X Close

The Conservative case for revolution Chris Rufo wants the Right to build a Trojan horse

America must not share the fate of Troy. Nathan Howard/Getty Images

America must not share the fate of Troy. Nathan Howard/Getty Images


July 19, 2023   6 mins

Aeschylus’s tragedy Agamemnon begins with the fall of Troy. Clytemnestra, wife of the Greek king, hears news of victory, and imagines the “clash of cries” in the captured city, as the victors and the vanquished mingle. Musing on the destruction, exhaustion and still-fresh memory of violence, she hopes the occupying soldiers will withhold from looting the vanquished and angering their gods: “O, let there be no fresh wrong done!”

And yet fresh wrong will be done. It just won’t be between the Greeks and Trojans, but among the cohorts of the victors. As she pictures the sacking of Troy, Clytemnestra is already plotting to murder her husband.

Something of the same uneasy mood of post-conflict hostility, and lurking internecine violence, pervades a bracing new polemic from America’s leading conservative activist: Chris Rufo. America’s Cultural Revolution is an unapologetically uncharitable and partisan but comprehensive explanation of how we got to today’s bitter culture war. It describes the modern history of Left-wing radicalism, from the Sixties to Black Lives Matter, and the ongoing institutionalisation of this ideology via education and DEI bureaucracy.

On the face of it, it is an accessible introduction, for conservative lay readers, to key figures and ideas on the radical Left. Everyone has an opinion on this movement’s culture war and perhaps Rufo’s most impressive achievement is economy in tackling the topic.

We learn about Black Power activist Angela Davis’s suspected complicity in a violent jailbreak, alongside her advocacy of violent revolution and later of a subtler institutional kind. The Brazilian Marxist Paulo Freire is presented as a bearded sage who inflicted untold ignorance on post-revolutionary Angola, before finally entrenching his “pedagogy of the oppressed” in American schools, only harming the disadvantaged children he sought to liberate. And Derrick Bell, the father of critical race theory, is presented as a mediocre, insecure man who sank ever deeper into racialised paranoia following his early, affirmative-action-driven promotion to undeserved prominence at Harvard — and in doing so, birthed a new field of legal theory that now threatens to demolish the principle of equality before the law.

In other words: this story begins after the fall of Troy. The invaders are inside the walls, burning and looting, and the book is a retrospective account of the siege. Rufo states that he wants to expand beyond the polemical register of activism, to offer a more expansive account of the political challenge as he sees it: ideological and institutional capture by Left-wing radicalism. The word “coup” recurs frequently. The arc of the book describes how the hated victors smuggled themselves into America’s institutions, hidden in the wooden horse of civil rights, only to erupt and attempt to destroy the founding ideals that granted them entrance.

Rufo denounces the resulting university-driven “revolution from above” as one of “relentless negation” that has “gnawed, chewed, smashed, and disintegrated the entire system of values that came before it”. And all for nothing, as Rufo sees it: the utopians have “failed to deliver the world beyond”. Nor have they even succeeded in abolishing class rule, but “simply replaced the management” even as they extended “state-social bureaucracy”.

Worse still, a political programme based on “negation” can offer no positive programme that won’t swiftly fall victim to its own politics of critique. The result, Rufo argues, has not been utopia but a harvest of “failure, exhaustion, resentment, and despair”: a proliferating class of peevish bureaucrats bickering about symbols and ephemera, whose relationship to the institutions they have captured is “purely parasitical”. For such ideologues, even temporarily effective alliances regularly dissolve into “internal purges, leadership struggles, and conflict with ostensible allies”.

As a denunciation of the New Left’s moral turpitude and nihilistic moral vacuum, conservative readers will love it. The book shot to Amazon’s number one slot upon publication, suggesting there’s no shortage of appetite for such polemic. But the treatment of New Left theories of power and knowledge is much more interestingly ambivalent than the outrage-quotes would suggest.

We see our first glimpse of this early on, as Rufo explicitly situates himself in the story. A few pages in, he describes the harassment of his family by Left-wing activists in Seattle, saying: “It radicalised me.” It’s a strikingly postmodern acknowledgement of authorial positionality, placed upfront in text that’s ostensibly a critique of postmodern ideologies. Likewise, Rufo’s prognosis for where we go from here owes more than a little to the material analysis typical of classical Marxists. The “revolution from above” is so far incapable of governing for the common good, he argues, that eventually deteriorating material conditions will become impossible to ignore, however hard the bureaucrats work to suppress wrongthink. The average citizen “will be able to feel the truth intuitively”. With a confidence in historical inevitability that might have come straight from Lenin, he declares: “This realisation cannot be stopped.”

What happens then? Here, again, the book tips its hat to the revolutionaries. Rufo calls for a “counter-revolution” — and a glance at his activist track record suggests an approach to movement-building that owes much to the Marxist-Leninist theory of vanguardism. According to this doctrine, the most politically “advanced” revolutionaries should form elite organisations to advance their cause, as this will help galvanise the masses. Such vanguardism is both effective and increasingly popular among conservatives, as seen in the growing corpus of aggrieved progressive articles, criticising Rufo-affiliated activism for employing the classic Left-wing mix of grassroots volunteers and centralised, professional activists.

Throughout, the book evinces this double relationship to the political playbooks and epistemological judo of classical leftism, and of its postmodern progeny: the politics of language and power. Even as the story presents these strategies as evidence of his enemies’ wickedness, he is also reminding readers that conservatives must challenge New Left entryism on its own ground: “Revolution against revolution, institution against institution, negation against negation.”

This isn’t a criticism. Based on Rufo’s track record, there’s a strong case for counter-revolutionary vanguardism. And America’s Cultural Revolution rejects any suggestion that this means everyone is as bad as each other. Rather, Rufo draws a sharp contrast between the “politics of negation” and his movement’s underlying values. The counter-revolution, he argues, “must work as a positive force”.

To this end, he proposes smashing progressive bureaucracies and revolting against utopias in the name of “natural right, the Constitution, and the dignity of the individual”. The aim should be restoring “the revolution of 1776” over that of 1968, and reinstating the ideals of the common man, such as “family, faith, work, community, country”, along with “excellence over diversity, equality over equity, dignity over inclusion, order over chaos”.

To achieve this, Rufo implies, conservatives should not renounce but embrace the politics of power, and of knowledge, that have proven so effective in the hands of the New Left. This means adopting “a new political vocabulary” that can cut through propagandistic formulations skewed to the enemy’s priors, along with policies that will “permanently sever the connection between the critical ideologies and administrative power”. Consider the New College of Florida, where Rufo’s appointment as trustee by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis has prompted loud progressive lamentations, as he’s presided over a purge of DEI bureaucracies and policies, gutting a central New Left power-base and means of exerting institutional control.

But if this is the means, what will the end look like? While Rufo’s project is conservative-coded, it’s hard to avoid the inference that, by the time the counter-revolution happens, if it happens at all, the old world where everyone at least sort-of believed in neutral institutions and equality before the law will be long forgotten.

Regardless, America’s Cultural Revolution reads like a pivot point in American political discourse. I would have liked a glimmer or two of reflection on why leftist ideas gained such traction; Rufo’s facility for material analysis would surely stretch to this, and the findings need not be in his opponents’ favour. Ultimately, though, reflection is not what the book is for. Rather, it’s a multifaceted political intervention. For while those who enjoy culture war content may enjoy it simply as partisan red meat, its accessibility means those on the Right still bewildered by how they came to be so dispossessed no longer have an excuse for ignorance. And those conservatives with a serious interest in how knowledge and power operate in post-liberal politics can read it as an instruction manual.

Members of the Old Left, meanwhile, can mourn the theft of their movement by bourgeois nihilists, who commandeered the institutions of power in their name and are now retooling them into a shamelessly partisan bureaucracy of weaponised prejudice. As for those nihilists, should any take the time to read it, America’s Cultural Revolution is a shot across the bows. It declares, first and centrally, that the politics of negation will devour itself through negation. Troy may be sacked, but Clytemnestra waits at home, with a smile on her face and a dagger in her belt.

And it declares, further, that conservatives (or some of them, anyway) have belatedly grasped the new rules of engagement and are mobilising in turn. The citadel may have fallen, the temples looted. But in America’s Cultural Revolution, Rufo declares to the victorious New Left: we are the besiegers now. It’s your turn to try to hold the walls.


Mary Harrington is a contributing editor at UnHerd.

moveincircles

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

173 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
N Satori
N Satori
1 year ago

The Left’s Trojan Horse succeeded because it used an outer casing of moral superiority to challenge the (allegedly) prejudiced, complacent and perhaps corrupt establishment to live up to its own professed moral values [civil rights, human rights, women’s rights, fair deal for all – that sort of thing].
The do-gooder ethic is very catchy. Most people don’t like to see themselves as colluding in an unjust tyranny. So what kind of Trojan Horse can the resurgent conservatives hope to deploy in order to subvert this new ultra-moral establishment of SJWs?

Bob Downing
Bob Downing
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

Does that even matter, I wonder? It never bothered the anti-Obamacare masses that their cries of “Federal hands off our Medicare!” would have seen them plunged into ruin (and I keep wishing Obama had done exactly what they demanded, at least for a time!); or that they – the most hysterically self-proclaimed God-fearing of nations) were demanding that everything their Bibles told them to do be totally ignored. With such total ignorance and hatred of anyone perceived as not American enough, the Right could command their support for anything, without the need to dress it up in proper academic justifications, surely. Indeed, isn’t that what “America First” did?

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Bob Downing

Describing a small fraction of the nutters on both sides does nothing to further the discussion. Utter and complete ignorance has no particular home.

Alan Gore
Alan Gore
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

“Utter and complete ignorance has no particular home.”
Yes it does. That’s what RFK is for.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

I’m thinking that utter and complete ignorance is at home everywhere.

Alan Gore
Alan Gore
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

“Utter and complete ignorance has no particular home.”
Yes it does. That’s what RFK is for.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

I’m thinking that utter and complete ignorance is at home everywhere.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Bob Downing

Outside of hyperbole or hysterical rhetoric, are Americans more “hysterically self-proclaimed God fearing” than Afghanistan?
I can envision a version of your claims that I would partly agree with, but I’m somewhere near the sociopolitical center, well to the left of the estimated-average commenter here. Who do you intend to reach, let alone persuade, with your mocking denouncements…those you dismiss as creatures of “total ignorance and hatred”? More one-sided extremism masquerading as good sense. Perhaps the center will be excavated from the rubble left by warring absolutists.

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Is there a better and worse way to live a human life? If saying “yes” makes one an “absolutist” then mark me down as that. If one says “no,” nothing matters. Absolutely nothing.

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Is there a better and worse way to live a human life? If saying “yes” makes one an “absolutist” then mark me down as that. If one says “no,” nothing matters. Absolutely nothing.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Bob Downing

Describing a small fraction of the nutters on both sides does nothing to further the discussion. Utter and complete ignorance has no particular home.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Bob Downing

Outside of hyperbole or hysterical rhetoric, are Americans more “hysterically self-proclaimed God fearing” than Afghanistan?
I can envision a version of your claims that I would partly agree with, but I’m somewhere near the sociopolitical center, well to the left of the estimated-average commenter here. Who do you intend to reach, let alone persuade, with your mocking denouncements…those you dismiss as creatures of “total ignorance and hatred”? More one-sided extremism masquerading as good sense. Perhaps the center will be excavated from the rubble left by warring absolutists.

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

Culture. The Left understand this, mastered it then screwed the pooch as they decided to rub the other side’s face in it. I give you Disney. I know people who would probably describe themselves as fairly liberal who are sick to the back teeth with blatant social justice narratives in popular culture. That most of the output is also dire on virtually every other level only makes it a more potent stick with which to beat the Left.

