Glad you wrote about this issue of division. It can occur through ideology and also beliefs. The virus/no virus issue has become a divisive topic as well. I just wish people could try to work together to stop people who are truly evil and want to exploit others for personal and political gain. For me it is about freedom from tyranny and exploitation. I wish people could live their lives unencumbered by tyrants who want pit people against each other so they can exploit them.
To focus on the concluding paragraphs, my argument is that some of the fine appeals you have posted should be seen as expressions of goodwill and suggestions rather than soberly reasoned and universally applicable principles.
First, Roger Scruton: “we must speak peaceably even to our accusers. We must avoid the name-calling, shrug off the ‘isms’ and ‘phobias’ when they are heaped on us. Confess to our true faults, and robustly deny the invented ones. Most importantly, we should venerate Truth and ignore political correctness, which is not the cure to our conflicts but the ultimate source of them”
When Scruton was accused of trying to create immoral ties with the tobacco industry, he did not “robustly deny” his fault. Years later, he would say that the distortion of truth in the attacks on him created such a complex situation, that he realized that any attempt at clarifying the matter in public would have been futile.
Nor did Scruton “robustly deny” the invention that he’s 'a racist' in 2019.
(Which, to my mind that was perfectly reasonable of him, for reasons that are fairly obvious.)
You write: “Looking for scapegoats, replacing justice with ‘social justice’, rioting, looting and cheering on said destruction, and trying to shut people up for their difference in opinion, isn’t a recipe for social cohesiveness and long-term success.”
Nationalities and societies developed under conditions of many natural obstacles to flow of information, and specific environmental conditions that were only mildly moderated by human technology. Now, as the information obstacles are becoming virtually extinct, and ways of life become increasingly similar everywhere, it is reasonable to consider that social cohesion may vitally depend on artificial limits to technology and flows of information, including possibly limits to sharing opinions. Social ties are primarily a matter of instinct, emotions, rather than reasoning, which has important implications for the role of opinions and their sharing, too complex to divulge here. Simply, people navigate their ways in life on the basis of their worlds of feelings.
Conclusions like these are easy to draw from the 'world news', as well as from from personal experiences.
Brilliant article and WoW have you packed a lot in! I have one tiny point to make re the reference to the CEO of Tesco and his comments re food shortages. For greater context, I would like to have seen the point made there about the effects of negative media propaganda in general, not just those individuals seeking to make everyone believe the elite are trying to starve everyone. Thank you. Really enjoyed reading this. ❤
I see it as the history of insanity. Politics is a symptom not the cure .
Yip the State has always used divide and conquer, this is what the identity politics boom is for( race/sexual preference/gender/victim ID ) .
Getting people to FEAR(think attack thoughts )about other people, then they feel guilty which leads to more feelings of being separate and fear of retribution (more attacks).
Democracy dogma is one big entrenched ideological treasure that tells people (in a central banking nation that chooses and appoints Presidents)that they choose (to obey a false authority , be corporate debt slaves).
"Peace and guilt are both conditions of the mind, to be attained"
For me this sums up all reasons why conservatives are just as duped as liberals. It's only communism when leftists are in charge, it's only welfare when poor people get the money, more cops and feds and prisons is somehow increasing freedom, and if the Chinese do it it's bad but if "Americans" do it it's good. Blind faith hypocrisy.
I couldn't get much further than this JFK quote in the opening paragraphs of this article:
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence – on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.
It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match”
The author then goes on to fill out how "Marxism" is the problem that crops up under various disguises around the world, including here in the USA. The problem is, JFK could just as easily been referring to the system OF the USA in his remarks. The systems label themselves differently, but operate much the same. This may be more true of the USA today, especially during the "covid crisis," than back in the 1960s, but if so, then the "West" has learned well from that "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy" that he described.
The article's main thesis about the existence and spread of ideological subversion, is welcome.
My first encounter with Bezmenov's message was about 2011. During that time, my observation has been that it is often difficult to distinguish it from effects of a spontaneous decay of a society. Also, that it is difficult to pinpoint the deliberately subversive agents. And that promoting warning messages and making a wide influence isn't my forte.
