In an age of darkness, glimpses of light are rare — but all the brighter for it. As the censorious progressivism embraced by Joe Biden and much of his Democratic party grows into an increasingly pervasive quasi-religion, ordinary people are finding ways to push back. Like democratic Leftists in the Cold War, old-style liberals are becoming a key force in challenging today's new orthodoxies.
And this rising tide of liberal apostasy, coupled with a growing pushback from grassroots businesses and consumers, represents a far more profound challenge to the established order than the one routinely mounted by conservatives. In the Renaissance, the impetus for change did not come from Jews, Muslims, devil-worshippers or pagans, but devout Christians such as Erasmus, Luther and Calvin.
In our era, the most powerful critics of progressive theology once again tilt to the Left: Andrew Sullivan, Matt Taibbi, Ruy Teixeira, to name but three. Their apostasy rises to uphold the basic principles once central to liberalism — equality of opportunity, free speech, and open inquiry. This battle is also reminiscent of the struggle waged by the Renaissance critics of the all-powerful Catholic Church. Today, it’s not bishops or popes who seek control, but the oligarchs and their media platforms which, with the sometimes exception of Twitter, favour a censorship regime that brands dissidents largely as purveyors of “misinformation”.
Like earlier apostates, religious or scientific, ours face an uphill struggle. They must contend with forces within the C-suite and, particularly, academia, where even the sciences are now constrained by ideological edicts. This is where the money flows, often to a host of non-profits, some secretly funded, that spread the gospels of censorship, police reduction, indoctrination in schools and an apocalyptic environmental agenda. One problem the apostates face is therefore an obvious one: despite often impressive media resumes, their research rarely makes it into the mainstream, their voices being carried no further than Twitter, Substack and the more broad-minded corners of the media.
This pushback comes at a propitious time, extending beyond a few dissident intellectuals to the grassroots and business moguls such as Elon Musk, Ken Griffin and Bernie Marcus. The latter, in particular, understand that the new progressive orthodoxy undermines the entire system by embracing anti-capitalist memes and reducing the role of merit in a system built around it. And so a critical front has been the rebellion against ESG (environmental, social, governance) standards. Many US states have moved to take their pension funds out of firms that embrace this ideology; some investment houses, notably Vanguard and upstart Thrive Asset Management, are eschewing corporate policies that stress climate change and other issues over fiduciary obligation to investors.. The fact that returns to ESG firms have been poor, when compared with those tied to fossil fuels and basic industries, could presage a further awakening among financial and business leaders that the balance sheet, rather than ideological back-slapping, constitutes the primary mission of business.
More important still, apostasy is also rising among the general population. The pressure for reparations, for example, is opposed by upwards of two-thirds of Americans. All major ethnic groups, notes Pew, reject race quotas, including African-Americans; overall, almost three in four oppose this, as do a majority of both Democrats and Republicans.
In the race debate, the role of black apostates is particularly critical. As John McWhorter has long argued, preferential policies encourage “therapeutic alienation” among black people and other minorities — leading some to adopt a mentality of “anger and scapegoating”, instead of doing “the work needed for success”. In the bizarre world of modern progressivism, any opposition to this agenda is “racist”, even if it comes from people who support equal rights and access to opportunity. Critics of race-based discrimination such as McWhorter and Glenn Loury are far from Klansmen incarnate.
Similarly, assaults on European culture have proven unlikely to win over the masses in these countries, the bulk of whom still express some pride in their heritage. The notion that Western societies are eternally oppressive and racist seems a bit of a stretch given that millions of Africans, Middle Easterners, and south Asians continue to flock to these countries, largely to experience higher levels of economic and cultural freedom. The progressive assault on heritage also is likely to stir up far-Right sentiment, as we can see in France, Denmark, and, perhaps most dangerously, Germany.
The ever-more edgy cultural agenda of the Left, particularly its obsession with transgenderism, provides additional fuel for apostasy. People generally believe in the existence of two genders, and are hostile to efforts to impose either sexual or explicitly political curricula on young people. The idea of parental rights, for example — making sure parents are informed if their child decides to transition — has broad support, including nearly four-fifths of Californians, reflecting what appear to be national trends. In defiance of the transgender advocacy from the White House down, the opposition to sporting categories based on gender, rather than sex, has actually grown over the last two years, with even more Democrats now opposed to the practice than in favour.
Critically — and, no doubt, shocking for some — many opposing the progressive agenda are themselves minorities. In Britain and Europe, for example, Muslims tend to be more religious and socially conservative than whites, and Indians, particularly Hindus, have been drifting Right-wards for a generation. In America, surveys show that foreign-born Americans are also more culturally conservative than the native-born.
Perhaps the most economically significant apostasy relates to climate-change policy. Despite growing moves to censor contrary opinions, here the liberal apostates are not classic deniers or oil company executives, but respected scientists such as former Obama advisor Steve Koonin, and climate scientists Roger Pielke and Judith Curry. Even some environmentalists — including Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore — openly denounce “Net Zero” and “de-growth” policies as both impractical and deeply flawed. They recognise that these policies are already leading to the immiseration of poorer people, particularly in California and Germany. They are not calling for an end to climate change mitigation, but for policies that are more realistic and less economically damaging for the working and middle classes.
And then there are grassroots protests at European governments’ attempts to impose emission reductions on farmers and ban chemical fertilisers — regulatory moves at a time when food prices are rising throughout the West. Efforts to reduce agricultural output, now being suggested in the United States and Canada, also could have dire consequences for billions in the developing world. It’s hardly surprising, then, that there is growing scepticism about climate policies globally; in surveys, it barely registers as a priority for people either in Africa or the US where, according to Gallup, climate is stated as a primary concern for barely 2% of the population.
Other troubles, notably the loss of industry amid soaring energy costs, are already creating a popular backlash, which has been a boon for the far-Right in Germany and Italy, among others. Some centrist regimes have taken fright, with France’s Emmanuel Macron stepping back from climate extremism. Less than a year ago, Germany signed an EU target to ban the sale of cars with internal combustion engines by 2035, but quickly backtracked.
Overall, for all the talk of ideological polarisation, public opinion may well be tilting more towards the apostates than those of the progressive zealots. Despite the media profile of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow "Squad" members, the majority of Democrat members consider themselves moderate or conservative, while barely one in four sees themselves as “very liberal”.
Of course, even with public support, supporters of traditional liberal values face a number of challenges when it comes to enacting meaningful political change. But there is some good news. Many companies are now rethinking their marketing strategies in the face of negative consumer reaction. There are even glimmers of hope for liberal apostasy in some big cities, as demonstrated by the election of New York’s pro-police Eric Adams and San Francisco’s recall of progressive school board members.
As was the case during the Reformation, the apostate’s course is still not an easy one. But their critique remains critical to undermining the current progressive theology — a far more effective weapon than the reactionary antics of DeSantis, which are focused primarily on Right-leaning GOP voters. In contrast, the apostates speak the same language and share many of the values that once constituted progressive ideals. They are, in other words, both the key to restoring rationality — and to keeping liberalism alive for future generations.
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.
SubscribeI wish I could share the author’s somewhat muted optimism for the future. I just can’t right now. There’s something wrong, something deeper at play, when all the institutional and political elite share the same absurd beliefs that are so strongly opposed by the avg voter.
The main political parties in Britain are virtually carbon copies of each other. There is no choice for voters. The same thing is happening in Canada and Australia. Maybe there’s hope yet for the US to lead by example, but the whole political system seems dysfunctional right now.
I hope I’m wrong.
You’re not, sadly. The leaders of the mainstream parties do not want to risk the opprobrium of THE PEOPLE WHO COUNT – the opinion formers; the narrative setters. They don’t care what the plebs (a.k.a. the voters) think.
I believe they care what the plebs think, but only to the extent of demanding the right to control it – by way of their existing dominance of all the major media and their growing insistence that the Internet must be brought to heel to control “misinformation,” by which they mean anything they disagree with.
I believe they care what the plebs think, but only to the extent of demanding the right to control it – by way of their existing dominance of all the major media and their growing insistence that the Internet must be brought to heel to control “misinformation,” by which they mean anything they disagree with.
There’s an argument (Cliodynamics) that the Elite produce too many children for the number of Elite occupations available and so the Elite children create what they see as ‘worthwhile’ jobs. These ‘worthwhile’ jobs are often disconnected from other peoples’ day to day concerns. In the end the ‘Old Elite’ collapses under the burden of this activity and, after a period of chaos(!), a new smaller Elite comes to power.
I rather expect we are in that period of chaos and sooner or later the Overton Window of acceptable political stances will snap back. Could the ‘liberal apostates’ form the New Elite or are they merely a trigger for this end to chaos?
We will know the end of the old Elite is nigh when contrary opinions are once more aired with impunity – but we are not there yet.
Excellent comment. I must admit my mind immediately sprang to Boris!
There’s no doubt that the elites are out of touch, like the Court of Louis XVI. Whether things turn out the same way depends a lot on whether our culture of enlightenment, probity and integrity can reassert itself. An each way bet, I fear.
Interesting theory. Think I’ve heard it before -overproduction of elites. Makes sense.
Excellent comment. I must admit my mind immediately sprang to Boris!
There’s no doubt that the elites are out of touch, like the Court of Louis XVI. Whether things turn out the same way depends a lot on whether our culture of enlightenment, probity and integrity can reassert itself. An each way bet, I fear.
Interesting theory. Think I’ve heard it before -overproduction of elites. Makes sense.
The USA has the advantage of having a large amount of power still residing with individual states. This gives a real time comparison of how different political policies and ideologies play out.
As Democrat controlled states and cities invariably degerate in to crime ridden, filthy, insolvent, degenerate pits, while those implementing right-wing policies prosper, it becomes increasingly difficult for the Left to defend their foolish ideas and dogma,
The problem for the successful states is keeping out the fools who didn’t learn their lesson in the pits they are deserting. and who bring their poisionous, destructive ideas with them.