N Satori
N Satori
1 year ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

At the risk of sounding like one of UnHerd’s below-the-line professors I offer this observation on the quite valid point you make.
Hollywood’s Woke overreach (attempting unprecedented levels of youth-influence with Disney) will probably be followed by a partial retreat rather than a genuine reversal. The anti-woke will cry “Victory!” while failing to notice how much territory was taken by the legions of Woke – and how little they conceded in retreat. Normalise, accustomise and desensitise – these are key tactics in diffusing public resistance to shocking new ideas. What better way to deploy these methods than through immersive and seductive story-telling.

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

Yes I would agree but here’s the catch; their storytelling is neither immersive nor seductive. Which is why Disney and the studios it’s absorbed are losing money hand over fist. Something will have to give.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

Yeah because Truth Social is doing great. How’s Twitter doing under musk

Cho Jinn
Cho Jinn
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Twitter is much better, actually, unless you were there for the censorship.

Cho Jinn
Cho Jinn
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Twitter is much better, actually, unless you were there for the censorship.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

Yeah because Truth Social is doing great. How’s Twitter doing under musk

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

And then again, large portions of the culture are just disengaging entirely from the progressive leftist insanity. It’s just too nuts and damaging to deal with and there’s a substantial number of folks who are just not buying into it, creating separate products, separate news sites, separate ‘sane’ states and areas of the country. We’re cleaving into TWO nations.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

When otherwise normal and polite people are at complete odds on every last subject matter, due to social media’s devious mechanizations, cleaving might be the best solution. I simply will never agree that a male is a female simply because they say so. And I will never be able to proclaim that humans can impact global climate in any measurable way by committing economic suicide. Nor will I ever believe that it is wise to judge people by the color of their skin or how they chose to have sex.

Lewis Eliot
Lewis Eliot
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Mr Trees. Perhaps I can help. While you weren’t looking, a neologism was foisted on you – ‘woman’. Woman (confusingly, spelt and pronounced ‘woman’) means woman and transwoman. Unfortunately, no-one told we peasants, who still think it means ‘woman’. This is why you occasionally get the amusing situation where Kier Starmer can be reduced to a squirming, blushing stuttering obfuscator; all he needs to say is that a woman is a woman and a transwoman is a transwoman. But he daren’t deny the neologism – ‘woman’, which the Guardianocracy assert now means both ‘woman’ and ‘transwoman’.
This is the ideology of ‘Romanticism’ – the primacy of the self. If I feel I’m a woman, then I’m a woman.

Rob C
Rob C
1 year ago
Reply to  Lewis Eliot

It’s surprising how most can’t see that the controversy is a matter of semantics.

Rob C
Rob C
1 year ago
Reply to  Lewis Eliot

It’s surprising how most can’t see that the controversy is a matter of semantics.

Lewis Eliot
Lewis Eliot
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Mr Trees. Perhaps I can help. While you weren’t looking, a neologism was foisted on you – ‘woman’. Woman (confusingly, spelt and pronounced ‘woman’) means woman and transwoman. Unfortunately, no-one told we peasants, who still think it means ‘woman’. This is why you occasionally get the amusing situation where Kier Starmer can be reduced to a squirming, blushing stuttering obfuscator; all he needs to say is that a woman is a woman and a transwoman is a transwoman. But he daren’t deny the neologism – ‘woman’, which the Guardianocracy assert now means both ‘woman’ and ‘transwoman’.
This is the ideology of ‘Romanticism’ – the primacy of the self. If I feel I’m a woman, then I’m a woman.

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

Rather amusingly, one side has all the people with martial skills, experience and intent. The other side, pink of hair and pierced of septum, will not. It’s not difficult to see how it ends.

William Loughran
William Loughran
1 year ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

And yet I’ve never heard the chant “punch a trans”.

William Loughran
William Loughran
1 year ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

And yet I’ve never heard the chant “punch a trans”.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

How’s that book banning going?

Rob C
Rob C
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

It’s only the social justice side that is in to book banning.

Kathy Hix
Kathy Hix
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

You do understand that moving a book from one shelf in the library (Children’s Section) to another (Adult Section) is not the same as banning said book, don’t you? And of course you realize that images too pornographic to be shown on television or in a school board meeting are inappropriate for a third-grade classroom.

Rob C
Rob C
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

It’s only the social justice side that is in to book banning.

Kathy Hix
Kathy Hix
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

You do understand that moving a book from one shelf in the library (Children’s Section) to another (Adult Section) is not the same as banning said book, don’t you? And of course you realize that images too pornographic to be shown on television or in a school board meeting are inappropriate for a third-grade classroom.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

When otherwise normal and polite people are at complete odds on every last subject matter, due to social media’s devious mechanizations, cleaving might be the best solution. I simply will never agree that a male is a female simply because they say so. And I will never be able to proclaim that humans can impact global climate in any measurable way by committing economic suicide. Nor will I ever believe that it is wise to judge people by the color of their skin or how they chose to have sex.

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

Rather amusingly, one side has all the people with martial skills, experience and intent. The other side, pink of hair and pierced of septum, will not. It’s not difficult to see how it ends.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

How’s that book banning going?

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

Thin end of the wedge triumphs again
on a related point has anyone watching A Spy Amongst Friends noticed how they have worked a woman an a black male into the story where they had no right to be

Last edited 1 year ago by Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago

Nice catch. It’s everywhere now, isn’t it?

Brian Matthews
Brian Matthews
11 months ago

I read The 6:20 Man recently, which is a new popular and quite good novel, and one of the brothers of a character was a terribly troubled individual because his/her father never accepted he/whatever was trans. Just like that out of the blue (or, de la nada, as they say in Spanish, which makes much more sense frankly).

Brian Matthews
Brian Matthews
11 months ago

I read The 6:20 Man recently, which is a new popular and quite good novel, and one of the brothers of a character was a terribly troubled individual because his/her father never accepted he/whatever was trans. Just like that out of the blue (or, de la nada, as they say in Spanish, which makes much more sense frankly).

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago

Have you noticed how the long ranger is always white when it’s based on a real life black man? Have you noticed how white ppl hijacked things like rock and roll, country music, etc….we can go on and on.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

That is rather like claiming football and cricket as white and i was not saying that.

Rob C
Rob C
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Lone Ranger.

Rob C
Rob C
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

You must be an African-American Studies grad. No one knows what the Lone Ranger is based on, if anything. You would have had to ask the show producer and writers. That black guy you are talking about looks half-white to me.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

That is rather like claiming football and cricket as white and i was not saying that.

Rob C
Rob C
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Lone Ranger.

Rob C
Rob C
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

You must be an African-American Studies grad. No one knows what the Lone Ranger is based on, if anything. You would have had to ask the show producer and writers. That black guy you are talking about looks half-white to me.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago

Nice catch. It’s everywhere now, isn’t it?

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago

Have you noticed how the long ranger is always white when it’s based on a real life black man? Have you noticed how white ppl hijacked things like rock and roll, country music, etc….we can go on and on.

Frank Sterle
Frank Sterle
11 months ago
Reply to  N Satori

I mostly credit our ethically challenged Western media — news, entertainment and social — for the creation and maintenance of the current neo-gender-political standards. 
Also, I have been consuming mainstream news for 35 years and tend to notice things that many other people don’t. [Or maybe they do notice but feel like they are supposed not to notice and behave accordingly.]
One thing is the thick social-issue politics [or ‘woke-ism’] within the mainstream news media, especially the left-wing and neoliberal outlets.
Notably, when it comes to victimization, there are injustices that the said news-media seem to consider, cover or ignore as though those injustices are socially and therefore ideologically/politically acceptable.
And such ‘journalism’ is increasingly becoming systematic. Yet, many reporters and editors continue to reply to their critics with, ‘Who, me? I’m just the messenger.’
Whatever the news media may be, they are not ‘just the messenger’; nor are they just a reflection of the community — or their products’ consumers, necessarily — in which they circulate.

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

Yes I would agree but here’s the catch; their storytelling is neither immersive nor seductive. Which is why Disney and the studios it’s absorbed are losing money hand over fist. Something will have to give.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

And then again, large portions of the culture are just disengaging entirely from the progressive leftist insanity. It’s just too nuts and damaging to deal with and there’s a substantial number of folks who are just not buying into it, creating separate products, separate news sites, separate ‘sane’ states and areas of the country. We’re cleaving into TWO nations.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

Thin end of the wedge triumphs again
on a related point has anyone watching A Spy Amongst Friends noticed how they have worked a woman an a black male into the story where they had no right to be

Last edited 1 year ago by Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Frank Sterle
Frank Sterle
11 months ago
Reply to  N Satori

I mostly credit our ethically challenged Western media — news, entertainment and social — for the creation and maintenance of the current neo-gender-political standards. 
Also, I have been consuming mainstream news for 35 years and tend to notice things that many other people don’t. [Or maybe they do notice but feel like they are supposed not to notice and behave accordingly.]
One thing is the thick social-issue politics [or ‘woke-ism’] within the mainstream news media, especially the left-wing and neoliberal outlets.
Notably, when it comes to victimization, there are injustices that the said news-media seem to consider, cover or ignore as though those injustices are socially and therefore ideologically/politically acceptable.
And such ‘journalism’ is increasingly becoming systematic. Yet, many reporters and editors continue to reply to their critics with, ‘Who, me? I’m just the messenger.’
Whatever the news media may be, they are not ‘just the messenger’; nor are they just a reflection of the community — or their products’ consumers, necessarily — in which they circulate.

N Satori
N Satori
1 year ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

At the risk of sounding like one of UnHerd’s below-the-line professors I offer this observation on the quite valid point you make.
Hollywood’s Woke overreach (attempting unprecedented levels of youth-influence with Disney) will probably be followed by a partial retreat rather than a genuine reversal. The anti-woke will cry “Victory!” while failing to notice how much territory was taken by the legions of Woke – and how little they conceded in retreat. Normalise, accustomise and desensitise – these are key tactics in diffusing public resistance to shocking new ideas. What better way to deploy these methods than through immersive and seductive story-telling.

Bronwen Saunders
Bronwen Saunders
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

As is becoming increasingly apparent, the “do-gooder ethic” means compassion for some and utter callousness towards others: callousness towards the white working class, callousness towards high achievers forced to step aside for less well qualified members of a protected victim class; callousness towards women, who out of compassion for a tiny group of men are expected to forfeit their privacy, safety, sports and even the words they use to describe themselves; callousness towards all those who because of the influx of illegal migrants are struggling to access services and to find affordable housing, let alone a job that pays a living wage; callousness towards children, whose innocence and right to truth are under assault from those very people who should be defending them; callousness towards our own countryside, which with solar arrays and wind turbines is increasingly metamorphosing into an industrial landscape in which beauty and bird life are knowingly destroyed all for the sake of power – in both senses of the word.

Given that what offends us most about all of the above cases is the flagrant unfairness, I would suggest that the resurgent conservatives focus their campaign on restoring fairness or what used to be known as equity.

N Satori
N Satori
1 year ago

I take your point but beware of “equity”. Unless I am mistaken it has become a major weapon in the Left’s war on White.

Charlie Dibsdale
Charlie Dibsdale
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

Yes, we need to relate to “Equality” (of opportunity), opposing “equity” (of outcomes). I guess the fairness point can also be extended that the Left’s vernacular always talks about equity in positions of power. Company board representasion etc. They do not talk about the more mundane and physical occupations – brick-laying, labouring etc. The contradictions in the left’s identitarian splits will also undermine it. Could the Right’s mantra be “apply common sense and decency”

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

Nor do they talk about equity in professional sports! Where are the dwarf basketball players or the anorexic, one legged footballers? Should we demand that the NFL reduce the number of black players from 70% to 13% while we complain that they only make up 7% of coaches? And mandate the acceptance of blind wide receivers and female linebackers?

