Antinatalism and Our Fourth Stage Condition

9781350081093First things first. This is not a book review, as I’ve not read The Ahuman Manifesto by Patricia MacCormack, only read about it, and its author. And that, not extensively.

What I’ve read about it indicates: it’s very much in tune with the transition Western culture has experienced from a Third Stage mindset, which saw science, technology, commerce, and progress as givens, in a world that was getting better and better, to a Fourth Stage mindset, which rejects truths (except “convenient” ones), optimism, and in which hope is lost. (For more information on Stages of civilization, go here.)

From what I can gather, Professor MacCormack (who teaches philosophy at Anglia Ruskin University, in Cambridge, U.K.) believes the solution to the so-called problem of man-made climate change is for human beings to stop reproducing, to stop having kids. This idea now has a name: antinatalism. Professor MacCormack cites a study concluding that every kid adds twenty times more greenhouse gases to our human “carbon legacy” than can ever be taken away by recycling, driving electric cars, etc.

She envisions a future world of depopulation as older generations die off and are not replaced, leading to the eventual self-extinction of the human species.

For this, and not unsurprisingly, Professor MacCormack has taken some heat on social media, which she shuns. She complains, moreover, of having received hate mail of the go-kill-yourself sort. An Italian publication (not named in my primary source for this note) called her “delusional.”

In fairness, she’s not calling for children to be killed. She stated, “I simply propose people not reproduce, and it automatically translated into acts of violence…. Somehow, I’m proposing eugenics or some kind of ethnic population control … and I think that what that shows is there is an anthropocentric — or a human — impulse to read acts of grace as, automatically, acts of violence….”

Yet one has to admit … this is all somewhat bizarre. At least by the academic standards of an admittedly long-gone era.

I probably wouldn’t be as curious if MacCormack wasn’t teaching philosophy — or, at least, what are listed on her university profile as philosophy courses. Her profile does not say whether or not she has tenure. It does state that she has written on Deleuze, Lyotard, Iragaray, and a number of other folks I never heard of. Fellow Fourth Stage postmodern gender feminist types, no doubt. She has written on queer theory, body modification, cinesexuality, and more. That’s quite a list, very much in tune with the dominant academic preoccupations in the strange century we now inhabit.

Wouldn’t it be far more useful, though, to investigate whether the problem to which she claims to have the solution is even real?

Now I am more than aware, people wandering in here and reading this might claim I’m “delusional” because, over the years, I’ve developed doubts about climate change being “man-made.”

I can already hear the shrieks of “Denialist! denialist! denialist!”

Burn the heretic!

This mindset, more interested in intellectual uniformity than a careful sifting of actual evidence and coming to a rational conclusion, is also a sign of our present Fourth Stage condition.

If you have an open mind, I can direct you to this.

I do regret that the main body of Dmitry Orlov’s latest piece is behind a Patreon paywall. What I recommend that you go to his Patreon page and sign up paying your $2.50 per month and read the whole 8,000 word essay.

I believe you’ll find what a genuinely free mind has to say on the subject to be most enlightening.

While his view of the near future of the human race is hardly optimistic, he does not advise a course of self-extinction.

MacCormack Screen-Shot-2020-02-14-at-2.31.38-PM-702x459But getting back to Professor MacCormack: for whatever it’s worth, she’s “old school Goth.” Has done a little DJ-ing on top of her other activities. Nothing against that. It may surprise you, but I’ve occasionally, in the past, enjoyed the company of such folks. Nearly all were kind and peaceful people, not devil worshipers or anything. But maybe Professor MacCormack should have stuck to that.

Steven Yates is a professional writer, editor, ex-academic escapee, and independent scholar in philosophy presently living in Santiago, Chile. His latest book What Should Philosophy Do? A Theory has been accepted for publication by Wipf and Stock and will appear in late 2020 or early 2021.

Enjoyed this content? Support Steven Yates on Patreon.

 

 

 

Posted in Culture, Philosophy, Science and Technology, Where is Civilization Going?, Where Is Philosophy Going? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Book Review. Presstitutes: Embedded in the Pay of the CIA, by Udo Ulfkotte. Translated by Andrew Schlademan. Progressive Press, 2019.

[Author’s Note: this reproduces the article that appeared early this morning on NewsWithViews.com. I sent the editor this improved version, which fixes a couple of embarrassing typos and also rewords a few passages to achieve greater clarity, but he appears not to have seen it or to have thought the corrections were important enough. While Lost Generation Philosopher may seem a strange venue for something such as this, it isn’t, really. My plan for the site, the domain name renewed just this month, is to widen its usage to include more commentary on the strange and disturbing times in which we live, and fewer extended essays which will be marked as deep reads when they appear. And maybe widen the site’s audience. I hope this will meet with existing readers’ approval.]

Those with an interest in how mainstream (corporate) journalism really operates — if you don’t know already — need to grab this book at once! It might be unavailable soon!

Udo Ulfkotte was to mainstream journalism in Germany what John Perkins has been to international economic growth and development, and his book is as much a confessional as Perkins’s Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (2004; revised as The New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, 2016) was.

In 2014, Ulfkotte published Gekaufte Journalisten (Bought Journalists). The book became a bestseller in Germany despite a media blackout. The author, excommunicated from German mass media and unofficially blacklisted, faced lawsuits and endured police raids on his house. He told family members he feared for his life. Then, on January 13, 2017, just days shy of his 57th birthday, he was found dead from what a coroner’s report said was a heart attack. Because it is possible to murder people using chemicals that will cause heart stoppage and then become untraceable, some believe he was murdered.

The fate of a genuine whistleblower who tried to stand up to one of this world’s most powerful Deep Establishment operations?

An interesting question is what happened to the original English translation of Gekaufte Journalisten. Supposed to have been published as Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys the News, it simply disappeared. Issued by Next Revelation Press, an imprint of U.S.-Canadian publisher Tayen Lane, it was quickly removed from the publisher’s website. Tayen Lane did not respond to inquiries about the book. It still has a page on Amazon.com, where copies have been advertised for sale for prices starting at around $1,000 (!). Those who tried to order it, though, could not obtain it. It is presently listed on the site as unavailable.

There can be no rational doubt that Journalists for Hire was suppressed. More specifically, the book was privished. What does it mean to privish a book?

In his essay “The Price of Liberty,” Gerard Colby, a former vice president of the National Book Division of the National Writers Union affiliated with the AFL-CIO, explains:

“In the 1970s, a new term came into the vernacular of industry-wise writers: privishing. According to the sworn testimony in federal court of a twenty-year Viking Press editor, William Decker, the term was used in the industry to describe how publishers killed off books without authors’ awareness or consent….

“The mechanism used is simple: cut off the book’s life-support system by reducing the initial print run so that the book cannot price profitably according to any conceivable formula, refuse to do reprints, drastically slash the book’s advertising budget, and all but cancel the promotional tour.

“The publisher’s purpose is to kill off a book that, for one reason or another, is considered “troublesome” or potentially so. This widespread activity must be done secretly because it constitutes a breach of contract which, if revealed, could subject the publisher to legal liability….” (In Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press, ed. Kristina Borjesson (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2002), pp. 15-16).

It is clear that Journalists For Hire was privished. There would be no danger of litigation since the author was dead. Information about the book leaked out. Secrets are difficult to keep in this Internet era, after all. Writers with their ears to the ground knew about the German edition, and were awaiting an English translation. The Amazon listing garnered 20-odd five-star reviews, most written to explicitly expose the privishing or speak of censorship in our controlled media and publishing environment. (One of the reviews was by yours truly.)

Presstitutes has not (yet) been subject to that fate. I rather think this book’s enemies were aware that the privishing ploy wouldn’t work a second time. Not immediately, at any rate. With widespread exposure on well-trafficked sites like that of Paul Craig Roberts, such an attempt would provoke an outcry.

This edition offers a revealing account of how corporate journalism really works, by an author who — like John Perkins — was a respected insider. For 17 years Ulfkotte was eyeball-deep in the corruption his book exposes, enjoying the perks involved in working for Germany’s newspaper of record, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, equivalent to The New York Times or The Washington Post. During his career he visited 60 countries doing “investigative reporting” of various sorts for the FAZ, he calls it. He outlines how he accepted money to write stories with specific slants, making claims he knew full well were questionable, naming dozens of names and identifying the shadowy, behind-the-scenes organizations that held the purse strings.

He names the usual suspects: working alongside the CIA were allied globalist entities such as the Bilderberg Group, the Aspen Institute, the Trilateral Commission, the Atlantic Bridge, and others. They set the agendas that determined what was reported as fact to FAZ’s millions of readers. Ulfkotte identifies some of the ruses used to lure young and impressionable journalism students or journalists ate the start of their careers, such as grants administered through the U.S. Embassy to work on projects influencing European “public opinion.” He had been one such person, back in the day, lured by the promise of a lucrative career writing for one of his country’s most prestigious publications.