Right on Marcus. As a Conservative Leftugee that fled a Blue State for a Red State, I can tell you that you are on the money.
The States are the perfect laboratory for Democracy and this is a big problem for the “Nationalist Left” that wants everything controlled by the Central Planner.
I honestly think progressives are immune to reality and won’t change one bit. So much of what they promote – transgenderism, net zero energy policies, etc, is completely disconnected from reality.
Their tactic is to redefine language to support their world-views. They are having considerable success.
Indeed. I think that ‘In America, surveys show that foreign-born Americans are also more culturally conservative than the native-born.’ should have concluded ‘are less educationally-deranged than the native-born’.
Their tactic is to redefine language to support their world-views. They are having considerable success.
Indeed. I think that ‘In America, surveys show that foreign-born Americans are also more culturally conservative than the native-born.’ should have concluded ‘are less educationally-deranged than the native-born’.
I like the sentiment, but I am not optimistic about the wokeists coming to realise that their policies have terrible consequences. Such people never have. You know the argument of course because it is well trodden. That communism hasn’t failed, because it hasn’t been tried. It’s a circular argument and a religious one. If the ideology isn’t working in practice, then the practice is: wrong/insufficient/betrayed.
Right on Marcus. As a Conservative Leftugee that fled a Blue State for a Red State, I can tell you that you are on the money.
The States are the perfect laboratory for Democracy and this is a big problem for the “Nationalist Left” that wants everything controlled by the Central Planner.
I honestly think progressives are immune to reality and won’t change one bit. So much of what they promote – transgenderism, net zero energy policies, etc, is completely disconnected from reality.
I like the sentiment, but I am not optimistic about the wokeists coming to realise that their policies have terrible consequences. Such people never have. You know the argument of course because it is well trodden. That communism hasn’t failed, because it hasn’t been tried. It’s a circular argument and a religious one. If the ideology isn’t working in practice, then the practice is: wrong/insufficient/betrayed.
I agree with you. We live in a profoundly demoralising time of destabilisation and destruction of a long heritage of cultural development and freedom. And there is a massive different between freedom and the notion of human rights; the latter being imposed punitively to reduce the freedom of the majority. Just consider the appalling concept of the ’15-minute’ city and its implications for our freedom as just one example. Herd the population into urban living, stop them from owning cars, deny access to air travel, shackle people with all sorts of sanctions – and you have an enormous population under almost total control.
Especially when you add a CBDC into the mix.
Especially when you add a CBDC into the mix.
I suspect that the author was a cheerleader for a lot of this stuff not so long ago and the issue is not the left giving up a bit of ground till the noise dies down.
As to how we got to this point, this is the by far the best analysis I have heard on the subject https://extradeadjcb.substack.com/p/how-did-the-taliban-win
Dave Rubin thought it was ok for gay men to buy new born babies and rip them away from their natural mothers to gratify a personal ‘need’. The new ‘classic liberals’ have everything and absolutely nothing in common with their classical heroes, and because of that the project is still born
“Rip away” is a somewhat emotive phrasing! I’m a gay man but not passionate about the “right” of gay men to have children, because obviously a woman has to be involved. However history has hardly lacked huge numbers of instances where a woman doesn’t actually want to raise her child, or cannot afford to keep it.
The law might be, the natural mother gets first dibs, and if she then doesn’t want to raise it, the gay men she has an arrangement with can turn do so.
There is a real problem with much of the Right – they keep banging on about what now seem as extreme social programmes as much as do the progressive Left. The great majority of people don’t want to go back to 1950s divorce and abortion laws. Until this is recognised, they will continue to go down to political defeat.
Sometimes I get a bit confused on this website. I don’t like the trans ideology that seems to be the flavour of the day. But it seems to me there are a lot of people on this site who are simply anti trans. There’s a big difference IMO. Same thing with gay people. If a couple wants children, all the power to them. You live your life, I live mine, and we all kick back for a beer afterwards.
I’ve watched 4 new borns breast feed with their mum – it’s touch, eye contact, smell, voice (familiar for 9 months), heart beat (familiar for 9 months)….Honestly, ‘rip’ doesn’t do justice to the violence of depriving a baby of that.And to be honest, new born babies need a mother. If not the natural mother because of death, rejection…whatever reason, then a woman. Either way, surrogacy should be banned.
The bigger question relates to demographic collapse. The Amish, Mennonites and Israel are about the only groups avoiding fertility crash in modern societies – including most newly modernizing societies. So what ever your feelings about the 1950s (and I think you are not wrong) … liberalism has cooked its own goose. The whole thing is about to collapse for all sorts of reasons. Whether conservatives (and that’s not ‘the right’) can come up with something that WILL work and sustain some of the clear benefits that have come with modernity remains to be seen. As far as I can see only some religiously rooted form of distributism could do the job
‘ As far as I can see only some religiously rooted form of distributism could do the job’ that’s the first time I’ve seen that idea mooted anywhere – I think it is spot on.
‘ As far as I can see only some religiously rooted form of distributism could do the job’ that’s the first time I’ve seen that idea mooted anywhere – I think it is spot on.
Sometimes I get a bit confused on this website. I don’t like the trans ideology that seems to be the flavour of the day. But it seems to me there are a lot of people on this site who are simply anti trans. There’s a big difference IMO. Same thing with gay people. If a couple wants children, all the power to them. You live your life, I live mine, and we all kick back for a beer afterwards.
I’ve watched 4 new borns breast feed with their mum – it’s touch, eye contact, smell, voice (familiar for 9 months), heart beat (familiar for 9 months)….Honestly, ‘rip’ doesn’t do justice to the violence of depriving a baby of that.And to be honest, new born babies need a mother. If not the natural mother because of death, rejection…whatever reason, then a woman. Either way, surrogacy should be banned.
The bigger question relates to demographic collapse. The Amish, Mennonites and Israel are about the only groups avoiding fertility crash in modern societies – including most newly modernizing societies. So what ever your feelings about the 1950s (and I think you are not wrong) … liberalism has cooked its own goose. The whole thing is about to collapse for all sorts of reasons. Whether conservatives (and that’s not ‘the right’) can come up with something that WILL work and sustain some of the clear benefits that have come with modernity remains to be seen. As far as I can see only some religiously rooted form of distributism could do the job
“Rip away” is a somewhat emotive phrasing! I’m a gay man but not passionate about the “right” of gay men to have children, because obviously a woman has to be involved. However history has hardly lacked huge numbers of instances where a woman doesn’t actually want to raise her child, or cannot afford to keep it.
The law might be, the natural mother gets first dibs, and if she then doesn’t want to raise it, the gay men she has an arrangement with can turn do so.
There is a real problem with much of the Right – they keep banging on about what now seem as extreme social programmes as much as do the progressive Left. The great majority of people don’t want to go back to 1950s divorce and abortion laws. Until this is recognised, they will continue to go down to political defeat.
Since covid I have taken a deeper interest in what has been happening – very little of it reported in the MSM – which has led to me seeing that there is a Uniparty in many western countries that is not really in control.
Each day I find out something more disturbing. Today I have been reading an article on Unlimited Hangout – an article by Whitney Webb and Iain Davis about SDG16.
This is a quote:
“A key document referenced by the UN Charter is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was first accepted by all members of the United Nations on December 10, 1948.
The preamble of the Declaration recognises that the “equal and inalienable rights” of all human beings are the “foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” After that, “inalienable rights” are never again mentioned in the entire Declaration.
“Human rights” are nothing like “inalienable rights.” they are man made and given by some human beings to others – that is what the UN , WHO and others are concerned with.
In March of this year, The International Commission of Jurists ( an influential UN stakeholder with a Human Rights award) published its 8 March Principles
In “8 March Principles,” the ICJ advocates:
With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage. Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them.”
Look around – you see where we are going.
Ouch. Fire the UN into the sun.
Ouch. Fire the UN into the sun.
You are right! Wonderful to read of free thinking rebels! But our Brave like JKR cannot defeat the 1984 Newspeak of the BBC. We have no Dutch farmers or Canadian truckers on warpath. Here, the Equality/Diversity/Identity Mind Virus has triggered a ‘Great Derangement” in our failing wailing ‘Progressive’ Elite. And after a decade of relentless propaganda on this, Climate/Net Zero/Lockdown Tyranny and Brexit Mania, the hapless if property rich GroupThunk London Clerisy have now succumbed to a ‘Great Detachment’ from us – the people, and espcially those oiky uneducated raycist monsters beyond the Watford Gap. Great Derangement to Great Detachment in the decade since the State unlocked the identity mind virus. They have their gold plated pensions and screw work wfh fortresses..but pity them! Their girls are cats. Watch USSR Traumazone on iPlayer. We are Ep 3 in our own nightmarish UK Traumazone.
I’ve watched Traumazone, a great series. I think it’s pretty clear that despite your hyperbolic comments, the UK is in nothing like the situation of Russia in the 1980s and 1990s.
I’ve watched Traumazone, a great series. I think it’s pretty clear that despite your hyperbolic comments, the UK is in nothing like the situation of Russia in the 1980s and 1990s.
I am even less optimistic than you are.
In Victoria, Australia Daniel Andrews was voted back with a “Danslide” (2022) in spite of the obvious excesses of Covid lock-downs, and Victoria Police‘s clear unsuitability for purpose. Daniel Andrews recently hosted a drag-queen reading session to young children in our parliament house fawning over cross-dressing middle-aged men whose need to have access to young children he met, calling them artists. Meanwhile many of us are crippled with the unexpected spike in mortgage rates to the extent we cannot heat our homes in winter. Drag-queen flamboyance is meant to warm us up apparently.
Our courts release murderous, remorseless paedophiles back into the unsuspecting community quoting the Geneva Convention. Are we at war against our own children?
While we have all the laws/regulations/institutions/bodies anyone could possibly think of, we still need Royal Commissions into paedophilia for example, the findings of which are then suppressed for 80(!) years.