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

The same could be said for football in this country

Last edited 1 year ago by Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

That’s silly.

Alan Tonkyn
Alan Tonkyn
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

No, Warren Trees’s remarks are not silly. He is simply pointing out the contradiction revealed by the fact that ‘progressives’ insist on some kind of proportional ‘equity’ in some areas (eg should be 50% female CEO’s), while cheerfully ignoring it in others, such as athletics and football. Ah, but money counts in the latter. Sponsors want the best runners and players, and therefore reconnect with standards of excellence.

Alan Tonkyn
Alan Tonkyn
1 year ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

No, Warren Trees’s remarks are not silly. He is simply pointing out the contradiction revealed by the fact that ‘progressives’ insist on some kind of proportional ‘equity’ in some areas (eg should be 50% female CEO’s), while cheerfully ignoring it in others, such as athletics and football. Ah, but money counts in the latter. Sponsors want the best runners and players, and therefore reconnect with standards of excellence.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

The same could be said for football in this country

Last edited 1 year ago by Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

That’s silly.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago

Many of us are don’t identify as either “left” or “right”but do identify with “apply common sense and decency”. I think that label is liberal.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

Nor do they talk about equity in professional sports! Where are the dwarf basketball players or the anorexic, one legged footballers? Should we demand that the NFL reduce the number of black players from 70% to 13% while we complain that they only make up 7% of coaches? And mandate the acceptance of blind wide receivers and female linebackers?

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago

Many of us are don’t identify as either “left” or “right”but do identify with “apply common sense and decency”. I think that label is liberal.

Charlie Dibsdale
Charlie Dibsdale
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

Yes, we need to relate to “Equality” (of opportunity), opposing “equity” (of outcomes). I guess the fairness point can also be extended that the Left’s vernacular always talks about equity in positions of power. Company board representasion etc. They do not talk about the more mundane and physical occupations – brick-laying, labouring etc. The contradictions in the left’s identitarian splits will also undermine it. Could the Right’s mantra be “apply common sense and decency”

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago

The Queen is Dead! Long live the (drag) Queen!

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago

Man you guys are pathetic. Pretty much everything White America has came about from raped, pillaged or stolen. I know it’s hard for you snow flakes to deal with it but it’s simply fact. You lied cheated, strong arm your way to the top, now you want to act all brand new like it never happened. Why won’t you just admit it so we all can move forward

Cantab Man
Cantab Man
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

By the same yardstick, pretty much everything the modern world has came about from…how did you put it? “[R]aped, pillaged or stolen.” Colonization has been going on for millennia. Over and over and over again. Whether tribe against tribe, or nation against nation.

Life on this planet has mostly been brutal because Mother Nature is not kind…and the perpetrators (and victims) had every type of skin pigmentation and were made up of both males and females alike.

And each of us have both perpetrators and victims in our DNA. Guaranteed. It’s merely a question of the historical place and time in question.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago
Reply to  Cantab Man

Oh… .so you are ok with, how did I put it, the rape, pillage, and murder because Mother Nature is not kind. but yet hypocrits like you want to cry about whats wrong. You have no merit to trying to take the moral high ground. By your own paradigm there is no such thing. So stop your whining.

Andrew F
Andrew F
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Do please tell us how amazing Africa was before it was colonised?
What great scientific, engineering and cultural achievements ever happened there?
How all these slaves were put on slavers ships?
Is it not the case that they were captured by other African tribes?
Europeans did not discover interior of Africa till after mid 19th century.
So after slavery was abolished in Britain.
All the Africans were and are free to go back to “Mama Africa”.
They tried. Placed called Liberia.
Tell us how successful that is?

Andrew F
Andrew F
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Do please tell us how amazing Africa was before it was colonised?
What great scientific, engineering and cultural achievements ever happened there?
How all these slaves were put on slavers ships?
Is it not the case that they were captured by other African tribes?
Europeans did not discover interior of Africa till after mid 19th century.
So after slavery was abolished in Britain.
All the Africans were and are free to go back to “Mama Africa”.
They tried. Placed called Liberia.
Tell us how successful that is?

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago
Reply to  Cantab Man

Oh… .so you are ok with, how did I put it, the rape, pillage, and murder because Mother Nature is not kind. but yet hypocrits like you want to cry about whats wrong. You have no merit to trying to take the moral high ground. By your own paradigm there is no such thing. So stop your whining.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

So I want to see a land acknowledgement for England. It’s clear the land was stolen from the Welsh by force, rapine and plunder. The same goes for the Dane Law. Of course, there has to be a Norman land acknowledgement for stealing the whole UK from native peoples as well. If the US has to get out of North America, then the Welsh and Irish are due reparations, right? /sarcasm

If revolution and conquest ain’t valid, why doesn’t Russia have to give up its empire?

Andrew F
Andrew F
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Really?
You view of appropriation is very one sided (whites stole country music, blah, blah).
On this basis why should black people use cars, mobile phones, modern medicine?
How would they survive in Africa without grain from Ukraine?
Even in music, how would they record and distribute their music?

Cantab Man
Cantab Man
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

By the same yardstick, pretty much everything the modern world has came about from…how did you put it? “[R]aped, pillaged or stolen.” Colonization has been going on for millennia. Over and over and over again. Whether tribe against tribe, or nation against nation.

Life on this planet has mostly been brutal because Mother Nature is not kind…and the perpetrators (and victims) had every type of skin pigmentation and were made up of both males and females alike.

And each of us have both perpetrators and victims in our DNA. Guaranteed. It’s merely a question of the historical place and time in question.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

So I want to see a land acknowledgement for England. It’s clear the land was stolen from the Welsh by force, rapine and plunder. The same goes for the Dane Law. Of course, there has to be a Norman land acknowledgement for stealing the whole UK from native peoples as well. If the US has to get out of North America, then the Welsh and Irish are due reparations, right? /sarcasm

If revolution and conquest ain’t valid, why doesn’t Russia have to give up its empire?

Andrew F
Andrew F
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Really?
You view of appropriation is very one sided (whites stole country music, blah, blah).
On this basis why should black people use cars, mobile phones, modern medicine?
How would they survive in Africa without grain from Ukraine?
Even in music, how would they record and distribute their music?

N Satori
N Satori
1 year ago

I take your point but beware of “equity”. Unless I am mistaken it has become a major weapon in the Left’s war on White.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago

The Queen is Dead! Long live the (drag) Queen!

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago

Man you guys are pathetic. Pretty much everything White America has came about from raped, pillaged or stolen. I know it’s hard for you snow flakes to deal with it but it’s simply fact. You lied cheated, strong arm your way to the top, now you want to act all brand new like it never happened. Why won’t you just admit it so we all can move forward

m3pc7q3ixe
m3pc7q3ixe
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

A very good question. Maybe the conservative intellectual “Trojan horse” should be a combination of a relentless focus on results and a mission to translate woke terms into plain English.

”By their fruits, ye shall know them”. DEI courses which increase unconscious bias as measured by the Yale tests. Cities rendered unliveable by defunding the police. Teenagers fast tracked to mutilation to their subsequent regret by an insistence on “affirming” their identities. An aversion to practical measures to help Caribbean boys in London schools. Etc etc.

Ultimately, the point is that progressives are being guided by critical theorists who are obsessed with the “marginalised” not in order to solve their problems or improve their lives but instead to radicalise and mobilise them. The minimal or negative practical consequences of SJ campaigns are not a coincidence but an inherent feature of the approach.

The other leg may be to ensure that the public understand what behind the nice words the progressive camp are pushing for. This is where individuals like Russo are most useful. The success of the progressives is partly explained by institutional capture but it also by their ability to conceal their more wolffish aspirations under nice liberal sheep clothing.

Alex Carnegie (not m3pc7q3ixe).

Last edited 1 year ago by m3pc7q3ixe
Lewis Eliot
Lewis Eliot
1 year ago
Reply to  m3pc7q3ixe

Mr Carnegie. I’m not so sure the “negative practical consequences of SJ campaigns are not a coincidence but an inherent feature of the approach.” I think you’ve fallen into the trap of expecting Romantics to apply any sort of reasoning at all. A Romantic looks at a shiny surface and says ‘that makes me feel x’. Practicality doesn’t come into it; neither does the application of reasoning by analogy. It’s all very well for you – or me – to attempt to think a step or two into the future; that’s simply not necessary for the Romantic.  

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago
Reply to  m3pc7q3ixe

Conservatives aren’t interested in results. Not even the betterment of the US. And stop hijacking terms like woke.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Marxism has failed everywhere, but Marxists are imune to experimental results. They’re absolutely certain that it will work next time.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Marxism has failed everywhere, but Marxists are imune to experimental results. They’re absolutely certain that it will work next time.

Lewis Eliot
Lewis Eliot
1 year ago
Reply to  m3pc7q3ixe

Mr Carnegie. I’m not so sure the “negative practical consequences of SJ campaigns are not a coincidence but an inherent feature of the approach.” I think you’ve fallen into the trap of expecting Romantics to apply any sort of reasoning at all. A Romantic looks at a shiny surface and says ‘that makes me feel x’. Practicality doesn’t come into it; neither does the application of reasoning by analogy. It’s all very well for you – or me – to attempt to think a step or two into the future; that’s simply not necessary for the Romantic.  

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago
Reply to  m3pc7q3ixe

Conservatives aren’t interested in results. Not even the betterment of the US. And stop hijacking terms like woke.

Glyn R
Glyn R
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

Quite – how else would these billionaire ‘philanthropists’ be getting away with what they’ve been up to in recent years?
Back in the early part of the 20th century Gramsci viewed the task thus: “Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. 
 In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches, and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.” It had to be that way because there was no way they were going to be achieve their goal via the uncorrupted ballot box.
Most people are well intentioned and more especially the young and idealistic who are particularly vulnerable to indoctrination when the iron fist is concealed in the velvet glove of noble mindedness, fairness and/or kindness.
Hence the focus on ‘education, education, education’ -which of course was double speak for ‘indoctrination, indoctrination, indoctrination’.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Glyn R

Watch out for “moms for freedom”.

Andrew F
Andrew F
11 months ago
Reply to  Glyn R

Exactly.
That is why far left hates people like Fran*o and Pinoc**t.
They demonstrated how to deal properly with lefty vermin.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 year ago
Reply to  Glyn R

Watch out for “moms for freedom”.

Andrew F
Andrew F
11 months ago
Reply to  Glyn R

Exactly.
That is why far left hates people like Fran*o and Pinoc**t.
They demonstrated how to deal properly with lefty vermin.

Corrie Mooney
Corrie Mooney
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

The New Left’s own contradictions and self-abnegation of its moral foundations is all that’s required.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago
Reply to  Corrie Mooney

The Right has never had a clue nor a moral compass. See Trump

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

The left’s moral compass is their absolute certainty that they’re correct, no matter how many people they have to kill to get their way. They worship power, not the consent of the governed.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

The left’s moral compass is their absolute certainty that they’re correct, no matter how many people they have to kill to get their way. They worship power, not the consent of the governed.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago
Reply to  Corrie Mooney

The Right has never had a clue nor a moral compass. See Trump

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

Conservatives can demand a return to Constitutional government by the consent of the governed. The “do gooders” demand unchecked power to rule through regulations. They need to meet “the fierce urgency of now” with no delays for legislation or judicial review. The “do gooders” want a dictatorship. Conservatives can object to dictatorship based on the fact that concentrated power is always abused, no matter how good the excuse for it. The reason relatively free market capitalism has given mankind unprecedented prosperity is that it involves more people in decisions than authoritarian alternatives. The “do gooders” want a return to feudalism, dressed up in newspeak.

