The reason you're having trouble understanding this is because you're a relatively sane person :) I would characterise it as a religious cult. It has gnostic elements. It wants to build a kind of "Heaven on Earth" (and in doing so will ironically create "Hell on Earth"). Whether it makes sense or not, you can see the results of similar attempts and they're some of the worst moments in human history. We need to stop these total nut-jobs before they do any more damage.
But why? Just what is the outcome of all of this? I cannot wrap my head around whatever it is they may be working towards. Worldwide Communism? Cool, then it collapses, then what? Just what do these cultural, political, and financial retards want?
People underestimate the role of various personality disorders and cult mentality in many centers of power.
They're imposing that on everyone else simply because that's how they think, they can't escape it and don't really see another way
It's rational from the point of view of very dysfunctional individuals, and they spread these thinking/feeling patterns to many people/institutions around them
Totally agree. One of the more subtle ways that woke/communism causes so much destruction is by allowing total lunatics to rise to the top. Because it's all based on socially constructed knowledge it cannot discern quality leadership and is easily manipulated. This is a prime target for malignant narcissistic personality types. And then they're part of the cycle of destruction. A hierarchy more based on merit would be more discerning. Thinking of some of our leaders in the West (Jacinda, Blair, Bush) I wonder if the democratic political hierarchy has ever been discerning and that it's more separation of powers that's kept things pretty ok?
I too am inclined to think that the way the political system narrowly understood (party, congress/parliament politics etc.) has worked wasn't leading to a situation where the better leaders are put in positions of power (although it's much harder to determine/ discern what would constitute merit in that regard – perhaps that's part of the problem, that the general public hasn't learned to do that yet), and that there's always been a considerable amount of dysfunction and corruption at the very top
What kept the whole thing from falling apart is strong institutions – separation of powers, respect for the rule of law, professionalism in various important places (e.g., universities) etc. – and those indeed appear to have been persistently undermined throughout the previous decades, leading to the current situation, I think
I think selecting leaders is fundamentally flawed. It's mostly based on consensus which is a kind of mass subjectivity. There's very little room for evidence apart from a very broad view of the incumbent. So my "solution" would be more devolution and a smaller government so that the degree of this unsolvable problem is reduced. First you would need to persuade enough people of that. And once woke types have gotten in, they're making things worse and people tend to want more government to fix their new problems. I'm not sure we're solving this deeper problem for a while unfortunately. And like you say, the woke types have no boundaries and want to centralise and collect everything together which weakens the effect of separation of powers and the liberal order. Very rarely do things decentralise and it tends to be all at once after a complete breakdown of society. Not sure what to do with that TBH.
I agree that there should be general appropriate rolling back/decentralization of many governmental functions and a change to how people understand the role of the government.
But that connects to the first point, and how people should evaluate politicians.
I don't know how it can be done, but a good rule of thumb to start with might be: anything that would sound grandiose/out of touch/not practically clear if it came from a friend/family member, should receive a similar response if it comes from a politician. Politics/politicians are not on a different plane than the reality occupied by most people - if something looks good on paper/in slogans but can't be explained simply and in practical terms, or contains too many holes in the story/unknowns, it should be devalued and ideally thrown out of the game.
I personally work on analyzing common arguments that have become the sort of infectious common wisdom these days, but when you inquire into them it become apparent that they can't withstand scrutiny. It does require professional/academic background to do that kind of analysis, but more and more people are interested in producing these kinds of stuff, and I think that a lot of people would be interested in consuming them. There's no reason that the general public be constantly bombarded with "expertise"-based jargon that has been developed behind closed doors by a bunch of politically motivated "scholars", which then parachute their defective products onto the public square with "no debate". Common people can and should be equipped to debate those things, it's just that the structure of the "public square" should evolve a bit.
I am optimistic in that I think that in the coming years we'll probably see a major decentralization of many of the functions that have traditionally been pursued only in close academic circles. The current situation is grossly unfair, ineffective, and unjustified, and will gradually decompose on its own, I think, because it makes no sense.
Also, I'm optimistic because many completely unaccountable and hollow institutions that are in fact a refuge for a bunch of psychos pretending to be "Experts" have been exposed throughout the pandemic.
That's of course a multi-angle story and I have multiple small stories to add – we can continue the conversation in other opportunities...