How does Australia have such a squeaky-clean reputation?
Easy: crimes never investigated = crimes never happened = fabulous crime statistics. Victoria Police are also known to lie about crimes they cannot wriggle out of investigating.
Public servant witnesses to crimes punishable by 10 years in jail/worse are themselves forced to fight at court as accused criminals in admitted silencing attempts as in my case, if they cannot be ignored and intimidated into silence otherwise. Victoria Police tried to entrap me at least twice in the process also. Advice to anyone in a similar position in Australia: self-represent. Prosecutors bluff. There is a silver-lining: witnesses/victims of serious crimes don’t have a voice in Australia, but accused criminals do. I keep using mine.
Every election should be scrutinised. It is so easy to blame “voters” for results which clearly defy reason.
Just how powerless we are in Australia is probably unbelievable even to Australians. Having exhausted all legal avenues to report crimes I witnessed as a public servant, I have been making disclosures on every platform possible. My comments keep disappearing without any explanation from the Unherd platform also. See below the comment I made 2x on the https://staging.unherd.com/2022/02/australia-is-ruled-by-clowns/ article:
— quote starts —
The scariest consequence of this is Australia’s fake law and order hidden behind fudged crime statistics.
Learning that trying to report crimes is a waste of time at best irrespective of how serious a crime is in theory, people give up trying to report crimes. Since our police never had a duty of care or accountability to anyone but to their associates in reality, while always had a monopoly on what is a crime, if police refuse to investigate a crime, it never happened.
Australia’s crime-hiding is so successful, Melbourne was voted as one of the top 5 most liveable cities in the world in 2023, in spite of a crime epidemic spilling into even our most expensive suburbs. And, no one dares mentioning bikie crimes in Melbourne for good reasons.
While people new to Australia might find open admiration for violent criminals e.g. Ned Kelly or “Chopper” Read odd, it takes experiencing being blocked repeatedly from trying to report crimes punishable by 10 years in jail/worse as a public servant witness to such crimes in inner-Melbourne, seeing Victoria Police officers subsequently participate in the very crimes in broad daylight that they blocked from being reported to realise, how bad Australia’s actual lawlessness is.
If witnesses to serious crimes cannot bear the burden of silence, they can expect Victoria Police force them to fight at court in admitted silencing attempts. If the hapless crime witness is lucky, they will spot Victoria Police‘s entrapment/framing attempts, realise that seemingly pointless, bizarre crimes at absurd scale they start experiencing are to discredit crime witnesses/victims, because why would anybody do such a thing?
Examples of this in the 21st century include cyber-crimes using technology not known at the time to civilian experts, e.g. smart-meter hacking from 2011, car-electronics hacking from 2015, iPhone hacking from 2016, Faraday Cage penetration from 2022. Criminality is so risk-free in Australia, gangs entertain themselves with terrorising crime witnesses for many years in both physical and cyber-space without any risk of prosecution. It is the witness turned victim who has to fear law-enforcement as well as public opinion, thugs committing heinous crimes grow old without any trouble.
When trying to find ways to defend themselves against debilitating cyber-crimes, the witness/victim is dismissed, ridiculed, humiliated, patronised and treated like a raging lunatic by civilian experts, because they are assumed to have imagined the cyber-crimes, and thus they are deemed unreliable about all crimes.
It took the Optus hack and the Medibank hack in 2022 for our Minister for Cyber Security Clare O’Neil to discover that Australia had no dedicated cyber-crime fighting entities or resources – about six months into being our Minister for Cyber Security. Her own incompetence has embarrassed Australia greatly as she finds it necessary to make speeches about hackback and Australia to become the world’s most cyber-secure country by 2030.
Since our authorities missed out on decades of incremental learning about tech used in crimes, Australia is, and likely remain a playground for cyber-criminals, including insiders from the Australian Signals Directorate moonlighting in cyber-mercenary roles alongside bikies like the MEEHANs.
People may live for decades in a city like Melbourne in blissful ignorance of Australia’s actual lawlessness.
I am one of those hapless crime witnesses who knew nothing about Australia’s lawlessness 1988-2008 living within a 10 km radius of where crimes against me started in 2009. I never called the highschool-dropout IT Helpdesk Assistant stalker ex-coworker from the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) a friend of any kind. He added me to his already extensive list of concurrent targets, when I became an e-commerce world champion in my postgrad studies while working as a Business Analyst at the VEC. Last cyber-crime about 4 hours ago, last bikie visit to my home overnight. I stopped trying to report any crimes in 2018.
My comment with the same content (I fixed one typo in this version) disappeared in seconds on 26 June 2023. Let’s see if my second attempt stays.
— quote ends —
Neither of the 2 comment attempts is visible on the article’s page or in my profile section.
Australia’s crime-hiding efforts are so successful, people live here for decades without knowing what lies beneath fake crime statistics, so election results may not defy reason. I knew nothing about Australia’s lawlessness either 1988-2008. In 2009 a stalker IT Helpdesk Assistant coworker at the time added me to his already extensive list of targets. His unpunished crimes are ongoing to this day. Having exhausted all legal avenues to have the crimes stopped, seeing how risk-free committing devastating crimes is in Australia, I have been making public interest disclosures on every possible platform since 2018, when Victoria Police refused to investigate even a violent physical assault against me by a bikie I did not know at the time. I found out his identity because he also attacked me on LinkedIn. The brazenness of Australia’s criminals says volumes about Australia’s lawlessness.
Some of my posts/comments have survived censorship. If you want to know some of what Australia is hiding, please look up my name. #Ididnotstaysilent
Just how powerless we are in Australia is probably unbelievable even to Australians. Having exhausted all legal avenues to report crimes I witnessed as a public servant, I have been making disclosures on every platform possible. My comments keep disappearing without any explanation from the Unherd platform also. See below the comment I made 2x on the https://staging.unherd.com/2022/02/australia-is-ruled-by-clowns/ article:
— quote starts —
The scariest consequence of this is Australia’s fake law and order hidden behind fudged crime statistics.
Learning that trying to report crimes is a waste of time at best irrespective of how serious a crime is in theory, people give up trying to report crimes. Since our police never had a duty of care or accountability to anyone but to their associates in reality, while always had a monopoly on what is a crime, if police refuse to investigate a crime, it never happened.
Australia’s crime-hiding is so successful, Melbourne was voted as one of the top 5 most liveable cities in the world in 2023, in spite of a crime epidemic spilling into even our most expensive suburbs. And, no one dares mentioning bikie crimes in Melbourne for good reasons.
While people new to Australia might find open admiration for violent criminals e.g. Ned Kelly or “Chopper” Read odd, it takes experiencing being blocked repeatedly from trying to report crimes punishable by 10 years in jail/worse as a public servant witness to such crimes in inner-Melbourne, seeing Victoria Police officers subsequently participate in the very crimes in broad daylight that they blocked from being reported to realise, how bad Australia’s actual lawlessness is.
If witnesses to serious crimes cannot bear the burden of silence, they can expect Victoria Police force them to fight at court in admitted silencing attempts. If the hapless crime witness is lucky, they will spot Victoria Police‘s entrapment/framing attempts, realise that seemingly pointless, bizarre crimes at absurd scale they start experiencing are to discredit crime witnesses/victims, because why would anybody do such a thing?
Examples of this in the 21st century include cyber-crimes using technology not known at the time to civilian experts, e.g. smart-meter hacking from 2011, car-electronics hacking from 2015, iPhone hacking from 2016, Faraday Cage penetration from 2022. Criminality is so risk-free in Australia, gangs entertain themselves with terrorising crime witnesses for many years in both physical and cyber-space without any risk of prosecution. It is the witness turned victim who has to fear law-enforcement as well as public opinion, thugs committing heinous crimes grow old without any trouble.
When trying to find ways to defend themselves against debilitating cyber-crimes, the witness/victim is dismissed, ridiculed, humiliated, patronised and treated like a raging lunatic by civilian experts, because they are assumed to have imagined the cyber-crimes, and thus they are deemed unreliable about all crimes.
It took the Optus hack and the Medibank hack in 2022 for our Minister for Cyber Security Clare O’Neil to discover that Australia had no dedicated cyber-crime fighting entities or resources – about six months into being our Minister for Cyber Security. Her own incompetence has embarrassed Australia greatly as she finds it necessary to make speeches about hackback and Australia to become the world’s most cyber-secure country by 2030.
Since our authorities missed out on decades of incremental learning about tech used in crimes, Australia is, and likely remain a playground for cyber-criminals, including insiders from the Australian Signals Directorate moonlighting in cyber-mercenary roles alongside bikies like the MEEHANs.
People may live for decades in a city like Melbourne in blissful ignorance of Australia’s actual lawlessness.
I am one of those hapless crime witnesses who knew nothing about Australia’s lawlessness 1988-2008 living within a 10 km radius of where crimes against me started in 2009. I never called the highschool-dropout IT Helpdesk Assistant stalker ex-coworker from the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) a friend of any kind. He added me to his already extensive list of concurrent targets, when I became an e-commerce world champion in my postgrad studies while working as a Business Analyst at the VEC. Last cyber-crime about 4 hours ago, last bikie visit to my home overnight. I stopped trying to report any crimes in 2018.
My comment with the same content (I fixed one typo in this version) disappeared in seconds on 26 June 2023. Let’s see if my second attempt stays.
— quote ends —
Neither of the 2 comment attempts is visible on the article’s page or in my profile section.
Australia’s crime-hiding efforts are so successful, people live here for decades without knowing what lies beneath fake crime statistics, so election results may not defy reason. I knew nothing about Australia’s lawlessness either 1988-2008. In 2009 a stalker IT Helpdesk Assistant coworker at the time added me to his already extensive list of targets. His unpunished crimes are ongoing to this day. Having exhausted all legal avenues to have the crimes stopped, seeing how risk-free committing devastating crimes is in Australia, I have been making public interest disclosures on every possible platform since 2018, when Victoria Police refused to investigate even a violent physical assault against me by a bikie I did not know at the time. I found out his identity because he also attacked me on LinkedIn. The brazenness of Australia’s criminals says volumes about Australia’s lawlessness.
