There are two communities I've watched closely which have been historical enablers of this cultural revolution to end up being its Dantons. Feminism and the progressive Jewish intelligentsia. In both cases they've received rude awakenings and elicited my sympathy, but are still locked in playing the "double game". In other words they want to defeat the proximate threat (gender ideology and anti-zio-semitism respectively) but not win the war too well so as to not disestablish the base underlying ideologies and structures.
For example I've supported the RadFems in their fighting the good fight they are clearly wanting to roll trans back just far enough to re-establish the legitimate women's rights trashed by that movement - but keep the base ideology that allows selective claiming or denying sex differences whichever happens to be advantageous in the right context. They want to limit examination of bogus constructs just before they tackle alleged patriarchy, toxic masculinity etc.
The same example can be drawn for the other group - and there is no relish I feel in making these observations.
This is the best explanation I have ever read of the seemingly all-encompassing horror of our current situation. I have re-stacked (a first for me). This deserves the widest possible circulation.
Brilliant article, must have been an absolute effort to put together but is so comprehensive and helps answer a question that I had for a long time (how is this nonsense so pervasive/powerful?)
Gosh , that's an amazingly deep dive into how these abhorrent ideologies gained traction amongst so-called "intelligent "and "enlightened" people. Thank you so much. That took a LOT of work !!. Keep fighting.
I cannot help thinking that this all had its beginning in the Enlightenment. As Nietzsche argued, atheists having lost their belief in God nonetheless retained the values that underpinned that belief: namely equality. Having lost belief in equality before God in heaven, they now seek equality in the 'imagined future'.
Anyway, fantastic and comprehensive post. One of your best.
This is great! I've seen how the wack jobs infiltrated the US military and convinced everyone to start spying on each other and reporting each other for some really silly stuff but taken as seriously as life and death.
The takeover starts seemingly innocuously. Racists, sexists, harassers, bigots etc are evil. But what happens when the definitions slide further and further away from their original intent? The words are still shocking, but is the behavior actually unrighteous?
"(If constraint is defined as oppression—such as the constraint of biological sex—then oppression will always be found.)"
What is meant by this? If anything, the male is constrained ..from creating life. Is it a reference to women having less brute strength? That's no more a constraint than the male being less resilient.
Women are actually physically stronger.
No really. Calm down and have a revelation:
Women survive drought and famine in greater numbers, newborn girls survive birth and first few weeks in greater numbers. The longer a race gets (think ULTRA racing), the more women win it. Women are built to endure and outlast. Women outlive men by 8 years on average. No, not because men work harder - even the laziest dustiest losers die years earlier on average.
When the storm blows down the tall oak tree, but the sapling is left standing, who is the stronger?
It's time to accept the truth with grace and respect women, including by not letting a bunch of creeps in womanface invade our locker rooms and sport teams, of course. Radical feminists have been saying this very thing for decades, and were the ones reporting diligently on breaking news regarding the trans campaign in these past 15 years, long before the average misogynist ever even caught wind. Again, respect is key.
It is a general observation. The specific constraint being referred to is the Trans claim that their physical sex is constraining their “gender soul” so their body must be physically altered to match their inner self. But you see it again and again. Saying obesity makes you less attractive and is bad for your health is “fat phobia”, for instance. Pregnancy and motherhood is treated as a constraint on women achieving whatever at the same rate as men. Scarcity is a creation of an exploitive economic system, and so on.
Also, physical strength and physical resilience is not the same thing.
Women are actually physically stronger, but since most people think the entire definition of strength is just lift-n-smash, they believe whole heartedly that males are stronger.
Lorenzo's concept of "capitalism of truth" is encouraging. It means if the money motive can drive malevolent behaviours it can also lead the realignment by titling the realisable gains to such levels through a reversion that it will be irresistible.
Look at how valuable the strangulation of free speech has been to mushrooming of new platforms like Substack. The harder free speech and truth are to access the more valuable it is to sell a mechanism that channels them.
(BTW I am starting to get worried about the direction Substack is heading in - they are pushing the app-iff-icaton of their platform hard - which signals coming "enclosure" and cashing-out by the founders.)
Had Kamala won or Hillary in 2016 substack would not exist.
As for paying people to do the right thing…
Failed.
They did well for themselves instead.
“Capitalism” a Marxist condemnation term invented by an envious madman can’t exist without the conditions of trust, honor, shame and punishment that is the very ground and seas that markets were built on and sailed on.
The last capitalists committed suicide on Wall Street in 1929.
As for academia… they aren’t capitalists, they’re feudal fascism, economically.
There are two communities I've watched closely which have been historical enablers of this cultural revolution to end up being its Dantons. Feminism and the progressive Jewish intelligentsia. In both cases they've received rude awakenings and elicited my sympathy, but are still locked in playing the "double game". In other words they want to defeat the proximate threat (gender ideology and anti-zio-semitism respectively) but not win the war too well so as to not disestablish the base underlying ideologies and structures.
