Just a quick comment on this incredibly helpful, thought-provoking, and needed essay. You mentioned a specific statement early on by black students at Harvard Law back in 2017. I went looking for it and quickly found it. It's by two progressive white professors and is actually dated 11/29/15: https://systemicjusticeblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/a-response-to-randall-kennedy/. Here are the two profs: https://systemicjustice.law.harvard.edu/about/team/. I don't think that this error on your part undercuts your claims about how the successor ideology has colonized the academic elite, but I'm a facts-guy and this needs correcting. It's for that reason, actually, that I wanted to post: because the event that Kennedy, a black center-right professor, was writing about, and that these two white professors are underlining--the infamous "black tape" episode where black law profs' photos at Harvard Law were taped over--was a hoax. It was a hoax almost certainly perpetrated by, or at minimum abetted by, Derecka Purnell, a student at the time who has gone on to write a book called "Becoming Abolitionists." Neither Purnell nor law school dean Martha Minow nor any of the HLS administration ever held her and possible co-conspirators to account. Purnell herself certainly hasn't come clean. But Wilfred Reilly wrote about this in his "Hate Crim Hoaxes" book, as did The National Review in the following article: https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/minow-harvard-law-school-hoax/. A small group of HLS students who were angered by the way in which Purnell's scam ended up stigmatizing white students and administrators even as it licensed the full-frontal march of the successor ideology there began a blog, and it's worth investigating. Here's one early post--and bravo for it. https://royallasses.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/3-evidence/. In any case, there's a bottom line here: One way in which the successor ideology has tightened its hooks around academic institutions is through such hate crime hoaxes. This doesn't mean that actual hate crimes haven't taken place, and don't take place, on college campuses. Of course they do. But as Reilly makes clear, and as the HLS episode forcefully demonstrates for those willing to listen, hate crime hoaxes ALSO take place on college campuses--and the response of the administrations and student bodiesd that witness them is not to call them out, or say, "We were wrong, sorry!," or investigate the alleged hate crime in adequate depth and then publicly chasten and punish those who committed the hoax. Quite the reverse: more often then not, it's to insist that the, um...we won't call it a hoax, "because it reveals deep-seated anger at racism blah blah blah." It's to blur the line, finesse the issue, insist on instituting additional campus climate surveys. Never, but never, do people pause and go, "Hmmm. Maybe things AREN'T as bad here as we thought." It's this floating-free-from-facts in the matter of race relations on campus that I find most destructive. It's the post facto justification of such acts as impressionistic but needed--ways of "raising consciousness of longstanding disparities," etc., that is most socially corrosive. Because the lack of actual accountability for those who perpetrated these hoaxes, in many cases, leaves the stench of APPARENT white (and usually white mal) maleficence in the air. The hoaxes themselves degrade the campus climate, even while they pretend--everybody pretends--that they were exposing a "systemic problem." Well yes, they were. It is indeed a problem, but not the problem it pretends to be. The problem, Wes, is exactly what you've articulated so well, which is that even the BAD facts--the hoaxes--end up getting subsumed within, and purified by, the Narrative.
This reminds me of what happened recently at Western university in Canada. Claims were made on social media that 30 women were drugged in an orientation week party at a residence. Marches and a massive walkout ensued to protest the dangerous environment. Two weeks have passed a little story’s comes out saying that a police investigation failed to find a single witness or person willing to come forward about a drugging. The failure to find women willing to come forward about a mass drugging will of course not be seen as evidence of a “hoax” or moral panic but just more evidence of the failure of police and the costs for women to come forward when victims of sexual assault.
Great piece, looking forward to the next installment. I would not be too hopeful about finding the philosopher's stone that reveals the unity of the many movements that make up the Successor Ideology coalition, though Nietzsche's resentment may not be irrelevant to the quest. The strongest source of the coalition's unity is people's desire to conform to (and participate in) the perceived dominant ideology; the second strongest is the pragmatic benefit of mutual support among allies. The strategists who are able to coordinate activists with different grievances and contradictory interests are intelligent engineers of power, like those who were able to use Communism as a clearing house for various, contradictory progressive movements, and steered these movements into serving the engineers. When the engineers have sufficient power, or as occasion demands, the progressive movements are downgraded or cast aside, having served their purpose.
You do not exaggerate the significance of Successor Ideology. It is the clearing house of today. The question is cui bono. It is only "the Communists" in the popular sense of the word, meaning subversives who seek to impose (not even necessarily exercise) totalitarian control over their neighbors. So who is it? Movement folks gain something for their supposed constituencies; advocates find an audience, which is enhanced by the advocate's actual exercise of power; money changes hands, public and private funding finds its way to the trough; but is there any higher order of profiteering? The billions that accrued to the billionaires as a result of the media-amplified COVID crisis point to one set of wire-pullers. But as Matt Taibbi wrote today, not even Zuckerberg actually controls the vast power he appears to wield. Who then? Satan and his generals aside, a critical thinker may come to the conclusion that any "Master Cylinder" is a figment of Aristotelian physics, when what we are really looking at is an ecology in which organisms discover and exploit ecological niches and compete for the ability to do so. The ultimate wire-puller is an Emmanuel Goldstein, invented to give people someone to hate, as the Successor Ideologists have invented the all-powerful white male. Successor Ideology, by contrast, may be found in many apparently unrelated niches serving different purposes, a kind of all-purpose vitamin for exercising power in any particular niche. More concretely, let's ask, what is the Open Society Foundation, a proponent of Successor Ideology in many forms, really after? For example, when it gives half a million dollars to the coalition agitating to reorganize the Minneapolis Police Department. Or when it gets DAs elected who decline to prosecute specific categories of crime. The answer seems to be, a seat at the table for our proteges, whom we will influence for our benefit as they acquire more power. We raise the valuation of the Successor Ideology itself by delivering practical successes. The whole enterprise benefits, from top to bottom, floating all activist boats, academic, professional, political, and commercial. It is also possible that this kind of practical Successor Ideology activity generates economic stress, which generates political stress, which generates even more economic stress, devaluing currency and other ownable assets for the benefit of whoever is left standing. This kind of query does not need to explain the whole world, only to link potentially related ecosystems. Thanks for your work!
If the base ideology, in this case liberalism, is itself derivative then the cannibalism of its assumptions you described is inevitable.
Liberalism has long struck me as derivative in its need for something to reject in order to "improve the world and elevate mankind"--tradition, local custom and mores, habits that create social order, anything, really, that exists and impedes desire and visions of moral grandeur. Those protesting liberalism's self-described project of creative destruction are called reactionary, conservative, etc. True, nothing can be made ex nihilo and without contraries there is no progression, as William Blake said, but joined with technology liberalism slipped its own leash and abandoned reason, achieving dominance on a vast scale but without capacity to rein in its own ambitions.