Graff von Frankenheim
Graff von Frankenheim
11 months ago
Reply to  N Satori

We could just blow their brains out. Should be sufficient. Violence works particularly against wimps.

Last edited 11 months ago by Graff von Frankenheim
Bob Downing
Bob Downing
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

Does that even matter, I wonder? It never bothered the anti-Obamacare masses that their cries of “Federal hands off our Medicare!” would have seen them plunged into ruin (and I keep wishing Obama had done exactly what they demanded, at least for a time!); or that they – the most hysterically self-proclaimed God-fearing of nations) were demanding that everything their Bibles told them to do be totally ignored. With such total ignorance and hatred of anyone perceived as not American enough, the Right could command their support for anything, without the need to dress it up in proper academic justifications, surely. Indeed, isn’t that what “America First” did?

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

Culture. The Left understand this, mastered it then screwed the pooch as they decided to rub the other side’s face in it. I give you Disney. I know people who would probably describe themselves as fairly liberal who are sick to the back teeth with blatant social justice narratives in popular culture. That most of the output is also dire on virtually every other level only makes it a more potent stick with which to beat the Left.

Bronwen Saunders
Bronwen Saunders
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

As is becoming increasingly apparent, the “do-gooder ethic” means compassion for some and utter callousness towards others: callousness towards the white working class, callousness towards high achievers forced to step aside for less well qualified members of a protected victim class; callousness towards women, who out of compassion for a tiny group of men are expected to forfeit their privacy, safety, sports and even the words they use to describe themselves; callousness towards all those who because of the influx of illegal migrants are struggling to access services and to find affordable housing, let alone a job that pays a living wage; callousness towards children, whose innocence and right to truth are under assault from those very people who should be defending them; callousness towards our own countryside, which with solar arrays and wind turbines is increasingly metamorphosing into an industrial landscape in which beauty and bird life are knowingly destroyed all for the sake of power – in both senses of the word.

Given that what offends us most about all of the above cases is the flagrant unfairness, I would suggest that the resurgent conservatives focus their campaign on restoring fairness or what used to be known as equity.

m3pc7q3ixe
m3pc7q3ixe
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

A very good question. Maybe the conservative intellectual “Trojan horse” should be a combination of a relentless focus on results and a mission to translate woke terms into plain English.

”By their fruits, ye shall know them”. DEI courses which increase unconscious bias as measured by the Yale tests. Cities rendered unliveable by defunding the police. Teenagers fast tracked to mutilation to their subsequent regret by an insistence on “affirming” their identities. An aversion to practical measures to help Caribbean boys in London schools. Etc etc.

Ultimately, the point is that progressives are being guided by critical theorists who are obsessed with the “marginalised” not in order to solve their problems or improve their lives but instead to radicalise and mobilise them. The minimal or negative practical consequences of SJ campaigns are not a coincidence but an inherent feature of the approach.

The other leg may be to ensure that the public understand what behind the nice words the progressive camp are pushing for. This is where individuals like Russo are most useful. The success of the progressives is partly explained by institutional capture but it also by their ability to conceal their more wolffish aspirations under nice liberal sheep clothing.

Alex Carnegie (not m3pc7q3ixe).

Last edited 1 year ago by m3pc7q3ixe
Glyn R
Glyn R
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

Quite – how else would these billionaire ‘philanthropists’ be getting away with what they’ve been up to in recent years?
Back in the early part of the 20th century Gramsci viewed the task thus: “Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. 
 In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches, and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.” It had to be that way because there was no way they were going to be achieve their goal via the uncorrupted ballot box.
Most people are well intentioned and more especially the young and idealistic who are particularly vulnerable to indoctrination when the iron fist is concealed in the velvet glove of noble mindedness, fairness and/or kindness.
Hence the focus on ‘education, education, education’ -which of course was double speak for ‘indoctrination, indoctrination, indoctrination’.

Corrie Mooney
Corrie Mooney
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

The New Left’s own contradictions and self-abnegation of its moral foundations is all that’s required.

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago
Reply to  N Satori

Conservatives can demand a return to Constitutional government by the consent of the governed. The “do gooders” demand unchecked power to rule through regulations. They need to meet “the fierce urgency of now” with no delays for legislation or judicial review. The “do gooders” want a dictatorship. Conservatives can object to dictatorship based on the fact that concentrated power is always abused, no matter how good the excuse for it. The reason relatively free market capitalism has given mankind unprecedented prosperity is that it involves more people in decisions than authoritarian alternatives. The “do gooders” want a return to feudalism, dressed up in newspeak.

Graff von Frankenheim
Graff von Frankenheim
11 months ago
Reply to  N Satori

We could just blow their brains out. Should be sufficient. Violence works particularly against wimps.

Last edited 11 months ago by Graff von Frankenheim
N Satori
N Satori
1 year ago

The Left’s Trojan Horse succeeded because it used an outer casing of moral superiority to challenge the (allegedly) prejudiced, complacent and perhaps corrupt establishment to live up to its own professed moral values [civil rights, human rights, women’s rights, fair deal for all – that sort of thing].
The do-gooder ethic is very catchy. Most people don’t like to see themselves as colluding in an unjust tyranny. So what kind of Trojan Horse can the resurgent conservatives hope to deploy in order to subvert this new ultra-moral establishment of SJWs?

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago

There is nothing new about current ruling class behaviour. Since time immemorial elites have used tribal, racial and gender division to distract the larger population from their expropriatory activities.

Since at least 2008 we have been living through the largest upward transfer of wealth in history. It’s hardly surprising that the Peter Flavels of the world should be up to their old tricks again.

Waffles
Waffles
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

“We are the 99%”. There was a real risk that the majority would unite against the super rich. Luckily for them, and quite coincidentally I’m sure, along came wokeness.

And lo, the 99% did fight amongst themselves, tearing each other apart as they argue who is the most pathetic victim in need of handouts and special advantages.

And the rich went right back to getting richer, unmolested by demands to pay more taxes.

Andrew Holmes
Andrew Holmes
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

You speak for equity. And how has that worked out in states that purportedly pushed that?
I see previous unequally distributed but broadly based wealth, supplanted broadly based poverty with a small privileged leadership, e.g. Venezuela. Further back in time, the USSR and Communist China provided better living conditions for the populace in direct proportion to their tolerance for income inequality, and, like Venezuela, always had a privileged leadership. Favoring equity of outcomes in practice in my opinion yields poverty without equity.

Waffles
Waffles
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

“We are the 99%”. There was a real risk that the majority would unite against the super rich. Luckily for them, and quite coincidentally I’m sure, along came wokeness.

And lo, the 99% did fight amongst themselves, tearing each other apart as they argue who is the most pathetic victim in need of handouts and special advantages.

And the rich went right back to getting richer, unmolested by demands to pay more taxes.

Andrew Holmes
Andrew Holmes
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

You speak for equity. And how has that worked out in states that purportedly pushed that?
I see previous unequally distributed but broadly based wealth, supplanted broadly based poverty with a small privileged leadership, e.g. Venezuela. Further back in time, the USSR and Communist China provided better living conditions for the populace in direct proportion to their tolerance for income inequality, and, like Venezuela, always had a privileged leadership. Favoring equity of outcomes in practice in my opinion yields poverty without equity.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago

There is nothing new about current ruling class behaviour. Since time immemorial elites have used tribal, racial and gender division to distract the larger population from their expropriatory activities.

Since at least 2008 we have been living through the largest upward transfer of wealth in history. It’s hardly surprising that the Peter Flavels of the world should be up to their old tricks again.

Lewis Eliot
Lewis Eliot
1 year ago

Apologies for being rather late to this, but Rufo isn’t describing how we got to today’s bitter culture war, he’s discussing the morbid symptoms; Davis, Friere, Bell; ideological capture.

Mary ‘would have liked a glimmer or two of reflection on why leftist ideas gained such traction’. 
OK, here goes. The division in society is not between black and white, male and female, cis and trans, old and young, but between Romanticism and Enlightenment Thinking. A Romantic looks at a shiny surface and says ‘that makes me feel x’. 

Romanticism is subjective; gender. Enlightenment thinking is objective; sex.   Romanticism looks at racism and says that makes me feel sad; equity of outcome. Enlightenment thinking looks at racism and has a dream (imperfectly realised) that children should be judged by their character, not by the colour of their skins. Romanticism looks at high rents and says that makes me feel sad; rent controls. Enlightenment thinking looks at 250 years of microeconomic theory and empirical evidence from the past and present – San Francisco, Berlin – and suggests perhaps not.

Enlightenment thinking – any thinking – is hard work. A Romantic looks at hard, complex, often contradictory, often counterintuitive, thinking and says ‘that is exclusionary’. That’s why it’s gone in the bin; thinking for yourself is actively discouraged. And that’s why it’s not really possible to engage rationally with a Romantic as an Enlightenment thinker – it’s like comparing apples to oranges. It’s a different Register, a different way of interacting with the world.

Now, that’s not to seek to strike out Romanticism. â€˜On Westminster Bridge’ is a masterpiece of Romanticism 
 but you wouldn’t get Wordsworth to build Westminster Bridge, would you?

“
 what won’t our passions do once reason is darkened? …if reason is wanting, madness results …” “The Book of her Foundations” Teresa of Ávila (1515-1582).

Martin Terrell
Martin Terrell
1 year ago
Reply to  Lewis Eliot

Or – Feelings v Facts. Of course a healthy society needs a balance between the two, sadly an imbalance one way prompts a correction the other way.

Martin Terrell
Martin Terrell
1 year ago
Reply to  Lewis Eliot

Or – Feelings v Facts. Of course a healthy society needs a balance between the two, sadly an imbalance one way prompts a correction the other way.

Lewis Eliot
Lewis Eliot
1 year ago

Apologies for being rather late to this, but Rufo isn’t describing how we got to today’s bitter culture war, he’s discussing the morbid symptoms; Davis, Friere, Bell; ideological capture.

Mary ‘would have liked a glimmer or two of reflection on why leftist ideas gained such traction’. 
OK, here goes. The division in society is not between black and white, male and female, cis and trans, old and young, but between Romanticism and Enlightenment Thinking. A Romantic looks at a shiny surface and says ‘that makes me feel x’. 

Romanticism is subjective; gender. Enlightenment thinking is objective; sex.   Romanticism looks at racism and says that makes me feel sad; equity of outcome. Enlightenment thinking looks at racism and has a dream (imperfectly realised) that children should be judged by their character, not by the colour of their skins. Romanticism looks at high rents and says that makes me feel sad; rent controls. Enlightenment thinking looks at 250 years of microeconomic theory and empirical evidence from the past and present – San Francisco, Berlin – and suggests perhaps not.

Enlightenment thinking – any thinking – is hard work. A Romantic looks at hard, complex, often contradictory, often counterintuitive, thinking and says ‘that is exclusionary’. That’s why it’s gone in the bin; thinking for yourself is actively discouraged. And that’s why it’s not really possible to engage rationally with a Romantic as an Enlightenment thinker – it’s like comparing apples to oranges. It’s a different Register, a different way of interacting with the world.

Now, that’s not to seek to strike out Romanticism. â€˜On Westminster Bridge’ is a masterpiece of Romanticism 
 but you wouldn’t get Wordsworth to build Westminster Bridge, would you?