For example I've supported the RadFems in their fighting the good fight they are clearly wanting to roll trans back just far enough to re-establish the legitimate women's rights trashed by that movement - but keep the base ideology that allows selective claiming or denying sex differences whichever happens to be advantageous in the right context. They want to limit examination of bogus constructs just before they tackle alleged patriarchy, toxic masculinity etc.
The same example can be drawn for the other group - and there is no relish I feel in making these observations.
This is the best explanation I have ever read of the seemingly all-encompassing horror of our current situation. I have re-stacked (a first for me). This deserves the widest possible circulation.
Brilliant article, must have been an absolute effort to put together but is so comprehensive and helps answer a question that I had for a long time (how is this nonsense so pervasive/powerful?)
Gosh , that's an amazingly deep dive into how these abhorrent ideologies gained traction amongst so-called "intelligent "and "enlightened" people. Thank you so much. That took a LOT of work !!. Keep fighting.
That was a real tour de force, Lorenzo.
Thanks very much.
Have cross posted.
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/full-metal-jacket-part-2
Dusty
I cannot help thinking that this all had its beginning in the Enlightenment. As Nietzsche argued, atheists having lost their belief in God nonetheless retained the values that underpinned that belief: namely equality. Having lost belief in equality before God in heaven, they now seek equality in the 'imagined future'.
Anyway, fantastic and comprehensive post. One of your best.
This is great! I've seen how the wack jobs infiltrated the US military and convinced everyone to start spying on each other and reporting each other for some really silly stuff but taken as seriously as life and death.
The takeover starts seemingly innocuously. Racists, sexists, harassers, bigots etc are evil. But what happens when the definitions slide further and further away from their original intent? The words are still shocking, but is the behavior actually unrighteous?
"(If constraint is defined as oppression—such as the constraint of biological sex—then oppression will always be found.)"
What is meant by this? If anything, the male is constrained ..from creating life. Is it a reference to women having less brute strength? That's no more a constraint than the male being less resilient.
Women are actually physically stronger.
No really. Calm down and have a revelation:
Women survive drought and famine in greater numbers, newborn girls survive birth and first few weeks in greater numbers. The longer a race gets (think ULTRA racing), the more women win it. Women are built to endure and outlast. Women outlive men by 8 years on average. No, not because men work harder - even the laziest dustiest losers die years earlier on average.
When the storm blows down the tall oak tree, but the sapling is left standing, who is the stronger?
It's time to accept the truth with grace and respect women, including by not letting a bunch of creeps in womanface invade our locker rooms and sport teams, of course. Radical feminists have been saying this very thing for decades, and were the ones reporting diligently on breaking news regarding the trans campaign in these past 15 years, long before the average misogynist ever even caught wind. Again, respect is key.
It is a general observation. The specific constraint being referred to is the Trans claim that their physical sex is constraining their “gender soul” so their body must be physically altered to match their inner self. But you see it again and again. Saying obesity makes you less attractive and is bad for your health is “fat phobia”, for instance. Pregnancy and motherhood is treated as a constraint on women achieving whatever at the same rate as men. Scarcity is a creation of an exploitive economic system, and so on.
Also, physical strength and physical resilience is not the same thing.
What a bunch of non sequiturs that have no connection to Lorenzo's post. Was there even a point, aside from misandry?
You seem confused.
Women are actually physically stronger, but since most people think the entire definition of strength is just lift-n-smash, they believe whole heartedly that males are stronger.
Not the case.
Biology is misandrist.
Money the answer is money. That’s how fast that’s why it happened fast - money.
Money has been with us for millennia. Why was it suddenly deployed in these ways?
Lorenzo's concept of "capitalism of truth" is encouraging. It means if the money motive can drive malevolent behaviours it can also lead the realignment by titling the realisable gains to such levels through a reversion that it will be irresistible.
Look at how valuable the strangulation of free speech has been to mushrooming of new platforms like Substack. The harder free speech and truth are to access the more valuable it is to sell a mechanism that channels them.
(BTW I am starting to get worried about the direction Substack is heading in - they are pushing the app-iff-icaton of their platform hard - which signals coming "enclosure" and cashing-out by the founders.)
Speech is nothing without deeds.
Had Kamala won or Hillary in 2016 substack would not exist.
As for paying people to do the right thing…
Failed.
They did well for themselves instead.
“Capitalism” a Marxist condemnation term invented by an envious madman can’t exist without the conditions of trust, honor, shame and punishment that is the very ground and seas that markets were built on and sailed on.
The last capitalists committed suicide on Wall Street in 1929.
As for academia… they aren’t capitalists, they’re feudal fascism, economically.