Enter, the SI, which for now seems to consist of elaborately schematized gripes and grievances wedded to an abstract desire to "save the planet," which, proponents claim, is being destroyed by the evil parent of liberal humanism.
The grim dopiness of the SI is its metaphysics, which asserts that humans have no inherent nature and, by extension, rejects nature itself. The nearly unbearable tension SI bears lies in insisting that reality be defined by subjective choice while disdaining the necessity of choice moderated by and clarified by reason as a human function necessary for individual and species survival. SI's metaphysics is social, its epistemology a dark cavorting through synthetic word games, its ethics bureaucratic and bullying, its fang-baring emotional tone devoid of humor and joy.
SI is liberalism's imbecilic progeny gathering energy for a full attack on reality, reason, and human life qua human life. It will lay the spiritual groundwork for the technocrat's deus ex machina: transhumanism.
Funny You should mention that last point Mostly disagreeable. It's off-topic to the general conversation. But, after the decline and possible decimation of America, transhumanism is a concern of mine. Only second because I hope it's not as imminent. I'm having a difference of opinion with my former mentor, who I check in with twice a day, both yesterday and today. It began with his article on medium.com, in case anyone has a strong stomach.
Most people I've mentioned this to can't contemplate the ramifications. IOW, I would skip this post if I was You.
My conversations with my mentor are, by his wish, between the two of us. But I don't see a problem publishing MY end of it. Thus the following messages to him yesterday:
---------------------------
First off, a number of suggestions.
More to the point, I'm astounded how blind and stupid You can be, xxxxxx. You think You're at the apex in critical thinking when You're just a child. You talk about "out-of-the-box thinking?" You're so firmly STUCK in Your box that You can't see straight. Me? I can think where there IS no box, and there are so many falsehoods in this article that I'd hafta at least double it to point them all out.
But to connect spirituality with these wholely mistaken ideas? That's downright... I was gonna say disgusting, but that's not really strong enough.
Sorry, but what I've said here is the Truth of the matter. That You can't see it shows where You're limited inside Your box.
---------------------------
I followed up with these comments:
---------------------------
jt 3:27 PM
I'm afraid I need to start backups about an hour early today.
And TY for Your calm reply, xxxxxx. But I'm not sure You CAN see them. There were so MANY. I think if You understood properly, You wouldn't have written that article.
Let me take the one point I mentioned to You previously and deconstruct it:
However, transhumanism is not exclusive to wealthy people only. Any color of people can benefit from transhumanistic ideas. I know that some financially poor people live longer and experience a better quality of life than rich people.
I will point out the flaws by asking You to SERIOUSLY answer these questions:
Do You think this technology is gonna be inexpensive or expensive?
Assuming You go that answer right, who do You think will be the FIRST people to get this technology?
If You answered the ELITES of the world, You would be correct.
Would YOU be included in the TOP TIER Elites? I dunno. Me? Naw. NO matter.
Once the AI chip is perfected and put into a human brain, do You acknowledge that, essentially, a new SPECIES of "human" will be created?
Will this new human species of human be, in any way, shape of form, inclined to share their good fortune?
Before You answer that question, consider that these ELITES would consider themselves ENTITLED to being better than everybody around them.
You see, ICBW. But everything I've observed about myself and human nature tells me that, no, they won't be inclined to benefit humanity for the good of all. Look AROUND You, xxxxxx. Do You see that happening NOW?!? What I'M seeing in the decline of the United States, is that the ELITES in power don't care the LEAST if Democracy survives, because they'd be better off without it. You recall Charles Stephen's article on the rapid decline of American Society? That it would be RAPID. Could be in my lifetime. Hope NOT.
Let's say the rest of us will get some form of AI chip, or eugenics, or whatever transpires. If private parties supply it, it SURELY won't be as powerful as what the Elites have, right?
Let's say the Government provides these things cheap or for "free." The MAIN incentive for the Elites who run Government to do this is to CONTROL the masses, right?
Before You answer negatively to any of the above questions or propositions, consider that someone who is that far ADVANCED would have zero risk doing it. Rather, they'd have worked out contingencies for all possible outcomes, right?
Now I could go through, point by point, and show You how there are a large NUMBER of statements that are CLEARLY "wishful thinking" to put a good light on it. But the only reason I'd need to attempt that is if You somehow manage to convince Yourself that "everything will just work out for the best."
For a long time now, I've been practicing being "neutralistic." Neither optimistic nor pessimistic. BOTH optimistic/pessimistic. You WAY overbalanced on being optimistic, because that's one-a Your prime motivations. Given, useful on OCCASION. Normally, AFAIK, clouds vision.
Sorry.
Starting backups now. To bed early tonight.
---------------------------
My mentor generally agreed with me but said I misunderstood his article. Up to You, if You read this far.
Well, I gave it a shot but the essay has no structure and feels like the meanderings of a well-intentioned, pleasant man who does not yet understand how utterly destructive optimism can be. And perhaps this is why the essay rambles: the beliefs expressed require so many evasions of obvious pitfalls one must walk 6 miles to go 1 mile. If he gets red-pilled he will quickly go dark and depressed.
Optimism is a fragile cope, in my experience, so it is no surprise it is attracted to the ultimate fragile state of being envisioned as transhumanism. That vision is similar to other brittle ambitious beliefs again and again defeated by time, nature, scale (e.g., if everyone has more X everyone will be better, X).
As for your observations of elite hoarding of transhuman tech, I'd add only that the tech will first be tried on the poor and only when it has been perfected will "elites" partake. Delegating risk is their forte.
Oh, I agree 100% that the techniques will be perfected through the "expendables." They'll probably offer a million or two to people to try it out. Some will. The first ones, AFAIK, will get their brains scrambled for their trouble. Dunno how many it'll take, and I'm nowhere near 100% that technology CAN create a new species of human. But if it does, I seriously doubt there will be much of humanity left in the thing.
And, yah, the article. He IS a pleasant man, for most part. Still...
I'm not sure that anyone could fully comprehend exactly how important this passage is:
"Whether or not any of them really understand that they did so, or intend to follow through on all the implications of the act, the countless private and public organizations that declared themselves “anti-racist” organizations all signed on to fulfill the agenda that flows from these principles. If they prove resistant to any specific reform demanded of them by the successor coalition, they will be confronted by their prior commitments and asked — politely at first, and then through the medium of screaming fits and claims of genocide — to live up to them."
I've seen it firsthand, and it's not only "anti-racist". "Equity" works the same way. "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" increasingly so, and to the extent that they don't, they'll get dismissed as passe or appended with "Justice" to the front of it to be sure. It's brilliantly diabolical because who wants to be against any of that? If course, everyone wants to be against racism and for diversity, equity, inclusion (and justice). But as long as we collectively have granted to the Successor Ideology the power to define those terms, then what we're signing up for in the process is generally exactly the opposite.