“
 what won’t our passions do once reason is darkened? …if reason is wanting, madness results …” “The Book of her Foundations” Teresa of Ávila (1515-1582).

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
1 year ago

The alternative is some sort of tragic accelerationism, so I think I prefer Rufo’s way forward.

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
1 year ago

The alternative is some sort of tragic accelerationism, so I think I prefer Rufo’s way forward.

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
1 year ago

I understand politics through the lens of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, that it’s all about the friends smashing the enemy.
For Marx, the answer to the meaning of life, the universe, everything was to save the workers by smashing the bourgoisie. How did that turn out?
For Sixties liberals, the answer was to save the blacks by smashing Jim Crow. How’s that coming along, cupcakes?
For 2020s liberals, the answer is to save the Oppressed Peoples by smashing the White Oppressors.
Our problem is to find a way to educate the educated class to the crazy notion that the meaning of life, the universe, everything is not politics.

George Venning
George Venning
1 year ago

I guess that’s why your understanding of politics looks a bit narrow.
Marx’s legacy is big, complex and interesting. But one thing it isn’t an unmitigated a disaster. Unless you loathe universal education and the franchise etc.
And I’m not sure how to answer your question about Jim Crow. The work appears not to be complete but are you really suggesting that it would have been better if segregation hadn’t ended?
As to what the liberals of the 2020s are trying to achieve, I don’t think you’ve quite captured it.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
1 year ago
Reply to  George Venning

Marx’s legacy? Big, certainly – to the tune of 100 million deaths. Same murderous result in wildly different settings: China, Russia, Cambodia, Ethiopia. Complex? Not really. The natural result of fomenting “class hatred” and totalitarian control, in turn the only possible result of trying to make everybody “equal”. Interesting? Only as an example of human stupidity. Not very interesting to live in one of those grey, Marxist sh*tholes. If your antagonist’s understanding is narrow – and it certainly is – yours is not much wider, unblushingly apologising as you do for an outlook which smelt of mass murder from the start and now – to anyone with a nose – stinks of historic genocides.

Last edited 1 year ago by Simon Denis
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

So are Nietzsche and Wagner on the hook for the murders of all their historical self-declared fanboys? How about Jesus for all the killing done in his supposed name? I take major issue with much of what Marx said and don’t agree with any of his fanboys, now or then, but how many people did old Karl arm or injure himself? I’m not saying he is blameless–although, when convenient, you do seem to regard right and wrong as hobgoblins of provincial wokeness anyway–but he is not flat-out on the hook for all the murders people used him to try and justify either.
*Also, if the farthest right dictators had lasted as long as the longest-lived in China and Russia, where do you think the death-tally would stand?
*Extremism and readiness to kill in the name of ideology is bad, wherever and from whomever it emerges.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Simon Denis
Simon Denis
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Oh dear. Wagner was a musician. His few literary efforts had limited impact and did not recommend large scale violence; nor do his admirers (please refrain from vulgarisms like “fanboys”) value him for much more than his music.
On the other hand, large scale violence was integral to Marxist theory which fetishized civil conflict as “revolution”, the “midwife of history”, with whole classes of society regarded as legitimate targets, not simply during the process of upheaval but for an indefinite period thereafter. As extremist racists view minorities, so do Marxists view the so-called “bourgeoisie”.
And isn’t the relative lack of right wing dictators itself a telling sign? And isn’t the reason they rarely last as long as their red rivals down to their retirement in favour of democracy (Pinochet versus Castro)? And isn’t it a fact that those right wing dictators who did last a long time had nothing like the deadly impact of their Marxist contemporaries – for example, Franco versus Pol Pot?
Your other points are silly. “Right” and “wrong” are not the lenses through which to view history; they should be reserved to the present and to any time which can be legitimately viewed as sharing modern premises – ie, not Tudor England, not the ancient world and so on, but yes twentieth century Russia and Germany.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Easy there genius. Don’t lose patience with your inferiors, especially when they are so numerous. You prefer hard-right extremism, and contort yourself into all sorts of apologies for it, at least when it is compared to left-wing extremism.
I am not using the simplistic moralism you accuse me of, but attempting to follow and advocate a nonviolent or at least not eager-to-burn-down-and-kill pathway. No rigid, let alone self-certain or meanspirited extreme walks that path. You dish out provocations and insults but you cannot take them, nor do you imagine that you would ever deserve them in return, because you believe you have a special, or at least very generous hold on reality. That’s certainly how it seems to me. I can see that I poked at your defense of Bloody Mary in a way that has riled you up, understandably so to an extent, but now you are way over the top, man.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Total failure to answer any of the points – especially concerning the inherently bloodthirsty nature of Marxism. Dear, oh dear…

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

I agree that Marx endorsed violence in service his utopian pipe dream So does A.H.’s more-discredited little memoir of “his struggle”. My point is that the followers of both should be held to account for their own words and actions, not let off the hook because of the Big Bad source texts they were misled by. You don’t respond to my points, nor acknowledge any validity in my perspective, so that’s not what I’d call a good-faith argument, let alone a worthwhile discussion.
You are just trying to “win” (yes, “scare quotes”) in front of a favorably disposed audience, a type of performance the world has no shortage of these days.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

I agree that Marx endorsed violence in service his utopian pipe dream So does A.H.’s more-discredited little memoir of “his struggle”. My point is that the followers of both should be held to account for their own words and actions, not let off the hook because of the Big Bad source texts they were misled by. You don’t respond to my points, nor acknowledge any validity in my perspective, so that’s not what I’d call a good-faith argument, let alone a worthwhile discussion.
You are just trying to “win” (yes, “scare quotes”) in front of a favorably disposed audience, a type of performance the world has no shortage of these days.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Total failure to answer any of the points – especially concerning the inherently bloodthirsty nature of Marxism. Dear, oh dear…

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Easy there genius. Don’t lose patience with your inferiors, especially when they are so numerous. You prefer hard-right extremism, and contort yourself into all sorts of apologies for it, at least when it is compared to left-wing extremism.
I am not using the simplistic moralism you accuse me of, but attempting to follow and advocate a nonviolent or at least not eager-to-burn-down-and-kill pathway. No rigid, let alone self-certain or meanspirited extreme walks that path. You dish out provocations and insults but you cannot take them, nor do you imagine that you would ever deserve them in return, because you believe you have a special, or at least very generous hold on reality. That’s certainly how it seems to me. I can see that I poked at your defense of Bloody Mary in a way that has riled you up, understandably so to an extent, but now you are way over the top, man.

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Your last point is of course right and thank you for it. But the question remains: No sooner did the French declare “liberty, equality and fraternity,”than 265,000 heads were separated from bodies. Why? What did Nietzsche know when he predicted that “there will never be enough water to wash away all the blood?”

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Yes, there’s is some false equivalency there, I admit. But he is often cited as a source text for A.H. and his minions. I’ve read some of what Marx, Nietzsche, and even A.H. wrote (the latter for a required paper on holoca— denial). I have my own personal hierarchy of badness among the three. (You can probably guess). But while I think that two out of three of these men were intellectually brilliant (Friedrich only until he went insane) I think that all of them thought and wrote horrible things, especially in the worst particulars. I see validity in some of the who-was-worse talk, but it just doesn’t seem that crucial to me. In my opinion, all the writings of all three should be studied only in context, with careful attention to their historical influence. And I would not say that about too many other authors I’m aware of, though contextual frameworks can be useful if they’re not overused.

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

What do you mean by “false equivalence?” The modern world separated itself from the ancient world by rejecting the idea of human virtue. The modern world embraced the idea that we could “follow our passions” and everything would turn out swimmingly. It is precisely this idea that drove Nietzsche mad. He knew that swimmingly is exactly what it would not turn out to be, and he could not have been more right. Murder instead rained down on us. We ended up not in heaven but in hell. Nothing could be more obvious. And yet we can’t, or won’t, see it. Modern man is a blind giant.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

I thought you were still referencing a comparative blood guilt metric–so wearisome, and away from the point of renouncing and resisting ALL bloody tyranny–between the Left and the Right.
The rest of your reply sounds like nostalgia on steroids. The ancient world had plenty of decadence and discontents, that is part of why it collapsed. Read Greek tragedy, indeed all extant Ancient History and tell me it was some model of virtue, in no way hellish or murderous. What specific year do you long to return to?
And you’re assigning prophetic status to Nietzsche? Sure he was clever, but c’mon. He wasn’t driven mad by a notion or series of ideas but by a combination of being in his head so often and, when he wasn’t, seeing so many sex-workers that he got a bad case of syphilis.
I agree that Modern Man is a “blind giant”, but so was Medieval Man, Ancient Man, and Neolithic Man. I understand there are things to learn, preserve, and perhaps restore from earlier times, but these wholesale idealizations: Golden Age, Time of Virtue, etc. are way overblown. “The Golden Age was never the present age”. (Not that this one will ever be).

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Nietzsche was driven mad by the same thing Ivan Fyodorovich was driven mad; namely, a brain with the power to see too well.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Sure dude. From Russian fiction to German philosophizing to your admiring ears.
Count me out. To me, those who celebrate Nietzsche, seeing only his insights and not his inextricable cruelty and growing sickness, are people misled by heart-starved brilliance into error, like the fanboys of Freud and Marx.

Andrew F
Andrew F
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Reality is that Fasci*m and Nazi*m were response to violence and murders of Marxism/Communism.
If you try to eliminate whole class of people, don’t be surprised they will support whatever ideology gives them greatest chance of survival.
I find it disgusting that I need to asterix certain words but genocidal creed like Communism has a free run in Western education.

Andrew F
Andrew F
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Reality is that Fasci*m and Nazi*m were response to violence and murders of Marxism/Communism.
If you try to eliminate whole class of people, don’t be surprised they will support whatever ideology gives them greatest chance of survival.
I find it disgusting that I need to asterix certain words but genocidal creed like Communism has a free run in Western education.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Sure dude. From Russian fiction to German philosophizing to your admiring ears.
Count me out. To me, those who celebrate Nietzsche, seeing only his insights and not his inextricable cruelty and growing sickness, are people misled by heart-starved brilliance into error, like the fanboys of Freud and Marx.

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Nietzsche was driven mad by the same thing Ivan Fyodorovich was driven mad; namely, a brain with the power to see too well.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

I thought you were still referencing a comparative blood guilt metric–so wearisome, and away from the point of renouncing and resisting ALL bloody tyranny–between the Left and the Right.
The rest of your reply sounds like nostalgia on steroids. The ancient world had plenty of decadence and discontents, that is part of why it collapsed. Read Greek tragedy, indeed all extant Ancient History and tell me it was some model of virtue, in no way hellish or murderous. What specific year do you long to return to?
And you’re assigning prophetic status to Nietzsche? Sure he was clever, but c’mon. He wasn’t driven mad by a notion or series of ideas but by a combination of being in his head so often and, when he wasn’t, seeing so many sex-workers that he got a bad case of syphilis.
I agree that Modern Man is a “blind giant”, but so was Medieval Man, Ancient Man, and Neolithic Man. I understand there are things to learn, preserve, and perhaps restore from earlier times, but these wholesale idealizations: Golden Age, Time of Virtue, etc. are way overblown. “The Golden Age was never the present age”. (Not that this one will ever be).