The agendas: whatever furthered the interests of U.S. foreign adventurism, NATO, and European Union consolidation; supporting U.S.-led wars; promoting the dissolving of borders in Europe and elsewhere; and minimizing reportage on the cultural disaster that has ensued courtesy of the Muslim colonization of Europe.

It is no accident that people speaking out against this colonization, or opposing open borders, or noting that entire neighborhoods are no longer safe for native Germans, are demonized as racists or white supremacists.

In other words, Ulfkotte goes well beyond Herman and Chomsky’s classic Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988). I cannot recall them documenting that literal spies, on the CIA payroll, actually sat in offices and all but dictated content to writers for major newspapers which was then passed off as objective journalism.

Ulfkotte’s account is as much personal as it is political. It is clear: he agonized over his situation for a long time. The name of the game he’d found himself playing: to get along, go along … or quit.

Get with the program, or get out of journalism.

Or blow the whistle and be blacklisted and broken — or worse.

Prestigious journalism “prizes” leading to career advances and high salaries are the rewards for cooperation.

The emphasis on German journalism is to be expected. But since the Anglophone world is the real ground zero of the practices he exposes, why would anyone expect British-American journalism to be any different?

No, there is every reason to think journalism in the English-speaking world is worse, and we come to a new understanding why President Trump has called out reporters from the Clinton News Network (CNN) and other corporate outlets as purveyors of fake news.

What can you believe that comes from CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc.?

If it involves U.S. foreign policy, or many front-burner national issues such as those that have led to repeated attempts to remove Trump from office, I’d believe nothing I couldn’t check personally.

Ulfkotte’s book has over 30 pages of endnotes and other documentation for his claims. These ought to circumvent efforts (example: Wikipedia) to portray Ulfkotte as just one more far-right “conspiracy theorist,” the weaponized phrase recommended to upper echelons media back in the 1960s by the CIA to turn readers away from documented claims of elite-led, top-down malfeasance.

The light of print is a magnificent disinfectant, however, and Udo Ulfkotte has shined a very bright light on such malfeasance.

I’d grab a copy of Presstitutes while I could. Progressive is a small press, and there’s no good reason to think this edition is going to be around and affordable for very long.

Steven Yates’s latest book manuscript What Should Philosophy Do? A Theory has been accepted for publication by Wipf and Stock and will appear in late 2020 or early 2021. He is the author of Four Cardinal Errors: Reasons for the Decline of the American Republic (2011).

Enjoyed this content. Support it by becoming a Patron here; or you can make a one-time donation via PayPal using my email address (freeyourmindinsc@yahoo.com). Always keep in mind that without ongoing financial support in these times, the lights could go out, so to speak, at almost any time!

Posted in Books, Media, Political Economy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Christianity and Theological Liberalism

[Author’s note: my book manuscript What Should Philosophy Do? A Theory has been accepted for publication by Wipf and Stock, and should be published late in 2020 or early in 2021. This essay contains affiliate links.]

I greatly enjoy a slim publication entitled Glimpses of Christian History put out once a month by Tyndale House, a Christian publisher. Usually it is distributed in bulletins of the English-speaking church my wife and I attend in Santiago, Chile. The publication involves just that: glimpses of church history in the form of tightly written biographies of major church figures or explorations of core philosophical-theological debates that have shaped the church over time. These vignettes frequently raise issues relevant to where we are today.

The issue that appeared this past Sunday (December 15, 2019) is worth commenting on, since the history it delves into is relevant to the core of my own philosophical work on worldviews, the role they play in contemporary civilization, and what occurs when one worldview overcomes and replaces a predecessor.

“Christianity and Liberalism” was the title that leaped out at me. It turned out to be concise summation of a work by Princeton seminarian J. Gresham Machen (1881 – 1937) entitled Christianity and Liberalism (orig. Eerdmanns, 1923), and its theme was the rise of theological liberalism or modernism, which was then splitting Presbyterianism into two factions (though the issue was hardly limited to one denomination), and which Machen traced to the European Enlightenment.

Machen as a Christian theologian resisted theological liberalism and paid dearly for his efforts, eventually having to leave Princeton Seminary and, later, finding himself having to found a new branch of the denomination from which he’d been effectively excommunicated.

Theological Liberalism.

The idea behind theological liberalism was the perceived need to reconcile Christian faith with modern science, and still have something recognizably Christian.

Machen credits (or blames) figures like Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768 – 1834) with starting the movement. The liberals emphasized not God’s transcendence but His immanence, teaching that believers become “one with God” not through Christ but through feelings such as “absolute dependence on God,” or through a “God consciousness.” God’s presence was experienced subjectively, that is. Christianity, in the hands of the theological liberals, was on its way to becoming a Christianity of feelings, not of substantive claims about a transcendent reality and that reality’s relevance to the human world. Theological liberalism embraced such tendencies as, e.g., the “higher criticism” of the Bible. It would give rise to such movements as liberation theology.

Theological liberalism, in other words, came about as one possible adjustment by Christian theologians to the clash of worldviews I’ve examined elsewhere (in my “Materialism” series on this blog; start here): between the Christian worldview and that of ascending materialist naturalism.

My conclusion was, and is, that the two cannot be reconciled, because they make claims that flat out contradict one another. You cannot be both a Christian and a materialist in your basic beliefs about what is most real (metaphysics). If you embrace one, you must give up the other. Christianity, obviously, begins by affirming God’s existence (“In the beginning, God …” Gen. 1:1). Materialist naturalism is a de facto denial that God exists, or that the issue is cognitively meaningful.

A civilization that embraces one worldview will try to destroy or at least marginalize the other. Under Mao’s dictatorship, Chinese Communists tried to eradicate Christianity. In fairness, a Christian civilization would regard materialism as dangerous and do what it could to limit the influence of materialist ideas. At present, though, there are no such civilizations anywhere in the world.

Western capitalist civilization is hardly Christian! It has effectively marginalized the Christian worldview without repressing it. It subordinates Christianity to the smorgasbord of beliefs and lifestyle choices represented in the marketplace: one commodity among many for the purchase of one’s time and resources, with no special claim for allegiance in the market-driven side of modernity.

In what Harvey Cox called the Secular City (in his book of that title), which is just the urban and perhaps suburban world of modernity, “the forces of secularization have no serious interest in persecuting religion. Secularization simply bypasses and undercuts religion and goes on to other things…. The world looks less and less to religious rules and rituals for its morality or its meanings (pp. 2, 3).”

In what we will come to call the Secular University, an aggregate term for major intellectual centers within the Secular City, the Christian worldview is an historical and anthropological curiosity, because the consequences of assuming materialism to be true has already meant the relativizing and epistemic neutering of all nonmaterialist worldviews.

Theological liberals who were taking over many seminaries in Machen’s time believed Christianity could be accommodated to this. They believed they had articulated a Christianity compatible with “modern science,” i.e., materialist naturalism.

Machen was concerned that their Christianity was a “Christianity” that saved no one, because Scriptural salvation played no role in it. Theological liberalism, as we saw above, was about religious experiences, subjective feelings, instead of substantive claims about the world, our place in it, and our nature as sinners in need of redemption.

It had replaced the idea that Scripture-based revelation is a source of knowledge with reason and the empiricism of natural science.

In Machen’s judgment, this wasn’t Christianity at all. It was a different religion altogether.

In the history of philosophy, pure reason had sometimes been used to try to prove God’s existence but sometimes to disprove it. Both modern rationalism and modern empiricism as theories of knowledge led to doubts about God’s objective existence, moving quickly to the idea that Christianity, like any and all religion, is about subjective encounters, not salvation by faith in a Jesus Christ who had miraculously risen from the dead. Miracles, the philosopher David Hume (1711 – 1776) had argued in his classic Essay based on his British empiricist premises, could not be believed rationally nor serve as a foundation for religion.

Theological liberals also set aside the idea of sin. The door was open to one of the core tenets of modernity, that we can use modernity’s tools — science, technology, commerce, education public or private, etc. — to improve ourselves morally, by our own efforts.

Note the emphasis here. No one has ever claimed we can’t improve ourselves materially. But can any of these instruments improve us as moral agents.

That’s a whole different animal, and the crux of the issue.

“Raze It To the Ground”: The Cartesian Roots of Theological Liberalism.

My takeaway, almost a hundred years after Machen wrote and having stumbled onto this chapter of the larger debate just last weekend: the pivotal philosopher René Descartes (1596 – 1650) set the conditions for the clash of worldviews generally, and for the debate between theological liberals and conservatives — or “fundamentalists” if you prefer as they preferred Christian fundamentals they saw as nonnegotiable.

I don’t know whether Machen mentions Descartes and Cartesian philosophy, or Cartesian method. Few theologians or historians of Christianity’s decline in influence see the need for forays into Cartesianism and its legacy. They should.

