Yes, Critical theory folks love this utopia as well. They can build huge mountains of bullshit on this molehill of utopia, and do so.
Unrelated. When I typed "critical" the guess-next-word typing help on Substack offered "thinking". I am so tired of this nonsense term "critical thinking", particularly when it applies to schools. Critical of what? Oh, yes, if kids are taught to think critically, they sure will be equipped for adult life.
Will they? Apparently half can barely read and add numbers, but sure "critical" will do the trick... They have so little basis to be critical about anything, as being critical of the basic stuff they are taught in whichever kindergarten does not lead to any insights (aside, perhaps that a teacher is an idiot).
So, what is the origin of this cargo cult "critical thinking" obsession?
They use your language but not your dictionary. Critical thinking has, as I understand it, quite a long history. But, of course, Critical Theory uses ‘Critical’ in the sense of Critique of existing social conditions, not in the sense of careful examination of evidence and inference. Critical was supposed to mean not dogmatic and has come to mean a different sort of dogmatism.
Right, found the source. John Dewey adopted the idea for the contemporary pedagogy in "How We Think" (1910), though the term only occasionally circulated earlier in 19th century in a more generic way. I would posit that it was just as misleading and not helpful then as it is now.
Without necessarily being able to articulate the argument as well as you, the targeted killing of heads of state makes me extremely uneasy. That feels like a red line that has stood for a very long time.
Not original to me: the concepts come from the excellent S.C.Paine from the US Naval War College. Her YT lectures (the real ones, not the AI impersonations) are well worth your time.
So, the two pipsqueaks, Mauritius and Maldives, are arguing they own Chagos because they used to be British colonies, and so Brits owe them? And International Criminal Court obliges? Back to Kipling's The White Man's Burden?
Seriously? The "Chagossians" are a mix of African, South Asian and Malay descent, brought to islands by British, French, etc. And removed by 1971, 55 years ago, and living elsewhere. But, under international law, they are the indigenous peoples of the Chagos archipelago, as they are descended from the earliest human settlers of the islands. (The last two sentences are derived from Wokepidia).
And Starmer got tied into knots about it? Universal human rights of universal abstractions? One could argue African, South Asian and Malay descent (or whatever mixture) just as well could be returned to the places they were brought from a couple of hundreds years ago - if one could figure with whatever they are supposed to "identify". Besides, the majority is likely interbred with people they live with now, so this long line of nonsense "identity" claim is even in abstraction tenuous, but who expects logic from ICC?
OK, a second little more in depth comment. Let me quote a couple of passages from Kipling again:
5
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
10
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Does it apply to Lorenzo's post? Very much so, as Kipling wrote it soon after WWI, when Great Britain had one of the early fits of cultural malaise. By Gods of the Copybook Headings he means the evolved adaptations of human nature. Currently, the West is also disarming and binding itself with the utopia of International law. And submits itself without resistance to third world cultural and populational occupation. Perhaps it is already a lost cause, but Trump America is trying to break out of this pattern. Because, the Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter are sure to return, and I for one prefer to be on winning rather than on losing side.
And here is the matching discourse from The Diary of a CEO with Konstantin Kisin:
While your analysis neither endorses nor debunks NATO’s usefulness, I predict NATO, like the UN, is bound for the ash-heap of history and that Russia will eventually join the Donroe Doctrine, become a nation of peaceful wealth.
As an Australian public lawyer, I am genuinely shocked that anybody working in this field could be so confidently wrong about so many things that are so profoundly important for a proper understanding of the law, its uses and limitations, and its application to the events of the day. I do intend to return to this comment and lay out why, so sit tight for that.
The conversation at 54:12 pretty much expresses my views.
“58:00 The progressives teach us a very important lesson. The purpose of a system is what it does. Not what it claims it is, not what it pretends to be, but what it actually does in the world. International law does one actual thing in the world. It allows very safe, very powerful people to feel very morally righteous about their safety and power. That's it. It doesn't actually do anything more than that.”
Concise and brilliant analysis.
Yes, Critical theory folks love this utopia as well. They can build huge mountains of bullshit on this molehill of utopia, and do so.
Unrelated. When I typed "critical" the guess-next-word typing help on Substack offered "thinking". I am so tired of this nonsense term "critical thinking", particularly when it applies to schools. Critical of what? Oh, yes, if kids are taught to think critically, they sure will be equipped for adult life.