Some of my posts/comments have survived censorship. If you want to know some of what Australia is hiding, please look up my name. #Ididnotstaysilent
Every election should be scrutinised. It is so easy to blame “voters” for results which clearly defy reason.
You’re not, sadly. The leaders of the mainstream parties do not want to risk the opprobrium of THE PEOPLE WHO COUNT – the opinion formers; the narrative setters. They don’t care what the plebs (a.k.a. the voters) think.
There’s an argument (Cliodynamics) that the Elite produce too many children for the number of Elite occupations available and so the Elite children create what they see as ‘worthwhile’ jobs. These ‘worthwhile’ jobs are often disconnected from other peoples’ day to day concerns. In the end the ‘Old Elite’ collapses under the burden of this activity and, after a period of chaos(!), a new smaller Elite comes to power.
I rather expect we are in that period of chaos and sooner or later the Overton Window of acceptable political stances will snap back. Could the ‘liberal apostates’ form the New Elite or are they merely a trigger for this end to chaos?
We will know the end of the old Elite is nigh when contrary opinions are once more aired with impunity – but we are not there yet.
The USA has the advantage of having a large amount of power still residing with individual states. This gives a real time comparison of how different political policies and ideologies play out.
As Democrat controlled states and cities invariably degerate in to crime ridden, filthy, insolvent, degenerate pits, while those implementing right-wing policies prosper, it becomes increasingly difficult for the Left to defend their foolish ideas and dogma,
The problem for the successful states is keeping out the fools who didn’t learn their lesson in the pits they are deserting. and who bring their poisionous, destructive ideas with them.
I agree with you. We live in a profoundly demoralising time of destabilisation and destruction of a long heritage of cultural development and freedom. And there is a massive different between freedom and the notion of human rights; the latter being imposed punitively to reduce the freedom of the majority. Just consider the appalling concept of the ’15-minute’ city and its implications for our freedom as just one example. Herd the population into urban living, stop them from owning cars, deny access to air travel, shackle people with all sorts of sanctions – and you have an enormous population under almost total control.
I suspect that the author was a cheerleader for a lot of this stuff not so long ago and the issue is not the left giving up a bit of ground till the noise dies down.
As to how we got to this point, this is the by far the best analysis I have heard on the subject https://extradeadjcb.substack.com/p/how-did-the-taliban-win
Dave Rubin thought it was ok for gay men to buy new born babies and rip them away from their natural mothers to gratify a personal ‘need’. The new ‘classic liberals’ have everything and absolutely nothing in common with their classical heroes, and because of that the project is still born
Since covid I have taken a deeper interest in what has been happening – very little of it reported in the MSM – which has led to me seeing that there is a Uniparty in many western countries that is not really in control.
Each day I find out something more disturbing. Today I have been reading an article on Unlimited Hangout – an article by Whitney Webb and Iain Davis about SDG16.
This is a quote:
“A key document referenced by the UN Charter is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was first accepted by all members of the United Nations on December 10, 1948.
The preamble of the Declaration recognises that the “equal and inalienable rights” of all human beings are the “foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” After that, “inalienable rights” are never again mentioned in the entire Declaration.
“Human rights” are nothing like “inalienable rights.” they are man made and given by some human beings to others – that is what the UN , WHO and others are concerned with.
In March of this year, The International Commission of Jurists ( an influential UN stakeholder with a Human Rights award) published its 8 March Principles
In “8 March Principles,” the ICJ advocates:
With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage. Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them.”
Look around – you see where we are going.
You are right! Wonderful to read of free thinking rebels! But our Brave like JKR cannot defeat the 1984 Newspeak of the BBC. We have no Dutch farmers or Canadian truckers on warpath. Here, the Equality/Diversity/Identity Mind Virus has triggered a ‘Great Derangement” in our failing wailing ‘Progressive’ Elite. And after a decade of relentless propaganda on this, Climate/Net Zero/Lockdown Tyranny and Brexit Mania, the hapless if property rich GroupThunk London Clerisy have now succumbed to a ‘Great Detachment’ from us – the people, and espcially those oiky uneducated raycist monsters beyond the Watford Gap. Great Derangement to Great Detachment in the decade since the State unlocked the identity mind virus. They have their gold plated pensions and screw work wfh fortresses..but pity them! Their girls are cats. Watch USSR Traumazone on iPlayer. We are Ep 3 in our own nightmarish UK Traumazone.
I am even less optimistic than you are.
In Victoria, Australia Daniel Andrews was voted back with a “Danslide” (2022) in spite of the obvious excesses of Covid lock-downs, and Victoria Police‘s clear unsuitability for purpose. Daniel Andrews recently hosted a drag-queen reading session to young children in our parliament house fawning over cross-dressing middle-aged men whose need to have access to young children he met, calling them artists. Meanwhile many of us are crippled with the unexpected spike in mortgage rates to the extent we cannot heat our homes in winter. Drag-queen flamboyance is meant to warm us up apparently.
Our courts release murderous, remorseless paedophiles back into the unsuspecting community quoting the Geneva Convention. Are we at war against our own children?
While we have all the laws/regulations/institutions/bodies anyone could possibly think of, we still need Royal Commissions into paedophilia for example, the findings of which are then suppressed for 80(!) years.
How does Australia have such a squeaky-clean reputation?
Easy: crimes never investigated = crimes never happened = fabulous crime statistics. Victoria Police are also known to lie about crimes they cannot wriggle out of investigating.
Public servant witnesses to crimes punishable by 10 years in jail/worse are themselves forced to fight at court as accused criminals in admitted silencing attempts as in my case, if they cannot be ignored and intimidated into silence otherwise. Victoria Police tried to entrap me at least twice in the process also. Advice to anyone in a similar position in Australia: self-represent. Prosecutors bluff. There is a silver-lining: witnesses/victims of serious crimes don’t have a voice in Australia, but accused criminals do. I keep using mine.
I wish I could share the author’s somewhat muted optimism for the future. I just can’t right now. There’s something wrong, something deeper at play, when all the institutional and political elite share the same absurd beliefs that are so strongly opposed by the avg voter.
The main political parties in Britain are virtually carbon copies of each other. There is no choice for voters. The same thing is happening in Canada and Australia. Maybe there’s hope yet for the US to lead by example, but the whole political system seems dysfunctional right now.
I hope I’m wrong.
I don’t think that the “apostates” will make much difference. It will be the economic suffering from climate change policies — the modern equivalent of Stalin’s Five Year Plans and Mao’s Great Leap Forward — and the injustice of “systemic racism” — the modern equivalent of Mao’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution — that will turn the tide.
Net zero will unleash suffering not seen since the Great Depression. Unfortunately, I think Europe and Britain will be the canary in the coal mine. They are much further along the road than the rest of the world. The economic devastation will be a wake-up call for the rest of the world.
Bill Gates’ utility bill and grocery bill isn’t quite commensurate with his personal wealth, in fact he probably consumes less calories than the Welfare Queens I see around here. Nor does he heat his front room to 50⁰C. But not just Bill but anyone with a few million in the bank and the ear of government isn’t going to be greatly affected by the soaring prices of eggs and cheese and petrol. Hence they promote Net Zero which the elite think is win win, blissfully unaware of the consequences to the rest of us.
What really bugs me is the utter cant from Graunitariot who’ve been campaigning against cheap energy and food for years, just stopping oil, now blaming the Tories and BP for the Cost of Living Crisis. Seriously? You’ve got what you wanted, less consumption. Fine if you’re Polly Toynbee with a million in the bank, not so much of you’re living paycheck to paycheck.
“he probably consumes less calories than the Welfare Queens I see around here”
*fewer
Sorry to be such a bore. Excellent comment really.
I blame predictive texting. And I’m a bit unsure about “less” consumption. Reduced? Dunno.
I blame predictive texting. And I’m a bit unsure about “less” consumption. Reduced? Dunno.
How many MPs used to be farmers, or rail workers, or small business owners? That’s an issue.
Only a few old timers I expect. The rest are clever but clueless.
Only a few old timers I expect. The rest are clever but clueless.
“he probably consumes less calories than the Welfare Queens I see around here”
*fewer
Sorry to be such a bore. Excellent comment really.
How many MPs used to be farmers, or rail workers, or small business owners? That’s an issue.
Bill Gates’ utility bill and grocery bill isn’t quite commensurate with his personal wealth, in fact he probably consumes less calories than the Welfare Queens I see around here. Nor does he heat his front room to 50⁰C. But not just Bill but anyone with a few million in the bank and the ear of government isn’t going to be greatly affected by the soaring prices of eggs and cheese and petrol. Hence they promote Net Zero which the elite think is win win, blissfully unaware of the consequences to the rest of us.
What really bugs me is the utter cant from Graunitariot who’ve been campaigning against cheap energy and food for years, just stopping oil, now blaming the Tories and BP for the Cost of Living Crisis. Seriously? You’ve got what you wanted, less consumption. Fine if you’re Polly Toynbee with a million in the bank, not so much of you’re living paycheck to paycheck.
I agree with all of the above.
We will be eating insects trapped from free movement in our 15 minute cities under surveillance in our homes, in our streets, online and on our credit cards whilst Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates sit down to prime steak on their estates.
Raising our concerns politely, however well structured an argument, won’t make a blind bit of difference. The old school liberals and conservatives do not have the levers of power in this existential battle.
No one you vote for is going to change anything at the ballot box with media, civil servants and education/indoctrination firmly towing the one party line.
Then don’t vote for the mainstream parties!
Then don’t vote for the mainstream parties!