One of the responses from the right, which I sympathize with but probably don't agree with, is to then say that we don't stand for "anti-racism" or "equity", rather than wage battle on the ground of how the terms are defined. I think the better strategy is to say that, yes, we're also against racism and for equity, but here's what we mean by it (which by the way is what was written in the dictionary until about three months ago).
But I'm not sure that works, when the cultural power of this ideology is such that yes, they can alter the dictionary whenever they want to.
TYTY, M. Yang. Astute as always. I"m gonna reread it now. Well worth it. You're a breath of fresh insight in what's turning towards, perhaps, a lousy day.
I think the thing that bothers me most is this FACT:
"The mystery, simply stated, is that those who sought to pursue the cause of black equality through the instrument of the civil rights state, instead wound up providing a warrant for federal judges to regulate the manner in which local principals would set bathroom use policy ."
I've been reading "The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties." It's a fascinating history by an extremely strong conservative. But he, on first read, seems to posit some pretty good ideas on how we've ended up where we have.
I read about the courts earlier, but will probably hafta read again to get my thoughts in order.
What I'm reading today covers the extent which liberal FOUNDATIONS supported by the tech (and non-tech) billionaires. EXTREMELY liberal. And how they've taken upon themselves the task of changing society to it's liking. Aided by liberal governments, they got things DONE:
"Foundations certainly found it easier to get things done. Where governments faced accountability, a billionaire could say that what he did with his money was none of anyone’s business."
One of the things he's pointed out is that over and over again, more and more, decisions are made at levels that contradict the will of ordinary people:
"The reforms of the 1960s had created mechanisms for forcing social change even against the democratically expressed wishes of the electorate."
When we were kids, eons ago, there was a saying, "Don't make a federal case about it!" This used when someone was being over-vocal about some real or imagined fault in another.
So when it comes to how to interpret idiocy about hair, I think this is the attitude that comes after it, necessarily. But ICBW.
"We might end up calling this process of oppression without oppressors, as the Successor Ideologists do, 'oppression'. And we might demand that true equality means a root and branch criticism of all that exists in order to ferret out inequity still baked into our societal operating systems, followed by a transformation of all those institutions to purge them of that inequity."
To bring this back home, they WILL make a Federal case out of these things, when they decide they want to. Scripted in advance. It's a proven strategy, right?
I maybe should-a read it a third time, and waited till I was more rested in the morning.
The POINT of this, indirectly, is that the Successor Regime includes a lot MORE than the woke. The courts. The "charitable" foundations. The billionaires. I wrote elsewhere that the Successor Regime, the Elites, sure aren't helped by Democracy! And I think it makes logical sense that they go around it... That is if they don't end up destroying it altogether in the end.
Tracked down the review. It was GREAT. Can't wait to see how (or if) Your views have changed since then, Sir Wesley. I'm gonna call and end to a long day, spending too much time reading books, but imagined this might be of interest to some few reading here:
"Today's wealth gap. If you look at the bottom 50% of white people in terms of wealth and the bottom 50% of black people in terms of wealth, there is almost no wealth gap at all. The entire gap is in the top 50%. And the reason, of course, that there's no wealth gap in the bottom 50% is that practically none of those people, white or black, have any significant wealth today. And again, that's a horrifying fact."
I pointed out the FACT (as I've done countless times) that the bottom HALF owns two (2) % of the wealth. That means everyone reading this is "them" to these poor people.
For those working against the Successor Regime (specifically CRT), the FBI has license to call You a "domestic terrorist." Illegal, yah. But the mere THREAT is enough to silence the majority, right?
Caldwell pretty much confirms something I was thinking the other day.
I used-ta think the idea of "government is too BIG" was stupid Republican nonsense. Especially when they gave up the principle themselves. But now?
If the Executive Branch decides something is gonna CHANGE, they just issue an Order and say, "If You DON'T do it this way, You won't get any Federal funds." I'm trying to think of anybody who can afford to forego these funds, but I can't.
So, as far as I can tell, we actually, currently, LIVE in a Fascist state, don't we? Dunno fer sure. But on TOP-a that You got the Successor Regime. Depressing, if I was oriented that Way.
Very much enjoyed the column; perhaps it’s me, but some of the passages are a little dense and verbose. The subject matter is it self a lot to hang onto cognitively, so it might serve us readers if the language of the article was a little more user-friendly.
Good background material and I agree with you on the idea of "freedom of speech." In the same way, Henry Ford once said that you can have any color car you like, as long as it was black, you can say whatever you like, as long as it comports with Social Justice. Which is an everchanging, non-defined set of good-think.
But, and this is the part that was missed in the ramp-up to where we are now, the way for institutions to stop this is to not play the game. Leaders need to hold the line and say, "no, freedom of speech means just that." And punish those who try to take it from others. But it failed due in no small part by attacking liberalism and its ideas and pushing those who wanted to be seen as progressive into an ideological corner.
A mere footnote in your essay, but worth highlighting:
"One may speak freely most of the time, but the gatekeepers of the manufactured consensus can choose to target you on the basis of unclear and shifting criteria at any time. Our subject here is the onslaught of an ideology that proceeds by defining all contrary opinions — and increasingly, contrary facts — as existing in the ever-ramifying zone of exception — “hate, harassment, and misinformation...”"
This is a very frightening phenomenon even for a generally anonymous nobody like myself.
I made this comment on another forum and am stealing from myself:
"The people upholding "Successor Ideology" (social justice or wokeness) are among the most credentialed, as in degrees, people in society.
They expound that the West, and in particular the United States, are the most sexist, racist, and homophobic societies in the world. Something I have been hearing for 30+ years.
Yet, a quick bench-marking, historical and current, shows that the opposite is overwhelmingly true. In fact, I have told people that feminism, gay rights, and abolition of slavery are the inventions of "Whiteness"....something that can be established through a provenance of those movement.
So, my question is: Why the blindness and refusal by the credentialed to see the above? Where in the world is the situation better? As I said, this is something I have been running into for decades but never get the chance to explore since challenging it leads to frustration and worse by the person being challenged."
Regarding the killing of black trans women (I believe they are among the most frequent victims), many of these women were street sex workers....probably among the most dangerous jobs. I have seen pictures of both the murdered women and their murderers, and time and again, the women and the men were of the same race.
I have also noticed this and can only attribute it to ignorance and not understanding how completely brutal and illiberal most cultures throughout history have been (and many non-Western cultures still are today). Perhaps there is some drive by academics even to treat those topics with kid gloves or avoid them, so as not to appear to be critical of non-European-derived, non-western cultures and avoid the accusation of some kind of white or western supremacy or cultural imperialism?? I don't really know. When I was taking humanities courses as an undergrad in the 90s, I pretty clearly remember learning the full scope of historical barbarism all over the world (including, of course, in Europe and the US but certainly not unique to them), but maybe nowadays that would get you tarred as being in the colonialist mode of improperly deeming other cultures as primitive or barbaric?