Descartes, the first voice of French rationalism, believed Western philosophy needed to be started over. Both the advances of the scientific revolution in his time and the discovery of other peoples with very different beliefs during the Age of Exploration seemed to call for a new beginning. We couldn’t be sure of ourselves unless we uncovered an epistemological bedrock of certainty, something immune to doubt by any rational person, anywhere on the planet.

The way to discover such a bedrock, Descartes reasoned, was to methodologically raze his beliefs to the ground: all beliefs about experience, about God, about everything. Find something — a belief or proposition — that was immune to doubt. Start over building on that.

Hence the infamous cogito. “I think; therefore, I am” is the way this is usually rendered, although Descartes never wrote those exact words.

This is the origin of Cartesian philosophy, which took Western thought in a new direction, with epistemology at its center. That Descartes’s reasoning quickly recovered, unchanged, every belief he had relinquished during methodical doubt, ought to hint that something was wrong. Yet Cartesian ideas soon moved to the forefront of the Western philosophical tradition.

Cartesian influence was hardly limited to philosophy. This idea, that all beliefs, all institutions, all traditions, can be razed to the ground and that one can start over, building an intellectual edifice on Reason alone, lies at the heart of the European Enlightenment. All our political institutions and societal practices could be put under the microscope of Reason and, if found wanting, replaced by new ones designed and constructed by rational “experts”: in the sciences, in political economy, in administration and management.

The idea that we can do this stands at the core idea of Enlightenment liberalization, and it gradually built the Third Stage of civilization postulated by Auguste Comte (1798 – 1857; more on Comte’s thinking here).

Reason was soon embodied as empirical Science and as Technique. The church was expected to submit to the new epistemic tribunal. Liberalization substitutes Reason for God as its surrogate. Enlightenment thought promised a “philosopher’s stone” leading to better and better until we reached a veritable Utopia — provided, of course, that we mass men and women trust the  “experts.”

Revelation as a source of truth drops out of this picture.

The reason is obvious.

It cannot meet the tribunal of either liberalized method: deductive proof from absolutely certain first premises, or empirical testability and replicability in the scientific laboratory, or its sociological equivalent the data-driven study.

Hence theological liberalism.

Liberals adopted the Darwinist view writ large, that we do not live in a universe designed by a rational Creator but rather one that has evolved, with us having evolved, unguided, unplanned for, products of blind laws of nature. By the time Machen was writing, materialist naturalism underwrote almost all inquiry in the Secular University.

Morality, given materialist naturalism, can never be more than a cultural artifact with no transcendent significance. It can be studied like any other natural phenomenon, which is what cultural anthropologists like Franz Boaz (1858 – 1942) and his star student Ruth Benedict (1887 – 1948) did. Anthropologists wrote not of morality as such but mores: culturally accepted norms based on expected and socially-approved habits. The “immoral” was only those habits a culture did not use or approve of (e.g., homosexuality in Christian and other religious cultures).

Theological conservatives by Machen’s time had surely begun to wonder: is this what Christianity should accommodate? How can it do so and remain Christian???

Nietzsche’s Warning, Russell’s Plea.

One can, of course, blindly follow the moral dictates of one’s culture and peers. Most do. But in any population there is a minority that is able, mentally, to step outside the box as it were, and ask for justification other than authority and expectation.

This invites the nihilism Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 – 1900) warned of.

Nietzsche, contrary to one philosophical superstition, was not a nihilist. He was warning against nihilism — belief in nothing at all, no principles able to transcend immediacy.

The essence of Nietzsche’s warning: once you’ve removed God from your map of reality, by default you remove everything that God’s existence makes meaningful.

Nietzsche was not, of course, claiming the world could backpedal to a Christian worldview. He, like other intellectuals of his time, considered the Christian worldview dead and science to have been its killer.

We could only go forward.

The onus was on humanity to develop a substantive morality suitable for life in the universe posited by materialists.

Are you up to the task? he challenged, implying that it would be a formidable one.

What Nietzsche advocated was a morality based on strength, on endurance, on empowerment: on that which stands in defiance of the material world’s indifference and death’s inevitability: a master morality instead of the slave morality of Christianity. He, like Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) and numerous others, owed this dichotomy to Georg W.F. Hegel (1770 – 1831), pivotal German philosopher and arguably the most influential thinker after Descartes.

Bertrand Russell (1872 – 1970) reissued, for English readers, the challenge of furthering a morality for secular modernity in his melancholy essay “A Free Man’s Worship” (1903).

Russell stated that in the “dead universe” disclosed by modern science we must find a way to further our “highest ideals” of peace and justice.

Again, refusing to accept “dead universe” metaphysics as one’s starting point was no longer an option. Again, we could only go forward.

So we did. Two decades later, we arrived in the era in which Machen wrote. By that time, of course, Europe had succumbed to the most destructive war in all its history. Lenin’s Bolsheviks, further Marxist-Leninist materialism as they understood it, had marched into totalitarian control over what had been Russia. When Hitler rose to power in the subsequent decade, even more would we see the consequences of what materialism allowed, including writing entire populations completely out of the moral community so that they could be summarily exterminated.

Theological Liberalism: “Christianity” Trivialized.

To make a long story short, the history of both prior and subsequent decades reveals a world increasingly dominated by elites who answer only to each other. Some of these elites assumed dictatorial political power over their societies; many others recognized that subtle encircling controls over populations which enormous amounts of money enabled would prove far more effective than barbaric repression.

The Secular City became home to a “Sunday Christianity” that was impotent against the growing control of every institution in society by moneyed interests. Eventually it was impotent against the more visible sexual and subsequent revolutions in the name of complete personal liberation, including from all moral restraints as the good life became a life of instant gratification and pleasure.

Within the Secular City, the Secular University became home to further research into human behavior of all sorts, including how behavior could be manipulated and brought under control. Millions of foundation research dollars were thrown into research into, e.g., consumer behavior and how it could be reinforced.

To reiterate: theological liberalism allows you your subjective “God consciousness.” That is, you may believe essentially whatever your feelings tell you about who God is and what He wants. You may believe in a God whose “commands” are mere suggestions, who demands nothing of you, and whose only real purpose is to provide you with some emotional comfort in the cold, dead world of science, technique, and finance capital.

Is This Case, Why Be a Christian?

Liberalism, whether theological or more generally, defines a mindset appropriate for a society in which it is simply assumed that in the last analysis, we are on our own, to make of ourselves what we will, with or without a God in our lives, and do what we will.

The Secular City, that is.

And in the Secular University, your best bet is to learn a profession or trade. Learn to be useful, and make money. So that you and a spouse can raise children who will do the same things with better and faster technology.

But in this case, there is no reason to be a Christian, to take it seriously, because there no longer is a Christian worldview as such. There is only the latent materialism underwriting every area of knowledge and human life, which by Machen’s time had already begun to spread via cultural osmosis from the Secular University and artistic enclaves to the rest of the culture, which accordingly became a culture of “do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” even if this was rarely articulated as such.

Failed Liberal Narratives.

Clearly, whatever creature comforts and technological marvels our times have unveiled, in terms of morality, Nietzsche’s and Russell’s challenges stand unmet.

For when your only “morality” is pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain (utilitarianism), or abjuring the use of force against others (libertarianism), without any viable enforcement system to ensure accountability, or just what liberates and empowers your tribe (identity politics), you have no substantive moral beliefs at all, just bald assertions suspended in mid-air as it were.

And you are in a position of wondering, whether silently or in the company of your like-minded fellows, why you shouldn’t pursue exactly what you want and adopt the most efficient methods available to achieve it, provided you are positioned to get away with it.

The wealthy and powerful are.

And if their wants and their methods run roughshod over some (many?) of those outside their immediate associations, well, then, so much the worse for them.

Do you honestly believe this has not been done? Read John Perkins, The New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (2016).

In many cases, the losers are all little brown people, anyway.

Or white “deplorables” in “flyover country” who couldn’t or wouldn’t adapt to global change and “reinvent themselves.” Who voted for Donald Trump.

The most important fruits of theological and other forms of liberalism over the past century have been to liberate elite thinking and activity, so that they are exclusively or almost exclusively about maximizing the three P’s of our time: power, profit, and pleasure.

From that combination, one gets Maos, Monsantos, and Jeffrey Epsteins.

As the Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821 – 1881) presciently framed the issue in his final novel The Brothers Karamazov (published right before his death and right around the same time Nietzsche issued his challenge):

“If God doesn’t exist, then everything is permitted.”

Except getting caught … or ensuring that if one are caught, one will have enough money and power to skate having to accept responsibility for his actions, even if they destroyed entire nations or ecosystems or killed or maimed millions of people.

Theological liberalism unleashed every other sort of liberalism. Including neoliberalism, which is just corporate elite-driven profit maximization on steroids.

The present global situation has seen the emergence of an economic cabal so small it would fit comfortably into a college lecture hall with room to spare, and yet controls more wealth than the entire bottom half of the world’s population.