Net zero will unleash suffering not seen since the Great Depression. Unfortunately, I think Europe and Britain will be the canary in the coal mine. They are much further along the road than the rest of the world. The economic devastation will be a wake-up call for the rest of the world.
I agree with all of the above.
We will be eating insects trapped from free movement in our 15 minute cities under surveillance in our homes, in our streets, online and on our credit cards whilst Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates sit down to prime steak on their estates.
Raising our concerns politely, however well structured an argument, won’t make a blind bit of difference. The old school liberals and conservatives do not have the levers of power in this existential battle.
No one you vote for is going to change anything at the ballot box with media, civil servants and education/indoctrination firmly towing the one party line.
I don’t think that the “apostates” will make much difference. It will be the economic suffering from climate change policies — the modern equivalent of Stalin’s Five Year Plans and Mao’s Great Leap Forward — and the injustice of “systemic racism” — the modern equivalent of Mao’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution — that will turn the tide.
I don’t know why the Republicans don’t seize on these issues–indoctrination of children, promoting mutilation of teenagers, the economic effects of climate extremism–brand them The Biden Agenda, and hammer them home at every possible opportunity between now and the 2024 election. Instead, they fritter away political capital on internecine squabbling.
I think it was Mr. Kotkin who said in an earlier Unherd article that the Republicans probably need a period in political exile to get their act together and produce an agenda that can once again win elections. Sad but probably true. Heaven help us if we face four more years of Biden and his support for this madness.
The GOP sucks at politics. That’s probably the most reasonable explanation. Instead of whining about ballot harvesting, get out there and do it better. Find your own billionaires willing to spend money on attorney general elections. Everyone is afraid of Trump. They are afraid he will start a third party and take his voters with him. Suck it up for an election cycle and reap the rewards with the massive influx of independents. They have a couple excellent candidates for party leader that are all but ignored. The GOP needs to be much better.
The GOP sucks at politics. That’s probably the most reasonable explanation. Instead of whining about ballot harvesting, get out there and do it better. Find your own billionaires willing to spend money on attorney general elections. Everyone is afraid of Trump. They are afraid he will start a third party and take his voters with him. Suck it up for an election cycle and reap the rewards with the massive influx of independents. They have a couple excellent candidates for party leader that are all but ignored. The GOP needs to be much better.
I don’t know why the Republicans don’t seize on these issues–indoctrination of children, promoting mutilation of teenagers, the economic effects of climate extremism–brand them The Biden Agenda, and hammer them home at every possible opportunity between now and the 2024 election. Instead, they fritter away political capital on internecine squabbling.
I think it was Mr. Kotkin who said in an earlier Unherd article that the Republicans probably need a period in political exile to get their act together and produce an agenda that can once again win elections. Sad but probably true. Heaven help us if we face four more years of Biden and his support for this madness.
Why should it matter who is sounding the alarm? What matters is the validity of the critique. The author seems to think that the disenchanted liberal will be more likely to get a hearing than a conservative. I don’t share his optimism. Because if the critique is valid it will have to be suppressed at all costs, irrespective of where it came from.
Hence the terms “dog whistle” and “right-wing talking points”. These are supposed to make us back off. We are supposed to care more about not appearing right wing than about having our legitimate objections to outrageous policies heard. But this sleight of hand can only work for so long. At some point people stop worrying about being branded “right wing”. They just want the totalitarianism to stop.
I agree – I think liberals are much more afraid of being cancelled than conservatives. The pressure to conform is much higher.
I agree – I think liberals are much more afraid of being cancelled than conservatives. The pressure to conform is much higher.
Why should it matter who is sounding the alarm? What matters is the validity of the critique. The author seems to think that the disenchanted liberal will be more likely to get a hearing than a conservative. I don’t share his optimism. Because if the critique is valid it will have to be suppressed at all costs, irrespective of where it came from.
Hence the terms “dog whistle” and “right-wing talking points”. These are supposed to make us back off. We are supposed to care more about not appearing right wing than about having our legitimate objections to outrageous policies heard. But this sleight of hand can only work for so long. At some point people stop worrying about being branded “right wing”. They just want the totalitarianism to stop.
It should be obvious that institutions and big brand companies are not monolithic machines. They are staffed and driven by individuals. If those individuals plan to re-educate the masses to a Woke agenda we should know who they are in order to challenge them directly. Too many journalists settle for sniping from the sidelines with: ain’t it awful, where will it all end!
Anyway, there is at least one revealing exposure worth a look: a YouTube interview with Alissa Heinerscheid, the marketing exec behind the BudLight/Dylan Mulvaney fiasco. This self-regarding woman has all the depth and insight of a just-graduated university student. As she trots out the Woke buzzwords it becomes obvious that she sees her job as an opportunity to change the way people think – rather than anything so mundane as increasing beer sales.
Those individuals create a monolithic culture within the organisation and then enforce it officially and unofficially. In the past one could plant seeds of doubt in their minds if you were subtle and used their language. By the mid-2010s that was no longer possible. They began to realise that a frightening out-group exists and Brexit, followed by Trump, made it terrifyingly real for them. Any undermining of their worldview immediately marks one out for exclusion. They are fragile and afraid of all-pervasive dark forces (a sort of white man’s voodoo) that can never be uncovered except by measuring how group X is badly performing. How we overcome this without bloodshed is beyond my ken.
Those individuals create a monolithic culture within the organisation and then enforce it officially and unofficially. In the past one could plant seeds of doubt in their minds if you were subtle and used their language. By the mid-2010s that was no longer possible. They began to realise that a frightening out-group exists and Brexit, followed by Trump, made it terrifyingly real for them. Any undermining of their worldview immediately marks one out for exclusion. They are fragile and afraid of all-pervasive dark forces (a sort of white man’s voodoo) that can never be uncovered except by measuring how group X is badly performing. How we overcome this without bloodshed is beyond my ken.
It should be obvious that institutions and big brand companies are not monolithic machines. They are staffed and driven by individuals. If those individuals plan to re-educate the masses to a Woke agenda we should know who they are in order to challenge them directly. Too many journalists settle for sniping from the sidelines with: ain’t it awful, where will it all end!
Anyway, there is at least one revealing exposure worth a look: a YouTube interview with Alissa Heinerscheid, the marketing exec behind the BudLight/Dylan Mulvaney fiasco. This self-regarding woman has all the depth and insight of a just-graduated university student. As she trots out the Woke buzzwords it becomes obvious that she sees her job as an opportunity to change the way people think – rather than anything so mundane as increasing beer sales.
There’s actually two different kinds of “liberal apostates.” While both abhor the Language Police, only one of the groups operates with humility. A good US comparison would be Bill Maher vs Michael Shellenberger.
While I can appreciate Bill Maher’s pushback. He’s also done a lot to enable the Far Left in the first place. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. This group is basically Fabian Socialists. Anti-religious gradualists that have been pivotal in spurring the culture to the left. Maher is directly in the Center of the US ideological spectrum right now despite being relatively far to the Left. This group believes Christians are no different than the Woke despite the fact that Christians will engage in debate while the Woke will not.
Shellenberger is Center-Lefty from 5 years ago and now sits on the Center Right. He is interested in factual accuracy and is not driven by ideology in his search for truth. He respects people that engage in good faith.
If you want a functional society you need people like Shellenberger directly in the middle. Because they respect ideas from both sides of the ideological spectrum.
There’s actually two different kinds of “liberal apostates.” While both abhor the Language Police, only one of the groups operates with humility. A good US comparison would be Bill Maher vs Michael Shellenberger.
While I can appreciate Bill Maher’s pushback. He’s also done a lot to enable the Far Left in the first place. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. This group is basically Fabian Socialists. Anti-religious gradualists that have been pivotal in spurring the culture to the left. Maher is directly in the Center of the US ideological spectrum right now despite being relatively far to the Left. This group believes Christians are no different than the Woke despite the fact that Christians will engage in debate while the Woke will not.
Shellenberger is Center-Lefty from 5 years ago and now sits on the Center Right. He is interested in factual accuracy and is not driven by ideology in his search for truth. He respects people that engage in good faith.
If you want a functional society you need people like Shellenberger directly in the middle. Because they respect ideas from both sides of the ideological spectrum.
Something similar to what we are experiencing now occurred in the late 15th and early 16th centuries as a consequence of the arrival of the printing press. In 1515, for example, the Diocese of Geneva burnt more than 500 witches – and were only stopped then by a shortage of timber.
Now, as then, I think it’s an attempt by traditional gatekeepers such as university academics and the print media to force continued obedience from the masses by compelling us to pay lip service to what is clearly a collection of straightforward lies.
Still, at least modern-day heretics like Jordan Peterson, J.K. Rowling et al are not being burnt at the stake.
Yet.
Something similar to what we are experiencing now occurred in the late 15th and early 16th centuries as a consequence of the arrival of the printing press. In 1515, for example, the Diocese of Geneva burnt more than 500 witches – and were only stopped then by a shortage of timber.
Now, as then, I think it’s an attempt by traditional gatekeepers such as university academics and the print media to force continued obedience from the masses by compelling us to pay lip service to what is clearly a collection of straightforward lies.
Still, at least modern-day heretics like Jordan Peterson, J.K. Rowling et al are not being burnt at the stake.
Yet.
I found the reference to DeSantis in the subhead of this article quite disturbing. I am precisely in the camp of those “apostate liberals” the author is talking about. Yet if I were an American citizen, I would vote for DeSantis against any “progressive” candidate. And so, I suspect, would some of the liberal apostates the author mentions.
Why? Because that’s the choice. Woke progressives vs. conservatives. Although I suspect “liberal apostasy” would attract many voters, there just isn’t any political party in the U.S. (or Canada) that embodies those ideals. So one has to choose.
I am pro-choice, pro-single-payer healthcare, for gun control and some government intervention in the economy. Those issues are important to me. But not as important as free speech — the backbone of a democratic society — or meritocracy — the only way a modern technological society can function properly.