I was reading twitter comments on Dave Chappelle's new show last week and came across some young woman with a long, hectoring thread supposedly educating everyone about how problematic it was in terms of homophobia and transphobia, and in it, she actually claimed that the homophobia seen in many non-Western cultures was the result of ideas given to them by Western colonizing forces. What a joke!! And she had thousands of likes and thank yous to her for her great points. This chick literally thinks that white people taught the rest of the world how to be homophobic -- LOL!!
Feminism, gay rights (which is a pendant of feminism, and movement to rid the world of slavery are all the products of the dreaded world of "Whiteness" and the children of capitalism.
Those rights rest on 2 things: 1) The concept of rights and 2) The notion of the individual.
You can do a provenance and see where ideas of feminism/gay rights developed: Marry Wollstonecraft, as example. In terms of gay rights, the very coining of the word "homosexual" c 1862., even if as opprobium, nevertheless instatiates a typology and a community who can advocate. I can go on.
Do you have that twitter thread about Dave Chapelle that you can share? I am really curious to see what was said.
Yeah, I mean I thought everyone knew that homophobia...in particular, being entirely unaccepting to the point of simply not acknowledging the existence of (and if it had to be acknowledged, wanting to murder) homosexuality in males...was pretty much completely universal in every culture through all of history with the exceptions of some ancient Greek and Roman civilizations and of course western, liberal culture of the past 50 years. It's now trickling down a lot of places, but this has always been a universal phenomenon and no one needed to teach it. It's western democracies that are the ones spreading acceptance of homosexuality and pressuring other cultures to get rid of homophobic laws and discrimination, but apparently that is no longer common knowledge and they have it totally backwards.
Because I have never been a prolific blogger and am still finding my sea legs on this medium, I confess that positive feedback of this sort is valuable to me because needed
You are welcome to it: it is much deserved. What makes your analysis so devastating (and unusual) is the instinct for justice at the heart of it. The sympathetic discussion of hair in this post being a case in point. You wield your reasonableness genuinely but lethally. The silent satire of the malefactors is very good. Who would be Robin Kelley after reading that!
I am one of the people who initially subscribed, then unsubscribed because of lack of content. But I've enjoyed the new articles and re-subscribed, so please keep up with the good work and regular posts.
Wesley, Thank you for your efforts to continue seeking and sharing deeper understanding and wisdom from your perspective.
People do not always have to agree with every perspective shared to have respect and appreciation for a person's ability to communicate their ideas with sincere analysis and conclusion, giving more "food-for-thought" for those things we might not have considered.
You are doing a wonderful job, although you do not consider yourself prolific. I'm of the belief that it's not always the "quantity" as much as the "quality" that counts.
I believe that respect for your insights has been proven by the many of us who enjoy your (challenging) writing and look forward to each post you share. 😊
I consider myself a "Seeker" of Knowledge, Wisdom, "big T" Truth and, even when I don't like it, Reality (and how to go about dealing with it).
As so many others attest, my heart and mind, too, tell me that those preaching the "Successor" ideology (which I still have not fully grasped the whole of and continue to be more comfortable with the term CRT) is full of bad-actors wanting power to drive their narrative, insisting on redefining words (no longer understood by the masses) commanding attention for their cause with little concern for the TRUE good of all (using their own definition of "just").
The rhetoric would claim differently but, sadly, I liken them to "evil appearing in the guise of light." Very seldom do I actively use the word "evil", but what I see them doing in having no respect for other perspectives, with attempts to divide and separate us as a country, I cannot help but feel that "evil" accurately describes their actions.
After reading the Introduction, Author's Note and Chapter One of "White Fragility", I literally felt sick to my stomach (which has NEVER in my recollection EVER occurred). My gut reaction (which I felt badly about, not knowing the author personally) was that Robin DiAngelo MUST be an Academic trying to make her "mark" with some novel idea that would, surely, not fly.
Academics attempting to take advantage of the ignorance of those less educated, leading them unaware, like the Pied Piper, to have them blindly embrace the chaos and confusion that they attempt to impose, encouraging them to trust, while promising them that they are doing so in the name of social justice; shameful.
Their fight to make CRT part of the curriculum for K-12, where our youngest and most vulnerable minds are being educated and molded, is a transparent move. Their attempts to stifle the voice of parents, now threatening to allow the FBI to go after those who descent to CRT with loud voices against school board members, is an unbelievable turn of events in, what was once, the land of freedom.
Thank you for walking this important journey with us through your writing and sharing, Wesley.
It seems to me like a dying empire parasatizing itself. It is not just the CCP who smells blood in the water, so do all those who have felt oppressed in this society, many white people included. Qanon seems an equivalent bit of madness in that sense. Militant jihadism comes to mind too, this will to destroy to take control and make the world in thy pathological image.
Working poor with many people of different races, I know this is mostly a guilt based ideology supported mostly by the professional managerial class. Urban and suburban white women are Kendi's audience mostly. The working poor are more conservative in practice, concepts like work ethic and being a good person and taking care of family and community are easier to undestand. Working poor of all races in America understand that such thinking from neo-Marxists inevitably leads to them having less of everything.
End American Empire and you end American consumerism. American consumers of all races will consume the destroyers of that.
You and Bari Weiss are my favorite Substack writers. Now if I could only get a nice printed copy of my top 5 writers' pieces all in one shiny newsletter mailed to my house every 2 weeks, I'd pay $50-100 per month for it. You're doing great; keep 'em coming!
