but only in small doses.
All are fine, except when someone who doesn’t know anything about my own forte calls me silly names. He should learn that older does not always mean senile and greedy and extreme.
I read every comment because I always do. Some I found boring and commented myself. Those were, ‘The Right said this and the Left does that.’ These have no meaning except in the mind of the individual comment or.
Some comments I didn’t understand, so I had to pass by. Some comments tried to be funny. I like those in small doses but only in small doses.
All are fine, except when someone who doesn’t know anything about my own forte calls me silly names. He should learn that older does not always mean senile and greedy and extreme.
I have a very, very open mind. I am a scientist and engineer of the old school, the time before scientists became controlled by vested interests. So, I am not fazed by physics, the physics of the environment for example. For me, having an open mind means being able to listen to comments and rethink my view – I would be accused of trolling here.
Unfortunately, most UnHerders are not scientists (and may even think of scientists as the lowest of the low). So, this is not the place to argue most of the finer points of scientific discussions.
Just you and Chris have open minds? That’s special.Did you actually read all the comments?
Absolutely. One only has to read the comments and likes to see it in full effect right here. That’s not to say the whole Unherd audience is completely tribal, after all you for example appear to have an open mind on some other subjects.
Robbie, that’s like responding “wonderful observation” to someone who says, “your hair looks really good today.” They’re telling you something you wanted to hear (that they knew you wanted to hear) are you’re complimenting them for their insight. This is how I imagine the faculty lounge at a university operates.
If you say so Sisyphus, I’m not that familiar with faculty lounges. All I can tell you is I read the article with some concern at the headline since I would immediately link the left with wokism, but was pleasantly surprised with the author’s articulate prose and opinions. I’m not rushing out to buy the book, but it was interesting and thought provoking.
Do you pay insincere compliments just to please?
He didn’t. You are now taking sides and have stopped reading and moved into name calling like your protégé. He was just trying to be pleasant and see both sides of the argument. Here you say, ‘Thank you for making such a well-informed comment but I don’t happen to agree with you.’
He didn’t. You are now taking sides and have stopped reading and moved into name calling like your protégé. He was just trying to be pleasant and see both sides of the argument. Here you say, ‘Thank you for making such a well-informed comment but I don’t happen to agree with you.’
Exactly. You say it better than me. It looks like a kid trying to play big.
If you say so Sisyphus, I’m not that familiar with faculty lounges. All I can tell you is I read the article with some concern at the headline since I would immediately link the left with wokism, but was pleasantly surprised with the author’s articulate prose and opinions. I’m not rushing out to buy the book, but it was interesting and thought provoking.
Do you pay insincere compliments just to please?
Exactly. You say it better than me. It looks like a kid trying to play big.
Does it actually mean anything in real time?
Robbie, that’s like responding “wonderful observation” to someone who says, “your hair looks really good today.” They’re telling you something you wanted to hear (that they knew you wanted to hear) are you’re complimenting them for their insight. This is how I imagine the faculty lounge at a university operates.
What an excellent article, very refreshing to hear these viewpoints. Thank you Unherd.
Wonderful observation.