There is not space in this essay to explore how this came about, or the full ramifications, except to note that — as everyone not living in a cave has surely become aware — the present world situation has begun to destabilize.

Massive inequality tends to do that, especially when the masses have sufficient access to information-dispensing technology to learn the truth and develop the suspicion that they’ve been scammed blind.

The plain truth: liberalism in whatever form is a failure: philosophical, theological, and political-economic.

J. Gresham Machen did us a service illuminating theological liberalism and its role in undermining and helping to marginalize the Christian worldview — even if he appears not to have gone all the way to the root of the crisis: in the Cartesian philosophical and political-economic paradigm that lay behind Enlightenment liberalization.

Christians should pray for the Lord’s guidance as many struggle to restore or maintain this worldview in their lives, families, communities.

Christian philosophers and other Christian intellectuals who support an actual Christian worldview should pray and work toward a philosophical program outside Cartesianism, outside the false premises and unfulfilled promises of Enlightenment “rationalism” and liberalization, outside all that materialism has unleashed in modern Secular City and Secular University cultures, and outside the control of any elite.

A program answering only to our Creator and the rules and laws of His Creation.

This may mean separating ourselves from the Secular City. So be it. We are already “strangers and pilgrims on the Earth” (Heb. 11:13).

Did you enjoy this content? Do you believe it important? Support my work on Patreon.  

Posted in Academia, Christian Worldview, Culture, Philosophy, Political Economy, Where is Civilization Going? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Protests in Chile — October 2019: End of the Neoliberal “Experiment”?

“It is easier to start a war than to end it.”
― 
Gabriel Garcia Marquez

[Author’s note: this is a slightly updated version of what was submitted to NewsWithViews.com on October 21, was marked as URGENT, but which has not yet appeared as of this writing.]

As I write this (Sunday evening October 20; Monday evening October 21), my adopted home city of Santiago, Chile is under a curfew.

What happened?

More than one narrative is circulating. On the one hand, some point to a combination of deep-seated corruption of that sort that has long plagued Latin America, combined with rising prices for everything without a compensating rises in wages.

The other narrative invokes insidious far-left figures behind this. Especially Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, and his Fora de Sao Paolo. There is a hard left presence in Chile, and in fairness to those who make such claims, they’ve done it before.

This is a developing, evolving situation. I will do my best to get events right and put them in context.

Unrest over the rising cost of living here appears to have been building for some time. The “tipping point” was an October 6 hike in Metro (subway) fare during peak hours from 800 Chilean pesos (around $1.17 U.S. dollars) to 820, the second hike of the year. This came on the heels of a 10 percent hike in electric rates just a few weeks ago.

These may not seem like much, but across the board price increases add up!

As a shopper I’ve noted gradual increases in the price of staples like bread and eggs. The price of hot water in the building where my wife and I reside has skyrocketed over the past year. I called Administration on it. They blamed the gas company.

I can absorb these price increases. Many Chileans cannot.

For their wages have remained stagnant, stretching their budgets to the breaking point. Does this sound familiar? The median income in Chile is less than half what it is in the U.S. Advanced civilizations all seem to get themselves in this kind of predicament. Chile’s economy is controlled by a moneyed elite. There is documented corruption within this elite, some of it tied to foreign corporations such as Walmart who have sunk their claws in here. Penalties for those caught red handed amount to slaps on the wrist. Many Chileans are very frustrated.

A coordinated effort by students started the melee last week, by jumping turnstiles and getting on the Metro (subway) for free. They were joined by others. On October 18 — last Friday — things came to a head when police confronted these groups. Violence erupted when they used force to remove some of the student riders. It quickly spread to the streets. Police shot a female protester in the stomach. This caused things to escalate. Protesters began starting fires in Metro stations. A public utility building was set ablaze. Vandalism spread.

All this happened before the workday was drawing to a close (typically around 7 pm in Chile). It all seemed very well coordinated. Small wonder many observers are contending that this was a planned and orchestrated event.

The Metro had to be shut down, stranding tens of thousands of people who rely on it to get home. Many had to walk long distances.

Damaging these stations was a bad move strategically! The protesters harmed their cause even if it turns out to be a just one!

I learned much of this later. Most of my work is done by remote. I’d spent most of Friday preparing for a remote-work project. So I was in my home office the whole time. While I’d been hearing about unruly students causing problems in Metro stations all week, I realized something major was amiss when the cacerolazos began. This is a traditional form of nonviolent protest consisting of unison, rhythmic banging on pots and pans. As dusk fell over Santiago, this sound, coming from hundreds of people in the streets and on balconies in buildings surrounding ours, grew to thunderous proportions.

Chile’s President Sebastian Piñera invoked Ley de Seguridad del Estado (“State Security Law”) to declare a state of emergency in the city, authorizing the military to use force to crack down on protesters and prevent further damage to public property. This did not quell the protests, which continued throughout the night and into Saturday (October 19).

Piñera declared a toque de queda, or curfew, over the Santiago area, from 9 pm Saturday night to 7 am Sunday morning. This was necessary, for while legitimate grievances may have motivated the initial protests (I’ll speak to this below), thugs who seemed interested only in stealing, breaking, or burning things came out in force. Some looted supermarkets and set them on fire. Three people were killed in a supermarket torched by looters. Five more were found dead in the basement of a burned-out warehouse.

Protests spread to other Chilean cities. A second curfew was instituted to run from 7 pm Sunday night to to 6 am Monday morning in several cities, and then on Monday from 8 am till 6 am. Over the weekend two airlines cancelled flights in and out of Santiago, stranding travelers and causing chaos at the airport.

This is the first time curfews have been imposed since 1987. Augustus Pinochet was then still in power. This bothers Chileans even if many hadn’t yet been born when Pinochet stepped down and “democracy” was restored (1990). There is a sense of history here, just as there is a anywhere.

Where this goes next is unclear as I write. Piñera announced that he was overseeing canceling the rate increase that triggered this. “I have heard with humility the voice of my compatriots,” is the English translation of his announcement to the country last weekend.

The problems in Chile, however, go deeper than a mere rate hike on a subway, even on top of a hike in electric rates.

Many I did not see for what they were.

A laundry list: very low wages as I mentioned, guaranteeing a precarious existence; higher education dangled like a carrot as a ticket to a middle class life, but priced out of most people’s reach; a health care system in which costs are going up as quality goes down (does this also sound familiar?); a privatized pension system run for profit which Chileans claim pays out a pittance despite years of paying into it. Corruption in the police force ($46 million stolen by police); collusion at the top between corporations and government enabling each to enrich himself at the expense of others; hikes in utilities; rent increases; more, and more.

And here we come to the conflicting narratives, each of which may contain elements of truth. Again: narrative (1); Communists are again on the move in Chile. Narrative (2): we are seeing the beginning of the end of what we could call the neoliberal “experiment” in Chile that began during the Pinochet era.

Narrative (1): yes, there are people aligned with Communism here, some of them fairly visible. But the extreme inequality and poverty, combined with all the above abuses, gives them material to work with. There has never been any welfare system here. One of the things I finally figured out: an advanced nation is better off with such a system than without it. The justification is pragmatic. Whether anyone likes it or not, not everyone can participate in the marketplace, for reasons that will vary. The question then is, what happens to these people, especially if they do not have family? Are they sent to charities? Such institutions also have limited resources and would soon be overwhelmed. So are they put out on the street?

Chile is filled with people who walk the streets asking passersby for money. Some sleep on the streets alongside walls or on park benches.

There is a fellow I’ve seen numerous times in downtown Santiago. He lies on his stomach on one of the sidewalks, begging for coins. He has no legs, you see. I don’t know how he gets there in the morning, or if he has family to bring him home at night. They might be poor, too.

Is anyone going to be so cold and nihilistic as to say this man is a Communist, or is allowing himself to be used by them?

Narrative (2), in that case. What is this neoliberal “experiment”? What is neoliberalism, anyway?

Pinochet knew he was a military man, not an economist. He’d inherited a wrecked economy, the legacy of the brief Salvador Allende era. He authorized a group of economists, the Chicago Boys, to attend the University of Chicago, study under Milton Friedman, and return to Chile with what they learned. They returned and employed Friedman-style economic planning, which is all about privatization.

Friedman had spoken of neoliberalism for over 20 years. He was the American protégé of the European Mont Pélerin Society, founded in the late 1940s by Friedrich A. Hayek in the wake of the latter’s highly successful The Road to Serfdom (1944), which argued that state-run central planning led to totalitarianism.

Neoliberalism is not classical liberalism any more than it is the kind of liberalism associated with America’s Democrats. Nor is it the free market absolutism libertarians defend. It does not eschew central planning. Its position is that free markets don’t come about on their own. Conditions have to be created for them to operate. There’s your central planning. Neoliberals just don’t want government doing it. Result: corporations end up at the helm of society, with government as servile. As Friedman observed, governments don’t have any money. Corporations, of course, do.

Some have called neoliberalism “capitalism with the gloves off”: political economy in which profit for corporations and shareholders is the only aim.