Just a quick comment on this incredibly helpful, thought-provoking, and needed essay. You mentioned a specific statement early on by black students at Harvard Law back in 2017. I went looking for it and quickly found it. It's by two progressive white professors and is actually dated 11/29/15: https://systemicjusticeblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/a-response-to-randall-kennedy/. Here are the two profs: https://systemicjustice.law.harvard.edu/about/team/. I don't think that this error on your part undercuts your claims about how the successor ideology has colonized the academic elite, but I'm a facts-guy and this needs correcting. It's for that reason, actually, that I wanted to post: because the event that Kennedy, a black center-right professor, was writing about, and that these two white professors are underlining--the infamous "black tape" episode where black law profs' photos at Harvard Law were taped over--was a hoax. It was a hoax almost certainly perpetrated by, or at minimum abetted by, Derecka Purnell, a student at the time who has gone on to write a book called "Becoming Abolitionists." Neither Purnell nor law school dean Martha Minow nor any of the HLS administration ever held her and possible co-conspirators to account. Purnell herself certainly hasn't come clean. But Wilfred Reilly wrote about this in his "Hate Crim Hoaxes" book, as did The National Review in the following article: https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/minow-harvard-law-school-hoax/. A small group of HLS students who were angered by the way in which Purnell's scam ended up stigmatizing white students and administrators even as it licensed the full-frontal march of the successor ideology there began a blog, and it's worth investigating. Here's one early post--and bravo for it. https://royallasses.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/3-evidence/. In any case, there's a bottom line here: One way in which the successor ideology has tightened its hooks around academic institutions is through such hate crime hoaxes. This doesn't mean that actual hate crimes haven't taken place, and don't take place, on college campuses. Of course they do. But as Reilly makes clear, and as the HLS episode forcefully demonstrates for those willing to listen, hate crime hoaxes ALSO take place on college campuses--and the response of the administrations and student bodiesd that witness them is not to call them out, or say, "We were wrong, sorry!," or investigate the alleged hate crime in adequate depth and then publicly chasten and punish those who committed the hoax. Quite the reverse: more often then not, it's to insist that the, um...we won't call it a hoax, "because it reveals deep-seated anger at racism blah blah blah." It's to blur the line, finesse the issue, insist on instituting additional campus climate surveys. Never, but never, do people pause and go, "Hmmm. Maybe things AREN'T as bad here as we thought." It's this floating-free-from-facts in the matter of race relations on campus that I find most destructive. It's the post facto justification of such acts as impressionistic but needed--ways of "raising consciousness of longstanding disparities," etc., that is most socially corrosive. Because the lack of actual accountability for those who perpetrated these hoaxes, in many cases, leaves the stench of APPARENT white (and usually white mal) maleficence in the air. The hoaxes themselves degrade the campus climate, even while they pretend--everybody pretends--that they were exposing a "systemic problem." Well yes, they were. It is indeed a problem, but not the problem it pretends to be. The problem, Wes, is exactly what you've articulated so well, which is that even the BAD facts--the hoaxes--end up getting subsumed within, and purified by, the Narrative.
This reminds me of what happened recently at Western university in Canada. Claims were made on social media that 30 women were drugged in an orientation week party at a residence. Marches and a massive walkout ensued to protest the dangerous environment. Two weeks have passed a little story’s comes out saying that a police investigation failed to find a single witness or person willing to come forward about a drugging. The failure to find women willing to come forward about a mass drugging will of course not be seen as evidence of a “hoax” or moral panic but just more evidence of the failure of police and the costs for women to come forward when victims of sexual assault.
Yes, precisely. The sad thing is that we'll never know. Such non-evidenced events, or ambigiously outcomed events, just become part of the "climate."
Or when shown to be a hoax are explained as "starting an important conversation." And "fake but accurate" rides again.
For more info: https://london.ctvnews.ca/london-ont-police-unable-to-substantiate-online-reports-of-drugging-assaults-at-western-university-1.5607755#:~:text=After%20reaching%20out%20to%20more,Hall%20residence%20at%20Western%20University.
one of the earlier reports
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/police-probing-western-university-sexual-violence-allegations-work-to-separate-fact-from-social-media-fiction-1.6175607
Great piece, looking forward to the next installment. I would not be too hopeful about finding the philosopher's stone that reveals the unity of the many movements that make up the Successor Ideology coalition, though Nietzsche's resentment may not be irrelevant to the quest. The strongest source of the coalition's unity is people's desire to conform to (and participate in) the perceived dominant ideology; the second strongest is the pragmatic benefit of mutual support among allies. The strategists who are able to coordinate activists with different grievances and contradictory interests are intelligent engineers of power, like those who were able to use Communism as a clearing house for various, contradictory progressive movements, and steered these movements into serving the engineers. When the engineers have sufficient power, or as occasion demands, the progressive movements are downgraded or cast aside, having served their purpose.
You do not exaggerate the significance of Successor Ideology. It is the clearing house of today. The question is cui bono. It is only "the Communists" in the popular sense of the word, meaning subversives who seek to impose (not even necessarily exercise) totalitarian control over their neighbors. So who is it? Movement folks gain something for their supposed constituencies; advocates find an audience, which is enhanced by the advocate's actual exercise of power; money changes hands, public and private funding finds its way to the trough; but is there any higher order of profiteering? The billions that accrued to the billionaires as a result of the media-amplified COVID crisis point to one set of wire-pullers. But as Matt Taibbi wrote today, not even Zuckerberg actually controls the vast power he appears to wield. Who then? Satan and his generals aside, a critical thinker may come to the conclusion that any "Master Cylinder" is a figment of Aristotelian physics, when what we are really looking at is an ecology in which organisms discover and exploit ecological niches and compete for the ability to do so. The ultimate wire-puller is an Emmanuel Goldstein, invented to give people someone to hate, as the Successor Ideologists have invented the all-powerful white male. Successor Ideology, by contrast, may be found in many apparently unrelated niches serving different purposes, a kind of all-purpose vitamin for exercising power in any particular niche. More concretely, let's ask, what is the Open Society Foundation, a proponent of Successor Ideology in many forms, really after? For example, when it gives half a million dollars to the coalition agitating to reorganize the Minneapolis Police Department. Or when it gets DAs elected who decline to prosecute specific categories of crime. The answer seems to be, a seat at the table for our proteges, whom we will influence for our benefit as they acquire more power. We raise the valuation of the Successor Ideology itself by delivering practical successes. The whole enterprise benefits, from top to bottom, floating all activist boats, academic, professional, political, and commercial. It is also possible that this kind of practical Successor Ideology activity generates economic stress, which generates political stress, which generates even more economic stress, devaluing currency and other ownable assets for the benefit of whoever is left standing. This kind of query does not need to explain the whole world, only to link potentially related ecosystems. Thanks for your work!
If the base ideology, in this case liberalism, is itself derivative then the cannibalism of its assumptions you described is inevitable.
Liberalism has long struck me as derivative in its need for something to reject in order to "improve the world and elevate mankind"--tradition, local custom and mores, habits that create social order, anything, really, that exists and impedes desire and visions of moral grandeur. Those protesting liberalism's self-described project of creative destruction are called reactionary, conservative, etc. True, nothing can be made ex nihilo and without contraries there is no progression, as William Blake said, but joined with technology liberalism slipped its own leash and abandoned reason, achieving dominance on a vast scale but without capacity to rein in its own ambitions.
Enter, the SI, which for now seems to consist of elaborately schematized gripes and grievances wedded to an abstract desire to "save the planet," which, proponents claim, is being destroyed by the evil parent of liberal humanism.
The grim dopiness of the SI is its metaphysics, which asserts that humans have no inherent nature and, by extension, rejects nature itself. The nearly unbearable tension SI bears lies in insisting that reality be defined by subjective choice while disdaining the necessity of choice moderated by and clarified by reason as a human function necessary for individual and species survival. SI's metaphysics is social, its epistemology a dark cavorting through synthetic word games, its ethics bureaucratic and bullying, its fang-baring emotional tone devoid of humor and joy.
SI is liberalism's imbecilic progeny gathering energy for a full attack on reality, reason, and human life qua human life. It will lay the spiritual groundwork for the technocrat's deus ex machina: transhumanism.