Given all of that, it looked, and still looks wiser to concentrate myself on developing such habits and such a mental attitude that would present a fitting response to whatever version of external events is right.
Others, like you, may choose other strategies, and have success with them due to a natural variation in aptitudes.
Your article concludes that, among other things, looking for scapegoats isn't a recipe for success. That happens after you make a long series of references to subversive agents coming from Marxists, and from communitarianism, and exclusively from Marxism and communitarianism.
That is hardly distinguishable from deliberately laying groundwork for scapegoating Marxists and communitarians.
Communitarianism is recommendable for our times, — says none other than John Milbank
The community, rather than the rugged individual, was the center of the famed American freedoms of the 19th century, argues the (staunchly anti-communist) Tanner Greer :
A Marxist regime was superior to the current West in protecting property rights, argues a Croatian Monaco-based businessman Alex Krainer. https://alexkrainer.substack.com/p/property-rights-the-reality-vs-the . Krainer, rather than being a sympathiser of the Yugoslav regime, once left his business in the West to volunteer in the war for Croatian sovereignty.
Still, in a recent interview he says that his childhood and youth in 'communist' Yugoslavia were "great." That, he specified, means having enjoyed 'great freedoms' — greater than those of the Western youth of today: https://odysee.com/@johnwaters:7/AHC5%281%29:2
By this point, you may feel disoriented.
So here is the point:
Krainer's point is that "we should focus on issues on their merit and disregard labels and ideology."
That's my point as well. My personal experience is that thinking in terms of -isms impoverishes my intellectual and overall mental life.
Again, our minds may work so differently that you, by focusing on ideological differences, can better achieve your aims of 'social cohesiveness and long-term success.'
Glad you wrote about this issue of division. It can occur through ideology and also beliefs. The virus/no virus issue has become a divisive topic as well. I just wish people could try to work together to stop people who are truly evil and want to exploit others for personal and political gain. For me it is about freedom from tyranny and exploitation. I wish people could live their lives unencumbered by tyrants who want pit people against each other so they can exploit them.
To focus on the concluding paragraphs, my argument is that some of the fine appeals you have posted should be seen as expressions of goodwill and suggestions rather than soberly reasoned and universally applicable principles.
First, Roger Scruton: “we must speak peaceably even to our accusers. We must avoid the name-calling, shrug off the ‘isms’ and ‘phobias’ when they are heaped on us. Confess to our true faults, and robustly deny the invented ones. Most importantly, we should venerate Truth and ignore political correctness, which is not the cure to our conflicts but the ultimate source of them”
When Scruton was accused of trying to create immoral ties with the tobacco industry, he did not “robustly deny” his fault. Years later, he would say that the distortion of truth in the attacks on him created such a complex situation, that he realized that any attempt at clarifying the matter in public would have been futile.
Nor did Scruton “robustly deny” the invention that he’s 'a racist' in 2019.
(Which, to my mind that was perfectly reasonable of him, for reasons that are fairly obvious.)
You write: “Looking for scapegoats, replacing justice with ‘social justice’, rioting, looting and cheering on said destruction, and trying to shut people up for their difference in opinion, isn’t a recipe for social cohesiveness and long-term success.”
Nationalities and societies developed under conditions of many natural obstacles to flow of information, and specific environmental conditions that were only mildly moderated by human technology. Now, as the information obstacles are becoming virtually extinct, and ways of life become increasingly similar everywhere, it is reasonable to consider that social cohesion may vitally depend on artificial limits to technology and flows of information, including possibly limits to sharing opinions. Social ties are primarily a matter of instinct, emotions, rather than reasoning, which has important implications for the role of opinions and their sharing, too complex to divulge here. Simply, people navigate their ways in life on the basis of their worlds of feelings.
Conclusions like these are easy to draw from the 'world news', as well as from from personal experiences.
The other week one of you blocked me on Telegram after my posting this (frankly mediocre) post https://t.me/c/1351840148/94111 which, by the way, expresses a viewpoint shared by Michael Anton, the high-profile supporter of president Trump: https://compactmag.com/article/why-the-great-reset-is-not-socialism
If that wasn’t shutting up for difference of opinion, and how it affected your feelings, it’s hard to imagine what was it for.