Back in 1970, Friedman authored “The Social Responsibility of Business Is To Increase Its Profits.” This widely-read essay got neoliberalism on the map although it didn’t use the term.

Arguably, neoliberalism only came of age after the Soviet Union collapsed, roughly the same time the Pinochet era in Chile ended. Arguably, it became the guiding economic philosophy of an important strain of globalization.

What ensued, though, was the now-familiar claims of rising costs of living everywhere while wages remain stagnant and workers’ lives grow ever more precarious. As corporate elites grow richer, most of their money made passively through investing, inequality accelerates.

We have now reached the point where less than 100 people own and control more wealth than the entire bottom half of the world’s population. I don’t believe you have to be some kind of Marxist to see something amiss with this.

The problem is not simply that this level of inequality is immoral or unjust, but that it eventually destabilizes entire societies. The situation is now such that even billionaires have grown uneasy and called for capitalism to be reformed.

In a neoliberal political economy as practiced (as opposed to academic theory), freedom is economic, not grounded in theological, ethical, or even political principles. Your freedom is proportional to your purchasing power. Values are defined in economic terms. Human beings are essentially self-interested utility maximizers, or should be.

To describe neoliberalism as postulating economics über-Alles is not entirely unfair.

The Chicago Boys brought it to Chile. And to all appearances, it made Chile seem the most stable and prosperous country in Latin America. (This relative stability and prosperity was one of the features that attracted many of us to the country.)

For a time, it works. It allows first-world infrastructure to be put in place, malls to be built, skyscrapers to rise, import-and-export arrangements to develop, and otherwise puts people to work.

It has turned out, though, that to the majority of Chileans, the promise of prosperity is a mirage. The country’s long-term stability may turn out the same unless the problems enumerated above can be addressed.

Critics charge that Chile is a very unequal society. Wealth and power has accrued to a handful of plutocrats who run the country and game the system, with no real alternatives or competition in major utilities (I discovered that only one ISP services our neighborhood; deal with that company or don’t have the Internet).

Utilities such as water, gas, electricity, and telephone cable have all been raising their rates. There is rampant price inflation here as I noted. This is because the Chilean peso is losing its purchasing power, just as is the dollar. Which means that if wages remain stagnant, people actually lose financial ground.

So is this the beginning of the end of the neoliberal “experiment” in Chile. What was that “experiment”?

Let’s take a quick detour up north, and into history.

The U.S. developed the largest financially independent middle class in history (late 1940s – early 1970s).

Hold that thought. Now think like a global elitist whose ambition is dominance.

Industrial civilization is by its nature centralized. You cannot have all the rabble running around on their own. You allow them enough freedom of choice in areas that are of no importance to you as an elite that most of the rabble believe themselves to be free. You allow them out of their cages, as it were, but keep them on largely invisible leashes.

In the U.S., this became harder and harder to do. Generations were too well educated. They asked questions. They challenged wars you wanted (think: Vietnam).

Globalists did not want to see that kind of middle class again.

So whether they undertook to deliberately destroy the American middle class or just allowed capitalism’s natural tendency to expand overseas to operate, they oversaw its slow and very painful destruction. Via NAFTA, GATT II, etc., which allowed for the outsourcing of jobs to cheap labor countries, etc.

They allowed higher education to self-destruct.

In Chile, they saw the possibility of a brand of neoliberalism that does not allow a financially independent middle class to develop. There would be a middle class to administer and manage various aspects of the system, but it would remain fundamentally subservient to economic power. Pay would not be sufficient to do more; and bureaucratic entanglements would be too great.

There would be almost no education on such things as managing one’s time and money. If people cannot do those two things they are easily controlled. At least until their lives become so miserable that they rebel — in large numbers, especially if they see others rebelling. Exercising that pent up anger, they begin smashing and burning things.

Neoliberalism served up a system that has furthered the interests of globalist power elites in various regions. But things are coming unraveled. As more and more of the masses have figured the system out, they have begun to monkeywrench it. I believe this will continue, in one form or another.

Neoliberalism is, in fact, fundamentally nihilistic. One cannot be a truly committed Christian, for example, and also be a neoliberal. Neoliberalism’s gods are money and power. It is one of the latter-day consequences of materialism having escaped the intellectual centers, seeped through the entire cultural fabric, until it dominated political and economic systems. In its quiet rejection of the idea that there is any goal to human existence beyond accumulating things, gaining power, and perhaps having as much sex as possible, for the superrich and powerful neoliberalism has been an instrument of economic and sensual liberation!

I do not pretend to know how this will play out, either in Chile or in the larger world.

I do believe we can outline where the most basic fault line is. It is not between “left” and “right,” as I’ve noted previously. Those in the upper echelons of wealth and power do not care about “left” and “right” except as tools they can use to keep us all divided and fighting one another. So we won’t look at them.

The real fault line is between this globalist power elite and those whose aspiration is to live and govern their communities as they see fit and be left alone. I am not sure what this means for Chileans, or for Latin Americans generally. Their countries have been manipulated so much by Anglo elites and plundered by Anglo corporations that they may have to find their identity all over again.

My suggestion will be that they be listened to, that their grievances against the system be documented, and that we work out a form of stakeholder capitalism that tries to address their problems. This might be a good place to start exploring ideas.

In other words, we should talk about solving problems instead of just talking about the Communists and how bad they are.

Pretending that neoliberalism will continue to work in Chile is what we should not do. For to the extent neoliberal economics is associated with the “right,” most Chileans just seeking better lives than they have now will indeed tilt “left.” This is a given. While I am not making any predictions, they could well support a Chilean Hugo Chávez, should such a figure appear between now and the next national election. The country will then go from the frying pan into the fire.

Posted in Chile and Its Future, Political Economy, Where is Civilization Going? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

The West’s Ongoing Collapse at the Hands of Identity Politics and Neoliberal Ideology: 2019 Update

. . . How did this happen? Who’s to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others … but again, truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror….

V, V for Vendetta (2005)

This, from Reagan-era economist (later: political-economic journalist) Paul Craig Roberts has been circulating. I’ve received links to it, or online republications of it, three times over the past week.

I’ve no doubt of what the mainstream reaction to it would be … if anyone in those arenas read it and saw fit to respond at all.

I also encountered this just two days ago as I write, penned by a fellow philosopher, Steven Gerrard of Williams College, one of the ones who stuck around in academia (maybe that will change).

What happened: he’d observed how the assault on free speech has been accelerating since around 2014, the year Black Lives Matter was created. This assault had accelerated since the Trump election, including at his own institution. He decided to put together a course on freedom of speech. He taught the course, apparently without incident. As any philosophy course should, it allowed multiple perspectives ranging from John Stuart Mill’s classic defense of free speech and freedom of inquiry in his On Liberty to those of identity politics.

Just short of a year ago he was presenting a pledge signed by a number of faculty at his institution defending free expression. He had been assuming that considerations such as those he had raised were making a difference. I’ll let him tell what happened next:

Then reality hit.

As I stepped up to the lectern in one of the college’s elegant Federal-style halls, students marched into the room, bearing a letter naming me an “Enemy of the People.”

In the spirit of liberal openness, I read their letter aloud. This is what it said: “‘Free Speech,’ as a term, has been co-opted by right-wing and liberal parties as a discursive cover for racism, xenophobia, sexism, anti-semitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and classism.” The letter reserved special scorn for liberalism: “Liberal ideology asserts that morality is logical — that dehumanizing ideas can be fixed with logic and therefore need to be debated.” But, it added, “dehumanization cannot be discussed away.”

The letter finished, I started to reply. But a group of younger faculty in the front row demanded that I be quiet and let the students speak. And the students did. They had almost nothing to say about free speech; instead, they testified to the indignities they suffered at Williams. The dean of the college, who was in attendance, praised the students for their passion.

And so began Williams College’s annus horribilis, a year marked by protests, marches, threats and demands — everything but rational argument. A significant number of faculty not only supported this, but also instigated it. And the administration? Its response was to appoint a committee consisting of faculty, staff and students. Since “free speech” was now a dirty phrase, it was called “the Ad Hoc Committee on Inquiry and Inclusion.”

The year pretty much went downhill from there.

He went on to describe what is happening as an evolutionary-type process, about to result in what he calls the comfort college:

At Williams College’s bicentennial in 1993, Frederick Rudolph, a beloved and esteemed professor of history at the school, gave a speech in which he defined the three eras of his and other elite colleges: the Christian college, the gentlemen’s college and the consumer’s college. Rudolph predicted that the consumer Williams “will be moving on, making way for the as yet undefined next era in the college’s history.”

Elite private education in America is on the cusp of this new era. The controversies over free speech, safe spaces, trigger warnings, microaggressions and the like are symptoms of this shift. They are currently considered controversies because the colleges are in transition, and many do not realize that the old standards no longer hold. Once the transition is complete, the “correct” side of the controversies will become central to a school’s identity — just as faith was to the Christian college, self-confidence was to the gentlemen’s college, and alumni devotion and achievement were to the consumer’s college.