Funny You should mention that last point Mostly disagreeable. It's off-topic to the general conversation. But, after the decline and possible decimation of America, transhumanism is a concern of mine. Only second because I hope it's not as imminent. I'm having a difference of opinion with my former mentor, who I check in with twice a day, both yesterday and today. It began with his article on medium.com, in case anyone has a strong stomach.
https://medium.com/illumination/passion-for-improving-humanity-physically-mentally-and-spiritually-da767ed2486b
Most people I've mentioned this to can't contemplate the ramifications. IOW, I would skip this post if I was You.
My conversations with my mentor are, by his wish, between the two of us. But I don't see a problem publishing MY end of it. Thus the following messages to him yesterday:
---------------------------
First off, a number of suggestions.
More to the point, I'm astounded how blind and stupid You can be, xxxxxx. You think You're at the apex in critical thinking when You're just a child. You talk about "out-of-the-box thinking?" You're so firmly STUCK in Your box that You can't see straight. Me? I can think where there IS no box, and there are so many falsehoods in this article that I'd hafta at least double it to point them all out.
But to connect spirituality with these wholely mistaken ideas? That's downright... I was gonna say disgusting, but that's not really strong enough.
Sorry, but what I've said here is the Truth of the matter. That You can't see it shows where You're limited inside Your box.
---------------------------
I followed up with these comments:
---------------------------
jt 3:27 PM
I'm afraid I need to start backups about an hour early today.
And TY for Your calm reply, xxxxxx. But I'm not sure You CAN see them. There were so MANY. I think if You understood properly, You wouldn't have written that article.
Let me take the one point I mentioned to You previously and deconstruct it:
However, transhumanism is not exclusive to wealthy people only. Any color of people can benefit from transhumanistic ideas. I know that some financially poor people live longer and experience a better quality of life than rich people.
I will point out the flaws by asking You to SERIOUSLY answer these questions:
Do You think this technology is gonna be inexpensive or expensive?
Assuming You go that answer right, who do You think will be the FIRST people to get this technology?
If You answered the ELITES of the world, You would be correct.
Would YOU be included in the TOP TIER Elites? I dunno. Me? Naw. NO matter.
Once the AI chip is perfected and put into a human brain, do You acknowledge that, essentially, a new SPECIES of "human" will be created?
Will this new human species of human be, in any way, shape of form, inclined to share their good fortune?
Before You answer that question, consider that these ELITES would consider themselves ENTITLED to being better than everybody around them.
You see, ICBW. But everything I've observed about myself and human nature tells me that, no, they won't be inclined to benefit humanity for the good of all. Look AROUND You, xxxxxx. Do You see that happening NOW?!? What I'M seeing in the decline of the United States, is that the ELITES in power don't care the LEAST if Democracy survives, because they'd be better off without it. You recall Charles Stephen's article on the rapid decline of American Society? That it would be RAPID. Could be in my lifetime. Hope NOT.
Let's say the rest of us will get some form of AI chip, or eugenics, or whatever transpires. If private parties supply it, it SURELY won't be as powerful as what the Elites have, right?
Let's say the Government provides these things cheap or for "free." The MAIN incentive for the Elites who run Government to do this is to CONTROL the masses, right?
Before You answer negatively to any of the above questions or propositions, consider that someone who is that far ADVANCED would have zero risk doing it. Rather, they'd have worked out contingencies for all possible outcomes, right?
Now I could go through, point by point, and show You how there are a large NUMBER of statements that are CLEARLY "wishful thinking" to put a good light on it. But the only reason I'd need to attempt that is if You somehow manage to convince Yourself that "everything will just work out for the best."
For a long time now, I've been practicing being "neutralistic." Neither optimistic nor pessimistic. BOTH optimistic/pessimistic. You WAY overbalanced on being optimistic, because that's one-a Your prime motivations. Given, useful on OCCASION. Normally, AFAIK, clouds vision.
Sorry.
Starting backups now. To bed early tonight.
---------------------------
My mentor generally agreed with me but said I misunderstood his article. Up to You, if You read this far.
Well, I gave it a shot but the essay has no structure and feels like the meanderings of a well-intentioned, pleasant man who does not yet understand how utterly destructive optimism can be. And perhaps this is why the essay rambles: the beliefs expressed require so many evasions of obvious pitfalls one must walk 6 miles to go 1 mile. If he gets red-pilled he will quickly go dark and depressed.
Optimism is a fragile cope, in my experience, so it is no surprise it is attracted to the ultimate fragile state of being envisioned as transhumanism. That vision is similar to other brittle ambitious beliefs again and again defeated by time, nature, scale (e.g., if everyone has more X everyone will be better, X).
As for your observations of elite hoarding of transhuman tech, I'd add only that the tech will first be tried on the poor and only when it has been perfected will "elites" partake. Delegating risk is their forte.
Oh, I agree 100% that the techniques will be perfected through the "expendables." They'll probably offer a million or two to people to try it out. Some will. The first ones, AFAIK, will get their brains scrambled for their trouble. Dunno how many it'll take, and I'm nowhere near 100% that technology CAN create a new species of human. But if it does, I seriously doubt there will be much of humanity left in the thing.
And, yah, the article. He IS a pleasant man, for most part. Still...
Ah well... I've been informed by someone who would know, that the Russians and the Chinese "do awful things" genetically.
I wonder then, if it's moot to wonder if this stuff CAN be stopped, let alone whether it SHOULD be.
(Day done early. Some may be thankful. ;)
This is the sharpest analysis of the current momemt. I also commend you for your courage.
I'm not sure that anyone could fully comprehend exactly how important this passage is:
"Whether or not any of them really understand that they did so, or intend to follow through on all the implications of the act, the countless private and public organizations that declared themselves “anti-racist” organizations all signed on to fulfill the agenda that flows from these principles. If they prove resistant to any specific reform demanded of them by the successor coalition, they will be confronted by their prior commitments and asked — politely at first, and then through the medium of screaming fits and claims of genocide — to live up to them."
I've seen it firsthand, and it's not only "anti-racist". "Equity" works the same way. "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" increasingly so, and to the extent that they don't, they'll get dismissed as passe or appended with "Justice" to the front of it to be sure. It's brilliantly diabolical because who wants to be against any of that? If course, everyone wants to be against racism and for diversity, equity, inclusion (and justice). But as long as we collectively have granted to the Successor Ideology the power to define those terms, then what we're signing up for in the process is generally exactly the opposite.
One of the responses from the right, which I sympathize with but probably don't agree with, is to then say that we don't stand for "anti-racism" or "equity", rather than wage battle on the ground of how the terms are defined. I think the better strategy is to say that, yes, we're also against racism and for equity, but here's what we mean by it (which by the way is what was written in the dictionary until about three months ago).