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

What do you mean by “false equivalence?” The modern world separated itself from the ancient world by rejecting the idea of human virtue. The modern world embraced the idea that we could “follow our passions” and everything would turn out swimmingly. It is precisely this idea that drove Nietzsche mad. He knew that swimmingly is exactly what it would not turn out to be, and he could not have been more right. Murder instead rained down on us. We ended up not in heaven but in hell. Nothing could be more obvious. And yet we can’t, or won’t, see it. Modern man is a blind giant.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Yes, there’s is some false equivalency there, I admit. But he is often cited as a source text for A.H. and his minions. I’ve read some of what Marx, Nietzsche, and even A.H. wrote (the latter for a required paper on holoca— denial). I have my own personal hierarchy of badness among the three. (You can probably guess). But while I think that two out of three of these men were intellectually brilliant (Friedrich only until he went insane) I think that all of them thought and wrote horrible things, especially in the worst particulars. I see validity in some of the who-was-worse talk, but it just doesn’t seem that crucial to me. In my opinion, all the writings of all three should be studied only in context, with careful attention to their historical influence. And I would not say that about too many other authors I’m aware of, though contextual frameworks can be useful if they’re not overused.

Tom Graham
Tom Graham
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

How many people did Hitler personally injure himself? None
You can’t blame Wagner for Hitler because he liked his music, but you can blame Hitler for the actions of his followers who were carrying out the political program that he espoused.
Likewise for Marx.
Lenin, Stalin and Mao set about the business of mass murder at least as quickly on coming to power as Hitler did.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Graham

Of course. I agree and I’m not sure why you assume I wouldn’t.
Still, I don’t think there is a one-to-one comparison between a man’s written text and a man with an army and government at his command. There is a more direct complicity in the dictator than the guy with a poison pen.
Let me make this clear: I don’t think the worst bloody tyrannies of the Left were better, but that those of the Right, like those of the Left, were so hideous that they simply must be renounced and guarded against. I am not picking a favorite form of bloody tyranny, and I wish others wouldn’t either. (I am not saying you’ve done this, but many are using a defense-by-death-toll trick that I do not agree with or accept as some form of vindication).
We are not reduced to a choice between polar-opposite tyrannies, nor do center-left (“liberal”) or center-right (“conservative”) policies lead straight to their faintly-related extremes of oligarchical collectivism (state communism) or authoritarian nationalism (fascism). There should not be argumentative defense squads for bloody tyranny of any kind. These malefactors are not fit for trading cards or commemorative statuettes from which you get to pick your favorites!

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Phil Mac
Phil Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Why do you class Hitler as of the right?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  Phil Mac

Because nationalist fascism is prevailingly of the right. Where do Mussolini and Franco and Pinochet belong, if you had to choose? This attempt to assign every historical evil to the Left is a farce, and I hope you haven’t convinced yourself it’s accurate.
Yes, they called themselves National Socialists. The CCP calls themselves a People’s Republic.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  Phil Mac

Because nationalist fascism is prevailingly of the right. Where do Mussolini and Franco and Pinochet belong, if you had to choose? This attempt to assign every historical evil to the Left is a farce, and I hope you haven’t convinced yourself it’s accurate.
Yes, they called themselves National Socialists. The CCP calls themselves a People’s Republic.

Phil Mac
Phil Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Why do you class Hitler as of the right?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Graham

Of course. I agree and I’m not sure why you assume I wouldn’t.
Still, I don’t think there is a one-to-one comparison between a man’s written text and a man with an army and government at his command. There is a more direct complicity in the dictator than the guy with a poison pen.
Let me make this clear: I don’t think the worst bloody tyrannies of the Left were better, but that those of the Right, like those of the Left, were so hideous that they simply must be renounced and guarded against. I am not picking a favorite form of bloody tyranny, and I wish others wouldn’t either. (I am not saying you’ve done this, but many are using a defense-by-death-toll trick that I do not agree with or accept as some form of vindication).
We are not reduced to a choice between polar-opposite tyrannies, nor do center-left (“liberal”) or center-right (“conservative”) policies lead straight to their faintly-related extremes of oligarchical collectivism (state communism) or authoritarian nationalism (fascism). There should not be argumentative defense squads for bloody tyranny of any kind. These malefactors are not fit for trading cards or commemorative statuettes from which you get to pick your favorites!

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Simon Denis
Simon Denis
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Oh dear. Wagner was a musician. His few literary efforts had limited impact and did not recommend large scale violence; nor do his admirers (please refrain from vulgarisms like “fanboys”) value him for much more than his music.
On the other hand, large scale violence was integral to Marxist theory which fetishized civil conflict as “revolution”, the “midwife of history”, with whole classes of society regarded as legitimate targets, not simply during the process of upheaval but for an indefinite period thereafter. As extremist racists view minorities, so do Marxists view the so-called “bourgeoisie”.
And isn’t the relative lack of right wing dictators itself a telling sign? And isn’t the reason they rarely last as long as their red rivals down to their retirement in favour of democracy (Pinochet versus Castro)? And isn’t it a fact that those right wing dictators who did last a long time had nothing like the deadly impact of their Marxist contemporaries – for example, Franco versus Pol Pot?
Your other points are silly. “Right” and “wrong” are not the lenses through which to view history; they should be reserved to the present and to any time which can be legitimately viewed as sharing modern premises – ie, not Tudor England, not the ancient world and so on, but yes twentieth century Russia and Germany.

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Your last point is of course right and thank you for it. But the question remains: No sooner did the French declare “liberty, equality and fraternity,”than 265,000 heads were separated from bodies. Why? What did Nietzsche know when he predicted that “there will never be enough water to wash away all the blood?”

Tom Graham
Tom Graham
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

How many people did Hitler personally injure himself? None
You can’t blame Wagner for Hitler because he liked his music, but you can blame Hitler for the actions of his followers who were carrying out the political program that he espoused.
Likewise for Marx.
Lenin, Stalin and Mao set about the business of mass murder at least as quickly on coming to power as Hitler did.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

So are Nietzsche and Wagner on the hook for the murders of all their historical self-declared fanboys? How about Jesus for all the killing done in his supposed name? I take major issue with much of what Marx said and don’t agree with any of his fanboys, now or then, but how many people did old Karl arm or injure himself? I’m not saying he is blameless–although, when convenient, you do seem to regard right and wrong as hobgoblins of provincial wokeness anyway–but he is not flat-out on the hook for all the murders people used him to try and justify either.
*Also, if the farthest right dictators had lasted as long as the longest-lived in China and Russia, where do you think the death-tally would stand?
*Extremism and readiness to kill in the name of ideology is bad, wherever and from whomever it emerges.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  George Venning

Marx’s legacy is 100 million dead. Yep, sure is “interesting”.

Arthur G
Arthur G
1 year ago

100 million is surely a vast understatement. I bet you could get to 100M in China alone.
There’s a reason Stalin sent the 1937 census takers to the Gulag.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Arthur G

True enough But would all of those deaths been averted without Marx, with no other codifier of ideology (Engels et alia) to replace him and provide articulate excuses for bloody tyrants? Did Karl stitch his namesake “ism” out of whole cloth, and in a vacuum?
And how many dead and disappeared would the 3rd reich have tallied if they’d been in global power for the last 80 years? Whoops, here we go with the rather unhelpful comparisons again.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

There you go with an utterly disreputable attempt to weigh idle speculation against fact – and the fact is that Soviet Russia, along with all other such regimes, directly inspired by Marxist theory, murdered millions. Why play this down? Why make yourself an accessory after the fact by attempts to excuse and smooth it over? Germany’s regime was one instance – one (let that sink in) – of a non-communist dictatorship which vied with communism for bloodthirstiness. None of the others, not even the Italian regime which allied itself with Germany, got anywhere near the tally of bloodshed reached by the reds. And if you are invoking the Russian role in WWII then remember that Stalin allied himself with Berlin for two years before Barbarossa; and together with his allies he brutally dismembered Poland. As a keen moraliser you should surely have some objection to that?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Gosh! I’m astonished, so Mr Hitler wasn’t the greatest killer of all time? Can that really be true?

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
1 year ago

Good point, my dear fellow – but I confess, I am terribly tired. I’ve got into a long conversation with an eager young chap who combines assertiveness with oversensitivity – an irony, as I am sure you will be the first to understand (!)
It sometimes worries me that conversations on threads such as these can proceed as arguments without sufficient attention paid to states of mind and heart. I do actually dislike affronting or upsetting people but I equally dislike bowing to insufficient reason and can be a touch too peppery and pointed myself. Ah well. Nice to hear from you, by the way. I shall soon be pouring myself a stiff Scotch.

Last edited 1 year ago by Simon Denis
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Last chip shot from across the Atlantic: I know age is quite a relative thing, but thanks for calling me a young chap though I’m 52. Oversensitive and assertive? Not only so, but yes.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Last chip shot from across the Atlantic: I know age is quite a relative thing, but thanks for calling me a young chap though I’m 52. Oversensitive and assertive? Not only so, but yes.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
1 year ago

Good point, my dear fellow – but I confess, I am terribly tired. I’ve got into a long conversation with an eager young chap who combines assertiveness with oversensitivity – an irony, as I am sure you will be the first to understand (!)
It sometimes worries me that conversations on threads such as these can proceed as arguments without sufficient attention paid to states of mind and heart. I do actually dislike affronting or upsetting people but I equally dislike bowing to insufficient reason and can be a touch too peppery and pointed myself. Ah well. Nice to hear from you, by the way. I shall soon be pouring myself a stiff Scotch.

Last edited 1 year ago by Simon Denis
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

To defend any murderous tyranny in comparative terms is far more disreputable. (Reputation as a sly stand-in for morality?). But once the numbers game is invoked, deaths-per-year is a valid part of a topic that has been started in bad faith, in effect to defend another tyranny,
I acknowledge that the actual death-toll of world communism has exceeded fascism, largely according to your earlier (paraphrased) point that people like (or endure) communism better for longer, in more places.
If you’re so broken up–and I’m persuaded that you are, in some real measure–about the destruction of past objects, writing, cathedrals, and cultural legacies, how can you defend the book-burning, destructive “conservatism” of fascists just because you like the other policies better–or maybe because you think they’d largely burn books you disagree with anyway (?). And are you at all broken up about the human toll of murderous tyranny? *I don’t know your own views with any certainty
The authoritarian fascists were illiberal and against minority rights, but they are NOT conservative in any strong or sensible sense, except by tricks of inverse association. Nor were the purge-squad communists made liberal by their disregard for and hostility toward the legacy of the past. To say otherwise is disingenuous, or at least mistaken reasoning. There is a closer association in each case, but it is not close. Hitler and Franco are not along some unbroken continuum with Margaret Thatcher and Edmund Burke, nor Stalin and Mao with Robert Walpole and John Stuart Mill.
I am not attempting to downplay the tyrannies of the Left, but pushing back against comparative-apologists–including you–for the tyrannies of the Right. That is what has been happening here, in something like an echo-chamber of mutual self-congratulation. I would object as forcefully to those attempting similar self-serving apologies for murderous tyrannies on the Left, and have done so where that is prevalent, like it sometimes is at the NYT. I do not accept that I need to choose or defend one or another form of bloody tyranny. I was/am responding to the oblique defense-by-numbers trick that is so often attempted, not advancing a defense of my own.
As if fascists death squads are vindicated, or somehow rendered benign by their less horrific body count…Oh dear!!
You’re obviously bright and mentally energetic even in your senectitude, but “the mediator between the head and the hand must be the heart”
Toodles and good luck, in any reputable enterprise.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Gosh! I’m astonished, so Mr Hitler wasn’t the greatest killer of all time? Can that really be true?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