Conservatives like DeSantis support free speech and meritocracy. Democracy has survived no abortion rights, and it has survived when only private healthcare was available. It cannot survive without free speech and meritocracy. Until 5 minutes ago, liberal and social-democratic parties in the Western world understood the importance of the latter two principles. But no longer.
I long for the days when I could have reasonable arguments with conservatives about things like public healthcare, abortion and guns. But these aren’t those days. There is a much more important battle to fight, and I know which side I’m on. Would that there was a political party in the centre that upheld these values, but there isn’t anymore. So DeSantis — or any conservative who values free speech and meritocracy — it must be. For the time being at least.
I found the reference to DeSantis in the subhead of this article quite disturbing. I am precisely in the camp of those “apostate liberals” the author is talking about. Yet if I were an American citizen, I would vote for DeSantis against any “progressive” candidate. And so, I suspect, would some of the liberal apostates the author mentions.
Why? Because that’s the choice. Woke progressives vs. conservatives. Although I suspect “liberal apostasy” would attract many voters, there just isn’t any political party in the U.S. (or Canada) that embodies those ideals. So one has to choose.
I am pro-choice, pro-single-payer healthcare, for gun control and some government intervention in the economy. Those issues are important to me. But not as important as free speech — the backbone of a democratic society — or meritocracy — the only way a modern technological society can function properly.
Conservatives like DeSantis support free speech and meritocracy. Democracy has survived no abortion rights, and it has survived when only private healthcare was available. It cannot survive without free speech and meritocracy. Until 5 minutes ago, liberal and social-democratic parties in the Western world understood the importance of the latter two principles. But no longer.
I long for the days when I could have reasonable arguments with conservatives about things like public healthcare, abortion and guns. But these aren’t those days. There is a much more important battle to fight, and I know which side I’m on. Would that there was a political party in the centre that upheld these values, but there isn’t anymore. So DeSantis — or any conservative who values free speech and meritocracy — it must be. For the time being at least.
Someone needs to drive home the point to these “progressive zealots” that any particular group or individual cannot be equal AND special at the same time!
Someone needs to drive home the point to these “progressive zealots” that any particular group or individual cannot be equal AND special at the same time!
“a far more effective weapon than the reactionary antics of DeSantis, which are focused primarily on Right-leaning GOP voters. ”
The destruction of Western Civilization by so called progressives is analogous to the frog unknowingly dying in the slowly warming pot of water on the stove – we need the attention getting antics of DeSantis to not just slow the rising heat of wokeness but to turn off the flame. The author correctly points out the unpopularity of the leftist agenda but doesn’t address how the left has been wining the war – controlling the narrative through the MSM. He doesn’t think DeSantis can reach beyond the GOP voter – I hope he is wrong as many of the frogs in the political middle realize they need to do something differently.
“antics” like opening schools in April 2020? “antics” like making sex education for first-graders illegal? The author is apparently unaware of how DeSantis has actually governed.
Oh, he’s quite aware of DeSantis’ accomplishments, he simply tries to debase the guy as a signal to the oligarchy he wants to please.
Oh, he’s quite aware of DeSantis’ accomplishments, he simply tries to debase the guy as a signal to the oligarchy he wants to please.
“antics” like opening schools in April 2020? “antics” like making sex education for first-graders illegal? The author is apparently unaware of how DeSantis has actually governed.
“a far more effective weapon than the reactionary antics of DeSantis, which are focused primarily on Right-leaning GOP voters. ”
The destruction of Western Civilization by so called progressives is analogous to the frog unknowingly dying in the slowly warming pot of water on the stove – we need the attention getting antics of DeSantis to not just slow the rising heat of wokeness but to turn off the flame. The author correctly points out the unpopularity of the leftist agenda but doesn’t address how the left has been wining the war – controlling the narrative through the MSM. He doesn’t think DeSantis can reach beyond the GOP voter – I hope he is wrong as many of the frogs in the political middle realize they need to do something differently.
I’m not convinced. Yes liberal apostasy is a thing. But the old classic liberal consensus is no longer available. Liberalism was always sulphuric. IN both its social/collectivist/leftist form and market-liberal form, it rests upon a ‘billiard ball’ anthropology of isolated transacting rational individuals. This worked fine – and delivered enormous benefits in economy and polity…but only when the corrosive individualism was contained by the glass vessel of traditional Judea-Christian virtues. Always unstated, precognitive, mostly universally accepted and constraining of individual and group behaviour. This vessel is now shattered. We live in a truly Nietzschean world. Andrew Tate, feminism, transactivism, Neo-liberalism and even Marxism are driven by the same underlying anthropology. Market and State are just different ways of aggregating the agency of transacting billiard ball individuals. Without a taken for granted, more or less universally shared sacred order….such individuals will be self-seeking, narcissistic and pathological to the nth degree. What all these weird and not at all wonderful 21st century ideologies share …neo-liberalism, transgenderism, utopian-global socialism, eco-modernism, 2nd and 3rd wave feminism, transhumanism, globalism, the party of Davos……[and they ARE all of a piece] ….and what they amount to …is an attack on family, children, place-bound community and the business of societal reproduction. They are an attack on the core business of human communities for 2 million years.
Kotkin’s liberal apostates are impotent. not just because the progressive left control every institution and are busy painting every street walk in Christendom in the rainbow flag; indulging in now routine public displays of iconoclasm against all communitarian symbols of togetherness, from family, religion and now the nation state (Union Jack; Star Spangled Banner anyone?)
They are impotent because – like nearly all the feminists who write in Unherd (with the massive exception of Mary Harrington) – they don’t /can’t/won’t question the underlying billiard ball anthropology.
Feminism – the ideological insistence that gender has nothing to do with sex – was always a war on motherhood. Feminism, Andrew Tate and transactivism, transhumanism….and Davos style globalism ….ARE the the logical end point of liberalism. That is why Blackrock hedge fund and others are so gleeful in pushing the trans agenda even in Fox News. It IS their agenda.
Go back to church Joel. The battle for Middle Earth has barely begun – and if I was an Elf, I sure as hell wouldn’t want to stick around.
I’m not convinced. Yes liberal apostasy is a thing. But the old classic liberal consensus is no longer available. Liberalism was always sulphuric. IN both its social/collectivist/leftist form and market-liberal form, it rests upon a ‘billiard ball’ anthropology of isolated transacting rational individuals. This worked fine – and delivered enormous benefits in economy and polity…but only when the corrosive individualism was contained by the glass vessel of traditional Judea-Christian virtues. Always unstated, precognitive, mostly universally accepted and constraining of individual and group behaviour. This vessel is now shattered. We live in a truly Nietzschean world. Andrew Tate, feminism, transactivism, Neo-liberalism and even Marxism are driven by the same underlying anthropology. Market and State are just different ways of aggregating the agency of transacting billiard ball individuals. Without a taken for granted, more or less universally shared sacred order….such individuals will be self-seeking, narcissistic and pathological to the nth degree. What all these weird and not at all wonderful 21st century ideologies share …neo-liberalism, transgenderism, utopian-global socialism, eco-modernism, 2nd and 3rd wave feminism, transhumanism, globalism, the party of Davos……[and they ARE all of a piece] ….and what they amount to …is an attack on family, children, place-bound community and the business of societal reproduction. They are an attack on the core business of human communities for 2 million years.
Kotkin’s liberal apostates are impotent. not just because the progressive left control every institution and are busy painting every street walk in Christendom in the rainbow flag; indulging in now routine public displays of iconoclasm against all communitarian symbols of togetherness, from family, religion and now the nation state (Union Jack; Star Spangled Banner anyone?)
They are impotent because – like nearly all the feminists who write in Unherd (with the massive exception of Mary Harrington) – they don’t /can’t/won’t question the underlying billiard ball anthropology.
Feminism – the ideological insistence that gender has nothing to do with sex – was always a war on motherhood. Feminism, Andrew Tate and transactivism, transhumanism….and Davos style globalism ….ARE the the logical end point of liberalism. That is why Blackrock hedge fund and others are so gleeful in pushing the trans agenda even in Fox News. It IS their agenda.
Go back to church Joel. The battle for Middle Earth has barely begun – and if I was an Elf, I sure as hell wouldn’t want to stick around.
You may be sure that the term “the reactionary antics of DeSantis” was written by a hard-leftist flying a false flag.
You may be sure that the term “the reactionary antics of DeSantis” was written by a hard-leftist flying a false flag.
Horses for courses I say…
RFK Jr can bring sanity to the left but you can’t blame De Santis somehow for never falling for it all in the first place.
Yes, we can forgive Dr Robert Malone for donating to the Biden campaign (FFS) and getting 2 regretted jabs, but there is no moral superiority in making a U-turn versus those that saw through the extreme progressive agenda which got us here from Day 1.
There was a certain satisfaction having my views about Covid and vaccine go from being considered outsider and conspiracy positions to slowly being adopted by most people I know as correct.
Wish I could say my similar views were adopted by those around me. I don’t know enough smart people clearly!
Wish I could say my similar views were adopted by those around me. I don’t know enough smart people clearly!
There was a certain satisfaction having my views about Covid and vaccine go from being considered outsider and conspiracy positions to slowly being adopted by most people I know as correct.
Horses for courses I say…
RFK Jr can bring sanity to the left but you can’t blame De Santis somehow for never falling for it all in the first place.
Yes, we can forgive Dr Robert Malone for donating to the Biden campaign (FFS) and getting 2 regretted jabs, but there is no moral superiority in making a U-turn versus those that saw through the extreme progressive agenda which got us here from Day 1.
Perhaps the problem is that people perceive things through their own paradigms, rather than through any commonly understood analysis of power. For example, religious conservatives think about eg gender ideology or climate policy (don’t mention the vaccines!) through its impact on the family. Scientists might think it through narrowly defined objectives goals. Liberal apostates focus more on the impact it might have on the poorest individual kids; and unreformed “progressives” more on a generalised concept of equality. Board rooms might see it as a means to make money. Journalists and commentators might see it as part of a culture war sure to generate clicks and likes.