Thanks for the recommendation. I share some of your optimism. Especially on the "people are starting to notice that the experts are not and are seeking alternatives". I hope it will drive better quality engagement from regular people. We'll see. It was nice chatting with you 🙏
The reason you're having trouble understanding this is because you're a relatively sane person :) I would characterise it as a religious cult. It has gnostic elements. It wants to build a kind of "Heaven on Earth" (and in doing so will ironically create "Hell on Earth"). Whether it makes sense or not, you can see the results of similar attempts and they're some of the worst moments in human history. We need to stop these total nut-jobs before they do any more damage.
But why? Just what is the outcome of all of this? I cannot wrap my head around whatever it is they may be working towards. Worldwide Communism? Cool, then it collapses, then what? Just what do these cultural, political, and financial retards want?
People underestimate the role of various personality disorders and cult mentality in many centers of power.
They're imposing that on everyone else simply because that's how they think, they can't escape it and don't really see another way
It's rational from the point of view of very dysfunctional individuals, and they spread these thinking/feeling patterns to many people/institutions around them
Totally agree. One of the more subtle ways that woke/communism causes so much destruction is by allowing total lunatics to rise to the top. Because it's all based on socially constructed knowledge it cannot discern quality leadership and is easily manipulated. This is a prime target for malignant narcissistic personality types. And then they're part of the cycle of destruction. A hierarchy more based on merit would be more discerning. Thinking of some of our leaders in the West (Jacinda, Blair, Bush) I wonder if the democratic political hierarchy has ever been discerning and that it's more separation of powers that's kept things pretty ok?
I too am inclined to think that the way the political system narrowly understood (party, congress/parliament politics etc.) has worked wasn't leading to a situation where the better leaders are put in positions of power (although it's much harder to determine/ discern what would constitute merit in that regard – perhaps that's part of the problem, that the general public hasn't learned to do that yet), and that there's always been a considerable amount of dysfunction and corruption at the very top
What kept the whole thing from falling apart is strong institutions – separation of powers, respect for the rule of law, professionalism in various important places (e.g., universities) etc. – and those indeed appear to have been persistently undermined throughout the previous decades, leading to the current situation, I think
I think selecting leaders is fundamentally flawed. It's mostly based on consensus which is a kind of mass subjectivity. There's very little room for evidence apart from a very broad view of the incumbent. So my "solution" would be more devolution and a smaller government so that the degree of this unsolvable problem is reduced. First you would need to persuade enough people of that. And once woke types have gotten in, they're making things worse and people tend to want more government to fix their new problems. I'm not sure we're solving this deeper problem for a while unfortunately. And like you say, the woke types have no boundaries and want to centralise and collect everything together which weakens the effect of separation of powers and the liberal order. Very rarely do things decentralise and it tends to be all at once after a complete breakdown of society. Not sure what to do with that TBH.
I agree that there should be general appropriate rolling back/decentralization of many governmental functions and a change to how people understand the role of the government.
But that connects to the first point, and how people should evaluate politicians.
I don't know how it can be done, but a good rule of thumb to start with might be: anything that would sound grandiose/out of touch/not practically clear if it came from a friend/family member, should receive a similar response if it comes from a politician. Politics/politicians are not on a different plane than the reality occupied by most people - if something looks good on paper/in slogans but can't be explained simply and in practical terms, or contains too many holes in the story/unknowns, it should be devalued and ideally thrown out of the game.
I personally work on analyzing common arguments that have become the sort of infectious common wisdom these days, but when you inquire into them it become apparent that they can't withstand scrutiny. It does require professional/academic background to do that kind of analysis, but more and more people are interested in producing these kinds of stuff, and I think that a lot of people would be interested in consuming them. There's no reason that the general public be constantly bombarded with "expertise"-based jargon that has been developed behind closed doors by a bunch of politically motivated "scholars", which then parachute their defective products onto the public square with "no debate". Common people can and should be equipped to debate those things, it's just that the structure of the "public square" should evolve a bit.
I am optimistic in that I think that in the coming years we'll probably see a major decentralization of many of the functions that have traditionally been pursued only in close academic circles. The current situation is grossly unfair, ineffective, and unjustified, and will gradually decompose on its own, I think, because it makes no sense.
Also, I'm optimistic because many completely unaccountable and hollow institutions that are in fact a refuge for a bunch of psychos pretending to be "Experts" have been exposed throughout the pandemic.
That's of course a multi-angle story and I have multiple small stories to add – we can continue the conversation in other opportunities...
Relatedly, I just read this: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/communist-chic-american-grade-schools-angela-davis
Excellent read!
Thanks for the recommendation. I share some of your optimism. Especially on the "people are starting to notice that the experts are not and are seeking alternatives". I hope it will drive better quality engagement from regular people. We'll see. It was nice chatting with you 🙏