Will they? Apparently half can barely read and add numbers, but sure "critical" will do the trick... They have so little basis to be critical about anything, as being critical of the basic stuff they are taught in whichever kindergarten does not lead to any insights (aside, perhaps that a teacher is an idiot).
So, what is the origin of this cargo cult "critical thinking" obsession?
They use your language but not your dictionary. Critical thinking has, as I understand it, quite a long history. But, of course, Critical Theory uses ‘Critical’ in the sense of Critique of existing social conditions, not in the sense of careful examination of evidence and inference. Critical was supposed to mean not dogmatic and has come to mean a different sort of dogmatism.
Right, found the source. John Dewey adopted the idea for the contemporary pedagogy in "How We Think" (1910), though the term only occasionally circulated earlier in 19th century in a more generic way. I would posit that it was just as misleading and not helpful then as it is now.
"critical" of Western Civilization without any evaluation of other civilizations to compare it to.
Without necessarily being able to articulate the argument as well as you, the targeted killing of heads of state makes me extremely uneasy. That feels like a red line that has stood for a very long time.
Highly penetrating concepts: "mercantile marine order" and "continental anarchy".
Not original to me: the concepts come from the excellent S.C.Paine from the US Naval War College. Her YT lectures (the real ones, not the AI impersonations) are well worth your time.
https://youtu.be/x0QrOjqXx8U?si=WEYkCxuRKtOb5l4m
Great presentation by Paine. Exactly to your point - the order needs power to be maintained. And the written declaration do not do so.
Or, for example, Starmer giving away Chagos Islands for some unclear reason to Mauritius of all places, and https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-chagos-islands-court-b2929711.html
So, the two pipsqueaks, Mauritius and Maldives, are arguing they own Chagos because they used to be British colonies, and so Brits owe them? And International Criminal Court obliges? Back to Kipling's The White Man's Burden?
Seriously? The "Chagossians" are a mix of African, South Asian and Malay descent, brought to islands by British, French, etc. And removed by 1971, 55 years ago, and living elsewhere. But, under international law, they are the indigenous peoples of the Chagos archipelago, as they are descended from the earliest human settlers of the islands. (The last two sentences are derived from Wokepidia).
And Starmer got tied into knots about it? Universal human rights of universal abstractions? One could argue African, South Asian and Malay descent (or whatever mixture) just as well could be returned to the places they were brought from a couple of hundreds years ago - if one could figure with whatever they are supposed to "identify". Besides, the majority is likely interbred with people they live with now, so this long line of nonsense "identity" claim is even in abstraction tenuous, but who expects logic from ICC?
Excellent analysis
OK, a second little more in depth comment. Let me quote a couple of passages from Kipling again:
5
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
10
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Does it apply to Lorenzo's post? Very much so, as Kipling wrote it soon after WWI, when Great Britain had one of the early fits of cultural malaise. By Gods of the Copybook Headings he means the evolved adaptations of human nature. Currently, the West is also disarming and binding itself with the utopia of International law. And submits itself without resistance to third world cultural and populational occupation. Perhaps it is already a lost cause, but Trump America is trying to break out of this pattern. Because, the Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter are sure to return, and I for one prefer to be on winning rather than on losing side.
And here is the matching discourse from The Diary of a CEO with Konstantin Kisin:
"The Man Warning The West: Trump Is Changing The World Behind The Scenes" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4
While your analysis neither endorses nor debunks NATO’s usefulness, I predict NATO, like the UN, is bound for the ash-heap of history and that Russia will eventually join the Donroe Doctrine, become a nation of peaceful wealth.
As an Australian public lawyer, I am genuinely shocked that anybody working in this field could be so confidently wrong about so many things that are so profoundly important for a proper understanding of the law, its uses and limitations, and its application to the events of the day. I do intend to return to this comment and lay out why, so sit tight for that.
The conversation at 54:12 pretty much expresses my views.
“58:00 The progressives teach us a very important lesson. The purpose of a system is what it does. Not what it claims it is, not what it pretends to be, but what it actually does in the world. International law does one actual thing in the world. It allows very safe, very powerful people to feel very morally righteous about their safety and power. That's it. It doesn't actually do anything more than that.”
https://youtu.be/AwSXWxXchN4?si=viyNYSFA4PLNof9P
Come On, Obviously The Purpose Of A System Is Not What It Does - https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpose-of?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=ugzg