But no one seems to be even talking or thinking it relates to the accretion, retention, and exercise of raw power, let alone trying to articulate a theoretical framework to explain it in the 21st century context. We have no Marx, and no Arendt – whatever you might think of their political theories at least they each had a decent crack at an analysis of raw power and how that manifested in their respective worlds.
Perhaps this intellectual poverty is partly because people on both sides of these debates find it too discomforting to admit that, for all of their high-faulting mission statements, moral philosophies, commitments, protests, virtue-signalling and proud declarations of solidarity what human affairs until boils down to is who gets to what, to whom. It that has always been true. If there is some genius out there beavering away on the equivalent of Das Kapital or the Origins of Totalitarianism, I wish they would get a move on and publish it!
Maybe but here in the UK there IS a general consensus I think amongst the general population about certain things: the freedom of individuals to dress, act and speak as they please provided they are not inciting violence, a belief in democratic norms, a belief that sex is an immutable characteristic, a belief in the value of hard work and initiative, a belief that communities are best when they are self-governing as much as is possible.
As to who gets what and to whom, COVID quantitative easing transferred 7 trillion dollars to banks who then used the money to inflate the assets of the 0.01%.
This is it seems to me the real problem: a thin crust of ultra rich individuals who couldn’t care less about your country or your community and are quite happy to immiserate you and your family and allow thousands of immigrants in if it squeezes a few more pennies into their obscenely bloated portfolios.
Exactly – The New Feudalism as the author has written. How to rebel against it – that’s the thorny question
Yes, the general consensus is as you describe it. And yes there is a thin crust of ultra-rich individuals who have the power to do what you describe – and they without doubt exercise that power. But both of these things might change quicker than many people might think. I suspect your average oligarch is more alive to this fact than is your average man on the street, and that is what gives the former (even more) advantage over the latter. What I suspect keeps the former awake at night is that the latter might wake up and actually do something about it.
They are far, far more scared of us than we are of them and it would serve us all not to forget that. We can, I think, rely on an appeal to the common decency and morality of the ordinary non-psychopath who just wants a nice peaceful life and for themselves, and for their family, friends, and their neighbours to prosper and be happy.
Man cannot live by bread, or faulty models of reality, alone. Reality will assert itself, as it always does. That’s why the ultra rich are scared and they are doing increasingly weirder and weirder things. I suspect there are many other liberal apostates, and longstanding conservatives, who would agree. It’s almost enough to make one feel sorry for the sad, deluded souls in their golden prisons that they have made for themselves.
“But no one seems to be even talking or thinking it relates to the accretion, retention, and exercise of raw power, let alone trying to articulate a theoretical framework to explain it in the 21st century context.”
Andrew, these people are on social media and won’t be appearing in UnHerd. Mary Harrington has alluded to some of them but she knows they’re too ‘hot’ to be featured here.
“But no one seems to be even talking or thinking it relates to the accretion, retention, and exercise of raw power, let alone trying to articulate a theoretical framework to explain it in the 21st century context.”
Andrew, these people are on social media and won’t be appearing in UnHerd. Mary Harrington has alluded to some of them but she knows they’re too ‘hot’ to be featured here.
Exactly – The New Feudalism as the author has written. How to rebel against it – that’s the thorny question
Yes, the general consensus is as you describe it. And yes there is a thin crust of ultra-rich individuals who have the power to do what you describe – and they without doubt exercise that power. But both of these things might change quicker than many people might think. I suspect your average oligarch is more alive to this fact than is your average man on the street, and that is what gives the former (even more) advantage over the latter. What I suspect keeps the former awake at night is that the latter might wake up and actually do something about it.
They are far, far more scared of us than we are of them and it would serve us all not to forget that. We can, I think, rely on an appeal to the common decency and morality of the ordinary non-psychopath who just wants a nice peaceful life and for themselves, and for their family, friends, and their neighbours to prosper and be happy.
Man cannot live by bread, or faulty models of reality, alone. Reality will assert itself, as it always does. That’s why the ultra rich are scared and they are doing increasingly weirder and weirder things. I suspect there are many other liberal apostates, and longstanding conservatives, who would agree. It’s almost enough to make one feel sorry for the sad, deluded souls in their golden prisons that they have made for themselves.
Maybe but here in the UK there IS a general consensus I think amongst the general population about certain things: the freedom of individuals to dress, act and speak as they please provided they are not inciting violence, a belief in democratic norms, a belief that sex is an immutable characteristic, a belief in the value of hard work and initiative, a belief that communities are best when they are self-governing as much as is possible.
As to who gets what and to whom, COVID quantitative easing transferred 7 trillion dollars to banks who then used the money to inflate the assets of the 0.01%.
This is it seems to me the real problem: a thin crust of ultra rich individuals who couldn’t care less about your country or your community and are quite happy to immiserate you and your family and allow thousands of immigrants in if it squeezes a few more pennies into their obscenely bloated portfolios.
Perhaps the problem is that people perceive things through their own paradigms, rather than through any commonly understood analysis of power. For example, religious conservatives think about eg gender ideology or climate policy (don’t mention the vaccines!) through its impact on the family. Scientists might think it through narrowly defined objectives goals. Liberal apostates focus more on the impact it might have on the poorest individual kids; and unreformed “progressives” more on a generalised concept of equality. Board rooms might see it as a means to make money. Journalists and commentators might see it as part of a culture war sure to generate clicks and likes.
But no one seems to be even talking or thinking it relates to the accretion, retention, and exercise of raw power, let alone trying to articulate a theoretical framework to explain it in the 21st century context. We have no Marx, and no Arendt – whatever you might think of their political theories at least they each had a decent crack at an analysis of raw power and how that manifested in their respective worlds.
Perhaps this intellectual poverty is partly because people on both sides of these debates find it too discomforting to admit that, for all of their high-faulting mission statements, moral philosophies, commitments, protests, virtue-signalling and proud declarations of solidarity what human affairs until boils down to is who gets to what, to whom. It that has always been true. If there is some genius out there beavering away on the equivalent of Das Kapital or the Origins of Totalitarianism, I wish they would get a move on and publish it!
I am not buying that Andrew Sullivan is a change-agent. He insists he’s a ‘Conservative’ – which he’s not – so he must do it to be ‘fashionably contrary’. He also says he’s a ‘Catholic’…ok..hmmmm. Rather, I’d put him in the column of ‘talking head opportunist’, maybe even ‘confused’. On the other hand, Matt Taibbi is the real deal; a researcher & reporter, gathering facts to counteract the Progressive narrative.
JOE BIDEN is being pushed to the Far Left by the Congressional Progressive Caucus which is composed of more than 100 progressive members — 101 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and one U.S. Senator. ABOUT A QUARTER of Congress – a historical high. This is a lot of political power to overcome.
Before he began advocating for gay marriage, Andrew Sullivan was the darling of the Republican right but, guess what, gay marriage started out as a conservative cause supported by church-going Christians desperate for approval of the established powers that be. Many of us baby boomers did not feel any such need for approval and, straight or gay, were all in favour of free love and common law relationships. As for any legal advantages of being legally attached, we were perfectly happy with the civil partnerships already legal in England. Andrew and his gang of church-going Christians actually succeeded in drawing even more Christian disapproval for gays and lesbians than existed before, especially when they began demanding that conservative clergy perform gay marriages. I’m sorry but Andrew Sullivan has never leaned in any direction but rightward.
You’re muddling Republican, Christian and Conservative into a box that distorts reality. While most Republicans are Conservative and Christian only about half of Christians are both Republican and Conservative. The other half of Christians are either Liberal or Democrats or Liberal Democrats.
Now I can and will argue that being a Liberal Christian is an oxymoron if Liberal is synonymous with “Progressive.” While Andrew may have some Conservative economic positions, his social views are Progressive and in my view clearly contradict scripture.
That said, maybe some of my views unknowingly contradict scripture as well. I am not the one to stand in judgment but I do think am sufficiently qualified to critique a fellow Christian’s scriptural interpretation.
Critique aside, I recognize Andrew is a good man that brings forth valuable insight. So where does that put him. I would argue he’s a Political Moderate and Liberal Christian.
You’re muddling Republican, Christian and Conservative into a box that distorts reality. While most Republicans are Conservative and Christian only about half of Christians are both Republican and Conservative. The other half of Christians are either Liberal or Democrats or Liberal Democrats.
Now I can and will argue that being a Liberal Christian is an oxymoron if Liberal is synonymous with “Progressive.” While Andrew may have some Conservative economic positions, his social views are Progressive and in my view clearly contradict scripture.
That said, maybe some of my views unknowingly contradict scripture as well. I am not the one to stand in judgment but I do think am sufficiently qualified to critique a fellow Christian’s scriptural interpretation.
Critique aside, I recognize Andrew is a good man that brings forth valuable insight. So where does that put him. I would argue he’s a Political Moderate and Liberal Christian.
Before he began advocating for gay marriage, Andrew Sullivan was the darling of the Republican right but, guess what, gay marriage started out as a conservative cause supported by church-going Christians desperate for approval of the established powers that be. Many of us baby boomers did not feel any such need for approval and, straight or gay, were all in favour of free love and common law relationships. As for any legal advantages of being legally attached, we were perfectly happy with the civil partnerships already legal in England. Andrew and his gang of church-going Christians actually succeeded in drawing even more Christian disapproval for gays and lesbians than existed before, especially when they began demanding that conservative clergy perform gay marriages. I’m sorry but Andrew Sullivan has never leaned in any direction but rightward.
I am not buying that Andrew Sullivan is a change-agent. He insists he’s a ‘Conservative’ – which he’s not – so he must do it to be ‘fashionably contrary’. He also says he’s a ‘Catholic’…ok..hmmmm. Rather, I’d put him in the column of ‘talking head opportunist’, maybe even ‘confused’. On the other hand, Matt Taibbi is the real deal; a researcher & reporter, gathering facts to counteract the Progressive narrative.