But I'm not sure that works, when the cultural power of this ideology is such that yes, they can alter the dictionary whenever they want to.
TYTY, M. Yang. Astute as always. I"m gonna reread it now. Well worth it. You're a breath of fresh insight in what's turning towards, perhaps, a lousy day.
I think the thing that bothers me most is this FACT:
"The mystery, simply stated, is that those who sought to pursue the cause of black equality through the instrument of the civil rights state, instead wound up providing a warrant for federal judges to regulate the manner in which local principals would set bathroom use policy ."
I've been reading "The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties." It's a fascinating history by an extremely strong conservative. But he, on first read, seems to posit some pretty good ideas on how we've ended up where we have.
I read about the courts earlier, but will probably hafta read again to get my thoughts in order.
What I'm reading today covers the extent which liberal FOUNDATIONS supported by the tech (and non-tech) billionaires. EXTREMELY liberal. And how they've taken upon themselves the task of changing society to it's liking. Aided by liberal governments, they got things DONE:
"Foundations certainly found it easier to get things done. Where governments faced accountability, a billionaire could say that what he did with his money was none of anyone’s business."
One of the things he's pointed out is that over and over again, more and more, decisions are made at levels that contradict the will of ordinary people:
"The reforms of the 1960s had created mechanisms for forcing social change even against the democratically expressed wishes of the electorate."
When we were kids, eons ago, there was a saying, "Don't make a federal case about it!" This used when someone was being over-vocal about some real or imagined fault in another.
So when it comes to how to interpret idiocy about hair, I think this is the attitude that comes after it, necessarily. But ICBW.
"We might end up calling this process of oppression without oppressors, as the Successor Ideologists do, 'oppression'. And we might demand that true equality means a root and branch criticism of all that exists in order to ferret out inequity still baked into our societal operating systems, followed by a transformation of all those institutions to purge them of that inequity."
To bring this back home, they WILL make a Federal case out of these things, when they decide they want to. Scripted in advance. It's a proven strategy, right?
I maybe should-a read it a third time, and waited till I was more rested in the morning.
The POINT of this, indirectly, is that the Successor Regime includes a lot MORE than the woke. The courts. The "charitable" foundations. The billionaires. I wrote elsewhere that the Successor Regime, the Elites, sure aren't helped by Democracy! And I think it makes logical sense that they go around it... That is if they don't end up destroying it altogether in the end.
TYTY again, M. Wesley. Always enjoy.
I wrote a review of Caldwell's book and will be discussing it further in future posts
Tracked down the review. It was GREAT. Can't wait to see how (or if) Your views have changed since then, Sir Wesley. I'm gonna call and end to a long day, spending too much time reading books, but imagined this might be of interest to some few reading here:
I posted on Bari Weiss's Substack something from Glen Loury's today. "The Truth of Redlining." https://glennloury.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-redlining
"Today's wealth gap. If you look at the bottom 50% of white people in terms of wealth and the bottom 50% of black people in terms of wealth, there is almost no wealth gap at all. The entire gap is in the top 50%. And the reason, of course, that there's no wealth gap in the bottom 50% is that practically none of those people, white or black, have any significant wealth today. And again, that's a horrifying fact."
I pointed out the FACT (as I've done countless times) that the bottom HALF owns two (2) % of the wealth. That means everyone reading this is "them" to these poor people.
For those working against the Successor Regime (specifically CRT), the FBI has license to call You a "domestic terrorist." Illegal, yah. But the mere THREAT is enough to silence the majority, right?
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/school-board-group-asks-biden-to-review-whether-parent-confrontations-over-crt-constitute-domestic-terrorism/
I had a link today of Biden taking AWAY due process that Trump offered males on campus. Ah well...
Caldwell pretty much confirms something I was thinking the other day.
I used-ta think the idea of "government is too BIG" was stupid Republican nonsense. Especially when they gave up the principle themselves. But now?
If the Executive Branch decides something is gonna CHANGE, they just issue an Order and say, "If You DON'T do it this way, You won't get any Federal funds." I'm trying to think of anybody who can afford to forego these funds, but I can't.
So, as far as I can tell, we actually, currently, LIVE in a Fascist state, don't we? Dunno fer sure. But on TOP-a that You got the Successor Regime. Depressing, if I was oriented that Way.
Type, [Post], read. Sorry. (TY again. :)
GREAT, SIR!
Very much enjoyed the column; perhaps it’s me, but some of the passages are a little dense and verbose. The subject matter is it self a lot to hang onto cognitively, so it might serve us readers if the language of the article was a little more user-friendly.
I agree. I fancied myself pretty well versed in English. This text humbled me as I needed read this with dictionary.
Good background material and I agree with you on the idea of "freedom of speech." In the same way, Henry Ford once said that you can have any color car you like, as long as it was black, you can say whatever you like, as long as it comports with Social Justice. Which is an everchanging, non-defined set of good-think.
But, and this is the part that was missed in the ramp-up to where we are now, the way for institutions to stop this is to not play the game. Leaders need to hold the line and say, "no, freedom of speech means just that." And punish those who try to take it from others. But it failed due in no small part by attacking liberalism and its ideas and pushing those who wanted to be seen as progressive into an ideological corner.
A mere footnote in your essay, but worth highlighting:
"One may speak freely most of the time, but the gatekeepers of the manufactured consensus can choose to target you on the basis of unclear and shifting criteria at any time. Our subject here is the onslaught of an ideology that proceeds by defining all contrary opinions — and increasingly, contrary facts — as existing in the ever-ramifying zone of exception — “hate, harassment, and misinformation...”"
This is a very frightening phenomenon even for a generally anonymous nobody like myself.
I made this comment on another forum and am stealing from myself:
"The people upholding "Successor Ideology" (social justice or wokeness) are among the most credentialed, as in degrees, people in society.
They expound that the West, and in particular the United States, are the most sexist, racist, and homophobic societies in the world. Something I have been hearing for 30+ years.
Yet, a quick bench-marking, historical and current, shows that the opposite is overwhelmingly true. In fact, I have told people that feminism, gay rights, and abolition of slavery are the inventions of "Whiteness"....something that can be established through a provenance of those movement.
So, my question is: Why the blindness and refusal by the credentialed to see the above? Where in the world is the situation better? As I said, this is something I have been running into for decades but never get the chance to explore since challenging it leads to frustration and worse by the person being challenged."
Regarding the killing of black trans women (I believe they are among the most frequent victims), many of these women were street sex workers....probably among the most dangerous jobs. I have seen pictures of both the murdered women and their murderers, and time and again, the women and the men were of the same race.