To defend any murderous tyranny in comparative terms is far more disreputable. (Reputation as a sly stand-in for morality?). But once the numbers game is invoked, deaths-per-year is a valid part of a topic that has been started in bad faith, in effect to defend another tyranny,
I acknowledge that the actual death-toll of world communism has exceeded fascism, largely according to your earlier (paraphrased) point that people like (or endure) communism better for longer, in more places.
If you’re so broken up–and I’m persuaded that you are, in some real measure–about the destruction of past objects, writing, cathedrals, and cultural legacies, how can you defend the book-burning, destructive “conservatism” of fascists just because you like the other policies better–or maybe because you think they’d largely burn books you disagree with anyway (?). And are you at all broken up about the human toll of murderous tyranny? *I don’t know your own views with any certainty
The authoritarian fascists were illiberal and against minority rights, but they are NOT conservative in any strong or sensible sense, except by tricks of inverse association. Nor were the purge-squad communists made liberal by their disregard for and hostility toward the legacy of the past. To say otherwise is disingenuous, or at least mistaken reasoning. There is a closer association in each case, but it is not close. Hitler and Franco are not along some unbroken continuum with Margaret Thatcher and Edmund Burke, nor Stalin and Mao with Robert Walpole and John Stuart Mill.
I am not attempting to downplay the tyrannies of the Left, but pushing back against comparative-apologists–including you–for the tyrannies of the Right. That is what has been happening here, in something like an echo-chamber of mutual self-congratulation. I would object as forcefully to those attempting similar self-serving apologies for murderous tyrannies on the Left, and have done so where that is prevalent, like it sometimes is at the NYT. I do not accept that I need to choose or defend one or another form of bloody tyranny. I was/am responding to the oblique defense-by-numbers trick that is so often attempted, not advancing a defense of my own.
As if fascists death squads are vindicated, or somehow rendered benign by their less horrific body count…Oh dear!!
You’re obviously bright and mentally energetic even in your senectitude, but “the mediator between the head and the hand must be the heart”
Toodles and good luck, in any reputable enterprise.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Simon Denis
Simon Denis
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

There you go with an utterly disreputable attempt to weigh idle speculation against fact – and the fact is that Soviet Russia, along with all other such regimes, directly inspired by Marxist theory, murdered millions. Why play this down? Why make yourself an accessory after the fact by attempts to excuse and smooth it over? Germany’s regime was one instance – one (let that sink in) – of a non-communist dictatorship which vied with communism for bloodthirstiness. None of the others, not even the Italian regime which allied itself with Germany, got anywhere near the tally of bloodshed reached by the reds. And if you are invoking the Russian role in WWII then remember that Stalin allied himself with Berlin for two years before Barbarossa; and together with his allies he brutally dismembered Poland. As a keen moraliser you should surely have some objection to that?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Arthur G

True enough But would all of those deaths been averted without Marx, with no other codifier of ideology (Engels et alia) to replace him and provide articulate excuses for bloody tyrants? Did Karl stitch his namesake “ism” out of whole cloth, and in a vacuum?
And how many dead and disappeared would the 3rd reich have tallied if they’d been in global power for the last 80 years? Whoops, here we go with the rather unhelpful comparisons again.

Arthur G
Arthur G
1 year ago

100 million is surely a vast understatement. I bet you could get to 100M in China alone.
There’s a reason Stalin sent the 1937 census takers to the Gulag.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  George Venning

Yes, he is really suggesting it, but with sneering insinuating at the “cupcakes” who opposed segregation and de facto disenfranchisement of blacks, instead of a direct endorsement of the Jim Crow South. It is repugnant and little shocking, but try not to be surprised. There is a vocal minority of outright alt-right white-power types here, many of whom at least think they would be glad to find themselves in the United States of 1850, retaining their complexions of course. Most won’t come right out and announce themselves as Lost Cause romantics though.

Tom Graham
Tom Graham
1 year ago
Reply to  George Venning

Marx is not responsible for universal education and voting.

Andrew F
Andrew F
11 months ago
Reply to  George Venning

I am not surprised that commie like you thinks Marx has something to teach humanity.
Let’s take two examples from different part of the world.
West Germany and East Germany.
South Korea and North Korea.
West Germany and South Korea both prosperous countries.
East Germany (does not even exist) and North Korea circled by barbed wire to stop population escaping.
Lessons are obvious for anyone with IQ above amoeba.
Marxism/Communism will never work.
It only offers poverty, slavery and violence.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
1 year ago
Reply to  George Venning

Marx’s legacy? Big, certainly – to the tune of 100 million deaths. Same murderous result in wildly different settings: China, Russia, Cambodia, Ethiopia. Complex? Not really. The natural result of fomenting “class hatred” and totalitarian control, in turn the only possible result of trying to make everybody “equal”. Interesting? Only as an example of human stupidity. Not very interesting to live in one of those grey, Marxist sh*tholes. If your antagonist’s understanding is narrow – and it certainly is – yours is not much wider, unblushingly apologising as you do for an outlook which smelt of mass murder from the start and now – to anyone with a nose – stinks of historic genocides.

Last edited 1 year ago by Simon Denis
Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  George Venning

Marx’s legacy is 100 million dead. Yep, sure is “interesting”.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  George Venning

Yes, he is really suggesting it, but with sneering insinuating at the “cupcakes” who opposed segregation and de facto disenfranchisement of blacks, instead of a direct endorsement of the Jim Crow South. It is repugnant and little shocking, but try not to be surprised. There is a vocal minority of outright alt-right white-power types here, many of whom at least think they would be glad to find themselves in the United States of 1850, retaining their complexions of course. Most won’t come right out and announce themselves as Lost Cause romantics though.

Tom Graham
Tom Graham
1 year ago
Reply to  George Venning

Marx is not responsible for universal education and voting.

Andrew F
Andrew F
11 months ago
Reply to  George Venning

I am not surprised that commie like you thinks Marx has something to teach humanity.
Let’s take two examples from different part of the world.
West Germany and East Germany.
South Korea and North Korea.
West Germany and South Korea both prosperous countries.
East Germany (does not even exist) and North Korea circled by barbed wire to stop population escaping.
Lessons are obvious for anyone with IQ above amoeba.
Marxism/Communism will never work.
It only offers poverty, slavery and violence.

Rob C
Rob C
1 year ago

It’s not Liberalism, it’s equitarian Leftism. As he said, this is a post Liberal era.

George Venning
George Venning
1 year ago

I guess that’s why your understanding of politics looks a bit narrow.
Marx’s legacy is big, complex and interesting. But one thing it isn’t an unmitigated a disaster. Unless you loathe universal education and the franchise etc.
And I’m not sure how to answer your question about Jim Crow. The work appears not to be complete but are you really suggesting that it would have been better if segregation hadn’t ended?
As to what the liberals of the 2020s are trying to achieve, I don’t think you’ve quite captured it.

Rob C
Rob C
1 year ago

It’s not Liberalism, it’s equitarian Leftism. As he said, this is a post Liberal era.

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
1 year ago

I understand politics through the lens of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, that it’s all about the friends smashing the enemy.
For Marx, the answer to the meaning of life, the universe, everything was to save the workers by smashing the bourgoisie. How did that turn out?
For Sixties liberals, the answer was to save the blacks by smashing Jim Crow. How’s that coming along, cupcakes?
For 2020s liberals, the answer is to save the Oppressed Peoples by smashing the White Oppressors.
Our problem is to find a way to educate the educated class to the crazy notion that the meaning of life, the universe, everything is not politics.

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago

Fascinating. But what we most urgently need is for the Progressive Revolution HERE to be dissected in a similar and forensic manner. We know the US is different. Yet how much of this story – an emergent ‘DEI Bureaucracy’, a complicit detached Elite; the corruption of education; the invention of special Victim groups given elevated/privileged rights in law, the assault on meritocracy and tradition; the hysterias about race and patriarchy supported by the State and propagated via law culture and media..is horribly familiar. There is a pattern to all this and we too must quickly learn to identify how this cancer is being spread, the better to fight it. Battle has barely been joined 20 years after the attack began.

Lewis Eliot
Lewis Eliot
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

I’ve been railing for years that economics and philosophy should be mandatory subjects in all schools; I now realise that what I thought was missing was just being taught to think for yourself, using reason and logic, and I think this is at the core of what’s changed.
Teachers are rewarded by creating exam machines, not challenging machines who ask awkward questions.
This from The Economist 15 07 23: “For starters, the Conservatives had a plan. Before winning the 2010 general election, they had spent five years in opposition mulling school reforms, diagnosing the problems the system faced. The original sin, according to Nick Gibb, the then-shadow and now current schools minister, was progressive education, which focused too much on teaching children how to think rather than teaching them what they should know. Then they worked out how they wanted to fix it. Curriculums would be overhauled. Reading, writing and maths would trump other topics.”

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

This DEI push will destroy civilization if it’s successful. You can’t build a modern sewer system on DEI principles. If universities teach DEI to the exclusion of the knowledge needed to keep things going, things won’t keep going. There won’t be people left who know how everything works.

Andrew F
Andrew F
11 months ago

Would not you say that South Africa is perfect template of what future awaits West if low IQ, lazy creatures are put in charge of anything?

Andrew F
Andrew F
11 months ago

Would not you say that South Africa is perfect template of what future awaits West if low IQ, lazy creatures are put in charge of anything?

Lewis Eliot
Lewis Eliot
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

I’ve been railing for years that economics and philosophy should be mandatory subjects in all schools; I now realise that what I thought was missing was just being taught to think for yourself, using reason and logic, and I think this is at the core of what’s changed.
Teachers are rewarded by creating exam machines, not challenging machines who ask awkward questions.
This from The Economist 15 07 23: “For starters, the Conservatives had a plan. Before winning the 2010 general election, they had spent five years in opposition mulling school reforms, diagnosing the problems the system faced. The original sin, according to Nick Gibb, the then-shadow and now current schools minister, was progressive education, which focused too much on teaching children how to think rather than teaching them what they should know. Then they worked out how they wanted to fix it. Curriculums would be overhauled. Reading, writing and maths would trump other topics.”

Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

This DEI push will destroy civilization if it’s successful. You can’t build a modern sewer system on DEI principles. If universities teach DEI to the exclusion of the knowledge needed to keep things going, things won’t keep going. There won’t be people left who know how everything works.

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago

Fascinating. But what we most urgently need is for the Progressive Revolution HERE to be dissected in a similar and forensic manner. We know the US is different. Yet how much of this story – an emergent ‘DEI Bureaucracy’, a complicit detached Elite; the corruption of education; the invention of special Victim groups given elevated/privileged rights in law, the assault on meritocracy and tradition; the hysterias about race and patriarchy supported by the State and propagated via law culture and media..is horribly familiar. There is a pattern to all this and we too must quickly learn to identify how this cancer is being spread, the better to fight it. Battle has barely been joined 20 years after the attack began.

Daniel Lee
Daniel Lee
1 year ago

“Nor have they even succeeded in abolishing class rule, but ‘simply replaced the management’ even as they extended “state-social bureaucracy”.
Well, the Left never wanted to replace class rule, just make themselves the ruling class.

Daniel Lee
Daniel Lee
1 year ago

“Nor have they even succeeded in abolishing class rule, but ‘simply replaced the management’ even as they extended “state-social bureaucracy”.
Well, the Left never wanted to replace class rule, just make themselves the ruling class.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
1 year ago

> the old world where everyone at least sort-of believed in neutral institutions and equality before the law will be long forgotten.

Sure. Popper’s Paradox. If we behave like The Enemy, how are we better than they are? WWII is instructive. Hitler bombed London, we incinerated Dresden. Any difference? Yes. Hitler had few qualms and, had he had the A bomb, he’s not have hesitated to use it. We agonized over Dresden and really hated to burn it down, but defeat was not an option. After the war we spend billions getting Germany and Japan back on their feet.

In the same way, the purge of the Institutions must be work that is instinctively repugnant to ourselves — firing a wokie because she is a wokie is ideological puritanism not objectively different from the way the woke would fire a conservative for being a conservative.