Some have suggested naming this new college “the therapeutic university” or “the woke college.” I prefer “the comfort college,” because it combines the emotional component of the first with the political elements of the second. Our students are comfortable in their opinions but uncomfortable with their lives, finding their world and the Williams campus a threatening place. Once Williams’ transition to comfort college is complete, the students will expect to find their college truly comfortable in all respects….

….What characterizes the comfort college? The slogan of the comfort college is “diversity and inclusion.” And just to be clear: The presence of previously underrepresented groups is vital, necessary and welcome. What’s more, insensitivity toward people’s identities should be self-censored, and social pressure to do so is a helpful tool.

The comfort college? One wonders how anything resembling education that would have been understood as such even 30 years ago could occur there.

Here’s the bottom line: identity politics dominates the major academic departments in liberal arts in the Ivy Leagues and other high-prestige institutions. Where those institutions go, the rest follow (except, perhaps, for glorified technical schools).

It dominates the major journals in those fields, where aspiring academics must publish if they expect ever to obtain tenure. (And even if they do, there are no guarantees.)

Identity politics dominates corporate media, which is a major reason guys like Roberts have all been kicked out and cannot be syndicated except on a handful of alternative sites. It has a strong presence in Big Tech, forming a core part of the behavioral guidelines being imposed on users which I discussed elsewhere last week.

As is evident from the above, administrators are completely cowed. Those not infected with the identity politics virus are infected with the neoliberal one. Neoliberalism may be thought of as a brand of corporatist capitalism married to materialism, what some call the “business model” academic institutions began to embrace in the 1980s and even more so in the 1990s and 2000s.

Neoliberal ideology promotes a corporate mindset, and the commodification of everything it touches. Its effect on colleges and universities explains why institutions have millions to spend on plush new buildings, high tech facilities, gymnasiums, sports arenas, etc., but choose to pay adjunct faculty starvation wages.

While different from identity politics, neoliberalism has no fundamental quarrel with it. Identity politics, having largely destroyed traditional intellectual / philosophical inquiry and liberal arts learning, keeps the latter from challenging its own premises in academic political economy, and in society more generally. This is because neoliberals have no interest in saving liberal arts learning. They have no interest in anything that does not bring about an immediate material profit. Control over markets by corporations is easily portrayed as “market forces.” The language is everything.

And if that’s what capitalism is, then isn’t it small wonder why millennials are turning to socialism in droves?!

Many millennials are drowning in debt, after all, having attended those institutions in good faith. Some will be repaying student loan debt their entire working lives, and then some. (These, incidentally, include students with degrees in the sciences. Not by a long shot does everyone who goes to a university major in “gender studies” or some other such foolishness.)

Unless they default that is. Defaults on student loan debts are at all time highs. Some millennials will go to their graves owing money for student loans — always assuming the present system lasts that long (it probably will not).

Student loan debt has risen to over $1.6 trillion, and like the national debt (over $22.5 trillion), it is going up with no end in sight.

The academic / higher educational system in the U.S. is broken beyond repair. Even if we have talked about neoliberalism, arguably identity politics is the bigger culprit in bringing about this disaster.

Or is it?

Maybe there is a still bigger culprit. That being the indifference, or unwillingness to act, of those who were warned long ago that this was coming and did nothing.

I know for a fact that what Gerrard calls the comfort university could have been foreseen, because it was foreseen. By me. And by well over a dozen other writers who became aware of what was going on as early as 1990.

While in-depth discussions of the merits versus demerits of affirmative action programs go back to their origins in the 1960s, philosopher Nicholas Capaldi was the first to fully break ranks from academic niceties and note that such policies were changing, at a fundamental level, the legal structure of higher education and of the country. His book was entitled Out of Order: Affirmative Action and the Crisis of Doctrinaire Liberalism (1985).

Sociologist Frederick R. Lynch then penned Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action (1989). He made a strong case that reverse discrimination had become a real phenomenon, because the law essentially required it. Why was this?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) had shifted criteria for establishing discrimination from that of a provable action on the part of an employer to a lack of statistical balance. It shifted the emphasis from equality of opportunity (which everyone I knew supported) to equality of outcomes, which no existing policy could guarantee.

There are no means of focusing on outcomes without offering privileges to some at the expense of others, all the chatter about “white privilege” notwithstanding.

Additional writers showed how such criteria were leading to the hiring of people who had transformed their academic positions into launching pads for political activism. A good example is Roger Kimball, Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education (orig. 1990).

Around this time, the phrase political correctness began to creep into the public lexicon. Used originally by Leninists for those who towed the party line too closely, it began to be used for efforts to shut down criticisms of affirmative action on campuses, and for the “new scholarship” (I was then calling it) that was growing up to justify such policies, increasingly pulled under related rubrics like diversity, inclusion, etc., because the phrase affirmative action was getting a bad name.

This “new scholarship” drew heavily on French thinkers such as Michel Foucault, Paul de Man, Jacques Derrida, and others, who contended — essentially (I’ve limited space and no interest here in crossing all the t’s and dotting all the i’s) — that there was no such thing as objective truth, or rationality, or bias-free inquiry.

Everyone is situated historically, culturally, ethnically, etc.; so everything is political. The personal is the political, radical “second wave” feminists began saying.

Truth claims are concealed assertions of the dominant group. Never mind that sometimes they can be; but sometimes not!

Truth is, for this kind of mind, a straight white Christian male “social construct.”

We should all know these incantations by now.

Almost no one noticed the paradox in saying there’s no objective truth. If you assert there’s no objective truth, then your own statement isn’t objectively true. You cannot argue rationally and consistently that no line of reasoning can reach a conclusion by rational means, whether historically situated or not. It is the logical equivalent of sawing off the tree branch you are sitting on.

Such observations sailed over nearly everyone’s heads, which is why almost no one was interested in them.

Dinesh D’Souza’s Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (orig. 1991) documented the effects of the new politics mainly on six campuses, but noted how political correctness was spreading. Love him or not (and I know of conservatives who, strangely, hate his guts), D’Souza’s book was a landmark exposition of what was going on.

If you were anywhere near a major campus at the time, you had to be blind to have missed it!

My Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action came out in 1994 (it had been rejected by around 80 publishers). As a trained philosopher, I saw it as my obligation to outline the philosophical premises behind the new academic politics. I showed how affirmative action programs had given this politics life and empowered it, beyond the (sometimes mis)readings of the French thinkers.

My book went further than anyone else’s had, but it still wasn’t far enough.

The following year saw the appearance of Christina Hoff Sommers’s Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women (1995) working out the details of how a movement that had once sought justice for women in the workplace (“equity feminism”) had undergone a radical transformation, falling into the hands of “scholars” influenced by those French thinkers. What resulted was the idea that knowledge was “gendered” (“gender feminism”), with “gender” to be differentiated from sex. The latter is biological, and pretty much uninteresting. The former is, again, a “social construct.” This was intended to imply it was arbitrary and could be changed.

Then came the infamous Alan Sokal hoax, whereby a physicist purposefully penned an article of utter gibberish that nevertheless pandered to the political biases of the day, and it was accepted for publication in the lead journal of the “new scholarship,” Social Text. Sokal went public immediately following the article’s appearance.

This should have proved to any rational minds left that the “new scholarship” was mostly rubbish, and that academia was in serious trouble.

Despite the embarrassment, for the most part the revelation fell on deaf ears. It presumed a culture in which truth still mattered, or was believed to exist and be discoverable by rational minds.

The revelatory books kept appearing throughout the rest of the 1990s: too numerous to continue enumerating individually. Some emphasized the growing number of campus horror stories: speakers shut down; students verbally attacked for some “insensitive remark,” often to the point of needing to transfer to another school to escape the attacks; faculty members either demoted or summarily fired, or if they had tenure, their lives being made so miserable that they left their institutions on their own. (I documented instances of all these in my Civil Wrongs.)

All this was before 2000!

Can anyone in his right mind say they weren’t warned?????

There were groups organized out of supposed concern to oppose these trends and defend traditional scholarship and its ideals. Among the most visible was the National Association of Scholars, organized in 1989.

I joined at the earliest opportunity.

The NAS published newsletters and a fairly decent journal, Academic Questions. They held an annual conference, with presentations. Overall, their activities were not unlike those any other group of career academics.

By the time my book appeared, one thing was clear: this wasn’t going to be enough. A massive public effort to seize the moral high ground from the cultural left was going to be necessary. And the process was sufficiently far along that the longer we waited, the worse the situation would get until reversal was no longer possible. (I would say now that we have reached that point.)

I offered my services as a philosopher more than qualified to highlight the cultural left’s premises, trace them to philosophers such as G.W.F. Hegel at one end, outline their real world consequences at the other, and begin working with anyone who would work with me to organize a strategy of refutation. The situation was already worsening. It was reaching the point where, e.g., any criticism whatsoever of a black person or of black groups seeking special favors (e.g., their own dormitories) constituted racism, to be confronted as “hate speech.”