I have also noticed this and can only attribute it to ignorance and not understanding how completely brutal and illiberal most cultures throughout history have been (and many non-Western cultures still are today). Perhaps there is some drive by academics even to treat those topics with kid gloves or avoid them, so as not to appear to be critical of non-European-derived, non-western cultures and avoid the accusation of some kind of white or western supremacy or cultural imperialism?? I don't really know. When I was taking humanities courses as an undergrad in the 90s, I pretty clearly remember learning the full scope of historical barbarism all over the world (including, of course, in Europe and the US but certainly not unique to them), but maybe nowadays that would get you tarred as being in the colonialist mode of improperly deeming other cultures as primitive or barbaric?
I was reading twitter comments on Dave Chappelle's new show last week and came across some young woman with a long, hectoring thread supposedly educating everyone about how problematic it was in terms of homophobia and transphobia, and in it, she actually claimed that the homophobia seen in many non-Western cultures was the result of ideas given to them by Western colonizing forces. What a joke!! And she had thousands of likes and thank yous to her for her great points. This chick literally thinks that white people taught the rest of the world how to be homophobic -- LOL!!
Feminism, gay rights (which is a pendant of feminism, and movement to rid the world of slavery are all the products of the dreaded world of "Whiteness" and the children of capitalism.
Those rights rest on 2 things: 1) The concept of rights and 2) The notion of the individual.
You can do a provenance and see where ideas of feminism/gay rights developed: Marry Wollstonecraft, as example. In terms of gay rights, the very coining of the word "homosexual" c 1862., even if as opprobium, nevertheless instatiates a typology and a community who can advocate. I can go on.
Do you have that twitter thread about Dave Chapelle that you can share? I am really curious to see what was said.
Yeah, I mean I thought everyone knew that homophobia...in particular, being entirely unaccepting to the point of simply not acknowledging the existence of (and if it had to be acknowledged, wanting to murder) homosexuality in males...was pretty much completely universal in every culture through all of history with the exceptions of some ancient Greek and Roman civilizations and of course western, liberal culture of the past 50 years. It's now trickling down a lot of places, but this has always been a universal phenomenon and no one needed to teach it. It's western democracies that are the ones spreading acceptance of homosexuality and pressuring other cultures to get rid of homophobic laws and discrimination, but apparently that is no longer common knowledge and they have it totally backwards.
https://twitter.com/RaquelWillis_/status/1446516461091135496
Thanks.
I think you meant to write that “men are privileged over women” instead of the opposite in paragraph #2.
Magnificent. Thank you.
Because I have never been a prolific blogger and am still finding my sea legs on this medium, I confess that positive feedback of this sort is valuable to me because needed
You are welcome to it: it is much deserved. What makes your analysis so devastating (and unusual) is the instinct for justice at the heart of it. The sympathetic discussion of hair in this post being a case in point. You wield your reasonableness genuinely but lethally. The silent satire of the malefactors is very good. Who would be Robin Kelley after reading that!
Yes, excellent work, and please don't mind if readers are stimulated to the point where they go off in their own directions.
Guilty as charged. Ah well...
Wish there were an edit function. : )
Naw. When You're right, You're right, M. XYZ. :)
I am one of the people who initially subscribed, then unsubscribed because of lack of content. But I've enjoyed the new articles and re-subscribed, so please keep up with the good work and regular posts.
Just adding my voice to the positive chorus -- great writing and thinking here, I look forward to your posts
Wesley, Thank you for your efforts to continue seeking and sharing deeper understanding and wisdom from your perspective.
People do not always have to agree with every perspective shared to have respect and appreciation for a person's ability to communicate their ideas with sincere analysis and conclusion, giving more "food-for-thought" for those things we might not have considered.
You are doing a wonderful job, although you do not consider yourself prolific. I'm of the belief that it's not always the "quantity" as much as the "quality" that counts.
I believe that respect for your insights has been proven by the many of us who enjoy your (challenging) writing and look forward to each post you share. 😊
I consider myself a "Seeker" of Knowledge, Wisdom, "big T" Truth and, even when I don't like it, Reality (and how to go about dealing with it).
As so many others attest, my heart and mind, too, tell me that those preaching the "Successor" ideology (which I still have not fully grasped the whole of and continue to be more comfortable with the term CRT) is full of bad-actors wanting power to drive their narrative, insisting on redefining words (no longer understood by the masses) commanding attention for their cause with little concern for the TRUE good of all (using their own definition of "just").
The rhetoric would claim differently but, sadly, I liken them to "evil appearing in the guise of light." Very seldom do I actively use the word "evil", but what I see them doing in having no respect for other perspectives, with attempts to divide and separate us as a country, I cannot help but feel that "evil" accurately describes their actions.
After reading the Introduction, Author's Note and Chapter One of "White Fragility", I literally felt sick to my stomach (which has NEVER in my recollection EVER occurred). My gut reaction (which I felt badly about, not knowing the author personally) was that Robin DiAngelo MUST be an Academic trying to make her "mark" with some novel idea that would, surely, not fly.
Academics attempting to take advantage of the ignorance of those less educated, leading them unaware, like the Pied Piper, to have them blindly embrace the chaos and confusion that they attempt to impose, encouraging them to trust, while promising them that they are doing so in the name of social justice; shameful.
Their fight to make CRT part of the curriculum for K-12, where our youngest and most vulnerable minds are being educated and molded, is a transparent move. Their attempts to stifle the voice of parents, now threatening to allow the FBI to go after those who descent to CRT with loud voices against school board members, is an unbelievable turn of events in, what was once, the land of freedom.
Thank you for walking this important journey with us through your writing and sharing, Wesley.
It seems to me like a dying empire parasatizing itself. It is not just the CCP who smells blood in the water, so do all those who have felt oppressed in this society, many white people included. Qanon seems an equivalent bit of madness in that sense. Militant jihadism comes to mind too, this will to destroy to take control and make the world in thy pathological image.
Working poor with many people of different races, I know this is mostly a guilt based ideology supported mostly by the professional managerial class. Urban and suburban white women are Kendi's audience mostly. The working poor are more conservative in practice, concepts like work ethic and being a good person and taking care of family and community are easier to undestand. Working poor of all races in America understand that such thinking from neo-Marxists inevitably leads to them having less of everything.
End American Empire and you end American consumerism. American consumers of all races will consume the destroyers of that.
I couldn't get through Kelley's interview.
Fine article Wesley
What troubles me is that the obvious lesson to be drawn from the Sokal Hoax (q.v., e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair) and, even more, from Sokal Squared, a.k.a. the Grievance Studies affair, has disappeared without a trace except for the enduring hostility toward its coauthors as shown recent resignation of Peter Boghossian. See https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/peter-boghossian-the-woke-dont-give-a-reason-for-their-faith-its-different-rules-of-engagement-323hccf73
Kendi, quoted by WY, helpfully supplies the credo quia absurdum.
You and Bari Weiss are my favorite Substack writers. Now if I could only get a nice printed copy of my top 5 writers' pieces all in one shiny newsletter mailed to my house every 2 weeks, I'd pay $50-100 per month for it. You're doing great; keep 'em coming!