Brilliant article and WoW have you packed a lot in! I have one tiny point to make re the reference to the CEO of Tesco and his comments re food shortages. For greater context, I would like to have seen the point made there about the effects of negative media propaganda in general, not just those individuals seeking to make everyone believe the elite are trying to starve everyone. Thank you. Really enjoyed reading this. ❤
I see it as the history of insanity. Politics is a symptom not the cure .
Yip the State has always used divide and conquer, this is what the identity politics boom is for( race/sexual preference/gender/victim ID ) .
Getting people to FEAR(think attack thoughts )about other people, then they feel guilty which leads to more feelings of being separate and fear of retribution (more attacks).
Democracy dogma is one big entrenched ideological treasure that tells people (in a central banking nation that chooses and appoints Presidents)that they choose (to obey a false authority , be corporate debt slaves).
"Peace and guilt are both conditions of the mind, to be attained"
Essentially we choose fear or love.
War or peace.
For me this sums up all reasons why conservatives are just as duped as liberals. It's only communism when leftists are in charge, it's only welfare when poor people get the money, more cops and feds and prisons is somehow increasing freedom, and if the Chinese do it it's bad but if "Americans" do it it's good. Blind faith hypocrisy.
I couldn't get much further than this JFK quote in the opening paragraphs of this article:
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence – on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.
It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match”
The author then goes on to fill out how "Marxism" is the problem that crops up under various disguises around the world, including here in the USA. The problem is, JFK could just as easily been referring to the system OF the USA in his remarks. The systems label themselves differently, but operate much the same. This may be more true of the USA today, especially during the "covid crisis," than back in the 1960s, but if so, then the "West" has learned well from that "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy" that he described.
The article's main thesis about the existence and spread of ideological subversion, is welcome.
My first encounter with Bezmenov's message was about 2011. During that time, my observation has been that it is often difficult to distinguish it from effects of a spontaneous decay of a society. Also, that it is difficult to pinpoint the deliberately subversive agents. And that promoting warning messages and making a wide influence isn't my forte.
Given all of that, it looked, and still looks wiser to concentrate myself on developing such habits and such a mental attitude that would present a fitting response to whatever version of external events is right.
Others, like you, may choose other strategies, and have success with them due to a natural variation in aptitudes.
Your article concludes that, among other things, looking for scapegoats isn't a recipe for success. That happens after you make a long series of references to subversive agents coming from Marxists, and from communitarianism, and exclusively from Marxism and communitarianism.
That is hardly distinguishable from deliberately laying groundwork for scapegoating Marxists and communitarians.
Communitarianism is recommendable for our times, — says none other than John Milbank
https://twitter.com/johnmilbank3/status/1653061595302338562
The community, rather than the rugged individual, was the center of the famed American freedoms of the 19th century, argues the (staunchly anti-communist) Tanner Greer :
https://scholars-stage.org/lessons-from-and-limitations-of-the-19th-century-experience/
As for Marxism :
A Marxist regime was superior to the current West in protecting property rights, argues a Croatian Monaco-based businessman Alex Krainer. https://alexkrainer.substack.com/p/property-rights-the-reality-vs-the . Krainer, rather than being a sympathiser of the Yugoslav regime, once left his business in the West to volunteer in the war for Croatian sovereignty.
Still, in a recent interview he says that his childhood and youth in 'communist' Yugoslavia were "great." That, he specified, means having enjoyed 'great freedoms' — greater than those of the Western youth of today: https://odysee.com/@johnwaters:7/AHC5%281%29:2
By this point, you may feel disoriented.
So here is the point:
Krainer's point is that "we should focus on issues on their merit and disregard labels and ideology."
That's my point as well. My personal experience is that thinking in terms of -isms impoverishes my intellectual and overall mental life.
Again, our minds may work so differently that you, by focusing on ideological differences, can better achieve your aims of 'social cohesiveness and long-term success.'