JOE BIDEN is being pushed to the Far Left by the Congressional Progressive Caucus which is composed of more than 100 progressive members — 101 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and one U.S. Senator. ABOUT A QUARTER of Congress – a historical high. This is a lot of political power to overcome.
If by “powerful” you mean “exposed,” then, well, sure. Their “power” isn’t a result of their ethics, really, but their legacy media bonafides or inextinguishable wealth.
If by “powerful” you mean “exposed,” then, well, sure. Their “power” isn’t a result of their ethics, really, but their legacy media bonafides or inextinguishable wealth.
I do hope you’re right, apart from anything, I get so fed up being labelled far-right though I’m left wing, purely because I support women’s rights. When more liberals join in, the bullies won’t be able to hide behind the left/right opposition. I would also add Bill Maher to the list of liberals who are beginning to see the danger of ESG related ideology, particularly in California.
What’s happening in Germany is alarming but there is a bit more hope in Spain with presidential candidate Alberto Nunez Feijoo, likely to beat the current misguided socialist government. Alberto is a moderate candidate.
I’m an American that considers myself on the Traditional Right. I assume we are not ideological opponents at the moment so can I ask what you mean by “women’s rights.”
Is there a belief that the Right wants to prevent women from having rights?
What presidential candidate in Spain? Spain is constitutional Monarchy.
I’m an American that considers myself on the Traditional Right. I assume we are not ideological opponents at the moment so can I ask what you mean by “women’s rights.”
Is there a belief that the Right wants to prevent women from having rights?
What presidential candidate in Spain? Spain is constitutional Monarchy.
I do hope you’re right, apart from anything, I get so fed up being labelled far-right though I’m left wing, purely because I support women’s rights. When more liberals join in, the bullies won’t be able to hide behind the left/right opposition. I would also add Bill Maher to the list of liberals who are beginning to see the danger of ESG related ideology, particularly in California.
What’s happening in Germany is alarming but there is a bit more hope in Spain with presidential candidate Alberto Nunez Feijoo, likely to beat the current misguided socialist government. Alberto is a moderate candidate.
I am going to assume that the sentence “They are far more compelling than the likes of DeSantis” is the lede in this essay, even though it in not part of the introductory paragraph. So then, since the lede summarizes the most important aspect of the story, how, exactly, are the apostates more compelling than DeSantis? He is mentioned once in the essay and that simply as a reactionary. We are just to assume that Taibbi and Griffin and Vanguard are more legitimate opponents of progressive theology than ‘the likes of’ him? It would be nice to know how his policies contrast with the apostates. Doesn’t DeSantis believe in equality of opportunity, free speech, and open inquiry?
I like Kotkin. He seems to be everywhere. And perhaps he didn’t write the lede. Still, it’s his essay. If his intent was to contrast apostates with DeSantis, then he gives the latter short shrift.
Also, there’s this: “People generally believe in the existence of two genders.” No. Ordinary people ( if that is what he means by people ) generally believe in the existence of two sexes. Gender is a completely made up construct ( a redundancy, admittedly ) referring to variations on a theme that has become unmoored from what the theme is.
Finally, what’s with all the links? They, like Kotkin, are everywhere in everything one reads. Are links the new bibliography? Do Kotkin’s links all support what he says? Click on conservative in the third from last paragraph ( because what it asserts seems so off ) and see if that particular one does.
All of the apostasies that Kotkin links to are not apostasies from progressivism but are essentially conservative ideas: capitalism, merit, objectivity in science, opposition to ESG, belief in heritage/tradition, opposition to reparations and race-base discrimination, parental rights, suspicion of ‘genderism’ and climate alarmism, and on and on. But if a conservative were to espouse these views, or attempt to implement them as policy, they are labelled reactionaries. Like DeSantis is his contretemps with Disney.
Still, conservatives should welcome Kotkin’s apostates. The battle against ‘censorious progressivism’, and ‘progressive theology’, and the ‘progressive assault’ needs all the help it can get. The labels aren’t that important. We can decide later who the classic liberals are and who the conservatives.
I am going to assume that the sentence “They are far more compelling than the likes of DeSantis” is the lede in this essay, even though it in not part of the introductory paragraph. So then, since the lede summarizes the most important aspect of the story, how, exactly, are the apostates more compelling than DeSantis? He is mentioned once in the essay and that simply as a reactionary. We are just to assume that Taibbi and Griffin and Vanguard are more legitimate opponents of progressive theology than ‘the likes of’ him? It would be nice to know how his policies contrast with the apostates. Doesn’t DeSantis believe in equality of opportunity, free speech, and open inquiry?
I like Kotkin. He seems to be everywhere. And perhaps he didn’t write the lede. Still, it’s his essay. If his intent was to contrast apostates with DeSantis, then he gives the latter short shrift.
Also, there’s this: “People generally believe in the existence of two genders.” No. Ordinary people ( if that is what he means by people ) generally believe in the existence of two sexes. Gender is a completely made up construct ( a redundancy, admittedly ) referring to variations on a theme that has become unmoored from what the theme is.
Finally, what’s with all the links? They, like Kotkin, are everywhere in everything one reads. Are links the new bibliography? Do Kotkin’s links all support what he says? Click on conservative in the third from last paragraph ( because what it asserts seems so off ) and see if that particular one does.
All of the apostasies that Kotkin links to are not apostasies from progressivism but are essentially conservative ideas: capitalism, merit, objectivity in science, opposition to ESG, belief in heritage/tradition, opposition to reparations and race-base discrimination, parental rights, suspicion of ‘genderism’ and climate alarmism, and on and on. But if a conservative were to espouse these views, or attempt to implement them as policy, they are labelled reactionaries. Like DeSantis is his contretemps with Disney.
Still, conservatives should welcome Kotkin’s apostates. The battle against ‘censorious progressivism’, and ‘progressive theology’, and the ‘progressive assault’ needs all the help it can get. The labels aren’t that important. We can decide later who the classic liberals are and who the conservatives.
It’s Strive, not Thrive Asset Management. Good effort bij Vivek Ramaswami, who’s also part of Arc: https://www.arcforum.com/advisory-board/ with JBP among others
It’s Strive, not Thrive Asset Management. Good effort bij Vivek Ramaswami, who’s also part of Arc: https://www.arcforum.com/advisory-board/ with JBP among others
Methinks many an UnHerd reader–and other citizens of the world– hath waited for this very sensible and realistic perspective to be unveiled. Your analysis here, and your message rings true with common sense and common practicality.
Reminds me of the the ancient tale of the emperor who had no clothes being exposed by a child whose sensibilities did not include the currently dominant groupthink.
Methinks many an UnHerd reader–and other citizens of the world– hath waited for this very sensible and realistic perspective to be unveiled. Your analysis here, and your message rings true with common sense and common practicality.
Reminds me of the the ancient tale of the emperor who had no clothes being exposed by a child whose sensibilities did not include the currently dominant groupthink.
I agree with Mr. Kotkin. As much as I am critical of divisive identity politics, I do not think DeSantis’s “destroy woke” approach is serviceable because it is the equal but opposite reaction to the divisive identity politics propagated by the Democratic Party and so-called progressives. DeSantis is also problematic for his neoconservative foreign policy tendencies, but that is a separate debate.
I disagree with the premises of critical race theory, but I cannot support banning it from being taught because I support freedom of speech/expression/etc. I think we have to work to make these things unfashionable within the culture – legislating these sorts of things doesn’t work. We have to let go of fear and speak up…I know that there are so many instances when I want to speak up at work, but I’m so afraid of repercussions. The only way forward is to calmly and effectively make the argument that racial quotas, reparations, et cetera are unnecessary and run counter to the old-style liberal argument that we should be judged by our qualifications, character, et cetera rather than our “identities.” I do eventually see things turning around, but it will take time.
Hello, soul-brother! I feel so much of what you are saying to be true here.
Critical Race Theory is fascist ideology in blackface. CRT scholars are on equal footing as those who pushed Natsie ideology into classrooms: https://melwild.wordpress.com/2021/10/23/crt-and-the-new-fascism/
Hello, soul-brother! I feel so much of what you are saying to be true here.
Critical Race Theory is fascist ideology in blackface. CRT scholars are on equal footing as those who pushed Natsie ideology into classrooms: https://melwild.wordpress.com/2021/10/23/crt-and-the-new-fascism/
I agree with Mr. Kotkin. As much as I am critical of divisive identity politics, I do not think DeSantis’s “destroy woke” approach is serviceable because it is the equal but opposite reaction to the divisive identity politics propagated by the Democratic Party and so-called progressives. DeSantis is also problematic for his neoconservative foreign policy tendencies, but that is a separate debate.
I disagree with the premises of critical race theory, but I cannot support banning it from being taught because I support freedom of speech/expression/etc. I think we have to work to make these things unfashionable within the culture – legislating these sorts of things doesn’t work. We have to let go of fear and speak up…I know that there are so many instances when I want to speak up at work, but I’m so afraid of repercussions. The only way forward is to calmly and effectively make the argument that racial quotas, reparations, et cetera are unnecessary and run counter to the old-style liberal argument that we should be judged by our qualifications, character, et cetera rather than our “identities.” I do eventually see things turning around, but it will take time.
Raising my hand as another apostate!
Why, though, is there no mention of RFK Jr. in this piece? He is the ultimate apostate, and speaks so many hard truths about our flailing country.
He will be the only Dem I vote for in the coming years, but neither can I vote Rethuglican. There are millions of us.
Raising my hand as another apostate!
Why, though, is there no mention of RFK Jr. in this piece? He is the ultimate apostate, and speaks so many hard truths about our flailing country.
He will be the only Dem I vote for in the coming years, but neither can I vote Rethuglican. There are millions of us.