Almost never were such terms given clear definitions.

I was the obvious person to point out, on solid philosophical grounds, that if you don’t define your terms, everything is eventually up for the grabs of those who can shout the loudest and swing the biggest verbal clubs.

The major twentieth century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once defined philosophy as a “battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.”

It has become a battle against those who would weaponize language in order to secure and maintain policy dominance.

For NAS I’d submitted a book review, proposed an article, and offered my services as a speaker to begin presenting these ideas at their meetings, arguing how we are seeing a clash between fundamentally different worldviews and values systems. I was prepared to argue that philosophical premises are important to this struggle — which would not be won without challenging the cultural left’s premises at that level.

To my great dismay, the NAS leadership wasn’t interested. Like the majority of academic organizations assembled by groups of colleagues who knew each other, they’d formed what was essentially a closed club where “outsiders” (it helped to have Ivy League credentials!) were unwelcome.

Or such was my impression, when offers met with no response. This is the main drawback of these kinds of organizations, which proceed to shoot themselves in the foot because they are unwilling to make use of the resources available to them.

(In fairness, and for completeness’ sake, I was later interviewed for what would have been a glorified paper-shuffling job at a university out in “flyover country,” i.e., well away from everyone and everything. Being “benched” was not what I had in mind, either.)

And so here we are today, with institutions turned into war zones, where not just conservatives but liberals who hesitate over the contemporary radicalism have been driven from their positions.

For example, Bret Weinstein, a biology professor who self-identifies as a progressive, was driven from Evergreen State University in an infamous case in 2017 when he criticized the reversal of a traditional “day of absence” during which black students stayed off campus. The plan in motion was to have, instead, a day without white people.

Weinstein was critical of the neo-segregationism implied in what was happening at his institution.

Confronted by angry leftist students who called him a racist, and in light of the fact that the administration had ordered campus police to stand down (!), Weinstein abandoned the campus out of fear for his safety. He held his final classes that semester off campus in a public park.

He resigned his position, along with his wife who also taught biology at Evergreen State. He filed a $3.8 million lawsuit against the school, settled for $500,000, but remains — to the best of my knowledge — a professional scholar in exile.

So here we are, with 2018-19 behind us, going into 2019-20, with attacks on freedom of speech still continuing, directed not just at known conservatives but any and all free speech advocates whatever their worldview or ideology (Weinstein had supported Occupy Wall Street and Bernie Sanders).

Here we are, with white Americans being the one ethnic group whose population is actually shrinking relative to the whole, as Paul Craig Roberts is almost alone in having noted. Whites are the one ethnic group on which it is open season: on college and university campuses and in mainstream mass media (unless they are gay or transgendered).

Their only defenders are on alternative media.

Republican organizations able to mount defenses of these people are scared to death of being labeled racists, or (the current demon moniker), white supremacists.

Here we are, with rural white populations actually shrinking, actual victims of a variety of additional changes no one I know of ever voted for, e.g., the outsourcing of the country’s manufacturing base during the 1990s so that global corporations could get richer from cheap labor (NAFTA, GATT II, etc.), and automation.

Suicide rates among this population are much higher than in other groups.

Here we are, going into Fall 2019. Trump is still president, despite an extensive effort to lay the groundwork for removing him from office, via the official Russiagate conspiracy theory no one calls that.

To reduce the matter to one sentence, Trump is where he is because the mainstreams of both major parties collapsed. Their narratives had lost credibility. The Republican base was tired of Bushes and foreign wars. Nor did all progressives identify with Hillary Clinton, especially with the obvious theft of the 2016 nomination for her by the DNC. She wasn’t going to get the “swing state” vote after she dismissed voters in those crucial states as “baskets of deplorables” in one of the stupidest verbal blunders I ever saw a presidential candidate make. Those states had gone to Barack Obama four years before.

Trump is there because to many of those now relegated to outsider status in the “new America” of identity politics, he represented a kind of plain-speaking stand-in for everything his white followers saw as opposed to this agenda, as well as to the economic forces (part and parcel with neoliberalism) that had destroyed their lives and communities.

One would think this to be a fantastic opportunity for alternative points of view to rise and thrive. One would be wrong, mostly. Reasonably well-heeled people and well-positioned organizations are doing little except publishing materials and holding meetings during which they complain about how terrible everything is, but then do nothing substantive.

Admittedly, forming the new institutions that will be necessary if the West is to survive will take hard work and a great deal of networking, if only to get around Google’s increasing algorithmic constraints. A few, indeed, are making gallant efforts (alternative search engines, alternatives to other leviathans such as Facebook, alternative educational entities). But they cannot get the necessary financial support, and as a result, remain invisible outside the personal networks of their founders on an increasingly crowded and cluttered Internet.

What windows of opportunity we once saw are rapidly closing.

One wonders how far the West must decline before those with resources take action. Collapse is a process, not a singular event. Is the present ongoing collapse of the Western intellect just going to have to run its course? Perhaps the era and mindset that produced the best of our sciences and technologies (that landed men on the moon and returned them safely to Earth); the kind of philosophy able to justify real, intellectual diversity; and literature able to move our hearts instead of just inspire immature political rage, really is almost over.

Posted in Academia, Culture, Higher Education Generally, Philosophy, Where is Civilization Going? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Moon Madness and the Fate of the Liberty Movement

“You look pale.”  —Blair to Clay, Less Than Zero (1987)

My last article garnered responses I predicted but hoped would not occur: emails from folks who not only believe the moon landings were faked, but think the Earth is flat.

Egads!

One of the former self-identified as a “moon truther.”

I asked him if he understood that the truther meme was invented to ridicule those of us who believe some conspiracies are real, and that on at least some occasions, “our” government has lied to us.

The question went over his head like brisk wind over a deserted pier. This acquaintance and long term reader said instead, “I’m worried about you. Concerned.”

Concerned? About me?

Perhaps I looked pale.

I’m fine (I told him).

But the Liberty movement — of which he’s been a member for as long as I can remember — is clearly a bit under the weather!

For I can’t single him out. Other responses were even stranger.

I’ve long thought that among the factors that presaged Donald Trump’s rise was the collapse of the mainstream narratives of both major parties. Republican voters manifestly did not want another Bush. The Democrat base clearly preferred Bernie Sanders who addressed issues they cared about over an icy, entitled drama queen who’d almost singlehandedly wrecked two countries (Libya and Honduras).

What I didn’t realize:

The Liberty narrative — I’ll call it — has collapsed as well. It had been struggling for years, massive denial about the effects of its growing numbers notwithstanding. It went on life support the day Ron Paul retired from Congress.

It survives in think tanks that are effectively irrelevant to the national conversation, as a handful of equally irrelevant academic tokens (a few “thick” libertarians like these guys tolerated because they are pro-aborts and — believe this or not! — support social justice warrior causes), survivalist types prepping for doomsday out in the boonies, and clueless hobbyists who don’t dare give up their day jobs.

What was the Liberty narrative? Let me come back to that. I want to deal with this “moon madness” first.

Let me just ask you, gentle reader: which of the following scenarios is more believable? You tell me.

Scenario 1:  We never went to the moon. We couldn’t (Van Allen belts, etc.). Stanley Kubrick filmed the fakes out in Nevada somewhere (Area 51?). NASA was able to hide the sordid truth that the Apollo missions never went anywhere from well over a hundred thousand engineers and other technicians who had worked on various aspects of the projects. They hid it successfully not once but seven times, including concocting the gripping account of the explosion on board Apollo 13 that nearly stranded (so the narrative goes) three astronauts in lunar orbit. They’ve continued their massive coverup ever since — for 50 years now. Only a handful of Bill Kaysings and a few Liberty types have seen through NASA’s dastardly acts. They’ve figured out the truth about what really occurred — or didn’t occur. Because the government always lies. How do you tell politicians and bureaucrats are lying? Their lips are moving.

Scenario 2: In an earlier and now lost phase of America, we went to the moon seven times and landed there six times. It was our civilization’s crowning achievement. It was watched on television by millions of people the world over. All those engineers and technicians had made JFK’s vision happen. NASA had the technology to get astronauts to the moon at the time, but almost all this technology, along with a grasp of how it worked, has been lost. Those who worked on the Apollo missions retired or moved on. Some who worked for NASA later (like the former high school chum whose views I noted) grew disillusioned and dropped out of the aerospace industry altogether. The culture changed. Education at all levels began to circle the drain. Soon, it became increasingly difficult, even for the liberty-minded, to fathom how that predecessor civilization could have gone to the moon.

Again, my friends: which of these is more credible?

Before answering, consider:

Surely a government clever enough to fake a project as vast as that seven times, hiding the fraud successfully in plain sight, would also be resourceful enough to have addressed practical problems like solving the energy crisis, which in the early 1970s was one of two front-page issues (the other was Watergate).