But defeat is not an option. Let’s do what must be done to *restore* neutrality in the institutions — even tho we must be un-neutral to get there. It is a paradox and the essential thing is to be upfront about exactly that fact. We must use the enemy’s tools to defeat the enemy — then we rebuild just as Dresden was rebuilt.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
1 year ago

> the old world where everyone at least sort-of believed in neutral institutions and equality before the law will be long forgotten.

Sure. Popper’s Paradox. If we behave like The Enemy, how are we better than they are? WWII is instructive. Hitler bombed London, we incinerated Dresden. Any difference? Yes. Hitler had few qualms and, had he had the A bomb, he’s not have hesitated to use it. We agonized over Dresden and really hated to burn it down, but defeat was not an option. After the war we spend billions getting Germany and Japan back on their feet.

In the same way, the purge of the Institutions must be work that is instinctively repugnant to ourselves — firing a wokie because she is a wokie is ideological puritanism not objectively different from the way the woke would fire a conservative for being a conservative.

But defeat is not an option. Let’s do what must be done to *restore* neutrality in the institutions — even tho we must be un-neutral to get there. It is a paradox and the essential thing is to be upfront about exactly that fact. We must use the enemy’s tools to defeat the enemy — then we rebuild just as Dresden was rebuilt.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ray Andrews
Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago

Isn’t Mary Harrington’s point that it is much easier, not to mention more fun, to destroy than preserve? The destroyers have the advantage. For those on the side of preservation to take up the tactics of destruction, is a form of capitulation. The good must fight with one arm tied behind its backs. The truth is handicapped in the same was against the false. If I am on track here, she is suggesting to the author about whom she writes that his task is much harder than he takes it to be.

Russ W
Russ W
1 year ago

I can’t tell what her point is. Which concerns me. What is Rufo’s “Trojan Horse”? You can’t launch a Trojan horse by telling everyone that is what you up to. The comments are a better read

She accuses him of a post modern approach – without supporting evidence.

Last edited 1 year ago by Russ W
Russ W
Russ W
1 year ago

I can’t tell what her point is. Which concerns me. What is Rufo’s “Trojan Horse”? You can’t launch a Trojan horse by telling everyone that is what you up to. The comments are a better read

She accuses him of a post modern approach – without supporting evidence.

Last edited 1 year ago by Russ W
Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago

Isn’t Mary Harrington’s point that it is much easier, not to mention more fun, to destroy than preserve? The destroyers have the advantage. For those on the side of preservation to take up the tactics of destruction, is a form of capitulation. The good must fight with one arm tied behind its backs. The truth is handicapped in the same was against the false. If I am on track here, she is suggesting to the author about whom she writes that his task is much harder than he takes it to be.

Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
1 year ago

This discussion of political labels and their lineages has become acrimonious and therefore less than helpful. I wasn’t planning a reply to any one comment, and doing so is probably too late by now anyway, but here goes.
Words such as “conservative,” “liberal” and “revolutionary” are very, very relative and therefore elastic. Their meanings vary depending on historical context and political expediency. An emphasis on due process, for example, seems conservative today and is a key feature of Republican rhetoric (with varying degrees of consistency), but it was once a key feature of Democratic rhetoric. If you go back far enough, of course, due process was a radical innovation and therefore revolutionary. On the other hand, Democrats once supported racial segregation but now demand racial equity.
Here’s another example. In some ways, the Nazis were conservative. They lavished attention and money on the revival of Germanic folklore, for instance, and pre-Christian religious festivals. They glorified Germanic heroes who had resisted the Romans. They celebrated the primitive world of their ancestors, not what they considered the effete (Christian) and alien (Jewish) world of “civilization.” They idealized the “organic” medieval community (Gemeinschaft), not the bureaucratic and impersonal institutions of commercial and industrial states (Gesellschaft). Despite misgivings, moreover, they tolerated even the churches (within limits). All of this looked like the conservation of tradition and also, not incidentally, a bulwark against Communist revolution. Consequently, the Nazis earned enthusiastic support not only from romantic academics but also (ambivalent) support from the conservative peasantry.
But even though the Nazis lived up to their rhetoric about a “new barbarism,” the Nazi state was anything but traditional or conservative. On the contrary, it was as revolutionary as any Communist state. From the get-go, compulsory youth groups encouraged the dissolution of traditional class barriers and undermined even the traditional family structure (partly by encouraging children to inform on parents or relatives who were less than enthusiastic Nazis). This led directly to the Lebensborn stud farms, where SS officers mated with Aryan women. Other policies included forced sterilization of the unfit and euthanasia, which provoked hostility from traditional segments of the population. The attention to meticulous records and industrial efficiency, even of mass murder, was nothing if not bureaucratic, impersonal. The armed forces relied on the most modern technologies and weapons. Ideological propaganda was disseminated through mass communication (notably radio and film). This was not in any way a return to the traditional monarchy, let alone to the misty forests of early Teutonic tribes.
In short, I think that we should spend less time on classifying each other and more time on identifying danger wherever we find it and fighting it.

Last edited 11 months ago by Paul Nathanson
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

Excellent comment, Paul, both instructive and helpful. Though I’m mainly in agreement there too, I could take issue with aspects of your political party-based characterizations, but I’d rather thank you for your detailed, calm analysis of the you-know-whos, and celebrate your concluding, one-sentence paragraph.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

Excellent comment, Paul, both instructive and helpful. Though I’m mainly in agreement there too, I could take issue with aspects of your political party-based characterizations, but I’d rather thank you for your detailed, calm analysis of the you-know-whos, and celebrate your concluding, one-sentence paragraph.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
1 year ago

This discussion of political labels and their lineages has become acrimonious and therefore less than helpful. I wasn’t planning a reply to any one comment, and doing so is probably too late by now anyway, but here goes.
Words such as “conservative,” “liberal” and “revolutionary” are very, very relative and therefore elastic. Their meanings vary depending on historical context and political expediency. An emphasis on due process, for example, seems conservative today and is a key feature of Republican rhetoric (with varying degrees of consistency), but it was once a key feature of Democratic rhetoric. If you go back far enough, of course, due process was a radical innovation and therefore revolutionary. On the other hand, Democrats once supported racial segregation but now demand racial equity.
Here’s another example. In some ways, the Nazis were conservative. They lavished attention and money on the revival of Germanic folklore, for instance, and pre-Christian religious festivals. They glorified Germanic heroes who had resisted the Romans. They celebrated the primitive world of their ancestors, not what they considered the effete (Christian) and alien (Jewish) world of “civilization.” They idealized the “organic” medieval community (Gemeinschaft), not the bureaucratic and impersonal institutions of commercial and industrial states (Gesellschaft). Despite misgivings, moreover, they tolerated even the churches (within limits). All of this looked like the conservation of tradition and also, not incidentally, a bulwark against Communist revolution. Consequently, the Nazis earned enthusiastic support not only from romantic academics but also (ambivalent) support from the conservative peasantry.
But even though the Nazis lived up to their rhetoric about a “new barbarism,” the Nazi state was anything but traditional or conservative. On the contrary, it was as revolutionary as any Communist state. From the get-go, compulsory youth groups encouraged the dissolution of traditional class barriers and undermined even the traditional family structure (partly by encouraging children to inform on parents or relatives who were less than enthusiastic Nazis). This led directly to the Lebensborn stud farms, where SS officers mated with Aryan women. Other policies included forced sterilization of the unfit and euthanasia, which provoked hostility from traditional segments of the population. The attention to meticulous records and industrial efficiency, even of mass murder, was nothing if not bureaucratic, impersonal. The armed forces relied on the most modern technologies and weapons. Ideological propaganda was disseminated through mass communication (notably radio and film). This was not in any way a return to the traditional monarchy, let alone to the misty forests of early Teutonic tribes.
In short, I think that we should spend less time on classifying each other and more time on identifying danger wherever we find it and fighting it.

Last edited 11 months ago by Paul Nathanson
Andrzej Wasniewski
Andrzej Wasniewski
1 year ago

I think this is very Western centric. Trojan horse was only used because direct attempts to storm the city failed. Why do we need Trojan Horse? If the woke wins, would it mean the end of civilization? Not at all. It will be a suicide of the Western civilization only. Do you really think that people in India, China etc will let a suicidal cult to cut off their energy sources, and castrate their children? To destroy their lives? No, it is just the Western filth that is tired of living.
And even in the West, once they destroy the food and energy supplies, starve and freeze enough human beings and castrate enough children, people will turn against them. But COVID showed us that the sheeple can be manipulated almost to no end, so I am not very optimistic.

Andrzej Wasniewski
Andrzej Wasniewski
1 year ago

I think this is very Western centric. Trojan horse was only used because direct attempts to storm the city failed. Why do we need Trojan Horse? If the woke wins, would it mean the end of civilization? Not at all. It will be a suicide of the Western civilization only. Do you really think that people in India, China etc will let a suicidal cult to cut off their energy sources, and castrate their children? To destroy their lives? No, it is just the Western filth that is tired of living.
And even in the West, once they destroy the food and energy supplies, starve and freeze enough human beings and castrate enough children, people will turn against them. But COVID showed us that the sheeple can be manipulated almost to no end, so I am not very optimistic.

Daniel P
Daniel P
1 year ago

The first step to rebelling is having the courage to say what you really think. Fortunately, this can still happen in the US.

I concluded some time ago that I was done worrying about who I might offend and I concluded that just holding the opinions I do, voting them, and then sharing them with like minded people was not enough, that I had to actively let people know what I am thinking and consequences be damned.

To that end, I went out and purchased t-shirts that express my own counter culture opinions and I wear them knowing that I will be judged by some.

Among these…

-Team TERF
-No Child is Born in the Wrong Body
-Mom’s For Liberty DAD
-I Identify as a Threat – My pronouns are “Try Me”
-Woke is the New Stupid

I have found that I get a fair number of shocked looks but nobody has come up and screamed at me yet and I have had a number of people come up and very quietly tell me that they love these shirts, particularly “Woke is the New Stupid”. That they feel they need to almost whisper it to me tells me all I need to know.

I urge all those with similar counter left views to do the same. Actively put out into the world your opinion without fear of offending people or being judged or to avoid conflict. Believe me, the other side has no such hesitation and I think you will find that there are many people out there that will agree with you and support you.

Daniel P
Daniel P
1 year ago

The first step to rebelling is having the courage to say what you really think. Fortunately, this can still happen in the US.

I concluded some time ago that I was done worrying about who I might offend and I concluded that just holding the opinions I do, voting them, and then sharing them with like minded people was not enough, that I had to actively let people know what I am thinking and consequences be damned.

To that end, I went out and purchased t-shirts that express my own counter culture opinions and I wear them knowing that I will be judged by some.

Among these…

-Team TERF
-No Child is Born in the Wrong Body
-Mom’s For Liberty DAD
-I Identify as a Threat – My pronouns are “Try Me”
-Woke is the New Stupid

I have found that I get a fair number of shocked looks but nobody has come up and screamed at me yet and I have had a number of people come up and very quietly tell me that they love these shirts, particularly “Woke is the New Stupid”. That they feel they need to almost whisper it to me tells me all I need to know.

I urge all those with similar counter left views to do the same. Actively put out into the world your opinion without fear of offending people or being judged or to avoid conflict. Believe me, the other side has no such hesitation and I think you will find that there are many people out there that will agree with you and support you.

Stephen Quilley
Stephen Quilley
1 year ago

He was magnificent on Megyn Kelley show just now

Stephen Quilley
Stephen Quilley
1 year ago

He was magnificent on Megyn Kelley show just now