Surely a government that resourceful would have left the Soviets in the dust then and there — their system ended from the inside long before the end of the 1980s.

Surely, too, a federal government that resourceful would have anticipated the looming health care crisis, which is really a cost crisis. A federal government that resourceful would have solved the problem of how to keep quality health care affordable long before Obamacare came along and screwed things up even worse!

Come to think of it, efficiency at that level could probably give us all a “four-hour work week” as it used technology to create abundance, dropping the cost of all the necessities of life (food, clean water, housing, etc.) down close to zero — all over the world!

Am I getting through? Earth to “moon truthers.” Earth to “moon truthers.” Come in!

Consider, also, the surrounding cultural elements. The moonshots did not happen in a cultural vacuum. They weren’t just about competing with the Soviets. The 1960s were years of great optimism. They produced mindbending cinema like 2001: A Space Odyssey and television series like the original Star Trek. And campy stuff like Lost in Space.

All with one theme: first the moon, then other worlds, then other stars!

It was also a period of great intellectual and economic liberation. Civil rights and movements favoring justice for women were fundamentally healthy movements back then, as were criticisms of undeclared foreign wars like Vietnam. A close look at the history of the latter shows teach-ins dating from 1965: no one had long hair, there was no rock music, no one was on LSD. Antiwar leaders later wondered, “Where did all these hippies come from?” (For those who have a little time on their hands, I recommend this sometimes whimsical but vitally informative series.)

Yes, the federal government has lied to us — many times. Vietnam was based on a lie (Gulf of Tonkin). We were almost surely deceived about the perpetrators of the three most traumatic assassinations of the 1960s: JFK, his brother Bobby, and Martin Luther King Jr. (who had begun to turn from an exclusive focus on race to the war machine and profits corporations were raking in from it).

I’m reasonably sure we were lied to about the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11.

So doesn’t it probably follow that we were lied to about the Apollo voyages.

Hold the bus. Consider this.

Filmmaker S.G. Collins of Postwar Media explains clearly, and in detail, why films of the Apollo missions could not have been faked.

The reason is that the film technology necessary to fake the moon landings did not exist in 1969.

With today’s CGI, it might be possible now.

Although we no longer have technology capable of getting us to the moon! If some government joker said he’d gone to the moon today, I’d be one of the people calling BS.

But back to Collin’s lecture. I find its final two and a half minutes to be the most instructive.

The fact that the government has lied to us on numerous occasions does not lead logically to everything the government says is a lie.

What actually follows is that we should exercise due caution when listening, follow money trails when possible, and then make our best judgment based on what we find.

We have to go on a case-by-case basis.

That’s more work, I know, but it’s the only thing likely to yield truth. For those who care about the truth.

Are there issues on which the government is (probably) telling the truth? I could list a few, but not in one or two lines. We’d get off track — and I’d be in still more hot water.

The point is that — if you’ll pardon the Freudian imagery — sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

What’s the real problem here?

This:

We’ve trained ourselves to look for conspiracies. But not every earthshaking event results from a government conspiracy.

I argued last week that, however they got there, the rich fields of recent history have been marred by false rabbit trails. Their purpose has been to distract and confuse.

They’ve served their purpose.

As adherents of the Liberty narrative follow the rabbit trails, real conspiracies advance. Small and large. Many of the small just involve misinformation — or disinfo. Especially involving the economy. Their purpose is to make you relax and believe everything is okay when it isn’t.

Is anyone paying attention to what the Federal Reserve is doing these days, or to the reasons for thinking that the most current “economic boom” is another bubble, the most massive in history?

Has anyone noted the collective cognitive dissonance between what “experts” say about the economy and the money worries that keep millions of ordinary folks awake at night?

On the foreign front, does anyone truly believe the U.S. war machine is rattling sabers against Venezuela and Iran because the U.S. government cares about Venezuelans, or because the Iranians shot down a U.S. drone in their own airspace?

How gullible can people be, not to realize that such affairs are about who controls the oil supply to the West (i.e., to the global corporations who have been calling the shots for years)?

Incidentally, global corporations also lie. Like rugs.

If some of this sounds like it comes from the “economic left,” make the best of it, my friends. I concluded some time ago that some of those folks have a few things right.

Which brings me full circle to the fate of the Liberty movement and its narrative.

They get a few things wrong.

Is there any hope for either?

You won’t like my answer.

In its present form, No.

For one thing, the movement is now irrelevant, as noted above.

They’re like a small group of drunks in the upper desk at a baseball game. The action is on the field, and they’re nowhere near it.

Its narrative has gone from a love of liberty and the necessary hard thinking about its conditions (which needs more than appeals to abstract “free markets”) to blind and blinding hatred of “the State” as a monolithic entity.

Not the Deep Establishment, but something they see as far more dangerous. Something that wants to kill you, and sometimes does.

Government is just people. A few, like police, have deadly power, and we rightly get angered when a cop wields it irresponsibly and shoots an unarmed black man.

But “the State” didn’t kill the man. An individual cop did.

Justice demands that he be held accountable, and sometimes he is.

But most people in government don’t have any real power. There are roughly 9.7 million full-time federal employees, counting military, postal workers, agency bureaucrats, etc. I didn’t attempt to find out how many state-level employees there are, or county-level, and so on.

Some are your neighbors or folks you see in restaurants. They have the same bills to pay as you do, kids they love and worry about, cars that need upkeep, a dog (or cat).

Many are as bored with their jobs as you might be.

None are where they are because the Illuminati beamed bozo rays into the heads of the folks atop the Council on Foreign Relations.

Here’s your real problem:

“[T]he powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank … sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world….  The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and a use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups. This concentration of power, however, could be achieved only by using methods which planted the seeds which grew into monopoly capitalism.”

  • Carroll Quigley, Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World In Our Time (1966), pp. 314, 337.

Thus the nascent world government movement, the purposes of which are to service global corporations which keep the masses on the various continents controlled, as docile as possible, and consuming what the monopoly capitalists produce.

This is the Deep Establishment, which my research tells me is far more advanced today than when Quigley was writing.

And at his very best, all Trump has been able to do is slow it down — if even that. His erratic behavior, if anything, has gummed up its works.

This, of course, has nothing to do with the Apollo missions, which exemplified science, technology, optimism, and a level of intellection starting to escape elite control.

But this goes beyond the scope of what I’ve tried to get across today. It calls for a separate article.

I rest my case. The Apollo missions happened; to believe otherwise and make an issue of it is to have gotten distracted from what is important. (Read Quigley again.) Not to mention making conspiracy research look silly. Oh, and by the way, the world is round. Well … aside from its being ever-so-slightly flattened at the poles.

[If you value content such as this, you can make a one-time donation to help support it via PayPal. Email: freeyourmindinsc@yahoo.com.]

Posted in Culture, Libertarianism, Political Economy, Science and Technology, Where is Civilization Going? | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Of Moon Landings, False Rabbit Trails, and Approaching Epistemic Oblivion

“I don’t know who to trust.”

“I know what you mean, Blair. Trust’s a tough thing to come by these days. Tell you what. Why don’t you just trust in the Lord.”

Blair and MacReady, John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982)

We’ve arrived at the 50th anniversary of the first moon landing. July 20, 1969.

Apollo 11 left Earth on July 16. The capsule entered lunar orbit on July 19. The next day — or night, in my time zone — the lunar landing module, nicknamed the Eagle, separated and descended to the moon’s surface. After conducting all preliminaries, Neil Armstrong stepped out and down onto the surface of the moon. His famous words made history despite being slightly garbled by his microphone. “That’s one small step for a man,” is what he says he intended to say, “one giant leap for mankind.”

He was joined by his fellow astronaut Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin. The two took photographs, conducted scientific tests, gathered samples, planted a U.S. flag. The next day, the Eagle made its way back to the command module where Michael Collins had been monitoring. Apollo left lunar orbit and returned the three men safely to Earth. They splashed down on July 24.

They’d left behind a plaque whose words may resonate even more loudly. They certainly should:

“Here men from the planet Earth first set foot on the moon – July 1969 A.D – We came in peace for all mankind.”

Except that on Earth there is no peace, and I have acquaintances who believe the whole thing was faked. They don’t believe Americans landed there, or that Neil Armstrong’s “One small step…” was ever more than theater.

One such person asked me last year, “When was the last time the U.S. government told the truth about anything? Why should this be any different?”

He has a point. And given that I’m not a scientist, physician, or engineer, I don’t have an answer for every claim he and a few others have made. I don’t have a front-pocket explanation for how astronauts rode fragile-looking space capsules through the Van Allen Belts not once but 14 times (there were seven moonshots, after all).

Nor do I have a watertight explanation why we stopped going, and why no one else followed our lead….

[To read the rest, go here….]

Posted in Culture, Media, Science and Technology, Where is Civilization Going? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment